Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Advocating morality doesn't make people bigoted


It's the title of today's article from Cal Thomas. In reference to the recent overturning of California's ban against same-sex marraige, Mr. Thomas starts out his article by stating that "A nation that does not see in law a right to life for its unborn children and a court that allows more than 50 million of them to be killed claiming a nonexistent "penumbra" in the Constitution is not about to acquire a moral -- much less a constitutional -- backbone when it comes to same-sex "marriage." " I couldnt agree more. Mr Thomas continues his line of thought by pointing out how the American people have become increasingly de-sensitized to how low we as a society are plummeting to in reference to our collective morality.

"No less a theological thinker than Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God's judgment for America's tolerance of slavery. If that were so, why should "the Almighty," as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?

There is more than one way to experience bankruptcy. America under the Obama administration is on the verge of economic insolvency, and now Judge Vaughn Walker has joined a conga line of similarly activist judges who are accelerating us down the path to destruction.

We have been spiraling downward for some time, beginning in the '50s with the Playboy philosophy that gave men permission to avoid the bonds of marriage if they wanted to have sex. In rapid succession came the birth control pill (sex without biological consequences), "no-fault divorce" (nullifying "until death us do part"), cohabitation, easily available pornography, and a tolerance for just about anything except those who deem something intolerable.

Such persons are now labeled "bigots" when once they were thought to be pillars of society...

What we tolerate, we get more of, and we have been tolerating a lot since the Age of Aquarius generation began the systematic destruction of what past generations believed they had sacrificed, fought and died to protect.

None of this should surprise anyone who takes the time to read and understand what happens to people and nations that disregard God. A Google search provides numerous examples for the biblically illiterate.

Two in particular stand out: "Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint," which is paraphrased in the Living Bible, "When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild." (Proverbs 29:18); and "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." (Judges 21:25)"


While it is questionable to compare same-sex unions to traditional marraige insofar as the metrics of length of commitment and fidelity are concerned, that doesnt stop the Mainstream Media Machine in this country from painting others who don't tow the official party line as being bigots. Dennis Prager (pictured above) mentions in his article from today the recent murder spree at a Connecticut beer distributorship which left eight people dead. It seems that when a worker named Omar Thornton, who happened to be black, was fired for stealing beer, he went on a murderous rampage against employees. Did the Mainstream Media report this as merely an incident of workplace violence? No. Did they chalk up such unhinged behavior to the man being a psychopath who finally snapped? No. The first thing that the vermin in the media seized upon was alleged racism that the man had been experiencing. From Prager's article...

"Just as leading liberals would not ascribe Islamist motives – until there was no possibility of denying them – to recent Muslim attacks on Americans, the liberal media, i.e., almost all news media in America, do not brand these Connecticut murders for what they are: racist. That is why Thornton told the 9-1-1 operator, "I wish I could have gotten more of the people (i.e., whites)."

We are repeatedly told by liberal whites and blacks that America needs an honest dialogue on race. Needless to say, they don't mean it, because the moment a white or black says anything critical of black behavior, he is labeled racist or Uncle Tom. So most non-liberal whites and blacks just keep quiet.

One result is this morally upside-down reporting of the murders in Connecticut.

Another example is the liberal narrative on blacks in prison – "there are more black men in prison than in college." Every decent American regards this fact as a major tragedy. But most Americans believe that the fault lies primarily with the black criminals, not with a racist society. Most Americans believe that blacks who mug, rape, rob or murder commit those crimes for the same reason whites do – they lack a sufficiently strong moral conscience...

But the dominant liberal narrative is that while white criminals are criminals, black criminals are largely victims.

Another example was the liberal narrative of the 1992 "Rodney King" riots in Los Angeles. It was perfectly expressed by the major newspaper of that city, the Los Angeles Times. During the riots, in which innocent Koreans, whites and others were beaten, maimed and killed, and innocent businesses burned to the ground, the daily special section on the riots in the Los Angeles Times was titled "Understanding the Rage." When blacks riot, whites are the reason. When a black murders eight whites in Connecticut, whites are the reason.

One terrible consequence of this liberal attitude toward black violent crime is that too many blacks come to believe that less is expected of them morally than from whites. And the truth is that most Americans on the left do expect less from blacks."


Additionally, the Catholic Apologist recently wrote an entry about how parents are increasingly incapable of civility toward one another. If that's the case, then what can we expect from the next generation? I don't see any of his getting any better any time soon. As we gradually move towards a more secular society here, I see no reason to rejoice and celebrate such a cultural shift based upon the morality, or lack thereof, that such societal change brings with it.







116 comments:

Tracy said...

The last line in Thomas' 3rd paragraph, "a tolerance for just about anything except those who deem something intolerable", is exactly what many of us find so frustrating on a regular basis. I really do frequently get the message that advocating for morality makes me a bigot. Even though I consistently try to be a kind person in daily living.

Gregg said...

I have no problem advocating morality that is guided by common sense and decency, (which the left gave up aeons ago). But I will say I am opposed to legislating morality since it doesn't transform a depraved soul nor is easily enforceable.

We, as Christians, children of God, need to walk in the light as He is in the light, and preach the gospel to every creature, trusting God to save those that are His.

We need to speak for the unborn, the orphan, the widow, and the poor. We need to do, to be active in our faith - not reactive to spiritually blind and depraved individuals.

Calling a nation, any nation, say our nation back to God will not begin in the courts, or by judges or legislators. If we are able, and I truly doubt we are able to call this nation back to God it will be in Christians collectively fall on their faces, repent of their sin and the nations sin begging God to send His Sovereign Holy Spirit to do a work in the hearts of God's people spilling out to the hearts of the lost.

The only nation that I know of that God set out to redeem was that of Israel. Then he only redeemed those who were of Abraham - the promise was given by faith to those who believe. God never set out to redeem this nation, he is calling out men and women from this nation and from all nations, from every tongue, race, color, tribe, and peoples - but we are not a Christian nation, have never been a Christian nation, and never will be a Christian nation.

Legislating it won't make it so. The Moral Majority didn't do it, Pat Robertson's group didn't do it. Granted the church should have an impact on its community - but how can it when it is divided and full of unredeemed people?

We are and have been as a nation morally bankrupt. Abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, sexuality in general is rampant and God condemend adultery, fornication, homosexualtiy, and bestiality equally.

The asault began on marriage early and with no fault divorce, multiple marriages, and lack of understanding of the covenant relationship will only cause further decay in morality.

We are an immoral nation, basking in immoraltity, we want freedom without limitation, choice without responsibility, and actions without consequence. We are bankrupt.

But thanks be unto God He is on the throne, sovereign, and still in charge, Hhis will is being worked out perfectly and on time. We are on the winning side!

Jquip said...

"Intolerance of intolerance" Law is always about what is legally right and wrong, deriving from a sampling of the moral tastes of the populous under a functioning governance. The foundation of a democratic system is a tolerance of intolerance. The body politic can have no discussion of proper legal structures otherwise.

GentleSkeptic said...

Hmm. I would agree that "advocating morality" doesn't make people bigoted.

I would also say that being "obstinately convinced of the superiority of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions" DOES make people bigoted.

Actually, it's my desktop dictionary that would, and does, say that.

JD Curtis said...

GS,

What would be the biggest benefit to come about if same-sex marraige were to be legalized?

ATVLC said...

GS has a lot of benefits to choose from.

From financial: "Forbes magazine says an immediate windfall of about $17 billion could be had if gay marriage were made legal nationally."

To legal: insurance, inheritance, medical decisions on behalf of the partner, visitation of partner in hospital, bereavement leave,
burial determination, other certain property rights...

To social: It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles, denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.

There's a lot to choose from.

I can imagine someone from 1966 asking "what would be the benefit of inter-racial marriage?"

Same-sex marriage - It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business.

GentleSkeptic said...

ATVLC took care of that quite nicely. Thank you.

>tips hat<

Now I have one for you, JD.

How do YOU define "bigot"? I ask because I see, in this post, a lot of words devoted to explaining why you're not a bigot, without ever providing a clear definition of this clearly undesirable thing that you aren't.

I can get you pointed in the right direction with some help from the internets.

Here's Princeton: "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" and "blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"

And Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Notice that hatred is optional. It's really more about being stubborn and unaccommodating. I think that the shoe fits AND it quacks like a duck.

So. What is it that you aren't, JD?

JD Curtis said...

Forbes magazine says an immediate windfall of about $17 billion could be had if gay marriage were made legal nationally

I'm not doubting that this is being reported in Forbes ATVLC. But in lieu of not having the article you are citing in front of me, how will this "$17 billion dollar" windfall come about and to whom?

It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles, denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination

This is a joke, right? Have you ever even examined the issue?

"In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

" In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

"In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years"

" In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners"

"A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals." Link

So I guess it would be just like Mom and Pop's generation. That's if Mom and Pop were banging a multiple of people every single year.

JD Curtis said...

I can imagine someone from 1966 asking "what would be the benefit of inter-racial marriage?"

This is the most breathtakingly stupid statement I've seen in quite some time.

I'll tell you what, Simply direct me to the support group for people who are struggling with being "formerly black" and I concede the point.

JD Curtis said...

blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"


From the Homosexual Manifesto

"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough...

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled."

This sort of thinking is beyond the pale. It might represent a minority view, but is there anything as vile as this on the other side of the issue?

There might be, but I'm not personally familiar with any. Not by a long shot.

JD Curtis said...

Has anyone opposed to (Prop 8) same-sex marraige posted maps online to direct people to the homes of those who supported it?

Has anyone that opposed Proposition 8 lobbied for burning down houses of worship that supported it?

Link

ATVLC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ATVLC said...

I'm not doubting that this is being reported in Forbes ATVLC. But in lieu of not having the article you are citing in front of me, how will this "$17 billion dollar" windfall come about and to whom?

http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/05/cx_al_0405gaymarriage.html

ATVLC said...

This is a joke, right? Have you ever even examined the issue?

None of your quotes are about marriage.

"In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years"

According the SMH the average length of male-female cohabitation is 18 months. But of course that has nothing to do with marriage.

ATVLC said...

I can imagine someone from 1966 asking "what would be the benefit of inter-racial marriage?"

This is the most breathtakingly stupid statement I've seen in quite some time.

I'll tell you what, Simply direct me to the support group for people who are struggling with being "formerly black" and I concede the point
.

What has that to do with people's attitudes in 1966, pre-Loving v. Virginia?

ATVLC said...

I looked up the Homosexual Manifesto.

The first line is
"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

So he is not serious. And even if he was, would it take just one individual for you to vilify a group? Would you use Fred Phelps as an example of all Christians?

ATVLC said...

This sort of thinking is beyond the pale. It might represent a minority view, but is there anything as vile as this on the other side of the issue?

There might be, but I'm not personally familiar with any. Not by a long shot
.

Yes. There are literally people who want homosexuals dead. There are people who go to funerals of homosexuals holding signs saying "FAGS DIE - GOD LAUGHS".

ATVLC said...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/fred_phelps.gif

JD Curtis said...

None of your quotes are about marriage

Is it your belief that a piece of paper along with sprinkling the word "marraige" upon such unions will end open-ended relationships? If so, why?

When one examines what percentage of the gay population enters into these sort of "marraiges" in countries where it is legal, is it as high a percentage of the population that is heteroseexual or is it only a tiny fraction and the remainder wish not to have the appearance of committment in this way?

Among those that actually marry, is the divorce rate about equal to that of heterosexual couples or is it several times higher?

Is the length of the marraige of those seeking divorce in same sex marraiges anywhere near as high as heterosexual couples that seek to be divorced?

The above links I have provided contai the answers for you.

What has that to do with people's attitudes in 1966, pre-Loving v. Virginia?

So I guess there arent any support groups for those who have decided to leave behind the "black lifestyle" or you would have provided it already.

JD Curtis said...

I'm suprised that it took you this long to bring up the spectre of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Is the Westboro Baptist Church advocating the destruction of houses of worship that supported gay marriage?


Is the Westboro Baptist Church posting online the adrresses and directions to the homes of those that supported gay marriage?

Glen20 said...

JD, it's like you are not even reading what other people are saying.
I can tell you are trying to advance an opinion that there is no benefit to gay marriage but aren't you completely missing the point.

I going to rephrase someone else's question, what would YOU tell a bigot was the greatest benefit of legalising inter-racial marriage if the year was 1966?

Are you married? Or are you co-habitating? Or is there no difference?

And can you answer GentleSkeptic and tell him what YOU think a bigot is?

GentleSkeptic said...

OH JD!

You srsly made me lol with the Homosexual Manifesto. I mean, honestly: If you can dismiss anyone affiliated with the Jesus Seminar, surely we can agree to set aside the Homosexual Manifesto?

For the record, just in my immediate circle of friends, there are gay couples who have been together for 12, 18, 26, 30 and 33 years. And that's just the boys.

Yup.

You really ought to read the Prop 8 decision. Every bit of your FRC junk social "science" was thoroughly discredited, which wasn't hard because the defense barely tried to defend it. The defense actually won the case for the plaintiffs.

It also seems weird to me that you suddenly love "science" so much.

But, to bring us back to the topic of your OP, here's what I think is really going on, especially since you're so reluctant to clearly define this horrible thing that you aren't.

You're not really advocating morality. You're advocating righteousness. But we don't legislate righteousness in this country, and really, we barely legislate morality. Adultery isn't a crime, and neither is lying, except under oath. (Which explains why the Prop 8 defense fared so poorly.)

So live your righteous life, by all means. But if your righteous life includes a mandate to block the lives and liberties of those you don't approve of, you're a bigot.

There, I said it. Gently, of course.

JD Curtis said...

what would YOU tell a bigot was the greatest benefit of legalising inter-racial marriage if the year was 1966?

Given the times people were living in back then, I really don't know what I would have said had I been alive in past decades. One could easily ask how I would have voted in the Japanese Diet on various issues had I been living in Imperial Japan back in the 1930's. It amounts to speculation. My question however dealt with current circumstances that we are all living in (presumably).

Are you married?

Yes. Bi-racially I might add.

ATVLC said...

I can't help be notice this. First you say:

"It might represent a minority view, but is there anything as vile as this on the other side of the issue?

There might be, but I'm not personally familiar with any. Not by a long shot"
.

Then you say:

"I'm suprised that it took you this long to bring up the spectre of the Westboro Baptist Church."

So am I to conclude that you are familar with Westboro Baptist but don't think it's vile?

ATVLC said...

"Yes. Bi-racially I might add."

So you don't mind if progressives fight and win your right to marry who YOU love BUT...

JD Curtis said...

surely we can agree to set aside the Homosexual Manifesto?

Perhaps on face value, I could set aside the Homosexual Manifesto for now as not being representative of the mainstream of thought from the gay community.

Would you be willing to set aside the findings of the Jesus Seminar? (For the time being anyway)

For the record, just in my immediate circle of friends, there are gay couples who have been together for 12, 18, 26, 30 and 33 years. And that's just the boys.


There are a few of problems with this statement.

These couples might "be together" still, but you did not mention if they were monogamous and having sex exclusively with one another or not.

The longevity of such relationships that you describe would put the 5 couples that you mentioned in the 15% minority of homosexual relationships that go on for longer than 12 years. (According to glcensus.org, 2004)

Every bit of your FRC junk social "science" was thoroughly discredited

Insofar as The Sexual Organization of the City study by University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann, I just did a cursory (google) check to see if it was "discredited" or not, but nothing meaningful came up. If you are aware of a study that debunks this, feel free to cite it here.

Ditto, the Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times by Pollak. Nothing "discredited" turned up. (One guy had a blog entry that was critical of the study and stated that he didnt believe the results to be representative of gays in the United States and didnt really dispute the overall findings)

Likewise the Male and Female Homosexuality study by Saghir and Robins. Nothing [discredited] leapt out at me.

Ditto the Journal of Sex Research report by Paul Van de Ven et al. Nothing 'discredited' leapt out at me.

The Canadian study by Barry Adam was criticized by the same blogger (on the same thread) that criticized the Pollak study. The blogger stated that Adams did not calculate the length of "non-monogamous" relationships. To that I would reply, if youre not going to be monogamous, then why be a couple? Finances? Insurance? These certainly arent the same primary motivations of the majority of pro-creative heterosexual marriages.

JD Curtis said...

ATVLC,

The 500 or so members of the Westboro baptist Church are pretty much out on their own in the Christian community.

If it werent for them though, I wonder what the left would do insofar as trying to make any one group representative of the whole.

I do find their methods to be vile. You left out that I was asking for a comparison to 2 different measurable and verifiable metrics.

"Is the Westboro Baptist Church advocating the destruction of houses of worship that supported gay marriage?


Is the Westboro Baptist Church posting online the adrresses and directions to the homes of those that supported gay marriage?"

ATVLC said...

Well, why don't you check Westbro's picket page?

The 500 or so members of the Westboro baptist Church are pretty much out on their own in the Christian community.

If it werent for them though, I wonder what the left would do insofar as trying to make any one group representative of the whole
.

I never did that. YOU asked:
"This sort of thinking is beyond the pale. It might represent a minority view, but is there anything as vile as this on the other side of the issue?

There might be, but I'm not personally familiar with any. Not by a long shot."

JD Curtis said...

It also seems weird to me that you suddenly love "science" so much

Science is a great tool, I just don't consider myself to be a science fetishist though.

And besides, what I was citing falls more in the realm of statistics, not science.

live your righteous life, by all means. But if your righteous life includes a mandate to block the lives and liberties of those you don't approve of, you're a bigot

I realize that youre new here. There's no shortage of times I have stated that I couldnt care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It's really none of my business.

However to compare the circus known as same sex marraige to traditional marraige and to try and hold them up as..

A) Basically the same, and

B) Great for society

constitutes little more than immature Orwellian verve.

JD Curtis said...

So you don't mind if progressives fight and win your right to marry who YOU love BUT...

This would fall along the lines of comparable arguments if you could cite the thousands of people who are no longer black, BUT...

Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm...

"Is the Westboro Baptist Church advocating the destruction of houses of worship that supported gay marriage?


Is the Westboro Baptist Church posting online the adrresses and directions to the homes of those that supported gay marriage?"

Christ Follower (no longer) said...

Why do you want to stop people who love each other marrying?

GentleSkeptic said...

"The longevity of such relationships that you describe would put the 5 couples that you mentioned in the 15% minority of homosexual relationships that go on for longer than 12 years."

So. The. F**k. What? They give the lie to your broad brush.

"…you did not mention if they were monogamous and having sex exclusively with one another or not."

Right. Because it's none of your business. Or mine, for that matter. There are no problems with the statement. You would hold the gay community to a higher standard than the straight "community" for no other reason than to buttress the failing institution of life-long monogamous marriage. As Andrew Sullivan said today, "actual real life-long monogamy is relatively rare, especially if you take into account pre-marital sex. And therefore, the ideals of monogamy and hypocrisy are deeply entwined. But the social conservative will be fine with some measure of hypocrisy as a concession to human nature as long as the norm is enforced."

All of the "failings" you attribute to the gays have occurred in a context where they had NO OPTION TO MARRY, and are therefore utterly without objective merit when making comparisons to populations that do have that option. And that's leaving aside the complication of social stigma attached to homosexuality that is, mercifully, fading fast.

And really: the "formerly-black" canard is flat-out retarded. One of the findings of FACT in the Prop 8 decision is that sexuality is, practically speaking, an immutable characteristic. Those "ex-gays" you're touting are still gay, and they say so. They've just chosen to deny/suppress it and live "righteously." I, for one, fully support their autonomy and freedom to make such a choice. You, on the other hand, would have this be my ONLY choice, thereby curtailing my liberty.

I support your right to choose righteousness. Will you support my right to reject it and pursue my own happiness under the law?

For the record, I will never say that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are "basically the same." I WILL say that they are equal, because the participants are equal. Nor will you hear me claim that same-sex marriage will be "great for society." It will be great for gay citizens, and won't really affect anyone else. Please don't pretend like you got married because it would be great for society.

And you still haven't defined your non-bigotry for us.

Marcus Wellington said...

Christ Follower (no longer) said...

Why do you want to stop people who love each other marrying?

they DON'T love each other. Homos are incapable of loving. They burn in lust for each other. They can never be a soul connection because they are just flesh.
This country is WORSE than SODOM and GOMMARA. How much longer can God stay his hand?
How fearful will be His Wrath?

JD Curtis said...

Why do you want to stop people who love each other marrying?

Why do you have to mangle a discussion about the comparison of same sex and traditional marraiges with one about "stop[ping] people who love each other marrying?"

So. The. F**k. What? They give the lie to your broad brush

Is it your belief that the percentage of monogamous couples in same sex marraiges is anywhere near the same zip code as those in traditional marraiges? If so, what was the study that conclusively proved this?

Was the glcensus.org (2004) study debunked? I really don't know but you don't seem to dispute their findings.

Right. Because it's none of your business. Or mine, for that matter. There are no problems with the statement

I'm sorry, but would you please explain why, if we're having a discussion on the comparisons between traditional and same sex marraiges that I am not allowed to introduce the concept of sanctity to the discussion? Especially in how it historically relates to the former?

the "formerly-black" canard is flat-out retarded. One of the findings of FACT in the Prop 8 decision is that sexuality is, practically speaking, an immutable characteristic

Wow! I haven't seen such tortured logic in months!

1st. I'm still waiting for an example of a "formerly black" support group (can I imagine that none is forthcoming?) And..

2nd. Since when did Judge Walker become both a judge on the super-liberal 9th circuit court of appeals and earn a PhD in Physiology? Are his medical/legal decisions now legally binding for the causation of alcoholism as well?

Those "ex-gays" you're touting are still gay, and they say so. They've just chosen to deny/suppress it and live "righteously."

Righteously is an interesting word choice on your part.

Whereas you said "They've just chosen to deny/suppress it and live "righteously", I would have said, "They've just chosen to leave behind a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned, for another in which monogamy can be more fully explored and that has sexual practices arent any where near as physically destructive."

Sure, some might have hang-ups still, but there's always counseling to help them should they commit to doing so.

JD Curtis said...

You, on the other hand, would have this be my ONLY choice, thereby curtailing my liberty

What part of " I couldnt care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It's really none of my business" failed to register?

I believe that those who are homosexual have every right that anyone else does to find their own way to hell. They are responsible for their respective actions and I am responsible for mine. Fair enough?

I support your right to choose righteousness. Will you support my right to reject it and pursue my own happiness under the law?

I couldnt care less what you do in your free time. Party on like it's 1999 for all I care. My main point is that same sex marraige is quite different than traditional marraiges and I doubt that same sex marraige could ever turn out to be a positive for this country.

For the record, I will never say that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are "basically the same." I WILL say that they are equal, because the participants are equal

This stikes me as at least a little bit contradictory. Would you mind fleshing this out a little?

Nor will you hear me claim that same-sex marriage will be "great for society." It will be great for gay citizens, and won't really affect anyone else

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Please don't pretend like you got married because it would be great for society

No. I didnt get married because I think it would be great for society. It might turn out to be helpful to society in the long run though in that I can have offspring from my union that have the potential to be productive members of society and that pay their taxes and Social Security whereas Adam and Steve.....Well...

JD Curtis said...

you still haven't defined your non-bigotry for us

Let's see here, you provided the definitions of bigotry as...

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" and "blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others"

The only problem I have here is the introduction of the somewhat elusive and subjective term "intolerant" which itself isn't defined in this context.

How about this one? "Bigotry: the expression of hatred or aggression towards those who are different"

Do you agree with this definition?

ATVLC said...

I thought to myself "who would want to redefine bigotry?" so I googled JD's difenition...

Check this out:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bigotry

ATVLC said...

GS: "Please don't pretend like you got married because it would be great for society"

JD: No. I didnt get married because I think it would be great for society


Why did you get married then?

ATVLC said...

Did you promise to love each other or sire offspring?

GentleSkeptic said...

"please explain why, if we're having a discussion on the comparisons between traditional and same sex marraiges that I am not allowed to introduce the concept of sanctity to the discussion?"

Because sanctity is no concern of the state, and it's the state that marries people. Heteronormatives abandoned sanctity long ago. It's a religious concept, and you can have it.

"I would have said, "They've just chosen to leave behind a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned…"

Of course that's what you would have said, JD: you're a bigot.

JD Curtis said...

Can I help it if I agree with their definition?

Again I reiterate, I find the term "intolerant" to be subjective in this case. What constitutes intolerance in the same sex marriage debate? Anything other than wholesale acceptance?

Why did you get married then?

Because it would be nice to start a family and commit with the gal I've been with the last couple of years.

Check this out

Did you check out the Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot entry? Link.

I had never heard of it, or if I had, I forgot all about it.

Would the behavior those that participated in such a display of hatred fit any/either of the definitions of the word "bigotry"?

ATVLC said...

It is obvious that some people are trying to redefine the word "bigotry".

Bigotry
n.
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
(Dictionary.com & answers.com)

According to the definition of bigotry, a person can be a bigot without expressing it.

If you use the redefined version:
"Bigotry: the expression of hatred or aggression towards those who are different"

You can't be a bigot until you express your bigotry, which makes no sense.

Because it would be nice to start a family and commit with the gal I've been with the last couple of years.

So there is a girl around and you want babies? Are you sure there wasn't something else?

GentleSkeptic said...

"Can I help it if I agree with their definition?"

Oh, of course you can't. You go ahead and choose your own definitions, your own history, your own science, your own righteousness.

"What constitutes intolerance in the same sex marriage debate? Anything other than wholesale acceptance?"

What constitutes intolerance in the same sex marriage debate is drafting ballot measures and taking political action to deprive gay people of the legal protections accorded under civil marriage. Your personal acceptance is utterly moot.

To return, once again, to the OP, I think we can still agree that "advocating morality" isn't bigotry. I think we can also agree that "advocating morality" isn't really what JD is interested in, or at least, not here, and not today. Advocating righteousness and dated stereotypes, sure: morality, not so much.

And if righteous stereotyping doesn't make you a bigot, then there are no bigots.

It's pretty clear that you don't know or respect any gay people and that you get all your social science from Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins. If you have issues with the Prop 8 decision, take it up with the Andy Pugno and the defense team, as they had their big chance to put up all of this irrefutable data you're trotting out for cross-examination, and wound up CONCEDING all of their main arguments in the process. I read every word of the trial transcripts, and I can assure you: they, and you, got NUTHIN'.

> sad trombone <

Own it, JD. Bigot Pride! Design a flag and start marching.

JD Curtis said...

Because sanctity is no concern of the state, and it's the state that marries people

But sanctity IS a concern when we are discussing a topic and there are two different versions of it, in this case traditional marriage and same sex as well. It is but one metric we can use in that discussion and yes, it is germane to the discussion.

Of course that's what you would have said, JD: you're a bigot

Really? Why? Because I don't kowtow to your worldview and agree to wholesale acceptance of same sex marraige? Am I allowed to have reservations about this GS? If not, is this the threaad that I can check back on from time to time to see when I should report for re-education on the matter?

Speaking of bigots, i couldn't help but notice the following.

ATVLC @ 2:13, quote (@ JD Curtis) "am I to conclude that you are familar with Westboro Baptist but don't think it's vile?"

JD Curtis @ 3:12, quote, (@ ATVLC) "I do find their methods to be vile" End quote.

Now for comparison, we have had the following facts laid out concerning the actions of those who supported same sex marraige in California. I'm talking about,

A. Supporters of same sex marriage have "posted maps online to direct people to the homes of those who opposed it." And..

B. Supporters of same sex marraige have called for the burning and destruction houses of worship that opposed same sex marriage.

and these examples were posted on the above thread no fewer than 4 times..

@ 8:02

@4:45

@3:12

and finally @ 3:22.

Now, have either of the 2 argumentative "tolerant" types on this thread denounced such behavior as of yet?

If not, am I allowed to speculate that "bigotry" might be the reason for this? Especially in your case ATVLC when the question was put to you, directly, 4 times?

JD Curtis said...

Oh, of course you can't. You go ahead and choose your own definitions, your own history, your own science, your own righteousness

Let's not get all over the map and start to obfuscate a discussion on the comparison of same sex marraige and traditional when you are starting to lose an argument and stutter b-b-bi BIGOT! when confronted with certain facts.

What constitutes intolerance in the same sex marriage debate is drafting ballot measures and taking political action to deprive gay people of the legal protections accorded under civil marriage. Your personal acceptance is utterly moot

Why, this entire concept of having to check with the GLBTQ community before I enter into the public square to exercise my democratic rights that I have in this republic is a bit new to me.

To whom shall I inquire if my thoughts/activities/beliefs are in line with being a "good comrade"? I really was unaware GS and I had no idea that this was required of me.

ATVLC said...

Anti-same-sex marriage people have picketed businesses and homes, blackmailed supports of same-sex marriage, and Westbro Baptist DID publish supporters addresses, etc... but that has nothing to do with the topic "Advocating morality doesn't make people bigoted".

You haven't called Westbro bigots. You said "I do find their methods to be vile". Bigotry is a state of mind, an attitude.

ATVLC said...

I have no idea whether or not you agree with Westbro Baptist on this issue.

GentleSkeptic said...

Help! Help! He's bein' oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

ATVLC said...

BTW, I'm going to a wedding today! In a castle, at night, on Friday the 13th. (Yes, really!)

So thanks for reminding me that marriage is about love and commitment. Not that you ever mentioned love...

JD Curtis said...

Please note that when it was pointed out to the ATVLC and GS that they steadfastly refuse to denounce the methods utilized by the supporters of same sex marraige.

I have no idea whether or not you agree with Westbro Baptist on this issue

In what cultural does referring to the methods of a group as "vile" constitute acceptance of their methods?

You haven't called Westboro bigots. You said "I do find their methods to be vile

Where are the goalposts? I can't SEE them!

I guess that it's too much to ask of you two to denounce the actions of same sex supporters that clearly crossed the line.

I further find it interesting that the Westboro Baptist Church was brought up so quickly, however the Hamilton Square Baptist Church was not.

Isn't that ironic?

Don't you think?

Glen20 said...

In what cultural does referring to the methods of a group as "vile" constitute acceptance of their methods?

In our culture, one's methods are separate from one's ideas.

JD Curtis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JD Curtis said...

Methods, ideals, whatever. I disgree with the Westboro Baptists on this issue. They shouldnt be going around and doing this stuff. Not to mention other reprehensible behavior like protesting at military funerals.

Now Glen, will you inquire whether other people on this thread will renounce the reprehensible actions and behavior by same sex marraige supporters? Or can I just forget about it being that it's only been brought up now 6 times on this thread and one would think they would have denounced after the first or second time? Can we now assume that we are moving into tacit approval territory on their part if 6 times is not enough? If this does not constitute tacit approval, shall I have to then mention it a total of 7 times to demonstrate their feelings on the issue? If not 7, then how many times? 20? 30?

Glen20 said...

Why? Do you want to play a game of whose supporters are worse? Where do you hope that will get you?

I think it's rude to protest at funerals or at religious ceremonies. But that has little to do whether these people are bigots or not.

There is no real comparison between Westboro Baptist Church and the 1993 protest at Hamilton Square Baptist Church.
One was protesting out the front of a church which was bringing in a speaker to speak on, among other things, why homosexuals must be put to death.
The other has gone to funerals of homosexuals to display signs to the mourners with slogans such as "Fags die, God laughs" and "Matt is in Hell".
If you can't tell the difference then I don't know whats wrong with you.

I think it smacks of hypocrisy to be in a non-traditional marriage, a marriage that was - not just frowned upon - but was illegal when I was young - and to try and deny the right you enjoy the others.

JD Curtis said...

Why? Do you want to play a game of whose supporters are worse? Where do you hope that will get you?

No. You completely missed my point. I think that the Westboro Baptist Church is both "vile" and "reprehensible" and I don't mind saying so at all. I was merely wondering if other commenters here have the ability to exude even the slightest bit of criticism towards supporters of same sex marraige who engage in behavior that any thinking person would equally and quite readily assigned those aforementioned adjectives to.

There is no real comparison between Westboro Baptist Church and the 1993 protest at Hamilton Square Baptist Church.
One was protesting out the front of a church which was bringing in a speaker to speak on, among other things, why homosexuals must be put to death


What was your source for this information? I have checked Conservapedia, Wiki and several others re: Sheldon, yet I am unable to verify this claim of yours.

You are purposefully understating the violence committed by the rioters at the Hamilton Square Baptist Church. Watch the first 8 minutes of this tape and tell me I am wrong.

I think it smacks of hypocrisy to be in a non-traditional marriage, a marriage that was - not just frowned upon - but was illegal when I was young - and to try and deny the right you enjoy the others

The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you in that same sex marraige is a "right" in a decision handed own about a month ago. Link

GentleSkeptic said...

OK. JD: Here goes.

I, GentleSkeptic, do hereby officially denounce the actions of same sex supporters that clearly crossed the line.

Happy? Guess I didn't realize how important that was to you.

"The European Court of Human Rights disagrees with you in that same sex marraige is a "right" in a decision handed own about a month ago."

Oh for Christ's sake, JD. We're in AMERICA, where we make our own decisions. If you love Europe so much then vote with your feet.

Now, back to the topic of the OP. Again. (Fourth time.)

Here's what I think. I think that if what you're REALLY interested in is advocating morality, in a general sense, then your time would be better spent promoting secularism and lobbying for the prohibition of Christianity in America.



Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.
If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." — H. L. Mencken

GentleSkeptic said...

Donald Fair and Warren “Butch” Dollinger were united in marriage on July 23, 2010 at the chapel in the VA Hospital in Iowa City, IA. The ceremony was performed by Pastor John McKinstry of the First Christian Church of Coralville, IA. A World War II veteran stood up for the couple. The couple are both Navy veterans of the Vietnam Wr. The couple are surrounded and supported by family and friends. They have been together 40 years and wanted to honor their love for each other by pledging to be “together till death do they part.”

The couple are proud to be gay and happy to be able to marry and solidate their love for each other.



http://www.prairie-advocate-news.com/8-11-10/announce8_11_10.html

GentleSkeptic said...

From the Prop 8 decision: Finding of FACT #46 (p 74)

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

JD Curtis said...

I, GentleSkeptic, do hereby officially denounce the actions of same sex supporters that clearly crossed the line.

We're arriving to the Denouncement of Extremism Party a tad bit late in the process now, aren't we GS? By comparison, we can determine through the concrete metric of the above timestamped entries that I immediately renounced the activities of faux Christians who are merely a parody of their claimed religious affiliation, whereas you did nothing of the sort until it was posted no fewer than 6 times. So you can count this as the first refutation of the psuedo-tolerance that apparently think that you posess in abundance.

The second would be that you have not defined what behavior you consider "over the line". I don't wish to speak for you so I'll pointedly ask you if you categorically denounce.

A. The posting online of addresses and directions to the residences of citizens that were exercising their constitutional right to not support same sex marriage.

B. If you denounce the call for the firebombing of houses of worship that did not support same sex marraige. And..

C. If you denounce the assaults, threats, destruction of property and overall tactics utilized by numerous members of the militant gay movement as demonstrated by this videotape evidence.

I don't wish to proceed by assuming anything on your part so I would appreciate if you address each one of these points in order to determine where you are coming from and what behavior that you personally consider "over the line."

We're in AMERICA, where we make our own decisions. If you love Europe so much then vote with your feet

I was merely pointing out that such a "right" was quite recently found to be non-existant in Europe. Thus one might reasonably question if such a "right" actually exists, rather than resorting to such a "It exists cuz I sez so" line of argumentation. HINT: It would behoove you to demonstrate that you have the ability to attempt to effectively argue as much at this point in time rather than say the magic word "bigot" and wallow around in your own self-imposed bigotry in a vain attempt to stifle rational discussion on the topic.

your time would be better spent promoting secularism and lobbying for the prohibition of Christianity in America

That's amusing. Do you think that the authors of the study that you cite even bothered to realize that the majority of the countries that they studied fall within the realm of former "Christiandom"? In order to have an apples to apples comparison, I would like you to cite the statistics from countries n which Christianity DOES NOT have a strong historical presence and we can compare societal statistics and institutions if you like.

You cited an example of a same sex couple that married after a long term commitment, yet you did not provide whether or not they are exclusively committed to one another or not. If they are, statistically speaking, they would still fall into a very small minority of same sex couples that have such relationships. Past military service not withstanding or even relevant in this matter unless you would like to show otherwise.

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation

Demonstrably incorrect. The testimonies of THOUSANDS of individuals is compelling evidence that people can change their orientation.

JD Curtis said...

In order to get this conversation back on track, after you address my direct question in my above entry (timestamped 12:43), insofar as what activity by radical gay activists that you either support or denounce, you can now answer the following questions that you left completely unanswered on the above thread.



1. "Perhaps on face value, I could set aside the Homosexual Manifesto for now as not being representative of the mainstream of thought from the gay community. Would you be willing to set aside the findings of the Jesus Seminar? (For the time being anyway)"


2. "Insofar as The Sexual Organization of the City study by University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann, I just did a cursory (google) check to see if it was "discredited" or not, but nothing meaningful came up. If you are aware of a study that debunks this, feel free to cite it here."



3. "Ditto, the Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times by Pollak. Nothing "discredited" turned up. (One guy had a blog entry that was critical of the study and stated that he didnt believe the results to be representative of gays in the United States and didnt really dispute the overall findings)"



4. "Likewise the Male and Female Homosexuality study by Saghir and Robins. Nothing [discredited] leapt out at me."



5. "The Canadian study by Barry Adam was criticized by the same blogger (on the same thread) that criticized the Pollak study. The blogger stated that Adams did not calculate the length of "non-monogamous" relationships. To that I would reply, if youre not going to be monogamous, then why be a couple? Finances? Insurance? These certainly arent the same primary motivations of the majority of pro-creative heterosexual marriages." Was the Adams study shown to be bogus?



6. "Was the glcensus.org (2004) study debunked? I really don't know but you don't seem to dispute their findings."



7. "..would you please explain why, if we're having a discussion on the comparisons between traditional and same sex marraiges that I am not allowed to introduce the concept of sanctity to the discussion? Especially in how it historically relates to the former?"



8. i stated that in reference to ex-gay members of the community, "They've (former homosexuals) just chosen to leave behind a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned, for another in which monogamy can be more fully explored and that has sexual practices arent any where near as physically destructive."



You then proceeded to call me a bigot in response to this in your entry stamped 5:51, quote, "JD: you're a bigot"



1st, please expalin if I am factually correct or incorrect of the effects of the homosexual lifestyle/gay sex that I described. If I am incorrect, then please show me where.



In the event that you cannot meaningfully refute that which I said, then please explain how stating that which is verifiable through medical stidies constitutes bigotry.



Answer all of these questions in order GS. I only decided to stop after collecting and finding the first 8 of them because I grew weary of cataloguing you evasion due to it's extensiveness.



Failure to answer these direct questions that were put to you earlier will result in any future comments being deleted and possibly being banned. This is not your playground of obfusication and evasion where you can happily skip and sashay around, referring to me as a "bigot" without conclusively demonstrating as such.



Awaiting replies...

ATVLC said...

I think that the Westboro Baptist Church is both "vile" and "reprehensible" and I don't mind saying so at all.

Finally. Before you just said you disagreed with their methods. You can think an organization's methods are reprehensible and still agree with them. For example, some people think the Nazi Partys actions were reprehensible but still agree with the Nazi Party on the issue of the Jews.

I was merely wondering if other commenters here have the ability to exude even the slightest bit of criticism towards supporters of same sex marraige who engage in behavior that any thinking person would equally and quite readily assigned those aforementioned adjectives to.

...Which still has nothing to do with whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong

You are purposefully understating the violence committed by the rioters at the Hamilton Square Baptist Church. Watch the first 8 minutes of this tape and tell me I am wrong.

I think you are wrong.
I think you are overstating the violence. Two signs got broken. If you are going to call yelling closely at people violence, then you'll have to call thousands of actions by Christians at gay pride rallies violence. Someone spat and was arrested. You are overstating the "violence". These church people had a speaker visting who wanted homosexuals dead. ("Activism in the 1990's", Radical Press 2001)

ATVLC said...

Whatever side of any issue you are on:
Don't publish people's address just because you disagree with them.
Don't firebomb places.
Don't assult or threaten people.

ATVLC said...

Or blackmail people.

wallow around in your own self-imposed bigotry in a vain attempt to stifle rational discussion on the topic.

Calling out bigots does not make one a bigot.
(Were "The White Rose" bigots? Of course not)
You still have said why it is your business who marries whom.
Seriously. You think that requiring people to add their own salt is (another example of!) fascism and yet you are set on the idea the government should legislatively impose your morality on other people.
Why do you think other peoples love lives are your business?

ATVLC said...

I immediately renounced the activities of faux Christians...

I renounce activities of faux protesters!
If Westboro aren't _real_ Christians, then same-sex marriage supporters who does anything wrong are not _real_ same-sex marriage supporters!
Now we can you and me both can have our cake and eat it too!

JD Curtis said...

Calling out bigots does not make one a bigot


ATVLC I would be pleased to address your other points that you raise. However, first I will ask you to please show me one statement (just one) that you consider "bigoted" on this thread or any other in my entire archive for that matter, using any of the above definitions of "bigot" or "bigotry". If you are unable to do so, I will ask that you retract this statement.

Andy said...

A person's morality should never be the governments business.
A person's religious beliefs should never affect or be the governments business.
The government should not make laws that stifle religious freedom (in an idealised world). If a gay couple belong to a church that'll marry them, it's not the governments business.

JD Curtis said...

I've heard this type of "Libertarian" argument before Andy. It has a certain type of ellegance to it.

The question still remains as to whether widescale endorsement of such a practice would be beneficial to society over the long run.

If sanctity is something that is demonstrably absent in the vast majority of same sex unions, then why use the same term as "marriage" which conjures up a whole different idea?

Why not something similar insofar as property, insurance or inheritance are concerned? A legal agreement of some sort but not utilizing the same term "marraige" which traditionally meant sexual exclusivity in the relationship?

Just askin'

Andy said...

It's not the governments business to give "widescale endoresement" of any religious ceremony. Same-sex, biracial, opposite sex, whatever.
All I want is the government out of where it shouldn't be.

Andy said...

'Cos it's not the governments business to tell who churchs can give sanctity to.
That includes marriage of both kinds.
We need a legal agreements for all kinds of reasons All that needs to be done is the recognition of legal social union contracts for the purpose of kinship. That way the government can be kept out of churches.

zilch said...

JD- I don't sympathize, but I understand, that you don't like what homosexuals do. But as ATVLC has said over and over, what does that have to do with the State allowing homosexuals to marry? You are perfectly free not to approve of this, and you are not being forced to marry a man; what's more, your church is perfectly free to not solemnize the marriage of gays- so what skin is it off your nose if the State sanctions gay marriage? How is it destructive to society to do so? You've given no evidence that things will be worse if gays are allowed to marry.

I thought conservatives were champions of personal liberty, but I guess I'm wrong.

cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

JD Curtis said...

I don't sympathize, but I understand, that you don't like what homosexuals do

This is irrelevant. I have stated ad nauseum that I couldnt possibly care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It's really none of my business..

what does that have to do with the State allowing homosexuals to marry?

I really don't mind if individuals decide to enter into legal agreements with one another. In fact, these sort of legal instruments already exist and nothing is preventing same sex couples from entering in to them.

However what we are discussing here is a contractual agreement whereas the institution of "marriage" had it's beginnings as a covenant agreement, which has an degree of importance quite a bit more profound than a mere contractual agreements.

If such "covenant" agreements are the basis from which marriage as we know it began, then why must same sex advocates insist on having something called "marraige" in which in the vast majority of cases, the sanctity of the agreement is ignored if not non-existant?

Your thoughts please Z + Adam.

zilch said...

If such "covenant" agreements are the basis from which marriage as we know it began, then why must same sex advocates insist on having something called "marraige" in which in the vast majority of cases, the sanctity of the agreement is ignored if not non-existant?

Why not? What exactly is your objection here- that it is called a "marriage" or a "covenant"? And if it is the State performing gay marriages, or even another church, you, and your church, are of course free to say that the union is not "sanctified". Again, what skin is it off your nose? I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an attempt to impose your particular religious beliefs on others, through the State, and I don't think that should be allowed in a democracy.

cheer from crickety Vienna, zilch

JD Curtis said...

What exactly is your objection here- that it is called a "marriage" or a "covenant"?

I'll try to put a finer point on it. It attempts to call an agreement between same sex couples the exact same term that heterosexual couples have since the founding of this country and in reality it is not the same at all.

I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an attempt to impose your particular religious beliefs on others, through the State, and I don't think that should be allowed in a democracy

I think you would have a point if I were trying to impress my religious views on ther people, but let's slow down here a little and repeat after me.

Same..different. Same..different. Same....different.

Now is it becoming a bit more clear?

JD Curtis said...

"Judge Walker’s bias was so evident that he was even overturned in part by the liberal Ninth Circuit because he insisted on using his judicial power to harass supporters of traditional marriage by ordering them to turn over hundreds of private documents that discussed campaign strategies for Prop. 8. His purpose, as we discover in the decision, was to establish “bigoted motives” behind all who voted to protect marriage by looking at the messages from the Prop. 8 campaign. This is not only ludicrous but also illogical and legally erroneous" Link

"The ultimate outrage of the decision...is that it ignores that consensus -- the clear political expression of the majority's moral convictions -- in order to create an artificial code built on one minority's rabid obsession with their own sexual desires" Link

ATVLC said...

JD: "...wallow around in your own self-imposed bigotry in a vain attempt to stifle rational discussion on the topic." [emphasis mine]

ATVLC: "Calling out bigots does not make one a bigot"
On second thought I should have stated this thus: "Calling a person a bigot does not make that person a bigot, being obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices makes a person a bigot"

[I wrote a better version of this comment but Opera web-browser crashed.]

JD Curtis said...

being obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices makes a person a bigot

Do I personally fit this definition in any way at all? (Yes or no)

ATVLC said...

What a tiring day, I was helping my neighbour put in some fence posts. He used to be a footballer (Aussie rules), he's almost seventy and he's stronger than me!

Your question:
Well, I don't exactly know you personally, I only can get ideas about your personality through your blog.
With regards to bigotry towards some groups such as Muslims and homosexuals, I'd have to say yes. I don't want to offend you, that's just my opinion. It's not expressed entirely overtly, you don't use crude terms or names but instead rely on hugely biased sources and rhetoric and seem to have double standards depending on which side of the political spectrum you perceive a group is on.

JD Curtis said...

With regards to bigotry towards some groups such as Muslims and homosexuals, I'd have to say yes

Let's start with homosexuals.

"I will ask you to please show me one statement (just one) that you consider "bigoted" on this thread or any other in my entire archive for that matter, using any of the above definitions of "bigot" or "bigotry""

ATVLC said...

I will ask you to please show me one statement (just one) that you consider "bigoted" on this thread or...

It's hard to be obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices in just one statement. You called GentleSkeptic bigoted, what one statement caused you to call him or her that?

Like I said, bigotry need not be expressed entirely overtly, such as using crude terms or names.
Do I think you often used biased sources? Yes. I'm not sure if Conservepedia even pretends to be unbiased. Do I think you have double standards for differing groups of people? Yes.

Now then. what do you think of Aussie Rules football? :-)

Andy said...

It seems to involve men launching themselves into the air off the oppositions back which is pretty cool.

zilch said...

I'll try to put a finer point on it. It attempts to call an agreement between same sex couples the exact same term that heterosexual couples have since the founding of this country and in reality it is not the same at all.

But again, JD- so what if it's not the same? You're perfectly free to go ahead and say that "it's not really marriage", or "it's not a covenant"- that's your right, and I would defend it; but what gives you the right to deny gays the same rights you enjoy? How does it adversely affect you or anyone else?

Again, this seems at odds with the highly vaunted conservative tradition of supporting individual rights. All I can say is, that American conservatism has gone steeply downhill since Eisenhower.

cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

JD Curtis said...

You called GentleSkeptic bigoted, what one statement caused you to call him or her that?


It was a spoof of GS's own position. GS, (like yourself) made the huge leap to I (JD) am a bigot without ever demonstrating as such in any way, shape or form. GS is welcome to answer the laundry list of questions up above they initially dodged which includes "please explain if I am factually correct or incorrect of the effects of the homosexual lifestyle/gay sex that I described. If I am incorrect, then please show me where.

In the event that you cannot meaningfully refute that which I said, then please explain how stating that which is verifiable through medical studies constitutes bigotry"

You see, after I pointed out the physical and emotional damage that suffered by members of the homosexual community, I was called a Bigot. GS never explained were the dilineation between "bigot" and "acceptable dissent" is to be found on this issue or even if there IS acceptable dissent at all in their mind on this topic as far as GS is concerned. If there is no form of acceptable dissent at all on this matter, then wouldnt such thinking constitute bigotry on their part? GS is welcome to answer the above questions and comment here in that this is not an echo chamber and I actually welcome opposing viewpoints.

So this is now the 3rd attempt after 2 and 1/2 days. Are there any specific statements I have ever made on this blog that would constitute a bigotted statement in your opinion? Yes or no. If so, please list one here for us to examine. If not, perhaps you might like to reword your previous staement.

Please answer this above question in relation to the "specific statement", part of it in a yes or no format before discussing football which will start up in earnest here in a couple of weeks.

JD Curtis said...

But again, JD- so what if it's not the same? You're perfectly free to go ahead and say that "it's not really marriage", or "it's not a covenant"- that's your right, and I would defend it; but what gives you the right to deny gays the same rights you enjoy? How does it adversely affect you or anyone else?

It's not so much a "right" of labeling it as such as I think that it an abuse of language to do so and it cheapens the concept of "marriage" as it has traditionally been viewed in the West.

For example. Timmy comes home after school and asks of his dad, a heterosexual, why his friend Bobby's dad is "married" and yet Bobby states that there is virtual parade of men in and out of the life of his dad. Timmy asks for clarification on the matter as to the definition of marraige and how it relates to exclusivity in the relationship in that Timmy has not observed a parade of different people (sexual partners) in the lives of his heterosexual parents. How would you explain this to Timmy in terms that he would understand?

Again, this seems at odds with the highly vaunted conservative tradition of supporting individual rights

I do support individual rights. Compare the rights of homosexuals in Iran and Saudi Arabia to those in Indiana. Is there any comparison whatsoever?

All I can say is, that American conservatism has gone steeply downhill since Eisenhower.


In which your choice of a German-American conservative president over an Irish-American one like Reagan dislays the prediliction of a Germanophile. ;-)

GentleSkeptic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
zilch said...

It's not so much a "right" of labeling it as such as I think that it an abuse of language to do so and it cheapens the concept of "marriage" as it has traditionally been viewed in the West.

You are of course free to regard gay marriage as an "abuse of language", and to believe that it "cheapens the concept of marriage". I still don't see how that gives you a right to deny marriage to those who don't see it your way. As I said, what harm does it do you or anyone else?

I do support individual rights. Compare the rights of homosexuals in Iran and Saudi Arabia to those in Indiana. Is there any comparison whatsoever?

All I can say, is that you haven't set your sights very high. "More individual rights than Iran or Saudi Arabia" is not very impressive- I don't know about you, but I expect more from America.

In which your choice of a German-American conservative president over an Irish-American one like Reagan dislays the prediliction of a Germanophile. ;-)

Actually, I campaigned against Eisenhower, at the age of six, following my father around door to door. But my preference for Eisenhower over, say, Reagan, has nothing to do with their roots. Maybe it goes back to having studied at UC Berkeley when Reagan was governor, and he cut the California school budget in half, called in the National Guard to spray CN gas over the campus from helicopters, and later as President racked up the largest national debt in history at the time.

cheers from crickety Vienna, zilch

JD Curtis said...

GS,

You are not allowed to comment here unless you address the questions that you have dodged several times now. Please read the above entry timestamped 12:51 and get cracking. Or take your act elsewhere. I neither mind nor care.

JD Curtis said...

I still don't see how that gives you a right to deny marriage to those who don't see it your way. As I said, what harm does it do you or anyone else?

Which brings us to the fundamental point in our disagreement.

You think I'm denying "marriage" to those who don't see it (my) way" and I think that what they want is not marriage. At least in the sense that it has been defined in the West for centuries in terms of exclusivity and commitment.

All I can say, is that you haven't set your sights very high. "More individual rights than Iran or Saudi Arabia" is not very impressive- I don't know about you, but I expect more from America

Why shoud homosexuals insist upon altering society to a degree that traditional marriage is now redefined? As I stated earlier, there are other legal instruments that can help them achieve their desired results. Why insist on "marraige" if there's overwhelming evidence that youre not going to be faithful to one another?


UC Berkley? Did you know Michael Savage (Weiner)?

Andy said...

Why did we allow inter-racial marriage recently? 'cos it's not the governments business to keep inter-racial couples apart. All those years of "tradition" don't matter.
Why should the government stop preventing same-sex marriage? 'cos it's not the governments business.


Why insist on "marraige" if there's overwhelming evidence that youre not going to be faithful to one another?

More than half of marriages end in divorce, and cheating abounds. Let's call off marriage. No marriage for anyone.

JD Curtis said...

Why did we allow inter-racial marriage recently? 'cos it's not the governments business to keep inter-racial couples apart

Are these heterosexual, interacial couples banging about eight different people a year on average? You brought it up so I hope you would know.

More than half of marriages end in divorce, and cheating abounds. Let's call off marriage. No marriage for anyone

What you left out is that the 50% mark you cite is after 20 years time.

If the same sex couple is engaging in multiple partners before and after "marriage" than why call it that?

Percent Reporting Sexual Fidelity

Married Females- 85%

Married Males- 75.5%

Homosexual Males- 4.5%

Andy said...

MARRIED females
MARRIED males
UNMARRIED homosexual males.

Since homosexual males can't get married you'll have to compare fidelity to UNMARRIED males and females.

JD Curtis said...

Outstanding Andy. Now we're getting somewhere.

Please cite the study that indicates that sprinkling the magic word "marriage" on homosexual relationships will suddenly transform them into monogamy-loving fools.

Cite any theory/study that you wish to attempt to even partly convince me. Maybe I'll see it your way then.

GentleSkeptic said...

OK let's clear the deck by bowing to our host's demands, so I can play again.

Denunciations: All that you listed. OK? Every single one you specifically mentioned in your list(s). Here's the deal: when someone doesn't spring to denounce your stuff, it might be because he takes the denunciation as a given. I shouldn't have to pause at the door and explain that I don't approve of violence and firebombing. To continue dragging the discourse back to outlier minutae is a distraction and I think you know it. So quit playing who's-got-the-fringier-fringe and talk about the idea you brought up in the first place: "advocating morality."

1. "Perhaps on face value, I could set aside the Homosexual Manifesto for now as not being representative of the mainstream of thought from the gay community. Would you be willing to set aside the findings of the Jesus Seminar? (For the time being anyway)"

Yes.

2. "Insofar as The Sexual Organization of the City study by University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann, I just did a cursory (google) check to see if it was "discredited" or not, but nothing meaningful came up. If you are aware of a study that debunks this, feel free to cite it here."

Consider this study and any conclusions it draws valid for this discussion.

3. "Ditto, the Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times by Pollak. Nothing "discredited" turned up. (One guy had a blog entry that was critical of the study and stated that he didnt believe the results to be representative of gays in the United States and didnt really dispute the overall findings)"

Good on you with your studies. We got some, too. Like that super-current one:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6917212.ece

5. …if youre not going to be monogamous, then why be a couple? Finances? Insurance? These certainly arent the same primary motivations of the majority of pro-creative heterosexual marriages." Was the Adams study shown to be bogus?

Really? I daresay there have been plenty of marriages, a traditional majority perhaps, that were largely or exclusively about finances and the insurance of merged families. Think property. I haven't read it, so as far as I know the study is valid. Let's assume it so for your purposes.

6. "Was the glcensus.org (2004) study debunked? I really don't know but you don't seem to dispute their findings."

Study, ok, whatever. Not disputed.

GentleSkeptic said...

7. "..would you please explain why, if we're having a discussion on the comparisons between traditional and same sex marraiges that I am not allowed to introduce the concept of sanctity to the discussion? Especially in how it historically relates to the former?"

Sanctity is a late and narrow addition to a longstanding property arrangement. The early church promoted celibacy and still enforces it for clergy. This is to consolidate property. The church extended its reach into secular arrangements by inventing the sanctity of marriage. I know you think it's all the other way around, Adam and Eve and all that; whatever. In some aristocratic circles it was a given that a man would marry for money or politics and have a lover on the side. She might too.

But the reason that you're not allowed to introduce it - I actually said this once already - is because the state doesn't enforce or care about sanctity in traditional marriages. You seem to. You insist that you don't care what goes on behind closed doors and then in the next breath ask if the long-term couples I know were always-monogamous-every-day-no-cheating-no-breaks-are you-SURE? As far as I'm concerned, small government doesn't and shouldn't care about that stuff. Sanctity is a religious argument and you can keep your religious constraints under the law. In the long run, it won't be the law that turns against you, it will be the culture. Then you'll see the church display evolution in action, adapting and surviving.

8. I stated that in reference to ex-gay members of the community, "They've (former homosexuals) just chosen to leave behind a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned, for another in which monogamy can be more fully explored and that has sexual practices arent any where near as physically destructive."

You then proceeded to call me a bigot in response to this in your entry stamped 5:51, quote, "JD: you're a bigot"
1st, please expalin if I am factually correct or incorrect of the effects of the homosexual lifestyle/gay sex that I described. If I am incorrect, then please show me where. In the event that you cannot meaningfully refute that which I said, then please explain how stating that which is verifiable through medical stidies constitutes bigotry.


Oh THAT. It was this part: "…a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned…"

Since you didn't cite anything specifically, this just smacks of that entire body of research that shows conclusively that gays are more likely to be criminals, emotionally disturbed. unfulfilled and lonely, etc. All of which were drawn form samples of prison inmates, psychiatric patients, and people seeking therapy. And then concluded that gay people are dangerous and crazy. Pretty everything much before 1970. And some others. Many of which were available for the defense in the Prop 8 trial, some of which were used, all of which were found lacking, dated, poorly controlled, pr all of the above. Hey, did you know that the Prop 8 Plaintiffs had, like seventeen witnesses, half of 'em credentialed authors and profs and whatnot, historians, social historians, marriage "experts", all kinds of stuff. Really neat. And the defense? Well, I think you know. Hak-Shing William Tam, who learned everything he knows about the Gay Agenda "on the internet". (His words. Really.)

GentleSkeptic said...

But the reason I think it reveals your bigotry is the way it fits into the larger pattern of your writing.

For one, you're obsessed with gay … men. You never talk about or think about or cite studies about the lesbos. So, when you dismiss the gay community based on alleged inherent and uncontrollable gay male promiscuity, you're omitting half the population. With one pass. Repeatedly. Your utter blindness to the flipside, those loveable monagamy-LOVIN' ladies with their seriousness and feelings and monogamy and stuff, is a little window onto what I consider bigotry. It's also been pointed out to you, twice now, that all of this studying of gay men has a background context of no-option-for-marriage. So it's apples and oranges, to which you ask why we should think that "sprinkling the magic" will change oranges into apples. Or something. The way I see it, some of those oranges did turn into apples, all on their own, against all odds, quietly, while no-one was looking … and they're all around us now. So we want to call them apples.

And when presented with a STUDY (aww, you love those!) clearly demonstrating the additional financial burden on gay couples for independently securing the legal contracts associated with the benefits and protections that flow naturally from civil marriage, all you can ask is, "yeah, but were they monogamous?" Even though you really don't care. Really. You said so. This (non)-nosiness also smacks of double standards, aka bigotry.

And consider these in context. Here is a sampling about the gays from this page.

…a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned… (already covered)

I doubt that same sex marraige could ever turn out to be a positive for this country. (Note: Dr. Blankenhorn, key Prop 8 DEFENSE witness, disagreed with you, on the stand, under oath.)

It attempts to call an agreement between same sex couples the exact same term that heterosexual couples have since the founding of this country and in reality it is not the same at all. (Not the same, or same enough, for you.)

…it cheapens the concept of "marriage"… (This one came up in the trial! Yeah, not in a good way.)

…yet Bobby states that there is virtual parade of men in and out of the life of his dad. (Oh, young Bobby, with your father made of straw: will you ever be a real boy?)

Compare the rights of homosexuals in Iran and Saudi Arabia to those in Indiana. (American queers should be glad we're not stringin' 'em up! Actually, JD, I think they are grateful for that. Honestly.)

I think that what they want is not marriage. At least in the sense that it has been defined in the West for centuries in terms of exclusivity and commitment. (Again with dissin' the lesbians! "Married Females- 85%" Remember?)

Folks can draw their own conclusions. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.


I maintain that what you're invested in, what you're really worried about, what you're "advocating," isn't morality in a strict sense, it's the moral authority of your church. Your right to define or restrict the definition of things. I wish I could convince you that I want no part of your church. The state already has a construct called civil marriage, there is no need to expand government to create a separate institution for 2% of the electorate. We need only accommodate them.

Same…different…equal.

zilch said...

GentleSkeptic: well said.

JD Curtis said...

"…a lifestyle fraught with mental health issues, physical infirmities and comparatively empty insofar as personal fulfillment is concerned…"

Yes. Those above words are mine. If there was any question as to whether I could back up those statements with studies, why didnt you just ask me to instead of immediately playing the "bigot" card? If I am conversing with smokers online and I mention that they run a higher risk at acquiring lung cancer, does that make me bigoted? Please answer this.

Insofar as male homosexuals are concerned, they run significantly higher risks of....

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

And that's just right off the bat.

Insofar as lesbian health is concerned, "In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis."

concerning mental health...

"[A] Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex. Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study. The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life." Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."

I did not make these up and they are all viewable online through this link.

you're obsessed with gay … men. You never talk about or think about or cite studies about the lesbos

The majority of studies done on same sex couples concernes males, not females. (Probably due to the spread of AIDS through the male population) There are some studies though for females. If you have any questions concerning lesbians, we can examine them.

And when presented with a STUDY (aww, you love those!), all you can ask is, "yeah, but were they monogamous?" Even though you really don't care

But are traditional couples typically involved in "open" relationships or are such open arrangements rare? If they are clearly NOT the norm than ou are describing something else.

Before we go on, if I'm such a bigot, why do I link to the archive of a gay man on the right? (And always have done so since I started this blog) If I am bigoted against gay men, then why would I bother to link a columnist who is gay at my blog? Wouldnt that be contradictory?

Can you even spot the gay man on my list to the right of the page?

zilch said...

JD- we've been through this already. I've already asked you, as has GS, what this has to to with gay marriage, and you have not answered. So for the last time: what do these statistics have to do with gay marriage?

GentleSkeptic said...

Obstinately convinced of the superiority of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

JD Curtis said...

Z,

I cited statisctics that indicated that homosexuals suffer much higher incidences of mental and physical disorders. GS called me a bigot for stating as much. We are now waiting for GS to explain why when I cite such statistics that this makes me a bigot and I am still waiting.

The statistics we can set aside for a moment. My argument is basically that what same sex couples want in a 'marriage" would redefine marriage as we know it. They are not the same.

This is before we can get into whether this is an attempt to redefine gender roles, (as Dennis Prager whose article last week got this discussion rolling, writes in today's column) or how this plays out in the context of the Communist Manifesto...

""Abolition of the family!....Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love.

"Just like all of his other arguments, he starts with an incredible lie about capitalist society and then uses it to excuse himself for the obscenities of communism. In this case, he defends his attack on monogamous marriage by claiming that capitalists are incapable of being monogamous anyway! Now, this may be true in Hollywood, but there are lots of capitalists in the rest of the world who are monogamous. In any case, after selling the fantastic lie that monogamy doesn't exist, he argues that we should forget about achieving this supposedly impossible goal and simply embrace "free love", a euphemistic term for unbridled hedonism and sexual promiscuity. As an aside, this idea resurfaced in the 1960's, with no more success: it produced a generation with a soaring divorce rate and disaffected children." Link

We havent even begun to touch on these topics yet and I don't mind discussing them at all. One thing I will not have on my blog is the leveling of the accusation "bigot" without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Obstinately convinced of the superiority of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions

I am skeptical of the effects of same sex marraige upon society. Can I not hold that opinion for the reasons listed above? If not, then arent you then bigoted for telling me I cannot hold that view? Youre not "intolerant", are you?

JD Curtis said...

And again GS, why should I have a link to a gay man's column (and always have) if I am intolerant?

GentleSkeptic said...

Oh Lordie. Homos and Bourgies and Commies oh MY.

I don't think your acknowledgment of the facts on the ground makes you a bigot, JD. I think your response to those facts does.

Faced with these facts that you've enumerated and which I'm not even disputing, the MORAL thing to do would be to provide incentives for monogamy. Like marriage. The RIGHTEOUS and AUTHORITATIVE thing to do is simply decry the entire population as clearly unfit for marriage, to say nothing of the Kingdom of God.

Intolerance involves voting to take those incentives off the table, completely and for all time. "Sorry, queers: 'stay together' if you feel like it, but don't ever expect us to take you seriously."

Your primary concern for society is that your church will lose control over it.

So you link to a gay. Do you think he should be able to marry the man he loves? Because that's the question before you.

JD Curtis said...

Of course, then there is the matter that a very large number of homosexuals themselves do not want same sex "marriage".

"The results of the Fab Magazine poll, published April 7 in the Toronto-based Globe and Mail newspaper, found that only 36 percent of respondents believed homosexuals should “settle for marriage and nothing less.” A plurality, 47 percent, favored civil unions." Link

JD Curtis said...

I think your response to those facts does

How does my response make me a bigot?

the MORAL thing to do would be to provide incentives for monogamy

Like, the very fabric of society was built upon heterosexual, marraige? Like there would be less pain and suffering due to a laundry list of illnesses both physical and mental?

The RIGHTEOUS and AUTHORITATIVE thing to do is simply decry the entire population as clearly unfit for marriage, to say nothing of the Kingdom of God

If you could provide statistics that the number of heterosexual marraiges that

A. Are 'open', and,

B. Involve anywhere near as many partners on an annual basis as homosexual unions, then I concede the point. Good luck finding it becuase no such data exists.


Your primary concern for society is that your church will lose control over it

My "church" does not have control over society. I do not want to live in a theocracy and never advocated as much. This is a strawman and completely irrelevent.

And what's with calling people "homo's" and "queers"? I don't do it and I would appreciate it if you do not soil this site with such terminology.

JD Curtis said...

"When David Andrew, a 41-year-old federal government employee, heard that the highest Ontario court had extended marriage rights to same-sex couples two months ago, he broke into a sweat...

When he moved in with David Warren, a 41-year-old software company project officer, he wrote up a set of vows that remains above their bed, seven years later. They promise "a confidant, playmate, partner in crime, biggest fan and protector." But they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in." Link

So let me get this straight GS. These homosexuals that do not want same sex marraige are not bigots and I do not want the same thing and yet I am?

GentleSkeptic said...

Correct. Because they are not insisting on denying the option to their fellow gays. They are free to opt out. In America, gays aren't free to opt IN.

Not all gays want it! The reddest of herrings.

JD Curtis said...

Wait.

They don't want it because they don't want the monogamy that is implicit in "marraige". The gays that I cited absolutely are free marry if they want. (They're in Canada and the majority of them want "unions" not "marraige")

JD Curtis said...

Again,

What have I written that is bigoted? You still havent explained why citeing the findings from medical studies is bigoted.

Is there any dissent allowed on this topic at all? Can I believe that this is not going to be good for society? Or must I change my belief?

Flute said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JD Curtis said...

Why am I a bigot Flute?

Please explain.

How am I 'intolerant" of the opinions of others when there are numerous entries on my own blog counter to my own?

Am I not allowed to speculate as to what the future will bring be permitting such a thing a same sex marrraige? Or is the only acceptable view on the future a bright and happy one if this should come to pass?

I never stifled anyone's opinion. Can others say the same?

Flute said...

You are free to believe whatever you want.
Other people are free to believe whatever they want.

If you are free to rally against homosexuals, then others are free to think you are a bigot.

The freedom goes both ways.

Now I think I already said this but it's hard to tell when you deleted my comment.

GentleSkeptic said...

>sighs heavily<

Whatever. In the end, it's only my opinion. And in my opinion, you hold bigoted views of homosexuals, especially the men.

Don't let it get to you. In some people's opinion, I'm a dirty, unredeemed sinner, but I don't let it ruin my day.

I'm afraid I must draw the line at 100 comments. Arbitrary, to be sure, but there's no winning for anybody on this forum.

JD Curtis said...

We could clear this up real quick like.

Is there any dissent at all allowed on this topic?

Is wholesale acceptance the only viewpoint that is acceptable and thus not bigoted?

zilch said...

The statistics we can set aside for a moment. My argument is basically that what same sex couples want in a 'marriage" would redefine marriage as we know it. They are not the same.

Again, JD- so what? Why not let them redefine marriage as you know it for themselves? No one is forcing you to redefine marriage for yourself. No one is forcing you or anyone else to marry someone of the same sex.

Like, the very fabric of society was built upon heterosexual, marraige? Like there would be less pain and suffering due to a laundry list of illnesses both physical and mental?

Can you show how the fabric of society, whatever it is built upon, is endangered by gay marriage? Can you show that however much pain and suffering there is, that it will be made worse by allowing gays to marry? You haven't offered any data, and the notion that allowing gay marriage will somehow increase these problems seems incredible on the face of it.

My "church" does not have control over society. I do not want to live in a theocracy and never advocated as much. This is a strawman and completely irrelevent.

You may not want to live in a theocracy, but you do want to impose your religious views, in the form of denying others whom you disapprove of on religious grounds, the rights that you enjoy. If this is not the case, then please tell us finally what harm will come of allowing gays to marry- you haven't done so so far.

These homosexuals that do not want same sex marraige are not bigots and I do not want the same thing and yet I am?

GS already answered, but I will just add this: with all due respect, I don't think you thought this through very carefully. You are saying that because one, or some, gays don't want to marry, then no gays should be allowed to marry, even if they want to. We can of course turn this around: many whites don't want to marry blacks, so we should outlaw interracial marriage. Lots of straights don't want to marry either, so perhaps we should outlaw marriage altogether. And so forth.

Am I not allowed to speculate as to what the future will bring be permitting such a thing a same sex marrraige? Or is the only acceptable view on the future a bright and happy one if this should come to pass?

Of course you're allowed to speculate. But since speculation is all that it is, with no data to support it, I don't see why your speculation should be translated into denying someone a right that you enjoy.

cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

JD Curtis said...

You may not want to live in a theocracy, but you do want to impose your religious views, in the form of denying others whom you disapprove of on religious grounds, the rights that you enjoy.

Zilch,

This is the biggest crock I have ever heard of yet.

1) Not every person opposed to same sex marriage is opposed to it for religious reasons.

2) You speak in terms that I am "denying others" when an activist judge "denied" the codification of marraige since time eteranl and voted on by over 7 million Californians. Did he not "deny" them their votes on the matter after it was legally decided, fair and square, that same sex marriage would not be legal? If not, please explain why.

Of course you're allowed to speculate. But since speculation is all that it is, with no data to support it, I don't see why your speculation should be translated into denying someone a right that you enjoy.

What right are you describing that I enjoy? The ability to coerce my wife into accepting an open relationship and I can thus have multiple sexual partners every year?

If my speculation has "no data to support it, then answer me one thing...

Is it optimal for a child to be raised by a man and a woman or is there no difference in child rearing with same sex couples by comparison? Are there some things that a man can get across better to a child than a woman and vice versa?

JD Curtis said...

In the end, it's only my opinion. And in my opinion, you hold bigoted views of homosexuals

And yet in the end when asked to provide ONE example of bigotry I have ever written in this forum, none has been forthcoming. Might there be a reason for that?

Far too often the term "bigot" is thrown around by those on the left against those on the right to the point that it begins to lose it's meaning. I wouldnt call anyone a racist if I couldnt back it up and others should not be so flip with the word "bigot" for the same reason.

Don't let it get to you. In some people's opinion, I'm a dirty, unredeemed sinner, but I don't let it ruin my day

I got news for you GS. We're ALL dirty unredeemed sinners. Still, I wouldnt call someone an adulterer if they werent. That they are guilty of other sins would still make them a sinner, but some clarification is in order if we're going to call a spade a spade.

I'll put this question to you.

Is there any dissent at all allowed on this topic?

Is wholesale acceptance the only viewpoint that is acceptable and thus not bigoted?

Well?

ATVLC said...

2) You speak in terms that I am "denying others" when an activist judge "denied" the codification of marraige since time eteranl and voted on by over 7 million Californians. Did he not "deny" them their votes on the matter after it was legally decided, fair and square, that same sex marriage would not be legal? If not, please explain why.

Luckily, the Constitution is there to protect minorities from the majority.

What right are you describing that I enjoy? The ability to coerce my wife into accepting an open relationship and I can thus have multiple sexual partners every year?

Some heterosexual husbands DO coerce their wives into accepting open relationships. How is this even relevant?

Is it optimal for a child to be raised by a man and a woman or is there no difference in child rearing with same sex couples by comparison? Are there some things that a man can get across better to a child than a woman and vice versa?

How is this relevant?
Do you want to deny marriage to all form of "non-optimal" couplings?
Would you deny marriage to a man with no sperm count? Would you deny marriage to a woman with a missing hand? How far does you "non-optimal" plan reach?