Posted on 12/23/2004 7:40:45 AM PST by Ernie.cal
I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.
In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?
Think about it for a second. Sexual tensions between soldiers? Not a good thing. Which is one of the reasons why women should not be allowed to serve in the military, either.
And that's only in the United States. Don't forget the anti-clerical Jacobin Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France and the Marxist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
Absolutely. Marriage is the sacrifice for the family.
In the final analysis, this issue will not be decided by reading academic studies or consulting professional organization resolutions nor by reading debates in magazines, newspapers, and on websites.
Ultimately, the American Family will decide this issue on a much more personal level and often their decision will be based upon face-to-face contact with gay and bisexual individuals they know as neighbors, family members, friends, co-workers, and even famous personalities.
Gays are everywhere. They always have been. They always will be.
They are in families that teach conservative Christian values (examples: Cheney, Gingrich, Schmitz, Schlafly, Bauman).
They are in families that teach liberal, secular or religious values.
As Americans consider what decision to make, they will consider the contributions that gay or bisexual men and women have made in every field of endeavor. Some examples appear below.
In addition, there are many famous persons known within the gay community to be gay, but whom have not yet publicly acknowledged their sexual preference. Some of them are of jaw-dropping quality for people like you.
(singers and other musical performers): Joan Baez, Johnny Mathis, Melissa Etheridge, Elton John, K.D. Lang, Josephine Baker, Nell Carter, Janis Joplin, Bessie Smith, Janis Ian, Nathan Lane, Van Cliburn, Liberace, Barbara Cook, Michael Feinstein
(composers) Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Cole Porter, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Sondheim, Jerry Herman, Handel
(fashion): Christian Dior, Yves Saint Laurent, Halston, Giorgio Armani, Calvin Klein, Gianni Versace
(actors and actresses): Sir Alec Guiness, Charles Laughton, Sir John Gielgud, Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, James Dean, Sal Mineo, Clifton Webb, Montgomery Clift, Richard Chamberlain, Raymond Burr, Anthony Perkins, Dame Judith Anderson, Tallulah Bankhead, Jodie Foster, Rudolph Valentino, Keanu Reeves, Dirk Bogarde, Mae West, Laurence Olivier, Ian McKellen, Roddy McDowell
(authors, poets, and playwrights): Tennessee Williams, W.H. Auden, Thornton Wilder, E.M. Forster, Evelyn Waugh, John Cheever, Hart Crane, Langston Hughes, Gore Vidal, Lillian Hellman, Edward Albee, James Baldwin, Oscar Wilde, Noel Coward, Walt Whitman, William S. Maugham, Christopher Isherwood, William Inge
(comedians): Lily Tomlin, Margaret Cho, Paul Lynde, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell
(sports): Marina Navratilova, Greg Louganis, Brian Orser, David Kopay, Ben Tilden, Tom Waddell, Billy Jean King, Rudy Galindo, Billy Dean
(political figures, philosophers, pundits): Roy Cohn, Barney Frank, Andrew Sullivan, Jim Kolbe, Steve May, Sumner Welles, John M. Keynes, Socrates, Barbara Jordan, David Mixner, Mark Leno.
(gay businessmen, millionaires): John Hormel, David Geffen
(others): Margaret Mead, Rudolf Nureyev, Michelangelo
ANSWER THE QUESTION ERNIE!
I think you missed my point. Let me spell it out for you.
All of us have strongly-held beliefs. Most honorable people recognize that opponents (while perhaps mistaken) can nevertheless be knowledgeable and even expert in their fields.
For example: there are numerous medical researchers who, as we speak, are conducting research into Alzheimers or cancer or muscular dystrophy, etc. etc. They submit articles to peer-reviewed academic and medical journals to share their research discoveries and their theories about causes and effective treatments of medical problems. Sometimes their articles reveal strong disagreements but these researchers do not deny the legitimacy of their opponents credentials as researchers or scholars.
Similarly, criminal prosecutors are in an adversarial relationship with criminal defense lawyers. But that does not mean that the prosecutors cannot identify defense lawyers that they consider expert, knowledgeable, and persons of indisputable character and integrity. Ditto for lawyer judgments about prosecutors or judges whom they perceive as professional, fair-minded, and honest.
So--I ask again:
From your perspective, which 2 or 3 persons do you perceive as opponents or adversaries to your views with respect to such matters as gay parenting, gay adoption, gay lifestyle, but, simultaneously, you freely acknowledge to be legitimate, honorable, knowledgeable experts in their fields of study? In other words: which sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, or other researchers?
Obviously, you will tell me that you consider their research and conclusions to be flawed or mistaken----but, nonetheless, I am asking which 2 or 3 persons you are willing to acknowledge deserve respectful consideration for whatever research they conduct, the data they develop, and whatever articles or books they write?
Are you a practising homosexual?
Apparently, the single most important thing, in your scheme of things, is a label or a category, a box into which everyone MUST be classified --- and then asserting that you are superior to whomever does not conform to your personal preferences.
I know our countrymen will eventually acknowledge gay marriages because they will look past the derogatory labels and categories and see the HUMAN BEINGS involved.
It is easy to apply "sexually perverted" and "basically void of any morality" to amorphous groups of people in the abstract --- but when you actually know someone whom you come to respect as an honest, good, and decent person -- it is much more difficult to accept such perjorative descriptions.
While I concede that it will probably take another generation (or perhaps two) -- nevertheless the U.S. will ultimately accept gay marriages.
The most fascinating thing will occur 20 or so years afterward. Post-graduate students will be writing master's theses and doctoral dissertations on the evolution of this controversy. Someone may even decide to quote comments appearing in this thread or some similar collection of pejorative remarks about gays. One wonders what your explanation will be when none of the horrendous consequences you predict -- actually ensue.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that you are seriously proposing that your ONLY concern is "drawing a line" that is fair and reasonable? That, in other words, you are OPEN to the possibility of permitting gay marriage between unrelated persons so long as other types of marriages are excluded?
BUMP
So you are a Christian? See your tagline, and you are in favor of Sodomites getting married? And teaching children that sodomy is normal?
Ultimately, the American Family will decide this issue on a much more personal level and often their decision will be based upon face-to-face contact with gay and bisexual individuals they know as neighbors, family members, friends, co-workers, and even famous personalities.
That's certainly part of it. Still, you are forgetting some key points.
You can try to deny their existence, but the tens of thousands of former homosexuals also have a say and their numbers are growing. You say "Gays are everywhere" and I say Ex-gays are everywhere. Yes, former homosexuals exist.
You can try to change our cultures definition of perversion and you can try to ignore the dictionary definition, yet homosexuality (behavior) is perversion, both morally and physiologically. That's not an attack on a group of people, it's a fact based on our culture and the dictionary.
Knowing homosexuals and having contact with homosexuals face-to-face changes nothing as we know they exist. Knowing former homosexuals and having contact with former homosexuals face-to-face changes everything, despite the fact that so many people try to deny their existence.
Former homosexuals exist and their numbers are growing!
What a bizarre reply!
I have never once raised the topic of "former homosexuals" so how do you arrive at the idea that I am attempting "to deny their existence"?
I have no clue regarding the correct number of gay or bisexual persons whom have sought via therapy to "convert" to heterosexuality, but if they were unhappy living as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual, then I certainly support their decision to seek whatever therapy they think could help--and I wish them well.
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS: How definitions are applied changes over time. In the early 20th century women who smoke or drank alcohol were considered "immoral". A woman who revealed any skin above ankle level or any breast cleveage would also have been considered of low moral character.
So, given YOUR scheme of things, I suppose you believe that someone successfully changed the prior definition of "immoral" and we should revert back to earlier definitions of "immoral" so that women with the characteristics cited above would be accurately described. Your counterparts in, say, 1900 or 1910 or 1920 could have written about their condemnation of such women: "That's not an attack on a group of people, it's a fact based on our culture and the dictionary." Similarly, racial intermarriage was considered "immoral" and prohibited by law. Let's find out what "immoral perverts" changed that definition too!
How far back do you propose that we go for correct definitions so that we can purge ourselves of all incorrect understandings? Shall we consult dictionaries from, say, 1850 or how about 1750 or perhaps 500 A.D. or perhaps we should re-adopt Old Testament prohibitions regarding diet, clothing, proper role of women, sexual rights of men in relation to their brother's widow, etc? These were portrayed as "moral" issues and there were punishments prescribed for transgressors.
The most significant part of your message (to me) is your last paragraph where you state having personal knowledge of homosexuals "changes nothing". Frankly, your ideological brain-lock is what guarantees ultimate victory for proponents of gay marriage.
Americans are a profoundly non-ideological people. We are pragmatists. We care about what ideas work and we don't care much for labels. We also are a fair-minded people. We celebrate the fact that so many diverse people can live and prosper together. We have only to look at Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq, Ukraine, and other societies to see how blessed we are. The greatest impediment in those societies to peace and national reconciliation is the efforts of ideologues to demonize ALL persons they perceive as opponents.
Here in the U.S., there is a VERY LIMITED MARKET for your type of argument, even among Americans who are currently opposed to gay marriage. Your undisguised revulsion toward entire categories of other human beings and your total unwillingness to recognize value in persons different from yourself, is what will ensure your defeat.
In many respects, this is reminiscent of the conflict between decent southerners and white supremacists...Ordinary southerners may have had serious misgivings about the rapid integration of society but, nevertheless, they despised white supremacist organizations that expoused unvarnished hatred toward not just blacks but anyone who believed in the value of an integrated society. There are always Americans who appeal to the worst in us instead of our better angels.
I have never once raised the topic of "former homosexuals" so how do you arrive at the idea that I am attempting "to deny their existence"?
Yet you have ignored the topic of former homosexuals in every single post until this one, and I've mentioned former homosexuals in almost every single post to you. I've repeately asked:
What do former homosexuals have to say on the matter?And you have repeately ignored that question every single time.
if they were unhappy living as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual, then I certainly support their decision to seek whatever therapy they think could help--and I wish them well.
Yet you don't see a problem allowing those who, temporarilly, engage in this behavior called homosexuality to marry. You see no problem allowing the sexually confused to marry, to adopt children, and then at any time, clear their confusion, stop engaging in homosexuality and move on. That's bizarre. If you honestly wished them well you would want their sexual confusion cleared first and foremost.
And as for your applying significance to an insignificant comment tells me you're either playing games or have no idea what I said. Apparently you're assuming and inferring "schemes" out of thin air. And this talk of revulsion and hatred...you haven't understood a thing I've said, so stop the misrepresentation.
Also, your misdirection is noted and ignored.
Immorality:
How low does the bar of moral standards have to be lowered before you grow concerned Ernie?
We care about what ideas work and we don't care much for labels.
Let's see...
Bigots, homophobes, knuckle draggers, right wing nut jobs, fundamentalists, fundies, prudes, sexually oppressed latent homosexual closet cases, closed minded bigoted rednecks, gay basher, uneducated sexual amateurs, religious Nazis, religious zealots, American tali ban, etc. etc. The list grows daily.
"unvarnished hatred"
Not in this case Ernie. You fail to realize the fact that People who oppose "homosexuality" do not "hate" homosexuals.
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person.
"Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.
In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
Moral discrimination is "rational" discrimination. Furthermore:
Homophobia: This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" sophists. the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.
Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself.
Homosexual activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."
As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot.
The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.
Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. homosexual activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association without a shred of scientific evidence to legitimize homosexual behavior as a natural immutable human quality).
Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.
The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.
an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitusIf he wants to go back and check earlier definitions of perversion I'm sure homosexuality (behavior) will fit the definition each and every time.
It would appear he is either playing games, ignoring anything that questions his position or he doesn't understand what we're saying. He is also ignoring the bigger picture by concentrating on both insignificant issues and maligning anybody that doesn't accept his position.
The bigger picture includes the definition for perversion along with physiology, psychology, the APA, mental health, homosexual activism, health hazards, children, former homosexuals, polygamy, and any other relevant issue.
The fact that former homosexuals exist and their numbers are growing should tell us something. Perhaps allowing marriage for the sexually confused isn't such a good idea, especially where children are involved.
For him the only apparent issue is consenting adults, no matter how many consenting adults that could be, whether it includes sex and marriage between brothers, sisters, parents and their children, etc.
Our most precious resource, our children, must be our top priority.
Opposing same sex marriage does not equate to stoning.
You are correct about one matter. I have never responded to your "former homosexuals" question. First, I didn't realize that you thought it was of such significance that is deserved some kind of response. Second, I don't know any "former homosexuals" so there isn't much for me to say other than wish them well---in the same way that I wish everyone well who is living an unhappy or troubled life.
Of course, the reverse formulation is also a concern. The thousands upon thousands of men who married and had children because they never allowed themselves to confront their true preferences. Many of these folks describe the "emotional hell" that they lived for 20 or more years during their marriage. Then, after the children are mature, they finally announce their preference and many times there is an amicable divorce with the former spouses remaining best friends.
Perhaps I am mistaken (I have never done much research into the matter) but I doubt that there are many "sexually confused" people who marry and adopt children. Your pejorative remarks about my values is just your ideological bias showing and another example of your unremitting need to demonize anyone who has a different judgment from yours about gays.
A common pattern in your messages is not merely asserting that your position is more reasonable or more factually compelling. Of much greater importance to you is this constant need to assert your superiority over entire categories of other people. By contrast, I merely think you are mistaken---not evil, sick, or revolting (although many of your remarks are not friendly nor indicative of someone who values other human beings.)
I think we have pretty much exhausted this topic for now. I conclude by repeating that the American Family will ultimately make their decision based upon their personal familiarity with flesh-and-blood gay people that they know in their lives as neighbors, friends, co-workers, and famous personalities, etc.
They may listen to your rants about gays. They may even initially think about some of the legitimate points you raise which are genuine concerns that should be discussed and addressed---such as: would a child be more likely to be happy and well-adjusted if raised in a traditional mother-father environment instead of a same-sex couple home?
But, as the final decision is made, Americans will see the human dimension of the argument---not just the pejorative and feverish labels.
You may be familiar with the concept used in professional political and PR circles to describe persons who, regardless of the factual accuracy of their viewpoints, cannot win support from the American public. The problem is that they are perceived as too "hot" a presence on TV or in debates. In other words, their audience concentrates on the tone with which they present their arguments more than the specific content of their ideas. They are perceived as too belligerent or too ideological or too unkind and hostile toward their critics and adversaries.
Instinctively, Americans recoil from such persons because we don't want our lives controlled by ideologues for whom rigid acceptance or implementation of an idea is more important than its impact on actual human beings. This somewhat explains, for example, the disconnect between surveys about the views of our countrymen on abortion (which support making it rare) but the reluctance to endorse or accept the more extreme arguments or policy proposals that pro-life proponents suggest.
My judgment is that the same phenomenon will occur on the gay marriage issue. Your side will raise questions and objections but they will do so in the same manner as in the 500+ messages in this thread. Americans may share some of your concerns but they will be repelled by your thinly veiled disgust and revulsion for EVERYONE different from you. And, ultimately, that will tip the scales in favor of gay marriage.
Thanks for the interesting exchange of ideas.
Here's wishing you a Gay New Year. lol.
If I had a dollar for every time I have seen your comment, I would be living a life of luxury. I presume you will now present the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" formulation?
Suppose, for a moment, that we create someone (let's call him Adam) who ACTUALLY DOES HATE GAYS. Adam doesn't deny it! In fact, he boasts about it.
What kind of language do you think Adam would use to describe his views about gays? How would it be different in tone or substance from the language used in this thread?
What specific evidence is there to demonstrate your purported "love" for gays as persons? Have you ever done anything supportive for a gay man or lesbian? For example: ever volunteered at a gay community center, or ever contributed clothing for homeless gay persons (some of whom are just kids living on the street) or ever provided assistance to someone gay who had been hospitalized for some injury or illness?
Anything at all to actually demonstrate what "love" or non-hateful means to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.