If you don’t see things from the side of bigots, are you doing a disservice to the gay rights movement? Sure, we want marriage rights, and we want them now! (along with the ability to serve openly in the military, visit our ailing loved ones in the hospital, and adopt kids if we so choose), but is it prohibitive to maintain a zero tolerance policy against anyone who disagrees with us?
We might be willing to entertain the possibility that we need to be more understanding of folks who use God to defend their hatemongering, but too bad the argument is raised by the Dallas Morning News‘s Rod Dreher, who says that not only should religious conservatives feel empathy toward us, but so should we toward them.
That’s a big part of the gay marriage side’s problem: They cannot imagine why, aside from bigotry, anyone would disagree with them. To be sure, anyone on the traditional marriage side who doesn’t understand that denying marriage to same-sex couples imposes a serious burden on them is either willfully ignorant or hard-hearted. The thing is, empathy should go both ways.
Okay, let’s hear you out, Rod.
Leaving aside that there is undoubtedly a significant number of people who vote against gay marriage because they flat-out don’t like gay people, there are serious and important reasons to vote against same-sex marriage – and these deserve to be taken seriously.
Like what?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
For starters, gay marriage represents a cultural revolution, a fundamental redefinition of what marriage means. Until the past 10 or 20 years, no society had ever sanctioned marriage between same-sex partners. It was unthinkable outside of a small radical fringe. Now, in the twinkling of an eye, it’s coming to pass in a few countries, though the vast majority of humankind still finds it unthinkable.
That’s not an argument against gay marriage, but it is an explanation for why gay marriage remains unpopular in this country. Culture precedes politics. If you cannot change culture, you’re reduced to arguing, as same-sex marriage supporter Linda Hirshman did in the wake of the Maine defeat, that people shouldn’t have the right to vote on the definition of marriage.
Well once upon a time, in this very country, the idea that black people were not somebody’s property was a “cultural revolution” and a “fundamental redefinition” of what it means to be human, but we wouldn’t look back on that and say we should feel empathy toward slaveowners, would we?
But maybe, Rod — seen here with his heterosexual family, who nobody is asking anyone to feel empathy towards — maybe you’ve got a point.
Along those lines, gay marriage backers often say that civil rights shouldn’t be submitted to a popular vote. If blacks in the Jim Crow South had depended on a majority vote to gain their civil rights, justice would have been a long time coming. That makes sense to people who see no moral or philosophical difference between race and homosexuality. But it is by no means clear that the two categories are interchangeable. For traditionalists, it’s a category mistake to say that they are.
And here’s where we’re about to give up on your thesis, Rod. Because also, once upon a time, some people saw a huge “moral or philosophical difference” between whites and blacks, and at the time it was “by no means clear that the two” races were “interchangeable.”
One more shot, Rod. We’re getting tired here.
Which brings us to another reason majorities oppose gay marriage: the belief that its supporters are all too willing to force their own particular view of marriage and its meaning on an unwilling society. It’s simply not true that their viewpoint is neutral. To believe that same-sex marriage is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage is to accept that the essence of marriage is fundamentally different from what it has always been.
The essence of marriage is “fundamentally different from what it has always been.” It used to be a property transaction. Now, it’s argued, marriage is a union of love and a vessel for procreation. Except plenty of heteros abuse that “definition.”
Final thoughts, Rob?
[T]houghtful traditionalists understand that legalizing same-sex marriage almost certainly would bring about serious restrictions on freedom of speech and association, particularly for churches and religious organizations. Nobody is going to force pastors to marry same-sex couples, but legal scholars, including prominent gay-rights advocate and law professor Chai Feldblum, have plainly said that there is an irresolvable conflict between religious freedom and gay civil rights – and only one side can prevail.
You can’t expect gay folks to privilege religious liberties over their own interests, but likewise, why is it bigoted for religious traditionalists to stand up for what they believe to be bedrock rights – rights that will be curtailed by same-sex marriage?
We love religious liberties. Not just because we believe in the freedom to think and pray any way you choose, but because many “gay folks” are religious! They believe in loving thy neighbor and all that jazz; they don’t believe in hating thy neighbor simply because he was born a certain way.
And then there’s this:
Gay marriage opponents are not crazy to fear what may be done to them should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. In California, supporters of Proposition 8, which repealed same-sex marriage, have suffered vandalism, job and business loss, intimidation and harassment by activists. One would have to be deeply naïve, indeed foolish, to trust that traditionalist dissent will be tolerated once these groups gain the legal upper hand.
We’re not advocates of violence or vandalism by any means. But we wouldn’t want to employ racists or anti-Semites — what employer would, beside racist and anti-Semitic ones? So why, then, should Americans be forced to “accept” your anti-gay hatred?
We won’t. And we’re barely willing to tolerate it.
(Photo via)
Brian NJ
What conservative christians crave is the mask: That they can want to write out a segment of the country, and still be seen as “good.” Well, we see past the mask to the true religious and anti-gay bigotry. They want to impose their way of life on others. They don’t want to live in a free country where the laws apply equally to everyone. They want to own. But they will fail. They always fail. They wanted to own blacks, and failed, they wanted to own their wives, and failed. America is a proud SECULAR society where different beliefs must live side by side, with one religious view not trumping another.
So we win, fucktards, because the Constitution always wins. Thanks founders.
dvlaries
Exactly. These are the same people, a hundred and sixty ago, who would be making the argument that blacks are happier, more productive and well-adjusted under a strong, white master.
You can couch your willful discrimination in every polite term you want, but no matter how badly you want that creature to be a beautiful swan, it quacks and it’s a duck.
Mark
Regarding the comment that same sex marriage has not occurred in the past is wrong. [Noted church historian] John Boswell… has discovered that, whereas the
church did not declare heterosexual marriage to be a sacrament until 1215
C.E., one of the Vatican Library’s earliest Greek liturgical documents is a
marriage ceremony for two persons of the same sex. The document dates to
the fourth century, if not earlier. In other words, nine centuries before
heterosexual marriage was declared a sacrament, the church liturgically
celebrated same-sex covenants. This is documented by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “Overcoming Heterosexism – To Benefit Everyone” in Jeffrey
S. Siker, 148 (courtesy godmademegay.com)
Attmay
Less than zero tolerance.
Cam
Again, that is the playbook that bogots are using now. They are trying to claim that our self defense against their attacks and hatemongering is bigotry. So what they want is this…
We get to hate you, attack you and take your rights away and YOU should be openminded and sit back and take it.
Sorry bigots, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
playasinmar
Oh, no! Is the tiny, vocal minority picking on the massive, vocal majority?
Boo-hoo.
Sorry bigots, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
vernonvanderbilt
@Cam
Amen!
The argument that keeps getting swept aside by the bigots, and many on our own side as well, is that religious freedom applies to everyone. That “everyone” includes religious folks who are for marriage equality. Why do we never see anything about accepting their religious beliefs?
Daniel
Empathy with mass human rights violators? That is like saying that disabled people, the first group to have their rights voted away in Nazi Germany, should have had empathy with people voting away their equality? That is insane. Should poor people have empathized when Americans voted to sterilize them at the start of the 20th century? What about single women who were steralized in the USA for getting pregnant out of wedlock, were they supposed to empathize with the majority voting away their human rights? Get real. When the majority cannot uphold equal protection under law, then the rule of law is over. History repeatedly shows the atrocities and indignities suffered by countless groups when sanctimonious majorities vote away other people’s human rights.
1EqualityUSA
Excuse me, the boy, you know, the one on your lap with the neatly parted hair and cherry red lips, you might be taking his rights away some day, in the future. Drop the bigotry, SchiceKoff
naghanenu
As a black woman, let me say again…do not use black people as your ‘card’
Its tiring and as you may have noticed…aint getting you no help.
People are not buying it. Homosexuality is not the new black…whatever that means. Interracial marriage, for all intents, is not the new gay marriage. PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET THAT THIS WAS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ONLY WITH TWO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS THATS WHY ITS A PILL EASIER TO SWALLOW FOR A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.
Gay rights is its own movement. Its own challenges. Its own situation.
Im just saying. And you know what he’s right. I get tired of people telling me that because religious groups for valid religious reasons do not support gay marriage therefore they are hate-mongering???????
Gay people cannot see how this is problem for most people. You just bully the judges to sign a law that favours you and act shocked when the people vote against that law. And of course, if anyone does not vote in ur favour then by default you must be a bigot….its childish and validates the ‘so-called’ lies you say anti gay groups are telling on you.
Brian NJ
@ naghanenu
But what is so painful for me, is that as a black person, you fail to see that what is being done to us, is exactly the same thing that was done to you. Read the case Loving vs. Virginia.
Now that you have your equality, you take pleasure in seeing gays treated equally under the law? I think that makes you a deeply wicked woman.
Willard in Ohio
“Do Gays Have To Feel Empathy Toward Religious Conservatives Who Hate Them?”
No, that is all, no.
Daniel
Nag… at one point the KKK was the LARGEST civic group in the USA. And everyone said they had valid religious reasons to oppose marriage for black people. You are apparently just too young to remember when the “church” and black people were on opposite sides of the fence. In 1967, when interracial marriage was finally authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the remaining states, 70% of Americans OPPOSED it (one of those “courts” you think are evil for going against the will of the majority). Most Americans opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act too at the time. Did you know, for example, that the Mormon faith is based on black people being considered the race of the devil, while whites are the race of god – based on your reasoning, because Mormons have a valid religious reason that is core to their faith to not support any human rights for black people they are not hatemongers when they spend money opposing human rights for black people? That is ridiculous.
terrwill
NAGHANEU: I no more chose to be Gay than you chose to be black. That is what the Gays and blacks have in common. Not very long ago your people were considered as property. You could be bought and sold. You were placed upon an auction block and you went to the highest bidder, same as a cow now is auctioned. Then a really strange thing happened, some people decided that simply because of the color of your skin, you should not be treated as property. Then people began to see it was wrong to deny you the right to vote, to drink at the same fountains as whites, to be able to piss in the same toilets, and ride in the same row on a bus. Then people decided it was wrong to deny you the right to marry who you wanted. Because it all came down to the simple fact that you were born black, you had no choice and to deny you any rights and benefitss because of it was wrong. And to discriminate against you was wrong. That is exactaly what we the Gay community is asking for. No one is denying religous groups the right to think whatever the fuck they want to think in their twisted minds. However they have no right to deny me any of the same rights that any other group, INCLUDING BLACKS have due to their religious beliefs.
Because read that sentence very carefully: You are entitled to have any beliefs you wish, however you have no right to deny me any of my rights because of your beliefs. That a black person can spew such wicked vile poo from their mouths makes my blood boil like few other things. It was not very long ago that you were denied rights, benefits, and entitlements simply because of the way you were born. Same as the Gay community now is……..
YellowRanger
Empathy? For those people? Fuck no.
They use their beliefs in an imaginary sky friend to justify institutionalizing discrimination.
These people are pushing for a religion-imposed sexual apartheid. The only emotions of mine they’re worthy of are contempt, disdain, rage, and disgust.
playasinmar
The interracial marriage “pill” is easier to swallow NOW. It was absolutely NOT back when the Supreme Court legalized it. And not for 20-or-so years after the fact.
Marriage is a fundamental right and the government has no compelling interest in denying it to homosexuals.
Brian
We need to stop calling them “Bigots.” It doesn’t help and it’s inaccurate. Some of these religious people cling to “bigoted beliefs systems” and they believe it is the Word of God. you can’t win that battle – ever. They’re infected.
It is better to simply ignore them. They are in the minority. Most religious people have let go of the literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, it’s nearly impossible to tell them apart, but our calling them names doesn’t help.
Various denominations will have to take a stand soon – either for or against equality. This will marginalize the group that clings to their ancient belief system.
We should be trying to divide Christians into those two groups and then work with those committed to equality – including ours.
ricky
question: “Do Gays Have To Feel Empathy Toward Religious Conservatives Who Hate Them?”
answer: NO!
vernonvanderbilt
@Brian
They are bigots. Believing in bigotry makes one a bigot.
Keith Kimmel
I’ll feel empathy for terrorists before I feel empathy for . At least the terrorists – on occasion – have a legitimate reason for being pissed off. The bigots? They are mad about what goes on in somebody else’s house. Its ludicrous.
Keith Kimmel
The above comment should have read:
I’ll feel empathy for terrorists before I feel empathy for bigots. At least the terrorists – on occasion – have a legitimate reason for being pissed off. The bigots? They are mad about what goes on in somebody else’s house. Its ludicrous.
Brian
@VernonVanderbilt:
They don’t believe in “bigotry,” they believe in “God’s Word.” The literal interpretation of that book contains passages that – in today’s modern world – make up a “bigoted belief system.” They are not part of today’s world. They’re stuck in the past. Thankfully, they’ll die soon.
It’s an important distinction.
FakeName
Naghanenu: No one “bullied” any judges into “signing laws” (for one thing, because judges don’t sign laws). Parties in several states went to court and presented arguments as to why same-sex marriage should or should not be legal in that state and those who wanted it illegal were never able to come up with a single rational reason why it should be.
As for the comparison between race and sexual orientation, African American university professor and US vice-presidential candidate Mel Boozer summed it up nicely: “Would you ask me how I dare to compare the civil rights struggle with the struggle for lesbian and gay rights? I can compare them and I do compare them, because I know what it means to be called a ‘nigger’ and I know what it means to be called a ‘faggot,’ and I understand the differences in the marrow of my bones. And I can sum up that difference in one word: none.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Boozer
Your all-caps tirade about how Richard and Mildred Loving’s marriage was just a “traditional” marriage between people of different races demonstrates your utter ignorance of the history of that case. In upholding Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, the judge stated “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Alabama did not repeal its constitutional language prohibiting interracial marriages until 2000, 33 years after the US Supreme Court invalidated it, and even then 41% of Alabama voters favored retaining it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
And Mildred Loving said on the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf
But then Mildred Loving was just some old white lady so how would she know?
Cam
No. 9 · naghanenu said…
As a black woman, let me say again…do not use black people as your ‘card’
Its tiring and as you may have noticed…aint getting you no help.
I get tired of people telling me that because religious groups for valid religious reasons do not support gay marriage therefore they are hate-mongering???????
__________________________
Ok naghanenu, Then I’m sure you would have had no problem with the fact that the Mormons and old Southern Baptists said that according to their religeon Black people were inferior, and that their darker skin tone was known as “The Mark of Cain” and marked them permanently as lesser people in the eyes of God. Mormons did not decide that their religeon was wrong about blacks, they finally gave in around 1980 to all the social pressure from outside forces saying that they shouldn’t discriminate against minorites. So again, is it ok with you that their religious belief’s had them discrininating against persons of color? Would you just lay back and accept that when they came after your rights? So tell me, what were the “Valid Reasons” for their beliefs against blacks? Or do you only think that religeous beliefs are “valid” when they don’t discriminate against YOU??
vernonvanderbilt
@Brian
I don’t see a distinction. If “God’s word” is bigoted, then “God,” by extension, is also bigoted, and “God’s” followers, by extension, have the potential to be bigoted, as many are.
I couldn’t care less what these people believe until it begins to infringe on my own life and rights. The real definition of bigotry is believing that your opinions are so right that everyone else should be forced to live by them, even if that harms them. That is what these people believe, and that is what makes them bigots.
naghanenu
Blacks have been victimised cool….which minority hasnt???? This would not even be a black thing if you do not keep making it one.
I have a black father and white mother and trust me, even they do not see the similarity(outside the fact this was once banned in the courts) between their marriage and gay marriage. It stands that though interracial marriage was a race thing its still traditional marriage. It would probably make more sense if it was a black guy and a white guy trying to marry.
Now my point is you keep latching ur movement to the black civil rights movement when the blacks are publicly disagreeing and rejecting your cause. Some are even insulted to be compared to you. This rejection is not putting you in the best light and is sweet ammunition for antigay groups to diss you.And do you know the worst part..the public agrees!! Its embarassing!
Instead of sitting and dedicating all your energy fighting religious groups(hopeless) and dissing Obama(childish), CREATE YOUR OWN IDENTITY. MAKE THIS ABOUT YOU!!!
REVOLUTIONISE THE GAY MOVEMENT AND EARN THAT RESPECT.
jason
The problem with right-wing religious people, Christians or otherwise, is that they are selective and dishonest. The Bible bans so many things, yet you don’t hear them ranting against eating shellfish or women’s rights in the same way they do against gay rights.
FakeName
Nag sez: “I have a black father and white mother and trust me, even they do not see the similarity(outside the fact this was once banned in the courts) between their marriage and gay marriage.”
Ah, so you come by it from both sides of the family.
Yuki
I think that we definitely need to feel empathy toward people who oppose us; it’s part of what separates us from them. It’s ridiculous that they pick-and-choose bits of the Bible, or even use the Bible at all… though I definitely think we should say “civil marriage” rather than just “marriage”; too many people hear “marriage” and immediately think religion.
That being said, what this Dreher guy suggested is NOT empathy. It’s excuses once again. It is NOT going to change culture other than saying, “Some guys love guys like most of them love women”. Simple as that. We don’t have to feel “empathetic” to the “cultural revolution” we may start. He needs to get the hell over it.
Bill Perdue
I like Queertys insistence that we not advocate violence or petty responses like vandalism. The cops love that and it’s just begging to be victimized. Although that should never be confused with our right to defend ourselves when physically attacked. Pacifism is a dead end, and I do mean dead.
What we have to do is wage a political fight to criminalize hate speech.
We can safely assume that given the multiple crises – unwinnable wars, economic failure, mass unemployment, the unsolved health care crisis and the beginnings of mass homelessness – that the day is not too far off when the conservative social fabric that’s held American society in its grip will be ripped apart. We’re entering a pre-revolutionary period, like the ones beginning in 1775 and 1860, when the lack of genuine democracy in politics and in the workplace is beginning to tear the old society to shreds.
As that process unfolds it’ll lead to the creation of a new and far more democratic economic and political society and GLBT folks, who’ll play a big role in that, will be able to advance our agenda in a much friendlier context.
Part of our agenda will be to enact laws suppress the nonstop, deadly barrage of hate speech from cults and the cynical right centrist politicians who cater to them, the Democrats and Republicans.
We can speed that process along by demanding
• That cults, like other parts of the entertainment industry, pay their fair share of taxes. It’s unfair to make the rest of us pay their taxes.
• That cult schools be closed down to eliminate most of the cases of child abuse by priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, ministers and other assorted clerical riff raff.
• That cult leaders be indicted for manslaughter if they advocate abstinence instead of safe sex methods to control HIV/AIDS and for murder if anyone dies because of their reckless disregard for medical standards for avoiding HIV/AIDS.
• That cultists staffing centers claiming to cure GLBT folks of our genetic heritage be jailed for child abuse, torture and kidnapping. Those snakepits should be closed and the children and young people who imprisoned in them by their parents should be offered the option of emancipation from their parents and social services (run by GLBT folks) until they come of age.
• We have to demand that cult leaders who advocate violence be indicted and prosecuted even if they can’t be connected to any specific crime of violence and that laws be passed to make it easy to sue them and confiscate the assets of their cult to compensate victims of hate crimes.
FakeName
Bill Perdue says: “What we have to do is wage a political fight to criminalize hate speech.”
And then you can be the first one prosecuted for calling churches “cults”. The First Amendment is already tattered enough without calling for criminal sanctions on speech.
Bill Perdue
No. 30 • FakeName – Let me spell it out for you. “What we have to do is wage a political fight to criminalize hate speech by cultists, racists, immigrant bashers and misogynists and the like who are advocating violence or creating a climate that leads to violence.”
FakeName is just going to have to decide what side he’s on, the cultists or ours. You’d think it was a simple decision but I see that it isn’t. Assuming that the US is a democracy with the rule of law or that Bill of Rights is intact and that it’ll protect us from violence and those who promote it is a luxury we don’t have.
We have enemies and we have to start treating them like enemies.
WTF
The obvious answer here is to get the state out of the marriage business all-together.
Man + woman, woman + woman, man + man….fill out the paperwork and the state declares you domestic partners.
You wanna get married – go to your church, synagogue, commune, cult, self-help group, collective S&M dungeon – whatever – and have them give you a piece of paper on it that makes you feel happy and contented with whatever label is on it.
Having said that – the reality is that people will continue to want the state to stay in the marriage game. Given this reality, if it were me, I’d secure the legal rights first and then worry about the titles later.
Leaving all of your marbles on the “marriage” table is pushing the ball way further into the religious conservative’s court than is necessary, and leaves you fighting over culturally loaded semantics instead of concrete legal rights. Washington vs Maine.
Secure the rights first, let the reality sink in that the average marriage is far more threatened by shit like garden variety infidelity and leaving the dishes in the sink than what some random dudes somewhere are doing with their junk – then fight the semantic battle when the momentum and the numbers are clearly on your side.
Swift said it best – “Never try to reason a man out of something that he wasn’t reasoned into.” If you really want to fight the whole battle on the field of semantics, pause for a moment and consider how much inroads people who argue on behalf of evolution and/or that the world isn’t 6,000 years old have made with these folks, despite the overwhelming mass of empirical evidence that’s established both claims beyond any doubt whatsoever.
FakeName
Er, I specifically said that the First Amendment is in tatters already. I’ve chosen a side, thanks, and it’s the side that doesn’t advocate making speech illegal. Do you really think that, should “hate speech” be made illegal, that LGBT people won’t be among the first charged under it? Do you really think that police and prosecutors are going to charge into pulpits and drag away the preachers?
terrwill
BillPerdue: Kudos, these bastards will smile and shake your hand for a photo op then stab you in the back with the other hand……………..PS how the hell do you get to make text bold in your posts??
rudy
No. 25 · naghanenu
Three weeks ago Julian Bond addressed the gay march on Washington and invited gays and lesbians of all colors to join the NAACP because we are all part of the struggle for justice.
Please inform your parents.
hyhybt
“PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET THAT THIS WAS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ONLY WITH TWO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS”
Fine. If that’s the way you like to put it, what I want is a traditional marriage only with two of the same sex.
Whatever
@NAG — Do us all a favor – don’t give us any more “pointers” or “tips” on how to approach this debate. We’re good, thanks. You hang onto your belief that those little nagging comparisons we keep making to “equal rights” isn’t…well…the same as what the black community faced not so long ago. It’s a dying mindset, but whatever.
And we’ll keep on fighting the good fight – the right one – and it’s become something of a MOVEMENT for us (not that you’ve noticed). And we’ll keep demanding our collective voices be heard as GLBT americans, something we often refer to as our IDENTITY – not that you noticed that either.
As for earning your RESPECT, well, I really don’t think that’s required, and I for one would appreciate it if you don’t insult me any more by asking that I even try.
WTF
On this criminalizing speech business – if I were a numerical minority eternally consigned by some quirk of biology to forever linger in the 10% or lower range, I’d think very carefully about granting the state even more power to determine what modes of thought, speech, and expression are permissible.
History is full of surprises, and assuming that a power that is by definition far more likely to be exerted by the majority against whatever numerical minority has fallen out of favor is a gamble I’d think twice about before laying all of my cards on that table.
Bill Perdue
No. 34 · terrwill, thanks and here are the most used formats;
• quote
• bold
• underlined
• italics
•
strike throughBrian
Bill Perdue can only see “our enemies.” That has been the LGBT Movement and it’s also why we haven’t accomplished anything.
WTF
The fact of the matter is that the religious right has no better ally, unwitting though he may be, than Bill Perdue.
Put his ass on stage with a mic *anywhere* and after he gets halfway through his first sentence about criminalizing any and all speech that he happens to object to half the crowd will oppose whatever he’s endorsing.
Hurry Bill, I hear that Ted Haggard has an opening that he’d like you to fill.
terrwill
#39 Bill…….I feel like when I am trying to learn my Grandpa about the internets!! Where/how do you access the options? thanks
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
BUMPER STICKER: Don’t let your Dogma run over my Karma!
Bill Perdue
No. 42 · terrwill – google ‘http formats” and go from there. Sorry, I gave those examples the wrong way. lets see if this works.
To quote use
at the beginning and end of the material.
For bold use at the beginning and end of the material.
For underlined use , for italics .
Bill Perdue
No. 42 · terrwill – I screwed up agian. Use a left facing arrow to signify the begining of what you want emphasized. To close the copy use a left facing arrow rightfacing arrow to close what you want emphasized. There should be no spaces between any of the symbols or symbols and the words you want emphasized.
Bill Perdue
No. 42 · terrwill – using the symbols activates the process. So one more time. Begin using a left facing arrow followed with no spaces by the copy followed with no spaces by a right facing arrow to signify the beginning of the copy you want emphasized. To close the copy use a left facing arrow follwed by a right facing slash the copy followed by a right facing arrow with no spaces anywhere.
Use b for bold, i to italicize and blockquote between the opening and ending arrows.
Bill
Perhaps Rod Dreher and those like him should have taken the time to build marriage into a more sanctimonious institution by expanding the requirements to something other than “only penis + vagina need apply.”
These people are so stupid, it would tKe the light from stupid a million years to reach the earth.
Disgusted American
2 words..FUCK & NO!
Bill Perdue
No. 40 • Brian – what are you whining about this time Brian?
Of course we have enemies – the cults and the parties who cater to them. They’re deadly enemies.
And we have allies and friends – unions, minorities, the civilian and GI antiwar movements, feminists and immigrant workers.
We need to make alliances to defeat our enemies. How long will it take you to figure that out?
No. 41 • WTF is simply on the wrong side. He thinks politics and opinions about hate crimes and hate speech will be forever the same. What a dummy.
Raising the kind of program I outlined is both reasonable and unattainable under the current bankrupt system. In the process of fighting for it we can raise consciousness and organize for the kind of political battles that can end hate crimes and hate speech.
Hanging around brethlessly waiting for justice is an idiots approach. Fighting for our rights is our only option and integral to that is fighting to disarm those who advocate violence.
Here’s an example of hate speech that ought to lead to criminal and civil punishment. Jimmy Swaggart is an ordained pentecostal bigot (just like Leah Daughty who heads the DNC and Josh Dubois who heads Obama’s ‘faith based’ operation to bribe pulpit pimps. Swaggart said “
It should have landed Swaggart in jail, but WTF thinks it’s perfectly ok and that no violence will come of it. That’s becasue WTF is just not very bright. He can’t see that there are no guarantees for our agenda or our safety that we don’t create for ourselves. No cartoon hero named ‘Justice’ or the Constitution” is not going to save us. We have to do it ourselves.
Disgusted American
SO HE PLAYS THE HETERO VICTIM CARD & ALL THIER FEELINGS?? WHAT A JOKE….AND FYI SIR..YOUR SON LOOKS GAY.
greybat
Wouldn’t using correct punctuation be more expressive, and make for a more elegant page?
WTF
Bill:
I wish you the best of luck on your crusade to become the gay Robespierre. Really.
Disgusted American
The major and fatal flaw with Mr. Dreher’s arguments above is the falisity of his statement “why is it bigoted for religious traditionalists to stand up for what they believe to be bedrock rights – rights that will be curtailed by same-sex marriage?”
Granting marriage equality as a matter of civil law will curtail absolutely NO ONE’s rights. Religious traditionalists will still enjoy all the legal rights they currently enjoy. Their churches, mosques and faith communities will still be able to define religious marriage in exactly the same way they always have, should they see fit.
Just like civil divorce does not require Roman Catholics to acknowledge the state or to acknowledge the subsequent legal marriages of the divorced individuals, “gay” marriage as a legality will, likewise, not force any individuals or religious groups to alter their views in any way.
What they will lose is the exclusive right to define the civil rights of others and the ability to claim those legal benefits for themselves. Just as whites did when Jim Crow laws were overturned and men did when women were allowed to vote. Whites were still allowed to believe that blacks were inferior and men were still allowed to believe that women should remain barefoot and pregnant. Simply, the predominant group could no longer use the law to oppress those other groups.
What about the significant and growing number of faiths and confessions that believe that a lifelong commitment between two men or between two women is sacred and due the same honor as that between a man and a woman? Is not allowing the religious traditionalists to have a stranglehold on the legal definition of marriage denying the religious rights of the Quakers, the Unitarians and so many others who honor marriages between same sex couples and include them in their definition of marriage?
I ask you, what exactly am I supposed to empathize with? that straight folks automatically have a right to sponsor their alien spouses for permanent residency and I cannot? That they can legally include them in their health insurance benefits and I cannot? That they need not pay an attorney to draw up a will and myriad other documents to assure that their spouses can visit them in the hospital, make health decisions for them when necessary, leave them their worldly possessions, etc., etc. when they die just by virtue of the monopoly they hold on these rights? That they are protected against having to testify against their spouses? Or is it that their feelings are going to be hurt because the government will no longer be advocating their particular spiritual view when it does grant marriage equality to gay couples?
In short, furthering liberty and equality harms no one and raises millions of Americans out of second-class citizenship. On the issue of the equality of our gay citizens, it is time that America lived up to its ideals that we are all equal under the law.
Isaid; if you are going to quote from the American Heritage Dictionary, quote the whole thing not just the part that agrees with what you want to say. It goes on to say: A union of two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same sex marriage. You can check Websters and all the other dictionaries they all include same sex marriage. If you don’t have a current dictionary Google it.
——————————————————————————–
Chris
The Rod Drehers of the world simply cannot fathom us uppity faggots gettin’ all hatey right back at them.
One almost wonders if they could ever fathom the amount of pain & damage that they have directly caused to innocent people’s lives.
But one doesn’t need to wonder if they care.
Rod states, “In California, supporters of Proposition 8, which repealed same-sex marriage, have suffered vandalism, job and business loss, intimidation and harassment by activists.”
And he states this without the faintest tone of hypocrisy. But what Rod conveniently leaves out of that sentence is that gay Americans experience “vandalism, job and business loss, intimidation and harassment” EVERY SINGLE DAY IN THIS COUNTRY. From folks just like him.
To Rod I say this: My brother, your panic is showing. Your world is crumbling. And so you pathetically grasp at straws. It is always the bigot’s last battle cry to blame the oppressed for their oppression.
And surely when those two children grow up and outgrow their father and his bigoted beliefs, they will always feel a slight pang of embarrassment when they read the words written by dear old Dad.
And certainly when Rod meets God and God asks Rod why he allowed such mistreatment of HIS gay creations, Rod will tell God that Rod did that to honor God????
You see, Rod, there simply IS no reconciliation, no justification for treating ‘certain human beings’ as less than human beings. That you would even try and present this as an issue of morality while participating in Apartheid toward innocent American citizens, by default, would exclude you from having any moral voice whatsoever. Your bigotry has clouded your judgment, brother. You aren’t the ‘good guy’ this time. And no amount of moral posturing will prove otherwise.
May God reveal himself to you in a way that you can come to understand your errors and ask forgivness accordingly. God forgives.
So will we.
Sebs
Queerty: Do Gays Have To Feel Empathy Toward Religious Conservatives Who Hate Them?
a big, loud, an simple NO
Bill Perdue
No. 53 • WTF – Robespierre was not so much a revolutionist as he was a right centrist like you who lost his moorings.
Sam Adams, on the other had was an audacious revolutionist and a rock solid man of the people who fought tireslssly to end colonialism and royal rule. Between the two I much prefer Adams approach which he summed up saying
And he summed you up pretty well when he said:
Good luck with that.
Chris
“Now my point is you keep latching ur movement to the black civil rights movement when the blacks are publicly disagreeing and rejecting your cause. Some are even insulted to be compared to you. This rejection is not putting you in the best light and is sweet ammunition for antigay groups to diss you.And do you know the worst part..the public agrees!! Its embarassing!”
The only thing that is “embarassing” is that some in a group of people who also had to fight for rights that they should have always had can be so hypocritical when it comes to rights for others. The movement for gay civil rights is comparable to ANY civil rights movement. If anybody feels offended to be compared to it, it’s a shame that they feel such bigotry after being subjected to so much of it themselves.
Maybe some homophobic blacks “disagree” that gay rights are fundamentally similar to black rights or women’s rights and “reject our cause.” You and these people don’t understand that we’re not asking for you to be some kind of official sponsor – we are speaking the truth that our fight IS similar and that your discrimination IS wrong. We are being denied rights for no other reason than how we were born. The reasons gays should have rights is the reason blacks, women, EVERYONE should have civil rights. There is no room for different opinions, let alone “empathy” for them, when it comes to facts. And the fact is that sexuality is not a choice, and that discrimination on that basis goes against all American values.
To close, I’d just like to say the phrase “valid religious reasons” makes me laugh.
WTF
Yes – Sam Adams was *all* about concentrating power in as few hands as possible and using it to criminalize the modes of thought, speech, and expression that the folks were administering the said power disapproved of.
Anyhow – I agree that the gay Robespierre comment was off base. A would be gay Jim Jones is closer to the mark. Good luck getting the rest of the gay community, much less the rest of the country to line-up for their helping from the drum of anti-free speech koolaid…
TomEM
LGB issues are, first and foremost, gender issues; though it seems some straight women haven’t figured that out yet.
Black people should not compare themselves to LGB people: Some of us find *that* offensive!
TomEM
“Straight” Black people [that was supposed to have read] should not compare … & etc.
SoylentDIva
Why should we have to see things from their side–they certainly never do the same for us?
We only want the rights everyone else takes for granted and to be left in peace. They want to be all up in our faces with their BS and to force us to live according to their screwed up mythology regardless of what it takes to do so. We didn’t start this “culture war”, they did.
naghanenu
I dont know.. the amount of hate i see spewing from this side is more than i have ever heard or seen from the so called bigots “anti-gays”. Marriage was never something gays did or could do so how exactly is are you being denied your rights?
The reality is they do have every right to say their part as you do. Marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for as long as oganised society has been in existence. The main reason it was and is still hte norm is that baby creation. Yep i said it. Babies happen when a man and a woman copulate regardless of race. That gives people the confidence to say that the male and female bodies connect and that is why most people can not support homosexuality or gay marriage. Religion just happens to promote this world view.
Now you are asking them to say marriage is suddenly ok for two men or two women and you are wondering why this is so hard to swallow
The main reason religious groups are scared to let this go is you will sue them for denying you some facilities they allow traditional marriage to have because they are against gay marriage(which you have already started doing btw).
Stop suing and blasting people who for their religious reasons may not attend to you or your marriage. But no, if a Catholic photographer will not shoot your marriage then of course he must be a Nazi and you carry him to court and force him to lose his livelihood. How about the religious agencies that cannot based on their faith let gay people adopt kids…you sue them and force them to close down.
Yes, i get it. It sucks that religion is not on the gay side but it is not their fault and you should stop punishing them for it. The bible was here before we came and will still be here when we go. It is time to learn to live with it. Educate these peoples to see that your side is not so terrible. Talk to them and try and mingle with them and see if hearts will not soften or opinions will not change.. use peace not bullying to win your way
Peter
Some people continue their speech about how marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Well it’s too bad that these uneducated people don’t know how to read; because history of this old planet has recorded otherwise. As a matter of fact, the first church sponsored weddings were for gay weddings.
Being equal is the basic premise of our Constitution. However the premise of many religions is that “we have some different rules to follow” (so that we can prove that we are different). This is the problem for the religious, as they MUST BE DIFFERENT in order to maintain their difference and retain their flock. Egalitarianism is a concept that is therefore totally impossible for a religion to follow.
And Gay people just happen to be the present group to discriminate against in order to keep their religion together.
Chris
“The reality is they do have every right to say their part as you do. Marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for as long as oganised society has been in existence. The main reason it was and is still hte norm is that baby creation. Yep i said it. Babies happen when a man and a woman copulate regardless of race. That gives people the confidence to say that the male and female bodies connect and that is why most people can not support homosexuality or gay marriage. Religion just happens to promote this world view.”
The people who can not “support” homosexuality are the idiots who are too egocentric to believe that someone can have a different sexuality from them. The only reason that homosexuality and bisexuality is so “hard to swallow” is because it is a minority, and, historically, the majority likes to keep the minority under their control as much as possible.
“Yes, i get it. It sucks that religion is not on the gay side but it is not their fault and you should stop punishing them for it. The bible was here before we came and will still be here when we go. It is time to learn to live with it. Educate these peoples to see that your side is not so terrible. Talk to them and try and mingle with them and see if hearts will not soften or opinions will not change.. use peace not bullying to win your way”
No one has bullied anybody into anything except the idiot religious nuts and the straight-out homophobes. You are still too crazy to see that there is no reason for any sane person to be denied rights.
The bible is a bunch of FAIRY TALES and people who are too stupid to not see through it should have no say in what anybody else can or can’t do. It is their fault that they allow themselves to be brainwashed and to believe in such garbage. It’s their fault that they choose to respect a book with more plot holes than Transformers 2 more than fellow human beings. Just accept that your views are bigoted – you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. No one is trying to stop you from hating homosexuals – we’re just trying to let you know that you’re assholes for doing it, and that you shouldn’t have any say in our rights.
Peter
Oh yes,,and a difference, therefore means better than.
1EqualityUSA
Dear Naghanenu, Because you are black and also a woman, you are hereby restricted to read only Queerty’s article on Bernice King.
Since you have been so restricted, read Peter J. Gomes’ opinion below her article, over and over and over again, until you finally get it through your head that gays indeed do have a place in this world and, yes, Naghanenu, in Christianity.
When you finally realize that discrimination against gays is just as heinous as discrimination against blacks and women, you can join other conversations again.
Shall we all vote on your freedoms?
Lex
Gotta love how some commenters are so focused on black people. Never gets old.
1EqualityUSA
Lex, the first line of Naghanenu’s post reads, “As a black woman, let me say again…do not use black people as your ‘card'” So it is totally appropriate to address this issue. The anti-gay sentiment needs to be addressed, even if irony is used to shed light on it.
scott ny'er
what i still don’t understand is how is all of existence, that someone can definitely say marriage has not happened between same sex couples? Prove it to me that that never happened.
And not all religions take exception to same sex marriages. Only the crazy, hate-inducing, war-mongering religions feel that way.
Jerry Priori
Stupid black people. You see, the KKK was right–give black people civil rights and soon everyone will want them. Had the black people in AmeriKKKa just realized when they were struggling for civil rights that before they knew it their comfy assimilation would lead to same-sex couples demanding their civil rights, too–well, I’m sure they would have just sat in the back of the bus happily where they belonged.
I’m always amazed at those who should know better–civil rights is everyone’s concern and no one group holds the mantle of most deserving or most oppressed–are just as narrow-minded and idiotic as those born into centuries of unquestioned privilege. And the root almost always seems to be religion. What a poisonous collections of ideas.
The ultimate in Conservative politics: I got mine; the rest of you can fuck off.
Attmay
@68 Lex:
I hope you fall off your high horse.
Black people have been the most discriminated against people in this country for the first two centuries of this nation’s history and going back to the colonial days, yet many of them (but not all) use the same arguments used to deny them their humanity and their rights to do the same to us. This is not just bigotry but cognitive dissonance as well. And it is widespread. Other groups subject to discrimination in the past, such as Jews and Asians, are far less homophobic. But their communities are not joined at the hip to the beyond-reactionary Southern Baptist church.
And it is NOT bigotry to point that out, the constant squawking of the R-word from censorious tyrants notwithstanding. This is not about black people per se. It is about a serious problem in the black community that is killing us, and not figuratively, I’m afraid. And it’s not doing them any favors.
Can you not see the difference?
FakeName
Nag lies: “The main reason religious groups are scared to let this go is you will sue them for denying you some facilities they allow traditional marriage to have because they are against gay marriage(which you have already started doing btw).”
Really? Can you cite some court cases in which gay couples have sued religious groups for “denying…facilities”? Can you cite even a single case?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Know why you can’t? Because gay people understand the very simple concept that you are apparently unable to grasp: Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things. A million same-sex couples could enter into civil marriages tomorrow and it would have zero effect on mixed-sex married couples.
Nag lies: “But no, if a Catholic photographer will not shoot your marriage then of course he must be a Nazi and you carry him to court and force him to lose his livelihood. How about the religious agencies that cannot based on their faith let gay people adopt kids…you sue them and force them to close down.”
Cite the cases where this has happened or stop your lies.
Nag lies: “It sucks that religion is not on the gay side but it is not their fault and you should stop punishing them for it.”
It’s not their fault that they choose to interpret their holy book the way they interpret it? And sweetie? Check up on where various religions actually stand on LGBT issues. It may surprise you to learn that some of the majors are “on the gay side”.
Does your ass ever get tired out from the amount of talking you do out of it?
Bill Perdue
No. 59 • WTF – You’re smart to admit your failure with the Robespierre idiocy but you’ll have to be a bit more original than the kool-aid bs. What a let down. I expected something original not that tired, tattered and much overused crap.
Try Googleing “most humorous insults”. May that’ll give you some newer material to copy.
And you know, Sam Adams was right about you.
WTF
Bill:
If I wanted to laugh, I’d ask you to enter “socialist calculation debate” into the Google search bar and then render your best attempts to refute the conclusions that even socialist economists were forced to concede over seventy years ago.
Crank out your best attempt at a technical refutation, post it anywhere on the web that you like, and I’ll have more than enough humor to keep me amused for quite some time.
That’d be even funnier and more outlandish than your conjectures about persuading the majority to get behind the idea of empowering brigades of gay storm-troopers or their proxies to seize unfriendly pulpits and otherwise define what it is and is not permissible to think, express, and believe.
schlukitz
@ No. 26 Nag:
Now my point is you keep latching ur movement to the black civil rights movement when the blacks are publicly disagreeing and rejecting your cause. Some are even insulted to be compared to you.
And if that isn’t outright, blatant bigotry, then I don’t know what the fuck is!
Attmay
@75 WTF:
“That’d be even funnier and more outlandish than your conjectures about persuading the majority to get behind the idea of empowering brigades of gay storm-troopers or their proxies to seize unfriendly pulpits and otherwise define what it is and is not permissible to think, express, and believe.”
We can’t even get a simple pie thrown at Maggie Gallagher’s fat ugly face. If we fought them as viciously as we fought each other we would win the Culture War tomorrow.
Joetx
As someone from the DFW area, I can tell you that the DMN op-ed columnists are very conservative. Dreher is typical of the crap that gets published there.
schlukitz
@ No. 63 Nag:
use peace not bullying to win your way
Yep. Just like the church did with the inquisition, the torture and burning of witches and homosexuals at the stake and all of the other horrific examples of peace-making by the church.
Read up on your history, for crying out loud. Your conspicuous ignorance is an embarrassment to all!
And that ain’t hate-spewing, honey-child; that’s just telling it like it is.
1EqualityUSA
Pecola is powerless to reject the unachieveable values esteemed by those around her and finally descends into insanity.
Naghanenu, Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye” is about this kind of discrimination. Is this what you hope to promote in your present world?
Open your eyes. Discrimination is wrong. Get on board and say it, “Discrimination is wrong.”
mark
F*CK NO
next question
Larry
This guy doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Basically, he’s saying we should accommodate the anti-gay attitudes and baseless fears of religious people who think that any deviation from “tradition” will inevitably harm society.
Basically, hard evidence belies the argument that same-sex marriage is bad for society. Numerous studies have shown that same-sex couples are just as capable of raising kids as opposite-sex couples, and those kids emerge just as well-adjusted. Furthermore, the argument that same-sex marriages will have some deleterious effect on marriage as a whole is both absurd and hurtful because it implies that same-sex relationships themselves — and by extension, gay people — are harmful to society. This is what makes opponents of same-sex marriage bigots, the fact that they see us as a threat to society by virtue of our existence.
Side note:
While I disagree with a lot of what Naghanenu has to say, she has a valid point when she says we should be trying to win on our own merits rather than trying to “piggyback” on black civil rights. The modern feminist movement and civil rights movements for other racial minorities and gays indeed were inspired by the black civil rights movement, but they never said anything like “Female is the New Black.” They fought on their own terms, and they won. So why can’t we do the same?
Frankly, I always saw something mildly racist about “Gay is the New Black” because it implies that racism against blacks is over. It may be in an institutional sense — racial discrimination is illegal just about everywhere — but racist attitudes still exist in much of the country. Not only that, but homophobic attitudes and homophobia in practice bear more resemblance to anti-Semitism than to racism.
Attmay
@82 Larry
“The modern feminist movement and civil rights movements for other racial minorities and gays indeed were inspired by the black civil rights movement, but they never said anything like “Female is the New Black.””
In 1972 John Lennon wrote a song called “Woman is the Nigger of the World” to illustrate the problems that women have all over the world in fighting for their rights, and in spite of the context he used it in, it was controversial because of the racial slur. But some blacks supported it. Here’s what John himself said about the song and the controversy, along with a performance of the song itself on “The Dick Cavett Show”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lMxWWK218
“Frankly, I always saw something mildly racist about “Gay is the New Black” because it implies that racism against blacks is over. It may be in an institutional sense — racial discrimination is illegal just about everywhere — but racist attitudes still exist in much of the country. Not only that, but homophobic attitudes and homophobia in practice bear more resemblance to anti-Semitism than to racism.”
There are still racist attitudes against blacks, and they are not always from whites. And there are black racists as vicious as the black homophobes; often they are the exact same people. But we are targeted as viciously as they were, we have laws passed against us, and we are even targeted by some of them.
I agree with you about the similarities to anti-semitism. Like gays, Jews were often forced to hide their identity (which only light-skinned blacks could do) and were (and still are) targeted for attacks and genocide at the hands of Christians and Muslims. If gay was “the new Jewish”, would you be offended by it and call it anti-semitic? I am a Jew and I would find such a comparison to be pinpoint-accurate.
If you follow that line of logic, Gay has risen from the new Jewish to the new female. We are raised by them, and at best all they do is put us on a pedestal as long as we are subservient to them. What no heterosexual can ever be denied becomes a privilege if we demand it. Recall the fight for Women’s Suffrage; there were men who claimed “if women get the vote, men will get two votes.”
But in actuality: we are every race, every religion, every nationality, every gender, and even every species. Gay is Every Oppressed Class. And we are not the “new” black, Jewish, or female. We have been oppressed for thousands of years. Quite frankly, they were all the new Gay.
The Milkman
The women’s liberation movement won? The equal rights amendment wasn’t passed as far as I know, and women still suffer from unfair pay for equal work, and continue to be assaulted and harrassed. I’m not sure that it’s a good idea to use the women’s movement as an example of the efficacy of “not-piggybacking-on-the-racial-minorities-civil-rights-movement”. Women have come a long way in recent decades, but they’re still fighting. So are people of color, immigrants, etc…
Imagine if we all banded together and demanded fair treatment for everyone. We’d be unstoppable. It’s completely absurd to think it could ever happen, but it’s fun to daydream.
Bill Perdue
WTF – You’re comments have degenerated into creating simple minded straw men that you can then proceed to heorically slay.
Adams wasn’t an Nazi monster and neither am I. If the idea of gay storm troopers turns you on then find an affinity group and go play out your sick fantasies in some other venue.
Nothing in what you say takes away from the fact that Adams the revolutionist was talking about people like you, sniveling sellouts who want hate speech and the violence it produces to go unchecked.
WTF
Bill:
I’ve read Sam Adams, and while I can’t claim that he was a friend of mine, one thing is sure – you are no Sam Adams. Do the following passages sound like the sentiments of a man that’d endorse your ambitions to neuter first ammendment protections for speech and expression:
“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”
“Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”
As for the Stormtrooper fetish – thankfully I don’t require anything that exotic – but I’m glad to live in a country where any consenting adults that wish to indulge in it can do so where neither likes of either Pat Robertson nor Bill Perdue can enlisting the law to suppress it or prosecute them for their participation in it.
Kellyc01
From reading ‘naghanenu’s posts, it seems pretty obvious to me that naghanenu is not a black woman.
On the internet, you can be anything.
I think it’s a dude using this minority status to Trojan horse his views here. You’re being played.
Kellyc01
Oh and another thing to naghanenu: it’s not tiring for me to use the black card.
It’s a great historical analogy; sorry if you don’t like it.
We will work with it.
1EqualityUSA
Fascination notion, Kellyc01, the language usage does seem contrived.
jessi
@nag63 I hate to break it to you, but most straight people don’t have sex just to procreate. How many children do you have, and how many times have you had sex? Truthfully lady! Your procreation excuse is getting old and tiresome. Why should married people get special priviledges that single or gay couples can’t have? They get tax breaks and will be able to collect social security benefits if their spouse dies.
Alan
No. The perpetrators should be held accountable for their oppression, discrimination, and hate. You earn empathy and respect by treating others equally.
Bill Perdue
No. 86 • WTF Glad to hear that you finally figured out how to Google Sam Adams. He was a revolutionist. So am I.
You, on the other hand are someone who wants to guarantee that Jimmy Swaggert can continue to say:
You’re on the side of Robertson and Swaggart. That puts you on the wrong side of the fight for LGBT liberation and on the wrong side of history.
WTF
If I’m for freedom of speech and expression – even the stuff that I find particularly loathsome – I’m on the side of Jimmy Swaggart? Quite the non-sequiter there.
LGBT and any other liberation is going to come from persuading people to reconsider their beliefs and opinions, not depriving them of their right to express them.
Free speech restrictions are far more likely to be used as a means for the majority to suppress speech by a minority that they dislike than the other way around.
As far as this revolutionary business is concerned, please. Spare us the boutique parlor-Marxist bloviation. Do yourself a favor and find a safe outlet for your “revolutionary” pretensions that matches your true level of conviction and committment.
Buy a contume, join a drama troupe that re-enacts the storming of the Bastille in Unitarian basements and/or in space sub-leased from Trekkie conventions. Get it out of your system without disrupting the social order that delivers you your fair-trade, dairy-free, organic-soy machiatto every morning.
Bill Perdue
WTF – Most people at least wait for an offer of pie in the sky but you sold out for a chance to go into group therapy and convince Swaggart or another bigot like, um, Bill Clinton, the author of DOMA and DADT, to embrace diversity and sanity and stop being such greedy piglets.
“LGBT and any other liberation is going to come from persuading people to reconsider their beliefs and opinions.” Tell that to the political descendents of Adams and Franklin, Sitting Bull and Tecumseh. Tell it to the Irish and the Palestinians.
“ Free speech restrictions are far more likely to be used as a means for the majority to suppress speech by a minority that they dislike than the other way around. Of course, stupid, they’re the basis for unfair election laws, McCarthyism and the redbaiting you do persistently but clumsily engage in. They’re the reason why we have to fundamentally change the US, the biggest banana republic of them all.
Let us know how ‘group’ went. Did you, Slick Willie and Jimbo have a group hug? Didja bond. Will Jimmy give up diving on cheap sex workers and marry you? Will Slick stop crossing unions and LGBT picket lines? We await with bated breath the next airing of “As the Stomach Turns” starring WTF, His Slickness and JimmyLeeBobJoeRay.
As for your abject kowtowing to bigots and the violence they create, that’s a revealing gauge or the depth of your delusions.
Time Out
I’d like to say a few things: 1. tolerance by definition is allowing someone to believe whatever they want. If something is to change, it should be done by bringing other people to your side, NOT by belittling or demeaning those who are on the opposite sides, and that goes for both the church and the GLBT rights sides.
2. I’m a Christian who actually reads the Bible, and most of the people who are attacking same sex couples are not. If they were, they would see how wrong it is to do so. As for legal marriage, to be honest, I don’t care, because as has been pointed out, the church does not have to recognize those marriages.
3. I admit that “Christians” have dropped the ball BIG TIME in this area. Somewhere in the past, the church, at least in the public arena has deemed itself the moral watchdog of everyone, both in said church and out. This was wrong. Look, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, but I also understand that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind by browbeating or belittling. I, again as someone who reads the Bible and tries to take the example of Jesus…the one so many claim to follow…and love and value people. I’m not asking anyone to change their mind about the issue, I’m just asking for a little patience, and yes, empathy. It takes any large group of people a long time to learn or unlearn anything, and trust me, I’m trying to do my part to change the church from the inside out and show that we don’t need to change behavior first. If you could meet me, I would send you to one of my several gay friends and ask them if they are offended by the way that I treat them or by my beliefs. I assure you the answer would be a resounding “no.” To all you Christians or “Christians” out there, remember that if someone is attracted to men, women, or smurfs, my God values them, and so should I.
Chris
No. 95, Time Out:
I can’t show empathy to people who view me as an “immoral” person just for being who I am. I made no choice to be homosexual, and I don’t understand why you see my and other LGB’s sexualities as something worth having a “belief” about, whether or not you choose to discriminate on that belief. I can’t show empathy for your point of view without sacrificing all my dignity.
Surely you can empathize with that.
1EqualityUSA
Dear Time Out, I appreciate the spirit of your post. In the heat of battle for civil rights, our community has endured unpleasant humans, claiming to be Christians, slandering, generalizing, marginalizing, harshly judging, and lying about us. So many people have been permanently turned off to Christ, due to these uneducated, unsophisticated, religious bullies.
You said, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality….” The word “homosexual” was added in 1949. People are reading translations that cast extreme hardships on those of us born this way. Jesus never talked about gays, nor are gays mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet expounds upon gays. It really wasn’t that concerning in early churches. Being judgmental is the worse offense. That’s spoken of so often that it would seem to be the more important lesson for us.
Freedom4AlllTx said it best:
“Labelling homosexuality as a sin is not something new or rule made up in the last century.”
True. But not all Christians everywhere since Christianity began labelled it as such.
“The obvious verse condemning homosexuality are in Leviticus and Romans.”
If you understand Biblical Hebrew and Greek (and even Latin and Syric and Aramaic) you might be surprised how those verses describe religious purity rites and not what Christianity later defined as “sin.” Also, English translations rely on translators, and translators are not infallible. That’s one reason why there are more than one translation.
As a Christian, the Levitical laws hold no water for us because they were for a certain people for a certain time. That is why I won’t sell my daughter into slavery, kill people who remarry or commit adultry, etc.
“Christ does not speak on homosexuality, but He does speak on marriage as the relationship between one man and one wife.”
Christ was asked about divorce. He quotes a familiar passage that his audience would know. He was not closing the definition of marriage but answering a question about divorce.
“The world says that homosexuality is a lifestyle that should be accepted. But as believers, we are told that it is a sinful lifestyle that can not be condoned within the body of Christ.”
First of all, lifestyle and what someone is are two different things. There are many lifestyles in the heterosexual world that could use a “walk and talk with Jesus.” But what someone is does not necessarily mean all who are like that person has that same lifestyle.
Nowhere in Scripture (translated properly) states that a homosexual is a sinner based on their sexual orientation. There are practices the Scripture condemns: temple prostitution, using sex for religious worship, and rape. These “lifestyles” are condemned to all people.
Christ welcomed all to him, and rejected no one. If the person changes, it is they who change NOT the congregation towards them. Christ’s commandment is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER, not, “love them only if they conform to your understanding of my message.” (One of my favorite lines!)
When you can show your love for your neighbor without any strings, that is when you will know that Christ is in you and you in him.
———————————————–This guy translates scripture from the original Greek and Hebrew. I tested it out with multiple concordances.————————————
So, Time Out, now tap on into the “Bernice King” Queerty article and read the opinion piece below it. I posted a fantastic letter by Harvard’s Peter J. Gomes. Read it very slowly and carefully and even two or three times. I’m curious what you have to say about this, since you, “believe that the Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality.” Know that we are born gay. This is not a choice.
If you have the time, 60 Minutes did a piece about gays in which twins were featured. (Google video 60 Minutes, Gay, twins.) This segment, headed by Leslie Stahl, spoke of physiological components to one’s sexual orientation. Studies are being conducted about orientation being influenced by the mother’s own immune system. The more boys a mother has, the greater the chances that one of her youngest will be gay. (Population control? I wonder.) The mother’s immune system, subjected to the “y” chromosome, sees it as a foreign substance, so that by the 3rd or 4th male, physiological responses are often set into motion, a combination of genetics, hormones, and immunological systems are being studied, as to why some turn out gay. There’s so much we have yet to learn about this. I would like to know what modern day Christians think about this research and how that effects their opinions on those of us born gay. These boys are so young and innocent and natural. I cannot comprehend anyone being able to point a judgmental finger at these youngsters. Back in Biblical times, had they known, what we are just now beginning to comprehend, perhaps Paul (Saul) would have had a deeper understanding. Perhaps any religion that discriminates against gays would benefit from this research. Christ Jesus must have known, as He stayed so silent on the subject of gays. Google video this segment. It’s fascinating.
Rachel Jayne
Marriage is based on sex, not the concept of sexual identity. The language of sexual orientation is irrelevant to the passages about marriage in the New Testament. Marriage is not something APPLIED to a sexual relationship; it’s the reason for one. People who enter into a marriage are at that point entitled to an appropriate sexual relationship. The approval of sex between male and female comes through the sanctifying of marriage, to get at the real bottom line. That is the whole reason why heterosexuality is the standard.
Speaking in terms of denial of rights has no parallelism with this, because the premises are so different.
For example–I would say the fact that so-and-so was “born gay” or “born straight” refers to a potential behavior, not to his identity as a person. I don’t automatically merge sexual attraction with sexual behavior, possibly because my entire attitude about sex is different. Sure, sex is a natural, but it’s also, and primarily, a sacred and spiritually influential act to be circumspect about—as mentioned above. Something being natural doesn’t mean that it has no moral constraints on it—for example, food.
The influence of this attitude about sex makes the gay rights movement seem odd and childish in many ways. Some of the responses on here–this person’s f**king bigot, a wicked lady, vile, etc. Come on! Who can possibly take that seriously? The logic here is shaped heavily by irreverent, aggressively secular, drama queens/kings taking serious liberties with world history, civil rights; even HUMAN rights violation claims—tossed around over non-acknowledgement of homosexual relationships.
1EqualityUSA
In applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].)
Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is
not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual
orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.
Read the decision here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
Clearly, immutability is not the issue here, the central issue here is equal protection under the constitution.
1EqualityUSA
As for harming marriage, similar arguments were shot down in Massachusetts. Your moral beliefs cannot strip others of contractual protections. We should not have any “onus” or burden, or any other hoop to jump through to justify our existence. We are American citizens and many disagree with your beliefs. There are over 1300 rights that we are being denied because of other peoples’ beliefs. This persecution has gone on long enough and we are not tolerating “outsider status” any longer, just to satisfy your comfort level. The government’s ENDORSEMENT of one group’s religious values, especially if others that don’t hold those views, is COERCION. Your unfounded fears didn’t prove to have a legitimate secular purpose and it failed, hence, gay marriage.
Separation of church and state prohibits religious favoritism and cannot promote one religion over another.
In regard to passing judgement in cases where separation of church and state is concerned, tests are set up.
1) the Lemon test, named after Alton J. Lemon from a Supreme Court case (1971)
2) O’Connor’s Endorsement test
3) Kennedy’s Coercion test
If any of these three tests are violated, the law is deemed unconstitutional. The same sex marriage ban would be endorsing one religious view over many others, thus creating exclusionary v. Inclusive types of religious doctrine. Such a ban would coerce individuals to support or conform to a specific religions. This government entanglement is unconstitutional.
1EqualityUSA
1. Marriage (Matthew 19:3-1 2) Matthew has already discussed divorce in 5:31-32; cf: notes on that passage. He draws this section from Mark 10:2-12, which consists of two parts; (a) Mark 10:2-9, a little ” ;paradigm” or “pronouncement story,” which culminates in the saying, “Therefore what God has yoked together, let not man separate”; and (b) Mark 10:11-12, a sayings group from a separate source, which resembles the Q logion in Luke 16:18. Mark links the two together with vs. 10. Matthew, wishing to construct a smoother story, transposes the substance of Mark 10:3-5 to follow Mark 10:9, and makes other changes to accord with his own point of view.
3. Matthew writes for Christians who probably know that the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai debate the legal grounds for divorce (cf. on 5:31); hence he adds the phrase( for any cause )
4-6. Almost the same argument is given in the “Fragments of a Zadokite Work” 7:1-3 “The builders of the wall (the Pharisees?) are caught by fornication in taking two wives during their lifetime.But the fundamental principle of the creation is “Male a nd Female created He them.’ And they who went into the Ark, “Two and two went into the Ark.'” (R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudpigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), II, 810.) Like the principle in Luke 16: 18, this teaching, if taken by itself, would seem to rule out divorce entirely. In any case, Jesus goes beyond the Pharisees in emphasizing the permanence of marriage. God’s purpose is a stable family life, and divorce is no part of that purpose. Here the Savior answered that because there were infidelities in some marriages.
================================
As Freedom4All so eloquently posted, “Nowhere in Scripture (translated properly) states that a homosexual is a sinner based on their sexual orientation. There are practices the Scripture condemns: temple prostitution, using sex for religious worship, and rape. These “lifestyles” are condemned to all people. Christ welcomed all to him, and rejected no one. If the person changes, it is they who change NOT the congregation towards them. Christ’s commandment is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER, not, “love them only if they conform to your understanding of my message.
When you can show your love for your neighbor without any strings, that is when you will know that Christ is in you and you in him.” (thanks Freedom4All of Texas, beautiful words)
1EqualityUSA
Any man, be he straight or gay, has an equal right to marry a woman (with some restrictions that apply equally to all) and any woman, be she straight or gay, has an equal right to marry a man (again, with some restrictions that apply equally to all). There is no discrimination, no inequality.”
This is such twaddle. The Iowa ruling slammed this warped mindset in it’s ruling:
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all.
1EqualityUSA
(My sincere thanks goes to “Blackout” for these insightful posts)
Prior to the 10th Century, European marriages took place wholly outside the confines and authority of the christian church. The church claimed retroactively that it had “always” been a sacrament (in the Council of Trent, 1545 C.E.), but historically speaking this simply isn’t true. In reality, marriage was declared an official institution and sacrament of the catholic church at the Council of Florence in 1431 C.E., though to be fair the move to do this had been slowly growing for several hundred years prior. History indicates that marriage originated as a secular, legal arrangement (just as it is now).
More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstrated a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let’s not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emperor Nero publicly entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire).
The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of Western judaeo-christianity and islam—and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse–the rabid opposition same-sex couples and their relationships that we see today seems more than a little odd.
It is also of interest to note that the Common Law was not of christian origin. In fact Thomas Jefferson repudiated this assertion specifically, noting that…
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law…For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law … This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it … That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
Also, it is important to remember that from the time of the founding, the U.S. has accepted the validity of Common Law marriages, which of course are non-religious. So in fact, it is simply untrue that the institution of marriage in the United States is in any way uniquely tied to the late-come religious additions to the historical institution of marriage. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiography…
“The bill for establishing religious freedom…meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
In fact, the founding fathers we’re quite worldly and aware of the existence of other religions (and even atheists) among the citizens of the early United States, and expressly acted to protect THEIR freedom of religion, too.
Holly
Are you saying that we are similar to slaves now? Because we’re not. There is a big difference. Tolerance is a big step that EVERYone needs to take. regardless of what they believe.
What happened to the Golden Rule that we ALL were supposed to have learned in kindergarten? Treat others as you wish to be treated? I know I probably sound naive to a lot of people. But I, for one, try not to judge people based on their beliefs, even if that belief is that I am going to hell.
I don’t agree with anything “Rod” had to say. But on the same note, can’t agree with most of this article that supposedly is on my side. Gay marriage is a big issue, and can’t be simplified to these two extremes.