Just wanted to share this...Keith Olbermann speaks out against the passing of Proposition 8 in California.
I myself find it shocking that such legislation can pass on the same day we elect the first African-American president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Olberman asks the salient question
ReplyDelete"This is what your religion tells you to do?"
It is sad that the answer for so many who hold to an "inerrant" bible, and that the bible is the "true, spoken word of God", is simply-
Yep, priests of our religion tell us this is what we are to believe, so we believe it.
This same parochial thinking also afflicts virtually everyone who still thinks that Genesis is an actual recounting of our creation.
Benjamin Franklin said-
"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."
I personally dislike Olberman.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder what he thought to accomplish for same-sex marriages by attacking marriage as an institution.
His argument sounds like 'sour grapes' and I wouldn't want him to be the spokesman for any of my 'causes'.
That aside, I do think that this has created a mess in CA.
I think the nation should redefine everything. Let the legal contract between two consenting adults be known as a "legal union" so that even us straight people have to get a legal union to be recognized by the state with all the same rights.
ReplyDeleteThen make "marriage" be the religious ceremony only. If a church wishes to give a marriage ceremony to a gay couple so be it.
All I can say for certain is a lot of California marriage businesses are going to lose a lot of money from this.
LivingAsOneFreed sez:
ReplyDeleteI personally dislike Olberman.
Nothing like getting your personal biases out in the open...
I do wonder what he thought to accomplish for same-sex marriages by attacking marriage as an institution.
How exactly did Olbermann "attack marriage as an institution"? Be specific.
His argument sounds like 'sour grapes'...
Sounds like you don't even know what the expression 'sour grapes' means.
...and I wouldn't want him to be the spokesman for any of my 'causes'.
On that, at least, we can agree. Not to worry, though...I seriously doubt Keith would consent to be a spokesman for any of your 'causes'.
Did anyone see Ben Affleck's SNL skit of Olbermann? Funny stuff.
ReplyDeleteyaeger,
I was thinking something similar to that the other day and I think that, as long as either couple gets the same protection under the law, it's the only sensible way to resolve the situation.
I certainly don't think that churches or any religion should be legally compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for people who fall outside of that religion's definition of marriage. If you're part of a church and you want to get married there, you should be observing their traditions/rules.
If there is any legal discrepancy between straight and gay marriages - as recognized by the state - then that would be a clear violation of the constitution, right? Where's Froggie when I need him!
It'll be interesting to look back on this era in, say, 30 years time and see what the success rate for gay marriage is in terms of divorce etc..
laof-
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent that your religious outlook actually causes you to filter information and distort it as it hits your brain.
Try viewing the clip again and look for where Olberman "attacks marriage as an institution".
Here is a case in point where your theism causes an evident distortion of reality.
You shut your eyes so you can see what you want to see, and clog your mind with religion so you can think what you want to think.
Try opening your eyes and mind to cognitive thinking and reality. You will be much better for it.
ExPatmatt: the wife and I laughed until we cried when we saw that skit...especially when Affleck named Richard Wolfe "Worst Person in the World", complete with Nazi uniform. ^_^
ReplyDeleteTripmasterMonkey said:
ReplyDelete"Nothing like getting your personal biases out in the open..."
Your bias - and the bias of many others here - is evident in most criticisms. Why must I be held to a higher standard?
and:
"Sounds like you don't even know what the expression 'sour grapes' means."
I base my definition of 'sour grapes' on the Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Grapes as anyone who was a kid should know. Perhaps you'd like to share your definition if it differs from that.
'Ben Franklin' said:
"It is apparent that your religious outlook actually causes you to filter information and distort it as it hits your brain."
It is apparent? How so? Because I have a viewpoint that differs from yours? I could say that my 'religious outlook' (or outlook on religion) has nothing to do with my opinion of Olberman (as a person) but I very much doubt you'd listen, let alone believe me. Give it a rest - you're nowhere near the unbiased observer you sometimes claim to be. Just the fact that you feel everything I express my opinion on is 'clouded' by a 'religious outlook' shows that.
Also said:
"Here is a case in point where your theism causes an evident distortion of reality."
Please explain how this is 'evident'. Because I disagree with Olberman as a person? So if you were to express a dislike of someone (and I'll throw out Limbaugh or Hannity for examples only), what would your reasoning be clouded by?
BTW, nice quotemine on your quote by B.Franklin, which in its entirety is:
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: the morning daylight appears plainer when you put out your candle."
expatmatt said:
ReplyDelete"It'll be interesting to look back on this era in, say, 30 years time and see what the success rate for gay marriage is in terms of divorce etc.."
I agree on this. I've often wondered this, with the rate of failure of marriages in general in the U.S.
To add on to my previous post - my critique of Olberman's delivery was not a criticism of the message, although some biased observers feel that it was.
ReplyDeleteI'll be honest: I dislike Opinion As Journalism. My opinion is just as valid (though maybe not as entertaining) as any other shmuck, and there are certainly as many shmucks as arseholes on this planet.
ReplyDeleteRant aside, I've ignored Olbermann before because of the above. Even if he was saying something that made sense, I wasn't interested. I *still* shy away from it.
But that was an excellent speech.
---
As for where I come down on the issue, I'm a bit of a political conservative: the decision as to how Marriage (note the capital m) should be defined should be up to the individual states and religious institutions. If the citizens of CA vote for it to involve a single mand and a single woman, so be it.
I am, however, a strong advocate for an additional legally equivalent union. Homosexual couples deserve the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples enjoy.
The exact same rights, not just a slightered watered-down version.
whateverman said:
ReplyDelete"As for where I come down on the issue,...the decision as to how Marriage (note the capital m) should be defined should be up to the individual states and religious institutions. If the citizens of CA vote for it to involve a single mand and a single woman, so be it."
I agree with WeM - the rights of the states should take precedence in this matter as well as others.
Wow...it nearly brought tears to my eyes. I'll have to put it up on my blog.
ReplyDeleteIf you check out my blog, I wrote about how I stood out in the rain (it didn't rain for too long) protesting Prop 8. And of course, I went out and voted no on it. I did what I could do - unfortunately, that wasn't enough.
I don't really like Olbermann, I find him obnoxious, but I did agree with what he was saying. I just can't wrap my head around disagreeing with someone over who they can love simply because you have an ancient book or a preacher that you feel tells you to. Even when I was going to church I couldn't even begin to fathom telling someone else that they were bad people because they were attracked to someone of the same-sex.
ReplyDeleteExpatmatt
I saw that SNL skit, it was hilarious! I couldn't believe that was Ben Affleck, I haven't had that much respect for his acting ability since Dogma!
Ben Afleck was the only person doing any acting in Dogma.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the gays are all so bothered about; the twin cities of San Fransodom and Los Angomorrah are going to be destroyed by fireballs from God's arsehole next year anyway...
ReplyDelete...yep, Dani'El is still preaching the good news...
Lance,
You did what you could and you've earned yourself a beer.
laof,
Would you say that most Christians are in favour of whateverman's proposing - they just don't want their particular traditions meddled with?
Or do you think that any kind of union between partners should be considered Marriage (man-woman) and anything else is nothing and should not be recognized?
expatmatt asked:
ReplyDelete"Would you say that most Christians are in favour of whateverman's proposing ..."
I don't speak for 'most Christians'. I'm nobody's spokesman but my own.
LivingAsOneFreed sez:
ReplyDeleteI base my definition of 'sour grapes' on the Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Grapes as anyone who was a kid should know. Perhaps you'd like to share your definition if it differs from that.
As I thought...you have no idea what the term actually means.
Either explain how Keith's comment expresses an attempted denial of desire for something not possible to attain, or admit your ignorance.
While you're at it, perhaps you can take the time to explain how Keith "attacked marriage as an institution", seeing as how you ducked the question on your first response.
I find it strange (to say the least), that a vote of merely 4% more than the opposition can determine what rules everybody has to live by. Especially when it's a legislation that takes away rights from a minority of people without the pro-voters having any positive benefit from it whatsoever. And these people have the gall to throw their hands in the air as if they'd won a great victory. Rejoicing at taking away a piece of happiness and hope from other citizens, their self-righteous bellies warmed in the smug glow of hypocritical propaganda, paid for by organizations from other states. Organizations that for one example only subscribed to two-person marriage because that's what was needed to get granted statehood.
ReplyDeleteFour percent!
I wont Godwin this thread, but there are historical parallels.
Is there a single reason against equal marriage that is not based on scriptural authority, personal disgust or fallacious logic?
Countless traditions were found to be harmful or useless and were abandoned. Children raised by gay couples don't become gay, being gay is not contagious, and the only harm such children suffer comes from the bigotry they get confronted with.
Exactly why should children not know that gays exist when they learn about heterosexual love?
ExPatMatt asked "Would you say that most Christians are in favour of whateverman's proposing ..."
ReplyDeleteLAOF responded I don't speak for 'most Christians'. I'm nobody's spokesman but my own.
I'm actually hoping for an answer this EPM's question, too. Even if you only speak for yourself (something which I personally assert as often as possible), can you pretend for a few minutes, and imagine which way the community leans?
Ok, it's an emotionally charged issue, and I think I too would shy away from representing a whole swath of opinions. With that said, I think there's a huge difference between "wanting to maintain the definition of marriage" and "wanting to prevent validation of homosexuality".
I just don't have a handle as to how much Prop8 was motivated by the former as opposed to the latter...
Felix sez:
ReplyDeleteI find it strange (to say the least), that a vote of merely 4% more than the opposition can determine what rules everybody has to live by. Especially when it's a legislation that takes away rights from a minority of people without the pro-voters having any positive benefit from it whatsoever.
Exactly. Tyranny of the majority - the downside of democracy. As Jame Bovard famously observed, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".
TripmasterMonkey:
ReplyDeleteGet your 'I told you so' ready.
You're right. I'm wrong.
I re-listened to Olberman's diatribe. It was during the part when he was quoting the 50% divorce rates (sorry, don't want to transcribe the text at this time) that I misunderstood his intent and intonation.
I apologize for my mischaracterization of this.
I do understand the definition of 'sour grapes' but it was incorrectly applied here, by me, when I listened to it distractedly.
I apologize.
Felix asked Is there a single reason against equal marriage that is not based on scriptural authority, personal disgust or fallacious logic?
ReplyDeleteI think there is a reason, yes, but whether you find it good or not is obviously up for debate :)
Before I explain, let me state for the record: it appears the prevention of homosexual marriage appears to be being done solely on the basis of the reasons you mentioned (rather the one I'm about to). In other words, please don't mistake my opinion as an attempt to sneak "personal disgust" in under the guise of "reason":
Marriage is solely a contract between the couple (or group) and the state; alternately, a third party such as a religious institution may be involved, but this is optional.
At the risk of being seen as cold hearted" or whatever, I'm not denying the ceremony has a lot of spiritual & emotional value. It does. However, such things are optional; after the ceremony is over, besides several smiling people, what's leftover is a legal contract.
That contract establishes rights not afforded to single people. The reason for these benefits is that the governing body generally views comitted couples as being more stable, more productive and more self-sufficient than single individuals. In some cases, this is partly due to a couple being able to rear children.
It is to the state's benefit to encourage unions like this.
Nothing less, nothing more.
Being a legal contract, that state actually should have the right to define who's eligible and who's not. If fairly open-minded, there's no reason why a loving homosexual couple shouldn't be considered eligible. However, the state would be within its rights to declare "the ability to bear children" as being required.
---
There's lots of fuel for an emotionally charged response, so lemme just sum it up as neatly as possible: as a legal contract, the legislative body has the power (and the right) to establish the details.
Obviously, those details aren't allowed to break other laws (the US constitution, for example, or US federal law, etc). But beyond that, it feels to me as if there's no legal or moral justification for granting homosexuals the right to marry if the state wishes otherwise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'Ben Franklin' said:
ReplyDelete"It is apparent that your religious outlook actually causes you to filter information and distort it as it hits your brain."
laof responded-
"It is apparent? How so? Because I have a viewpoint that differs from yours?"
Ben Franklin says-
No. It is because you perceived that Olberman was "attacking marriage as an institution", when he most certainly was not. This has nothing to do with viewpoint, this is merely about listening and comprehending. You heard what you wanted to hear, not what was said.
Maybe you got it straight when you listened to it again, which I commend you for doing.
Yeager,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I think the nation should redefine everything. Let the legal contract between two consenting adults be known as a "legal union" so that even us straight people have to get a legal union to be recognized by the state with all the same rights."
I totally agree. And in my case, I would only have the legal union part with my wife. The blessing of some cleric means nothing to my wife or me.
Expat,
Opinion only. I think it is unconstitutional to ban the right to have a legal union between any two consenting adults.
BF -
ReplyDeleteI think we're in agreement now.
But I still dislike Olberman personally.
:-)
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"...I think it is unconstitutional to ban the right to have a legal union between any two consenting adults."
What, even if they're both men and they're doing it in the naughty place? Urrghh! Stop making baby Jebus cry!
/fundie sterotype
I am pretty convinced that opposition to gay marriage is almost entirely about avoiding having to validate homosexual relationships, out of a combination of personal disgust/ignorance justified by Biblical excuse-making. It's pathetic.
Look at it this way - by stopping gay marriage, are you not encouraging gay promiscuity?
Trip,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Exactly. Tyranny of the majority -the downside of democracy. As Jame Bovard famously observed, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".
And that is why the founders set up a Constitutional Republic. The US Constitution does not set up a democracy. It seems that we are strayiong away from that.
"A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). ****A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals***** while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good)."
***** My emphasis.
I'll comment more on this later, but the main concern is that once the states or feds start legislating morality, there will be trouble. Individuals rights are paramount to our existence as a society.
"Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing theoretical checks on the power of the majority of the population.[1] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who theoretically are required to govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself (even though such representatives are elected by said majority, creating a definitive conflicted interest).John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men.""
ReplyDeleteThe preamble
...."and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
A case for striking down Prop 8 can be made from the preamble alone.
By "liberty", they meant liberty for all, not just some bat shit insane religious system.
Quotation above from Wiki.
ReplyDeleteGay marriage shouldn't be a states' rights issue in my view. I don't see how two people could get married in one state, but moving nullifies that marriage.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, with today's forms of communication and faster commuting, I can't see many reasons for states' rights at all, at least for social reasons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOlberman made his point very well.
ReplyDeleteIs that how you want to treat your fellow human beings?
"Obviously, those details aren't allowed to break other laws (the US constitution, for example, or US federal law, etc). But beyond that, it feels to me as if there's no legal or moral justification for granting homosexuals the right to marry if the state wishes otherwise."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you're right, but is it legally or morally justified to redefine the document which protects individual and married freedoms in order to revoke the previously granted rights? Gay and lesbian marriages were declared legal by the state. This wasn't a question any longer in the form of the contract. Nothing was changed in the body of the state constitution. Proposition 8, however, intentionally set out to redefine the constitution on that very fact, putting the matter of a legal contract up to a popularity vote. Is tht the state's wish or that of some of the people?
Now I'm Canadian, so I probably view things differently, but doesn't giving the state control over who can and cannot get married create an inequaliy across the United States, and having the power to declare two legal, consenting adults incapable of marrying each other and infringement of their Pursuit of Happiness? Shouldn't it be a federal decision?
TheShaggy, this little bit of information will help clarify laof's position on states rights.
ReplyDeleteIf Roe v. Wade was overturned, the decision to allow or outlaw abortion would belong to each individual state.
Ben Franklin should be ashamed at the horrible way he quote-mined his namesake.
ReplyDeleteMy views are the same as whateverman's though . that's the only practical way we can settle this dispute as to the definition of marriage.
ReplyDeletekaitlyn said:
ReplyDelete"TheShaggy, this little bit of information will help clarify laof's position on states rights."
I don't know if you did this to be helpful or critical, but I'd appreciate it if you don't try to speak for me, whether it's to 'clarify my position' or for some other reason.
If you wish to express your opinion of my statements, that's another thing.
MrFreeThinker said...
ReplyDelete"Ben Franklin should be ashamed at the horrible way he quote-mined his namesake."
Oh the irony of an atheist being accused of quote mining.
By the way, Benjamin did no such thing. And even if he did, the real Benjamin Franklin would have been too busy wasting his life inventing the toaster to give a damn.
Oh, I think I touched a LivingAsOneFreed nerve. :)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I never spoke for you, but Roe V. Wade is the basis of the modern social-conservative anti federalist movement.
LivingAsOneFreed,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to understand the Christian position, you should read the Bible, maybe go to church.
If you want to understand modern atheism, you should read Sam Harris.
If you want to know the basis for the civil liberties movement, you should check out Martin Luther King.
If you want to know the basis for the anti federalist attitude your spouting, you should know about Roe V. Wade.
ZOMG! I spoke for you! *facepalm*
MFT-
ReplyDeleteI asked Franklin if I could use the quote as I did, & he said it was OK, so don't get your knickers in a twist.
I did have to introduce him to some naughty French girls, though.
It sounds like there will be legal challenges on the grounds that Prop 8 amended rather than revised the state constitution. An amendment requires 2/3 vote in state legislature and something else (forgot).
ReplyDeleteI listened to the Todd Friel show today. He brought up the Mean Jean post from her blog. I think I may have missed the beginning but from what I heard he only read the part about Her child telling her she can do no good without j
Jesus. It was the holy spirit working on her since Jean never brought it up to the kid. Raaaaight.
He then went on to read the evil atheist comments calling her abusive. Amongst the mostly anonymous comments were Stew and Froggie. Were your ears burning today. Big shout out you evil bastards.
theshaggy asked Perhaps you're right, but is it legally or morally justified to redefine the document which protects individual and married freedoms in order to revoke the previously granted rights?
ReplyDeleteLegally justified? Yes.
Morally justified? Debatable
Was it lame as hell? Yes
I wish they hadn't done so, and tried to express this in some post here that I sympathized with the affected couples.
MFT wrote My views are the same as whateverman's though. That's the only practical way we can settle this dispute as to the definition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteIt's really the only way I see to solve the problem as it stands. It concedes authority to the individuals responsible for deciding the legality of the union.
I'll reiterate the point I followed my opinion up with, with an example: a couple gets married in MA and adopts a child. That child flies to CA and gets hurt in a car accident. The Hospital in California should be required to grant that couple the same legal rights of guardianship that a "local" heterosexual married couple would have.
The state should be under no obligation to provide that couple with tax benefits, however (if they subsequently move from MA to CA).
Of course
I did have to introduce him to some naughty French girls, though.
ReplyDeleteIf I slipped you a few sawbucks, do you think, maybe, you could do a brother Raytractor a solid?
whateverman-
ReplyDeleteTwenny dollah bill? I can set you straight.
Meet me onna corner boy'n don't be late.
Standin' onna porch of the Lido Hotel,
Floozies in the lobby love the way I sell.
HOT MEAT, HOT RATS, HOT ZITS, HOT CHEST, HOT RITZ, HOT ROOTS, HOT SOOTS
Now I'm just gonna sit here and wait for someone to spew that I should be ashamed at the horrible way I just quote mined Frank Zappa.
Hot Rats!
If it weren't for Zappa, humanity would have no Muffin Man, let alone Titties and Beer...
ReplyDeletewhateverman said: "But beyond that, it feels to me as if there's no legal or moral justification for granting homosexuals the right to marry if the state wishes otherwise."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this reasoning is wrong. You're forgetting that rights are inherent, not granted by the state. The state is obligated to acknowlege rights, and any effort to take away fundamental rights is tyrany. Laws can and do and should restrict behavior in the furtherance of the public good. But if they cross the line and deny fundamental rights to any group of citizens, then such laws are unconstitutional and should be stricken from the books. Rights are not subject to popular opinion and can't be put to the vote.
Marriage is a fundamental human right, and there is no reason not based on religious dogma for denying that right to any individual. There is no compelling interest, no furtherance of the public good, in fact there is not goddamn reason whatever except religious bigotry for not allowing a same-sex couple to form that legal contract.
Yaeger is right in pointing out that there is a difference between the legal contract of marriage that is regulated by the state, and the religious rite of marriage that people are free to perform in whatever manner they see fit. NO ONE ANYWHERE was demanding that any church recognize or ar that any minister, priest, imam, or rabbi be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that violated their beliefs. Let people make whatever fucking religious rules they want. But don't think that any religious group has a right to make the state make their religious rules binding on the rest of us.
The second time I got married, it was to a Jewish woman. I am not Jewish, and so we had to shop around a lot before we found a rabbi who'd marry a mixed couple. I thought it was asinine, but those were their rules, and I wasn't going to sue to make them change their minds.
There are NO -- that is to say, NO -- compelling reasons to forbid a same-sex couple from getting married. Stabilze the family? Yeah, right, giving kids two loving married parents is destabilizing. Marriage is all about raising children? Fine, tell all of the over-60 crowd that they can't get married either. I had a vasectomy when I was 33 -- is any rational person going to argue that I shouldn't get married again? (Having been divorced twice now, I'm sure that there are other, much better reasons why I shouldn't get married a third time, but that's a different story.
Anyway, the citizens of California should be deeply ashamed. I'm not sure how Prop 8 is going to fare in the courts. But if it applies retroactively, let's see how the religious right is going to justify stripping away the marriages already entered into by 18,000 same-sex couples. Any human being how can tear up someone else's marriage license and say, "Nope, you're not good enough," is scum as far as I'm concerned. Think about how you'd feel if someone did that to you.
Anyway, shame on them.
Charles wrote You're forgetting that rights are inherent, not granted by the state. The state is obligated to acknowlege rights, and any effort to take away fundamental rights is tyrany.
ReplyDeleteGood, I'm glad that you conceded that you were talking about Fundamental rights, not simply Rights as such.
Care to list those fundamental rights? I guarantee you that not one single legal scholar, no matter his or her philosophical or religious leanins, would suggest that "marriage" is one of them...
Marriage is not an inherent right. It's not even a human right.
whateverman,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. What I have a problem with is merely the fact that a very slight majority of citizens has any legal option to rescind rights that had already been recognized/granted by the state, had caused no harm except for personal disgust, and had improved 'the pursuit of happiness' for a large number of people.
I don't know about California adoption law, but some states of the Union prohibit gays from adopting children altogether. There is also this mendacious peopaganda tool always resurfacing that gays were somehow equal to pedophiles.
If there's one thing I hate, it's that people can get away with spreading lies to further an agenda they disguise as something else.
Felix wrote What I have a problem with is merely the fact that a very slight majority of citizens has any legal option to rescind rights that had already been recognized/granted by the state, had caused no harm except for personal disgust, and had improved 'the pursuit of happiness' for a large number of people.
ReplyDeleteI'd be lying if I said I knew how it happened. I supposed there are details in the californian legislative process that make it a bit more complicated than a "simple" majority causing the law to be put into effect.
But I'm just theorizing. I too find it distasteful, and feel bad for the couples that are being forced to ride this legal roller coaster.
I don't see this situation happen very often (ie. a law gets passed, and then it gets overridden soon afterwards). I wonder why...
--
As for your dislike of lying (in order to further some hidden agenda), you must have a very low opinion of humanity in general :)
I see it happen every day. It all boils down to the adage of "the end justifies the means"
whateverman,
ReplyDeletewe have a process called 'Bürgerbegehren' (citizens's initiative) in some German states, which I assume has the same principal function as the US propositions. People can collect a number of signatures, then the issue gets put on a ballot. The local senate then calls in an expert hearing and votes on the issue, independantly of the ballot outcome. But this process can not influence civil rights, laws or statutes, it can only propose action in public matters like closing down an airport or creating free-parking zones.
I came across this official 'rebuttal' by the pro-8 people:
"Proposition 8 is about traditional marriage; it is not an attack on gay relationships. Under California law gay and lesbian domestic partnerships are treated equally; they already have the same rights as married couples. Proposition 8 does not change that.
What Proposition 8 does is restore the meaning of marriage to what human history has understood it to be and over 61% of California voters approved just a few years ago.
Your YES vote ensures that the will of the people is respected. It overturns the flawed legal reasoning of four judges in San Francisco who wrongly disregarded the people's vote, and ensures that gay marriage can be legalized only through a vote of the people.
Your YES vote ensures that parents can teach their children about marriage according to their own values and beliefs without conflicting messages being forced on young children in public schools that gay marriage is okay.
Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed. But Prop. 8 will NOT take away any other rights or benefits of gay couples.
Gays and lesbians have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Proposition 8 respects the rights of gays while still reaffirming traditional marriage. "
False claim: marriage between man and woman was always the tradition. As I have read, up until the mid-16th Century, Christian churches wed same-sex couples, as was not a rare event throughout pre-Christian times. There are written documents proving this. Restricting marriage to heterosexual couples was a reactionary backlash from the turmoils the rise of Protestantism created, in an effort to consolidate and enforce doctrine.
False claim: sexual orientation is a chosen lifestyle. All recent scientific studies show the opposite.
The rest of the rebuttal follows from an understanding of rights being determined by mob rule and personal disgust. They have never explained what is wrong about teaching children that gay marriage is okay. The video that was posted on the yes-8 site had a couple of parents voicing their opinion with an expression of revulsion that children should even know anything about sex. Sex ed. begins at a determined age group, and that has nothing to do with teaching children that two men can love each other. They were pointing at an illustrated children's book they got from the school, in which there was no sexual content, just a prince marrying a prince.
The whole campaign relied solely on lies, prejudice and covert religious bigotry. There was no other substance to it whatsoever. I wish there was some way to tell these people officially, 'if you want to handle your country's laws that way, then move to fucking Somalia or get happy with the Nigerian child hunters.'
I keep accumulating anger these days, can you tell? ;)
felix wrote:
ReplyDelete" As I have read, up until the mid-16th Century, Christian churches wed same-sex couples, as was not a rare event throughout pre-Christian times."
Felix, can you provide this source to me? You can email direct to me if you wish. My @gmail.com account is the same as my name.
Thanks.
"sexual orientation is a chosen lifestyle. All recent scientific studies show the opposite."
ReplyDeleteWhat !! People don't choose their lifestyles. Unless you're a determinist or something like that I'd be glad to see his scientific evidence you have that something or someone else chooses your lifestyle for you.
I'd also be glad o see the evidence of gay marriage in churches
MFT wrote Unless you're a determinist or something like that I'd be glad to see his scientific evidence you have that something or someone else chooses your lifestyle for you.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you're getting better at being specific about the usage of words.
You're right: to a large extent, people either choose their lifestyles, or are primarily responsible for continuing to live them.
Perhaps usage of the word in this context (in Felix's comment) wasn't specific enough. I'll restate it in a way that I think he would agree with:
The majority of homosexuals have not chosen to be gay.
To be sure, people do explore their sexuality, some more adventurously than others. But the stereotype of those who "bat for the wrong team" having chosen to do so is false and inaccurate.
Use of the word "lifestyle" is polite and inclusive, perhaps with a bit of political correctness thrown in for good measure. I tend to use it in place of "homosexual", too, so I'm just as guilty.
In any case, I hate defining people by what they do with their naughty bit.
Let me clarify the lifestyle bit. What I mean is that living as a homosexual by entering a same-sex partnership is a result of biological disposition. Nobody just decides to love people of his own sex instead of the opposite. We just find ourselves attracted to one sex or the other. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes we feel right from the start of puberty (maybe even before that) which sex we are more attracted to.
ReplyDeleteNow, the relationship itself and the people you surround yourself with are then the lifestyle part.
Here's one source about pre-modern same-sex unions. It's not the one the information I mentioned earlier came from, as I didn't save the original link, so the information isn't fully congruent.
ReplyDeleteIn this source, it isn't about marriage per se, but more of a spiritual union, but it seems that in practice it amounts to the same thing. Looks like a sort of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. I would assume that some of the couples were rather powerful nobles, so the church wouldn't have wanted to step on their toes too much. I can't argue if this practice was scripturally sound or not.
I need to cook some food now, but I'll be back later and post what I find.
Here are some more sources. Apparently the existence of same-sex unions or marriages isn't clearly defined. We can't say for sure if sexual relationships were involved or sanctified.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for pre-Christian homosexuality in various societies is more conclusive (Sparta, Thebes for example), where explicitly sexual relationships were commonly accepted and even endorsed.
Homosexual Civil Unions: A Medieval Tradition?
Science of Homosexuality Takes a Backseat to Blind Faith
The History of Same Sex Marriage
The whole issue is somewhat fuzzy, because we can't be sure if or how sexuality was involved in the individual cases, or how secular or religious these unions were.
Felix,
ReplyDelete16th Century gay Christians were all False Converts. Sorted.
Seriously though, has everyone seen Religulous yet? Bill Maher has a chat with an 'ex-gay' Christian who's married to an 'ex-lesbian'. The guy is clearly gay. Clearly, clearly gay.
We're talking super-gay here.
And you can see Maher's gaydar going off the charts too, it's hilarious.
On the lifestyle issue. I have a good, straight friend who lives in the gaybourhood, drinks in gay bars, loves musical theater, loves Britney Spears, thinks Mariah Carey is fabulous, dresses very neatly and occasionally dresses as a woman for fun. He lives a gay lifestyle because he like it. He is 100% straight.
My not-quite-out-the-closet-yet gay friend lives a more 'heterosexual' lifestyle than I do. He has never been attracted to a woman.
Lifestyle =/= sexuality. Fact.
Felix -
ReplyDeleteThank you for the sources. I was trying some searches of my own, but that saves me some time.
I appreciate this.