Why is it that it seems that everywhere that conservative Republican hatemongers pursue gay marriage bans, they resort to dirty tricks to get the job done? (Arizona is the latest). Is it because they know that they are simply promoting hate and that they don't really have any logic behind any of their arguments? We know that. Do they secretly know it, too?
(Update: Republican dirty tricks in California, too, as they try to lie to the public about their Amendment).
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Why They're Wrong, Part 9
Another one on the "definition" front. This time a guy is trying to say that gay marriage proponents are trying to redefine the word family. He says that ALL dictionary definitions of the word family include "children" as a required part of being a family. Not according to the very link he provides tothe American Heritage Dictionary. Definition 1b is:
I don't see anything having to do with children in that definition, do you?
The title of his "article" is even worse: "Dehumanizing Marriage." He's actually explicitly saying that gay people aren't human. Once again, opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the smokescreen of legal or traditional arguments they put forth. It's all about hatred of gay people and using them as a scapegoat in order to drive conservative turnout.
Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
I don't see anything having to do with children in that definition, do you?
The title of his "article" is even worse: "Dehumanizing Marriage." He's actually explicitly saying that gay people aren't human. Once again, opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the smokescreen of legal or traditional arguments they put forth. It's all about hatred of gay people and using them as a scapegoat in order to drive conservative turnout.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Why They're Wrong, Part 7
So many of their arguments are just plain untrue:
People like James A. Smith Sr., the author of this article, contend that marriage comes from God and has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. This couldn't be further from the truth.
For instance:
Marriage existed before all Christian beliefs and traditions, so how could it come from the Christian God? The Greeks and Romans, with their many, many Gods, had marriage, so clearly the origins aren't quite what people like Smith suggest.
Similarly, the idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman ignores all available evidence. Polygamy was incredibly common throughout world history and is still common in some parts of the world today.
I'm not suggesting that polygamy should be legal or is morally correct, just pointing out the verifiable fact that it has always been a common thing and that the claims that marriage has always been the same are simply nonsensical and are nothing more than a justification to encourage hate.
Changing the definition of marriage, which has stood the test of time throughout human history until recent decades, is anything but conservative.
People like James A. Smith Sr., the author of this article, contend that marriage comes from God and has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. This couldn't be further from the truth.
For instance:
The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.
Marriage existed before all Christian beliefs and traditions, so how could it come from the Christian God? The Greeks and Romans, with their many, many Gods, had marriage, so clearly the origins aren't quite what people like Smith suggest.
Similarly, the idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman ignores all available evidence. Polygamy was incredibly common throughout world history and is still common in some parts of the world today.
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry....
Plural marriages have been common in the history of Africa. Indigenous African religions have usually permitted it, as does Islam. Even many Christian churches in Africa have tolerated polygamy, although this stance has been changing: in May 2008, for example, the Anglican archbishop of Nigeria warned congregants to discontinue the practice....
Polygamy is encouraged in states such as Sudan, and is very common in West Africa (Muslim and traditionalist)....
Since the Han Dynasty, technically, Chinese men could have only one wife. However, throughout the thousands of years of Chinese history, it was common for rich Chinese men to have a wife and various concubines. Polygyny is a by-product of the tradition of emphasis on procreation and the continuity of the father's family name. Before the establishment of the Republic of China(Taiwan), it was lawful to have a wife and multiple concubines within Chinese marriage. An emperor, government official or rich merchant could have up to hundreds of concubines after marrying his first wife, or tai-tai....
The Chinese culture of Confucianism and thus the practice of polygyny spread from China to the areas that are now Korea and Japan. Before the establishment of the modern democratic mode, Eastern countries permitted a similar practice of polygyny....
After the Communist Revolution in 1949, polygamy was banned. This occurred via the Marriage Act of 1953....
In Hong Kong, polygamy was banned in October 1971. However, it is still practised in Hong Kong and Macau....
The Hebrew Bible indicates that polygyny was practised by the ancient Hebrews. Though the institution was not extremely common it was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged by the Bible. Nowhere in the Torah is monogamy established as a rule or even a desirable principle. The Bible mentions approximately forty polygamists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such....
As noted above, in the biblical days Jewish men were allowed more than one wife and concubinage (wives with less status) was also practised....
While the New Testament does not explicitly mention or ban polygamy, verses that teach on leadership (discussed below) forbid multiple marriage for church leaders; these verses are often interpreted to mean that marriage is between only one man and one woman....
In Islam, polygamy is allowed, with the specific limitation that men can only have up to four wives at any one time....
Both polygamy and polygyny were practised in ancient, medieval and early-modern times, among many sections of Hindu society....
I'm not suggesting that polygamy should be legal or is morally correct, just pointing out the verifiable fact that it has always been a common thing and that the claims that marriage has always been the same are simply nonsensical and are nothing more than a justification to encourage hate.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Why They're Wrong, Part 6
Any coincidence this guy's name is Ludington, awfully similar to Luddite?
Legislatures have no say in such things. Article IV of the United States Constitution makes it quite clear that the "acts and judicial proceedings" of one state have to be recognized by other states. They don't have a choice in the matter, it's required under constitutional law. "Acts and judicial proceedings" has always included marriage, that was part of the point -- you're married in one state, you're married in all states.
Except, of course, that there already have been such marriages and there will be more in the future.
Maybe, maybe not. Irrelevant. Governments have control over the recognition of marriage. Several states have begun to actually follow the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't once use the word "straight," and have begun allowing gay citizens the right to marry. The others will follow, too, they have no choice.
So, married couples without children aren't really married?
Actually, not even close. Much of our history included legal polygamy and almost the entire early colonization of the East and the Westward expansion was done by men without families. In many of these places in the early days, more women were prostitutes than wives.
If this is what you worked for, you failed. And, in reality, America became its strongest at the same time that infidelity, fornication and out-of-wedlock pregnancies began to expand. There's no direct connection between these things, but a rise in these things didn't slow down the expansion of the country's power in the slightest.
This is complete nonsense. Gay marriage is implicitly protected under our laws. None of these other things are.
More fiction. Polygamists already exist and they don't care about our laws. And our legal system doesn't really try too hard to stop them, either.
Except precedent. Conservatives seem to have no understanding hour our legal system works. Most of it relies upon previous decisions, like those that explicitly banned polygamy.
We don't have to understand this at all, this isn't the way the system works. The rules are pretty clear that they only apply to two consenting adults. A judge can't change that. And certainly, the current law doesn't allow any of this to apply to non-adults or those who don't consent. New laws (not new judicial decisions) would be the only way to do that. And nothing will make that happen.
Now this guy is leaving the realm of sanity. Legalizing gay marriage in no way connects to legalizing pedophilia. Age of consent laws are on the books and nothing like gay marriage could possibly affect that.
Now, Luddite is just lying. Areas where these things are happening are not because our laws are getting looser and making the age of consent lower, it's because historically these laws were looser than they are now. Historically, states had age of consent laws that were as young as 11 years of age, and 14 was widely the standard. We're moving away from that, not towards it. Gay marriage, by the way, is 100% unrelated to age of consent.
Homosexuality isn't a perversion. Pedophilia is. Either way, they aren't connected by anything, legally or otherwise.
Sentences like this show this person has no understanding if even basic logic. He's actually saying that if people continue to engage in hate crimes, then it automatically becomes a felony to object to hate crimes? Either that or he so doesn't understand the English language he can't even construct a valid sentence. And this letter was published.
And history existed before that. As did marriage. As did homosexuality. As did civilization. Nothing has changed any of that. In the early days of Europe, polygamy was just fine in most places.
Maybe, although this is certainly overstated, but in every one of those countries -- and in the U.S. -- the laws are different now, and have been for hundreds of years. Marriages are only legal if they are in some way approved of by government.
The logic Luddite uses is about to go completely off the charts here. In a quick span, he says both:
and
So, we used to do it one way, and we've long ago abandoned that way, but abandoning that way (which we did hundreds of years ago) is going to destroy us right now? Right.
Except when it comes to rights. We don't have control over people's rights. We, as a people, don't have the constitutional power to deny freedom of speech. We, also, don't have the right to deny the right to marry.
Right, and neither the majority of the people nor the majority of representatives favors impeaching judges who support gay marriage. So, by this guy's logic, he should respect that decision. I wonder why he isn't following his own logic? And the role of our representatives is not to legislate for the good of the majority, but to legislate for the good of us all. The majority's role is to decide which plan for achieving that good is better when we aren't sure. Their role is not -- and cannot be -- to deny rights to the minority just because they don't like that minority.
And in this story, the good people are those that fight against hate mongers who twist law and history in order to deny rights to tax-paying citizens.
The question has been asked whether Virginia will honor homosexual "marriages" performed elsewhere. I hope and pray that our legislature will have the common sense and decency to prevent that from happening.
Legislatures have no say in such things. Article IV of the United States Constitution makes it quite clear that the "acts and judicial proceedings" of one state have to be recognized by other states. They don't have a choice in the matter, it's required under constitutional law. "Acts and judicial proceedings" has always included marriage, that was part of the point -- you're married in one state, you're married in all states.
But no matter what judges and legislatures decide -- there will never be a "marriage" between two men or two women.
Except, of course, that there already have been such marriages and there will be more in the future.
Marriage is a beautiful concept that was created by God, not government.
Maybe, maybe not. Irrelevant. Governments have control over the recognition of marriage. Several states have begun to actually follow the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't once use the word "straight," and have begun allowing gay citizens the right to marry. The others will follow, too, they have no choice.
It joins two lives together to establish a family, and families provide the core unit where children, the next generation that will lead and protect us, are created and nurtured.
So, married couples without children aren't really married?
And this biblically defined family is the strong foundation upon which our nation was built.
Actually, not even close. Much of our history included legal polygamy and almost the entire early colonization of the East and the Westward expansion was done by men without families. In many of these places in the early days, more women were prostitutes than wives.
Strong families create strong nations, and our culture remained strong because we worked to keep the family pure. For centuries we discouraged marital infidelity, fornication and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, because those acts were harmful to the family and weakened the core of our culture.
If this is what you worked for, you failed. And, in reality, America became its strongest at the same time that infidelity, fornication and out-of-wedlock pregnancies began to expand. There's no direct connection between these things, but a rise in these things didn't slow down the expansion of the country's power in the slightest.
Once homosexual "marriages" are accepted in our courts of law, any group will be able to demand the right to marry.
This is complete nonsense. Gay marriage is implicitly protected under our laws. None of these other things are.
Polygamists, for example, are waiting patiently for the uproar over homosexuals to die down.
More fiction. Polygamists already exist and they don't care about our laws. And our legal system doesn't really try too hard to stop them, either.
Then they will take their demands to court, and with homosexual "marriages" established, our courts will have no legal standing to prevent plural marriages.
Except precedent. Conservatives seem to have no understanding hour our legal system works. Most of it relies upon previous decisions, like those that explicitly banned polygamy.
We must understand that once true marriage has been redefined by activist judges and reinforced by legislatures, all restrictions on marriage must be removed. Otherwise each new group will claim unconstitutional discrimination, and a growing body of case law will support them.
We don't have to understand this at all, this isn't the way the system works. The rules are pretty clear that they only apply to two consenting adults. A judge can't change that. And certainly, the current law doesn't allow any of this to apply to non-adults or those who don't consent. New laws (not new judicial decisions) would be the only way to do that. And nothing will make that happen.
Pedophiles have been fighting around the world for children to be able to give legal sexual consent, and they are succeeding.
Now this guy is leaving the realm of sanity. Legalizing gay marriage in no way connects to legalizing pedophilia. Age of consent laws are on the books and nothing like gay marriage could possibly affect that.
Some states in the U.S. now allow 14- and 16-year-olds to give limited sexual consent and, in some cases, to marry. But if homosexual "marriages" stand, the ages will fall ever lower.
Now, Luddite is just lying. Areas where these things are happening are not because our laws are getting looser and making the age of consent lower, it's because historically these laws were looser than they are now. Historically, states had age of consent laws that were as young as 11 years of age, and 14 was widely the standard. We're moving away from that, not towards it. Gay marriage, by the way, is 100% unrelated to age of consent.
Pedophiles want all age restrictions removed, and again, if we accept homosexual unions, we will have no legal standing against any form of perversion.
Homosexuality isn't a perversion. Pedophilia is. Either way, they aren't connected by anything, legally or otherwise.
And if hate crimes continue to proliferate, we will be guilty of a felony if we object to their behavior.
Sentences like this show this person has no understanding if even basic logic. He's actually saying that if people continue to engage in hate crimes, then it automatically becomes a felony to object to hate crimes? Either that or he so doesn't understand the English language he can't even construct a valid sentence. And this letter was published.
In the early days of Christian Europe and later the United States, marriage was strictly a church function.
And history existed before that. As did marriage. As did homosexuality. As did civilization. Nothing has changed any of that. In the early days of Europe, polygamy was just fine in most places.
A man and a woman were joined together in the church, married in the sight of God, family and friends -- not government. Births, deaths, baptisms and divorces were recorded there as well, because only the church officiated over family and personal events.
Maybe, although this is certainly overstated, but in every one of those countries -- and in the U.S. -- the laws are different now, and have been for hundreds of years. Marriages are only legal if they are in some way approved of by government.
The logic Luddite uses is about to go completely off the charts here. In a quick span, he says both:
In our modern world, government has a keen interest in record keeping, and now documents all personal and family events in great detail. The church has been relegated to a symbolic role and can be left out completely, even in marriage, if couples choose a civil ceremony.
and
Yet here we are, stupidly standing by while activist judges destroy the basis of our culture, and indeed, our civilization.
So, we used to do it one way, and we've long ago abandoned that way, but abandoning that way (which we did hundreds of years ago) is going to destroy us right now? Right.
We seem completely oblivious to the fact that our constitution places the power of government in our hands.
Except when it comes to rights. We don't have control over people's rights. We, as a people, don't have the constitutional power to deny freedom of speech. We, also, don't have the right to deny the right to marry.
We hold the power to impeach judges (through our congressional representatives), and to elect those who will legislate for the good of the majority, not a perverse minority.
Right, and neither the majority of the people nor the majority of representatives favors impeaching judges who support gay marriage. So, by this guy's logic, he should respect that decision. I wonder why he isn't following his own logic? And the role of our representatives is not to legislate for the good of the majority, but to legislate for the good of us all. The majority's role is to decide which plan for achieving that good is better when we aren't sure. Their role is not -- and cannot be -- to deny rights to the minority just because they don't like that minority.
History records the stories of good people, like the Germans who watched Nazis take over their government, who have seen their nations destroyed. We still have time to stop our destruction, if we care enough to act.
And in this story, the good people are those that fight against hate mongers who twist law and history in order to deny rights to tax-paying citizens.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Why They're Wrong, Part 5
This guy gets really creative:
Most of this is just made up. Of course judges, courts and civil laws can give same-sex couples legal marriage, they already have. Marriage is a human-created thing and it can be anything we define it to be. And we certainly don't define marriage based on hereditary right or birthright. In fact, any person can decide to completely ignore birthright and transfer their wealth upon death to any person -- or cat, apparently -- they want to. It's not only legal to do this, it's a right to do it.
We live in the year 2008, all children are legitimate. The old-fashion "bastard" concept has long gone by the wayside both societally and legally. And while it is true that wars have been fought over hereditary rights, it isn't true that this has been done by any modern, civilized society like the one we live in.
No judge, no court, and no civil law can give same-sex couples the two elements of a legal marriage — life and legitimacy. Only through the union of a man and a woman can life be created and only through the sanctity of marriage can legitimacy be established.
Since same-sex union cannot create life, it is the legitimacy — the principle of hereditary right — they seek in the courts and cannot obtain because legitimacy is a birthright. Even innocent children born outside of marriage will always be denied legitimacy. Wars have been fought for hereditary rights for kingdoms and empires.
Most of this is just made up. Of course judges, courts and civil laws can give same-sex couples legal marriage, they already have. Marriage is a human-created thing and it can be anything we define it to be. And we certainly don't define marriage based on hereditary right or birthright. In fact, any person can decide to completely ignore birthright and transfer their wealth upon death to any person -- or cat, apparently -- they want to. It's not only legal to do this, it's a right to do it.
We live in the year 2008, all children are legitimate. The old-fashion "bastard" concept has long gone by the wayside both societally and legally. And while it is true that wars have been fought over hereditary rights, it isn't true that this has been done by any modern, civilized society like the one we live in.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Amendment 2 Proponets Tell Supporters To Break the Law
I'm loathe to include the video or the link, lest we give them more traffic, but this video seems to be a direct request by religious right nutjob Mat Staver to Floridians to break the law:
Staver actually wrote Amendment 2 and is pushing the for people to sign petitionsnot just once, but twice:
2:19: "even if someone has already signed it, it doesn't matter. They can sign it again."
He explains that they can go ahead and sign the petition again, even if they've already done so and that the government will sort them out. Forget that this is the direct encouragement of waste in government, it is also illegal:
Showing once again, that nothing to do with this Amendment has anything to do with right or wrong, Staver is telling his followers to break the law in an attempt to add hate to the Florida Constitution.
These people are trying to win at all costs for political reasons...
Staver actually wrote Amendment 2 and is pushing the for people to sign petitionsnot just once, but twice:
2:19: "even if someone has already signed it, it doesn't matter. They can sign it again."
He explains that they can go ahead and sign the petition again, even if they've already done so and that the government will sort them out. Forget that this is the direct encouragement of waste in government, it is also illegal:
A person who knowingly signs a petition or petitions for a candidate, a minor political party, or an issue more than one time commits a misdemeanor of the first degree...
Showing once again, that nothing to do with this Amendment has anything to do with right or wrong, Staver is telling his followers to break the law in an attempt to add hate to the Florida Constitution.
These people are trying to win at all costs for political reasons...
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Fun With Site Visitors (a.k.a Fun With Hatemongers)
A post I put up a while back on Amendment 2 brought out a thorough response that I have to respond to. Here are some of the choice quotes/arguments and my response:
Keep this line in mind, it'll come back later when he says that he's not "bashing" me.
This number is completely made up. In addition to the 10% or so of the population that is non-religious (in the U.S. alone, the amount is much higher elsewhere), there are many religious people who have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage. In more modernized countries, it's common that the majority of the population doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. The scientific evidence is very clear that sexuality is not a "chosen" lifestyle. Lots of people care what people do in their own homes, that's why they pass laws preventing sodomy, sexual toys, pornography, marijuana, etc. Marriage is not a religious ceremony by definition. It can be. It can also be non-religious. Like the couples who are married by notaries public or justices of the peace -- ceremonies that, in Florida, explicitly are forbidden from including any specific religious content. Marriage is a human right. So says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so says 100% of the history of U.S. constitutional law. You've been listening to too many Liberty University law graduates. You parrot their exact lines, which have been rejected by our system of law for 100% of American history.
In the same place it says that you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Or that you have the right to own private property. Or that you have the right to vote. The framers of the Constitution were 100% clear that all rights are protected, not just those explicitly stated in the Constitution. This is the whole point of the Ninth Amendment. It explicitly says this. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any law only applies to straight people.
This ignores 100%, again, of constitutional history. We know that the Constitution is vague. We know that it explicitly says that things not stated in the Constitution are still protected. We know that the Supreme Court was designed to interpret that vague language. And we know that it has always operated in such a manner. Conservatives have always hated this, so they made up a story that it's not true. But the Constitution and the writings of the framers explictly reject that concept, as they do with most other conservative concepts.
Sure there is. Under the penumbras of the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the explicit allowance of nonspecified rights to be protected under the Ninth Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly says that "citizens" have rights, not "straight citizens." Setting up gay marraiges as "contracts" or "civil unions" makes them separate. By definition, separate is unequal and unconstitutional. See Brown v. Board of Education. Marriage is NOT holy and sacred to hardly anybody, much less, the "vast majority." That's why we have a 49% divorce rate. That's why people like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears can do pretty much anything they want to and call it marriage. That's why people like John McCain and Newt Gingrinch dump their ill wives for younger, prettier wives. That's why married pastors like Ted Haggard cheat on their wives with gay prostitutes. It's not sacred unless the people in it make it sacred. Most don't.
No, that would be a really dumb interpretation of what I said. I said taking rights away via the Constitution leads to negative results. Similarly, the "liberalism will bankrupt America" canard ignores history. The greatest economy in world history was under a liberal Democrat, FDR. The worst economy in our history was under Republicans. Almost 100% of our world-record national debt (you know, the thing that might actually bankrupt us) was run up by cut taxes/increase spending Republicans.
Because Amendment 2 bans more than gay marriage.
Teaching children that homosexuals aren't equal before the law, teaches children that homosexuals are lesser beings. That is the root of almost all hate throughout world history. You can't avoid exposing people to the real world. No matter what you do about gay marriage, gay people exist. They'll always exist. Children will always see them. Nothing bad will ever happen because of children learning about gay people.
Aim this one at yourself. You are the one trying to impose your beliefs on others. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. If you get an invitation to a gay wedding, don't go to it. You are the one putting yourself in the middle of things, not the other way around.
Well, not me personally, since I'm straight, but people like you are certainly stopping gay people from getting married. And in places like Florida, stopping gay people from adopting children. And in some places, the law allows people to be fired simply because gay. So, you're actually full of crap.
No. The gay "lifestyle" (there's actually no such thing, gay people are individuals who have different lifestyles) harms nobody.
Ahhh, I get it. You're actually a hatemonger. You hate gay people. You believe made-up nonsensical, illogical stereotypes about gay people. The evidence is clear, that children who grow up in gay homes have a better sense of self and gender than those who grow up in straight homes. All children are subject to teasing from peers. It is those peers doing the teasing that should be punished, not the children who have gay parents. Rosie's kids clearly already know a more normal and better-functioning parental role model than you could ever possibly be. I wouldn't let you within a mile of my kids, you would try to make them into hatemongers like yourself.
See, you don't even remotely believe in equality for gay people. Straight married couples don't have to do those extra contracts and pay those extra lawyers fees. You want to force gay people to have to do extra work and pay extra money. That is morally wrong. Equality.
Letting gay people marry doesn't impose anything on anyone. Gay people already get married in Massachusetts. It has had no effect on the straight people there. The same is true in multiple other countries with legal marriage. The world will get more liberal no matter what you do to stop it. It always has, it always will. Children are taught hate all the time. Racism, sexism, hatred of foreigners, hatred of gay people are all things that are taught. Nobody is born a hatemonger. People learn it. The evidence on this is foolproof. Some traditional morals include hate. Like the traditional moral we had in this country for hundreds of years that said it was okay to own black people. Hating gay people and denying them rights is traditional in the U.S. And it is hate. And we always, eventually, end hate-filled traditions. We'll end this one, too. The natural order includes homosexuality. That's why homosexuals exist. Few people would choose to be gay in a society that includes hatemongers like you. But we have millions of gay people born here anyway. That's because it's not a choice, it's part of nature. It's in many other species of mammal, as well. And once again, you show your hate by picking out a stereotype about gay people and generalizing from it falsely. People are free to do what they want. Even in a parade. And you are free to not attend. You actually aren't welcome at places like that, largely because you are aligned with the forces of hate and evil.
One, because that's not what the law says. Two, because it's immoral to agree with you. Three, because you don't get to decide what happens and doesn't happen. Which is good for everyone.
This actually happened in a court case in Ohio based on almost the exact same language in the Florida proposal.
This, is just dumb on so many levels and it not only is bashing, it is an attempt to justify beating people up because of their sexuality. That's immoral. Beating people up because of who they are is wrong in every religious tradition and every system of morality. And the law. And it doesn't matter why people are being beaten up, it's wrong. Always.
Total nonsense, once again. Nowhere in our laws does it say that the role of government is "not to meddle" in people's lives. In fact, almost every law that has passed by every government, everywhere, throughout all of history meddled in someone's life. You are the one trying to meddle in someone's life. Gay marriage doesn't affect you and it has nothing to do with you, but you not only want to meddle in it, you want the government to do so. You aren't just a hatemonger, you're a lying hypocritical hatemonger.
No, the democracy thing is conjured up by the dictionary. Representative republic and representative democracy are synonyms. They mean the same thing. Either way, the majority has no say over civil rights. And gay marriage doesn't impose anything on the majority. It has no affect on anyone outside of the marriage. The only way it would impose upon you, is if it said you had to marry a gay person. And we can change laws via lawsuits, because that's the way our system was set up. That's why we have courts.
You apparently have no idea what you are talking about on any topic. A basic web search would show the conservative religious obsession about gay people is one of the most prominent aspects of their belief system. You don't have to accomodate anything. In fact, you wouldn't even know about it unless you pried into someone else's personal life. That's the real problem. People like you invading the privacy of others.
No. I will never consider the view of hatemongers. Especially those that say they aren't "bashing" and then repeatedly insult me (silly little person), talk down to me (big guy) and call for government-sponsored hate. Of course that's bashing. Of course I listened. I just think that the things you say are ridiculous and I know you are almost wholly ignorant about our system of law, something that I teach in my day job because I'm an expert on it. Yes, you wasted your time. Any time you try to convince others to support hate, you are not only wasting your time, you are engaging in evil.
He has listed 15 reasons Amendment 2 is wrong, none of them make any sense at all.
Keep this line in mind, it'll come back later when he says that he's not "bashing" me.
What morals are you referring to fellah? Morals for 99.9% of the world come from religious teachings and convictions and do not embrace your chosen lifestyle. I actually don't think anyone cares what you do in your home. But marriage is a religious ceremony, leave it alone. And what "human rights" are you referring to? Are you pulling the old liberal trick of confusing yourself by mistaking rights with privileges?
This number is completely made up. In addition to the 10% or so of the population that is non-religious (in the U.S. alone, the amount is much higher elsewhere), there are many religious people who have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage. In more modernized countries, it's common that the majority of the population doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. The scientific evidence is very clear that sexuality is not a "chosen" lifestyle. Lots of people care what people do in their own homes, that's why they pass laws preventing sodomy, sexual toys, pornography, marijuana, etc. Marriage is not a religious ceremony by definition. It can be. It can also be non-religious. Like the couples who are married by notaries public or justices of the peace -- ceremonies that, in Florida, explicitly are forbidden from including any specific religious content. Marriage is a human right. So says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so says 100% of the history of U.S. constitutional law. You've been listening to too many Liberty University law graduates. You parrot their exact lines, which have been rejected by our system of law for 100% of American history.
Where in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to lay with some one of the same sex?
In the same place it says that you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Or that you have the right to own private property. Or that you have the right to vote. The framers of the Constitution were 100% clear that all rights are protected, not just those explicitly stated in the Constitution. This is the whole point of the Ninth Amendment. It explicitly says this. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any law only applies to straight people.
The Constitution is what it is, it isn't something to be altered every time some dick head wants a footnote added. Again you have tricked yourself with the liberal lie that the Constitution is a "living document."
This ignores 100%, again, of constitutional history. We know that the Constitution is vague. We know that it explicitly says that things not stated in the Constitution are still protected. We know that the Supreme Court was designed to interpret that vague language. And we know that it has always operated in such a manner. Conservatives have always hated this, so they made up a story that it's not true. But the Constitution and the writings of the framers explictly reject that concept, as they do with most other conservative concepts.
There is absolutely no right in our Constitution granting a right for two people of the same gender to marry. I think if you and your crew tried calling it a contract or civil union people might have an easier time accepting it. Instead you insist on hijacking something that is holy and sacred to the vast majority of society.
Sure there is. Under the penumbras of the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the explicit allowance of nonspecified rights to be protected under the Ninth Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly says that "citizens" have rights, not "straight citizens." Setting up gay marraiges as "contracts" or "civil unions" makes them separate. By definition, separate is unequal and unconstitutional. See Brown v. Board of Education. Marriage is NOT holy and sacred to hardly anybody, much less, the "vast majority." That's why we have a 49% divorce rate. That's why people like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears can do pretty much anything they want to and call it marriage. That's why people like John McCain and Newt Gingrinch dump their ill wives for younger, prettier wives. That's why married pastors like Ted Haggard cheat on their wives with gay prostitutes. It's not sacred unless the people in it make it sacred. Most don't.
At the federal level, we only tried to take away rights via the Constitution one time -- prohibition -- and it was an unmitigated disaster, leading to the Great Depression and the rise of organized crime in America. Is that the type of history we want to repeat? Sooo, if we don't legitimize gay marriage, Capone is going to come back from the dead and bankrupt America? Now your just being stupid, liberalism is what will bankrupt America....
No, that would be a really dumb interpretation of what I said. I said taking rights away via the Constitution leads to negative results. Similarly, the "liberalism will bankrupt America" canard ignores history. The greatest economy in world history was under a liberal Democrat, FDR. The worst economy in our history was under Republicans. Almost 100% of our world-record national debt (you know, the thing that might actually bankrupt us) was run up by cut taxes/increase spending Republicans.
It's unnecessary. Gay marriage is already illegal in Florida. Then what are you worried for?
Because Amendment 2 bans more than gay marriage.
How do you equate this to teaching hate to children? Don't you understand that the huge majority of society does not want their children exposed forcefully to homosexuality?
Teaching children that homosexuals aren't equal before the law, teaches children that homosexuals are lesser beings. That is the root of almost all hate throughout world history. You can't avoid exposing people to the real world. No matter what you do about gay marriage, gay people exist. They'll always exist. Children will always see them. Nothing bad will ever happen because of children learning about gay people.
Do what you want, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Aim this one at yourself. You are the one trying to impose your beliefs on others. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. If you get an invitation to a gay wedding, don't go to it. You are the one putting yourself in the middle of things, not the other way around.
No one is stopping you from doing what you want.
Well, not me personally, since I'm straight, but people like you are certainly stopping gay people from getting married. And in places like Florida, stopping gay people from adopting children. And in some places, the law allows people to be fired simply because gay. So, you're actually full of crap.
What about the 99% of the population that doesn't want anything to do with the gay lifestyle? They aren't "harmed?"
No. The gay "lifestyle" (there's actually no such thing, gay people are individuals who have different lifestyles) harms nobody.
What about the warped sense of self and gender the children of gay couples are subject to and the teasing form peers? They aren't "harmed?" I saw some footage of Rosie O'Donnell's kids, I pray for them.... it's sad actually that they will never know normal functioning parent role models.
Ahhh, I get it. You're actually a hatemonger. You hate gay people. You believe made-up nonsensical, illogical stereotypes about gay people. The evidence is clear, that children who grow up in gay homes have a better sense of self and gender than those who grow up in straight homes. All children are subject to teasing from peers. It is those peers doing the teasing that should be punished, not the children who have gay parents. Rosie's kids clearly already know a more normal and better-functioning parental role model than you could ever possibly be. I wouldn't let you within a mile of my kids, you would try to make them into hatemongers like yourself.
Ask your lawyer and employer if there is some sort of trust, living will or contracts you can draw up between you and your partner, I am sure you will find something that suits those needs perfectly, but that's not your real agenda is it?
See, you don't even remotely believe in equality for gay people. Straight married couples don't have to do those extra contracts and pay those extra lawyers fees. You want to force gay people to have to do extra work and pay extra money. That is morally wrong. Equality.
Your agenda is imposing a liberal lifestyle on the rest of society who doesn't want it... And you silly little person, children are not taught hate, they are taught traditional morals. Try to spin it anyway you like, the natural order of things is for men to mate with women, plain and simple... and is your idea of "civilized" those parades we see in San Fransicko? No thank you please....
Letting gay people marry doesn't impose anything on anyone. Gay people already get married in Massachusetts. It has had no effect on the straight people there. The same is true in multiple other countries with legal marriage. The world will get more liberal no matter what you do to stop it. It always has, it always will. Children are taught hate all the time. Racism, sexism, hatred of foreigners, hatred of gay people are all things that are taught. Nobody is born a hatemonger. People learn it. The evidence on this is foolproof. Some traditional morals include hate. Like the traditional moral we had in this country for hundreds of years that said it was okay to own black people. Hating gay people and denying them rights is traditional in the U.S. And it is hate. And we always, eventually, end hate-filled traditions. We'll end this one, too. The natural order includes homosexuality. That's why homosexuals exist. Few people would choose to be gay in a society that includes hatemongers like you. But we have millions of gay people born here anyway. That's because it's not a choice, it's part of nature. It's in many other species of mammal, as well. And once again, you show your hate by picking out a stereotype about gay people and generalizing from it falsely. People are free to do what they want. Even in a parade. And you are free to not attend. You actually aren't welcome at places like that, largely because you are aligned with the forces of hate and evil.
Again, a lawyer can create all the contracts you want, please stop trying to call it marriage. Why don't you get that?
One, because that's not what the law says. Two, because it's immoral to agree with you. Three, because you don't get to decide what happens and doesn't happen. Which is good for everyone.
This Amendment would provide cover for Domestic abusers who live in situations where they aren't married. Don't believe me? A judge ruled exactly this in another state where a law with this same language passed. Now your just sounding insane... what are you talking about?
This actually happened in a court case in Ohio based on almost the exact same language in the Florida proposal.
"Hatred, discrimination and violence against gay people"... My friend, aside from isolated incident's from some nut bags, this comes from the gay community trying to force itself, via the courts, on the 99% of the population that doesn't want anything to do with it. Dude I'm not bashing, I just don't know how you don't get that...
This, is just dumb on so many levels and it not only is bashing, it is an attempt to justify beating people up because of their sexuality. That's immoral. Beating people up because of who they are is wrong in every religious tradition and every system of morality. And the law. And it doesn't matter why people are being beaten up, it's wrong. Always.
The role of the government is not to meddle in the lives of its citizens big guy....
Total nonsense, once again. Nowhere in our laws does it say that the role of government is "not to meddle" in people's lives. In fact, almost every law that has passed by every government, everywhere, throughout all of history meddled in someone's life. You are the one trying to meddle in someone's life. Gay marriage doesn't affect you and it has nothing to do with you, but you not only want to meddle in it, you want the government to do so. You aren't just a hatemonger, you're a lying hypocritical hatemonger.
We are a representative republic, this democracy thing is something conjured up by the left. Why does it make sense to you for a very small minority to impose its will on the majority via law suits? Why is that okay?
No, the democracy thing is conjured up by the dictionary. Representative republic and representative democracy are synonyms. They mean the same thing. Either way, the majority has no say over civil rights. And gay marriage doesn't impose anything on the majority. It has no affect on anyone outside of the marriage. The only way it would impose upon you, is if it said you had to marry a gay person. And we can change laws via lawsuits, because that's the way our system was set up. That's why we have courts.
You've stopped making any sense again fellah, I'm not a christian and the only ones obsessing about gay people are liberals like you. Most people could care less what you do in your home, but when you bring it into our schools, our work place and in our society in general and force people to accommodate a lifestyle they don't agree with, then you've got a problem buddy...
You apparently have no idea what you are talking about on any topic. A basic web search would show the conservative religious obsession about gay people is one of the most prominent aspects of their belief system. You don't have to accomodate anything. In fact, you wouldn't even know about it unless you pried into someone else's personal life. That's the real problem. People like you invading the privacy of others.
I hope you at least consider this view, if you call it bashing then you really haven't listened and I have wasted my time... cheers!
No. I will never consider the view of hatemongers. Especially those that say they aren't "bashing" and then repeatedly insult me (silly little person), talk down to me (big guy) and call for government-sponsored hate. Of course that's bashing. Of course I listened. I just think that the things you say are ridiculous and I know you are almost wholly ignorant about our system of law, something that I teach in my day job because I'm an expert on it. Yes, you wasted your time. Any time you try to convince others to support hate, you are not only wasting your time, you are engaging in evil.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Why They're Wrong, Pt. 4
Our "liberal" media is at work again. This column in Hernando Today, is about as wrong as possible. Not surprising coming from such a conservative paper. Here are some key points:
That's not what the Constitution or our history says.
Not true. The ruling just enforced already-existing constitutional law. Such law doesn't say anything about straight people.
It matters little how old a unconstitutional law is or how many people support it, it's still unconstitutional. People's rights aren't up to majority rule.
Complete nonsense. Gay marriage had nothing to do with Kerry's loss. The war, 9/11, terrorism and the Swift Boat Veterans killed Kerry.
But there's no evidence there was a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative voters.
They aren't supposed to be in touch with the will of the people, they're supposed to be in touch with the meaning of the law.
This is hateful nonsense. Nobody has a right to avoid seeing something on television. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Beyond that, gay marriage is rare on television.
None of this is true. Ellen is more popular than ever and the show where she came out was one of the highest-watched television shows ever. Her show was canceled because ABC didn't support her.
Apparently here viewers -- all of whom know she's gay -- care quite a lot. I haven't heard of even one voter complaint about the announcement.
Trying to enshrine hate in the law is never reasonable.
This sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe he's saying that everyone should get the same benefits, regardless of who they love. That I agree with, let's call it gay marriage.
Judges should interpret laws, not make them.
That's not what the Constitution or our history says.
But that's what happened in California recently when the state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay and lesbian marriage.
Not true. The ruling just enforced already-existing constitutional law. Such law doesn't say anything about straight people.
The justices rejected both a 30-year-old "defense of marriage" law plus a 2000 referendum in which more than 60 percent of California voters reaffirmed that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only kind of "marriage" their state should accept.
It matters little how old a unconstitutional law is or how many people support it, it's still unconstitutional. People's rights aren't up to majority rule.
Massachusetts courts had approved gay and lesbian marriage a year earlier. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, is a Massachusetts senator (then and now) who probably spent too much campaign time explaining away his state's action.
Complete nonsense. Gay marriage had nothing to do with Kerry's loss. The war, 9/11, terrorism and the Swift Boat Veterans killed Kerry.
According to veteran political observers (including me!), the Massachusetts action most likely prompted a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative Florida voters to protest same-sex marriage.
But there's no evidence there was a larger-than-anticipated turnout of conservative voters.
Obviously, the appointed California judges are out of touch with the will of a large majority of the electorate.
They aren't supposed to be in touch with the will of the people, they're supposed to be in touch with the meaning of the law.
But I object to having their marriage issues shoved down my throat whenever I turn on the TV.
This is hateful nonsense. Nobody has a right to avoid seeing something on television. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Beyond that, gay marriage is rare on television.
One in particular: Ellen DeGeneres lost viewers and sponsors on her previous TV show when she "came out." You'd think she had learned. No way; her response to the California justices was to announce her "marriage" to her long-time girlfriend on the show.
None of this is true. Ellen is more popular than ever and the show where she came out was one of the highest-watched television shows ever. Her show was canceled because ABC didn't support her.
Who cares? That decision should have been hers and her partner's to share, without bothering the viewers.
Apparently here viewers -- all of whom know she's gay -- care quite a lot. I haven't heard of even one voter complaint about the announcement.
There's a reasonable way to skirt judicial end runs around gay and lesbian marriage, be it in a referendum or in a constitutional amendment.
Trying to enshrine hate in the law is never reasonable.
In connection with an inevitable next round of simplifications of our tax codes, treat everyone, even conventionally-marrieds, as individuals — with the same benefits to all, regardless of partnership status. Maybe that's too ideal.
This sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe he's saying that everyone should get the same benefits, regardless of who they love. That I agree with, let's call it gay marriage.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Why They're Wrong, Pt. 3
Another episode of our "liberal media" at work, in California:
This argument, which comes from the Heritage Foundation, is so filled with nonsense it's hard to know where to start. But let's start with two things. One, it isn't required for a married couple to have children. Many don't. Second, marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion. In Florida, for instance, any notary public can perform a legal marriage. When they do, religious messages are forbidden by law from being in the ceremony. Other states have similar laws. Marriage is already defined as a legal contract between two people (although not "any" two individuals). That's it. Everything else is defined by the people in the marriage. Need I remind you that both Michael Jackson and Britney Spears have been married. What's sacred in that?
And there are no cultural consequences that arise out of gay marriage, other than more people who get married and more people who stay married. How do we know this? Because gay marriage is legal in numerous places, none of which has faced any "huge" cultural consequences. It's nothing more than another of the nonspecific, undefinable threats that conservatives thrive off of creating and attacking.
The ruling, they say, isn't about race or a particular people group, it's about the nature and purpose of marriage, which the court brushed aside.
“To redefine marriage so it's not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals.”
The analysis also points out that “changing the definition of marriage has vast cultural consequences, including religious liberty implications.”
This argument, which comes from the Heritage Foundation, is so filled with nonsense it's hard to know where to start. But let's start with two things. One, it isn't required for a married couple to have children. Many don't. Second, marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion. In Florida, for instance, any notary public can perform a legal marriage. When they do, religious messages are forbidden by law from being in the ceremony. Other states have similar laws. Marriage is already defined as a legal contract between two people (although not "any" two individuals). That's it. Everything else is defined by the people in the marriage. Need I remind you that both Michael Jackson and Britney Spears have been married. What's sacred in that?
And there are no cultural consequences that arise out of gay marriage, other than more people who get married and more people who stay married. How do we know this? Because gay marriage is legal in numerous places, none of which has faced any "huge" cultural consequences. It's nothing more than another of the nonspecific, undefinable threats that conservatives thrive off of creating and attacking.
Why They're Wrong, Pt. 2
This one is from the North County Times:
In a democracy, the majority doesn't have absolute rule. They win on most things, but when it comes to civil rights, they don't have a say. If they did, then the majority could vote to kill off a minority. Or vote to end democracy. Or vote to maintain slavery. Or vote to deny rights to gay people. The majority doesn't have this right.
Somehow the Four Stooges at the state Supreme Court have got it in their minds that overriding the will of the people ---- more than 4.6 million of them ---- in the matter of homosexual marriage is their solemn duty.
In a democracy, the majority doesn't have absolute rule. They win on most things, but when it comes to civil rights, they don't have a say. If they did, then the majority could vote to kill off a minority. Or vote to end democracy. Or vote to maintain slavery. Or vote to deny rights to gay people. The majority doesn't have this right.
Why They're Wrong, Pt. 1
In a regular feature around here, I'll post various arguments from gay marriage opponents and why they're wrong...
This one is from The Baptist Press:
The Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that "separate but equal" is a false concept and that immediately upon separation, inequality exists. Ignore the fact that domestic partnerships don't have all the same legal benefits as marriage, simply calling it something else, by definition, treats it differently and as something lesser. You can tell that this is what the author actually believes by reading his closing line: "Yes, 'gay marriage' concerns a small minority seeking not only to validate their aberrant lifestyle, but also to force society to accept their behavior –- or else." He's trying to dress up his bigotry in rhetoric, but he's nothing more than someone who hates gay people because they are gay. That's wrong.
This one is from The Baptist Press:
If you thought "gay marriage" was simply about equality, you'd be wrong.
...
The situation in California proves that "homosexual marriage" is not about simple equality. Domestic partnerships granted homosexuals the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that "separate but equal" is a false concept and that immediately upon separation, inequality exists. Ignore the fact that domestic partnerships don't have all the same legal benefits as marriage, simply calling it something else, by definition, treats it differently and as something lesser. You can tell that this is what the author actually believes by reading his closing line: "Yes, 'gay marriage' concerns a small minority seeking not only to validate their aberrant lifestyle, but also to force society to accept their behavior –- or else." He's trying to dress up his bigotry in rhetoric, but he's nothing more than someone who hates gay people because they are gay. That's wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)