There’s a pretense from the
anti (whoops!) pro-Prop 8 diehards that somehow this is not about them hating gay people. Rick Warren says that, as did Mike Huckerbee said when he ended his (clearly losing) conversation with John Stewart on The Daily Show. Frankly I’d be happier if they just came out and admitted it.
In a portrayal of one of the most unpleasant sounding families I’ve heard about in some time, the LA Times has a couple of juicy quotes. And the unpleasant family and their equally unpleasant pastors essentially come out and say it.
The Bible is very, very clear . . . that that kind of perversion will not get people into heaven," Abel said. "They’re fallen people, broken people, hurting people."
Brooklyn and her family believe that gay activists have unfairly painted Proposition 8 supporters as "hate-mongers and bigots."
Hmm…who’s painting who?
But I’m always amazed that while caring so much about what happens in the afterlife, the fundamentalists among us are so determined to ruin other people’s lives in this space-time continuum.
CODA: The ridiculousness of the “resting on what the Bible says” position is of course best revealed in this classic, which ended up being used in a memorable scene in The West Wing.
The left has no problem understanding being against the war, but supporting the troops, but can’t handle a segment of America that has no problem with homosexuals, but hates homosexual conduct. Americans are getting wise to the minority practice of branding anyone who doesn’t agree with them as bigots and homophobes.
” .. It is a disagreement over human nature at the root of all of big disagreements about health care, economics, and policy.”
A famous quote: “you can’t explain what you want to a 14-year-old, you’re fooling yourself.”
So, in a simple terms: do LGBT people want marriage just to get Blue Cross (health care/economics/policy) for pals? And green cards?
Hmm .. then to fix this, just end Blue Cross for the married spouse? And the married-spouse I.C.E. advantage?
The recreant and misled anonymiss says:
> According to the biblical interpretation of the
> nation’s largest religious denomination (Catholics),
> it is wrong for ordained clergy to be anything but
The Roman Rite’s discipline is first of all a prudential matter (cf I Corinthians 8:7-8 and 32-35) with a deeper meaning as well, but it’s not wrong to have a married clergy. There are 20-odd other Rites in the Catholic Church and their disciplines vary. Even so the Roman Rite will sometimes conditionally ordain a married convert (most recently and famously from Anglicanism) to the priesthood, insisting on his looking after the duties of marriage and without demanding he forego its normal prerogatives. The Orthodox Churches often ordain married men, but their Bishops must be celibate. None of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches will permit an ordained man to marry and still function as clergy.
> BTW: what does this weirdness have to do with
> health care? Economics? Policy?
Nothing really, but Matthew brought it up and labeled the great majority of human beings living and dead as bigots whilst pointing to Baptists(!) as exponents of Christian doctrine and to snarky letters to pop culture figures as biblical exegesis, validated by other pop culture references, Bev wants to legislate all human relationships (very rationally, of course), and Rob says civil marriage is about love, then anonymiss wanted to be sarcastic, and…. here we are.
On the other hand, maybe everything. For some of us at least, health care, economics, and policy are all directed towards the common good, and to know what the common good is requires an understanding of human nature. It is a disagreement over human nature at the root of all of big disagreements about health care, economics, and policy.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
” .. If we allow priests to marry, what next? Polygamy? Incest?”
Uh .. psst! Protestants allow clergy to marry. This is like genius Nancy Pelosi claiming Roman Catholic bishops are divided on abortion — then getting a letter from the Pope telling her to read her diocese newsletter.
And a lot of people wonder, if marriage laws are changed — will there be polygamy? Can Barney Frank marry a dog? How about a dog AND a cat? To get them medical care?
BTW: what does this weirdness have to do with health care? Economics? Policy?
Can anyone here tell me there’s too much love in the world? That there’s too much commitment to one another? That we can pick and choose – by government fiat – which people are allowed to love which? And which can commit to be married?
Is it about the icky sex? It must be, since that’s the only difference, that’s the abhorrence, that’s the sense of disgust.
Get over it. There’s not enough love in the world already, and what two consenting adults do for harmless pleasure in private is none of your business, nor mine.
Unless, of course, your pleasure is shaming people you choose as being “other.” Then I take exception.
Because there’s 6.N billion of us. None of us is particularly important, except locally, to each other. “All men are created equal” really means “no one shall be king over us, because no one is that important.”
We’re all bigots in our own ways. We all need love, in our own ways. Funny how we have those in common.
It’s when some of us gang up on the other that commonality fails, love dies, people thrive on conquering each other.
Like. Say. The last 30 years. And 300. And 3000.
It’s fine if Rick Warren wants to live by his own interpretation of the bible. My problem is when he thinks his Church’s interpretation of the bible should be American law.
Frankly, I think Pastor Warren should be a little more nervous about this, too. He is an ordained minister. According to the biblical interpretation of the nation’s largest religious denomination (Catholics), it is wrong for ordained clergy to be anything but celibate.
Rick Warren’s marriage is untraditional marriage. It violates the bible. It threatens to undermine society. If we allow priests to marry, what next? Polygamy? Incest? If American law should reflect the bible, then we should OBVIOUSLY make Pastor Warren’s marriage illegal and dissolve it.
Pastor Warren thinks the Southern Baptist interpretation of the bible should reign supreme. But I think the Catholic one should. And America is more a Catholic nation than a Southern Baptist one. Hence, Pastor Warren’s marriage, which is ungodly, should be dissolved immediately to preserve family values.
Or perhaps we should let the Constitution decide this, and maintain the separation of church and state that has guided us so well for so long. And instead of telling people they have to dissolve their marriages, we can follow the great American tradition of live and let live.
” .. And he thinks Canada’s in the EU, showing that he missed geography class as well as logic class the day they taught them in high school!”
Spain’s in Canada now? Brilliant, sir. Just like J-O-N Stewart — not J-O-H-N. Excellent reporting skills.
Congratulations on showing your obvious “bigotry” to the world. Can’t wait to see the reaction of advertising/marketing sponsors. You’ll get treated the same way you treat others.
Bev’s right. It probably doesn’t do much good asking the religious nuts following this to try to answer a logical question. Although I did think that they would just go quiet and have the rest of us assume that they can’t put a logical sequence of thoughts together. As it is, instead Ernest wrote his little sequence and removed all doubts.
And he thinks Canada’s in the EU, showing that he missed geography class as well as logic class the day they taught them in high school!
” .. The Dept of Homeland security will NOT grant a fiancee visa to a man coming to join a man in civil union. That’s reserved for people getting married ..”
Yeah — and the EU doesn’t ape USA laws, either. So what — who’s the bigot there, God?
Yes, we know — tolerance for thee, not anyone else.
That dog will never, ever hunt.
Anyone who thinks it is so lousy in the U.S. is free to move to the E.U., where it is perfect and wonderful. And you’re forced to do what your parents did.
I just want to thank you and commend you for sticking to your views in what I have learned is a losing “proposition” (pun intended, haha), and that is, arguing with religious people. Don’t you know that they already know everything, and therefore any discussion is useless?
Personally, I think all legal concepts of “next of kin” be it through blood relation or “marital” relation, should be abolished and replaced with the necessity for a specific legal designation of each of one’s relatives, heirs, personal partners, etc. After all, why should anyone have any legal rights just by being blood relatives of someone either, like inheriting their money when they die intestate? Let’s scrap the whole idea and start over. Now THAT would definitely go against the bible, which, parenthetically, was written when men possessed women like property…..
There are no winners in this argument. Homosexuals are now receiving the backlash by the activism of some very obnoxious people, gay or otherwise. If they are gay, then are the rest of us ‘not gay’ or just ‘unhappy”.
It has been studied that most people, man or women have some homosexual experimentation during early adolesence.
Those who become homosexual do so because of learned behavior and/or emotional events which occur in their life with same or opposite sex. It comes down to who do they trust more…same sex or opposite sex… There may be some genetic component but the vast majority of homosexuals learn this behavior.
Now people on both sides of this argument can quote studies at length proving their point of view.
the homophobes have their own latent sexuality issues as well. It is just a matter of degree.
As well as being too chicken to use their real name or email PhobiaPhobe is also wrong. The Dept of Homeland security will NOT grant a fiancee visa to a man coming to join a man in civil union. That’s reserved for people getting married. Equally they will not recognize men married to men legally in other countries like Spain and Canada as “one family” when they visit the US for customs and immigration purposes.
So Phobiaphobe and his ilks defense of the “word” has real consequences denying rights–which they enjoy–to other human beings, who I remind them are equally human. That’s discrimination & that’s bigotry.
“Welcome to the bigots, justifying themselves in “majority opinion.” This may include Obama’s, for which he is dead wrong.”
Maybe you don’t mean me, since I didn’t make any statement about my view being validated by others. However, if you don’t believe in voting to determine what stands, then Obama’s election can also be questioned. What I think is that activists for gay marriage/rights want to make it clear that they are above any ridiculous ruling and the meaning of language. They should be able to change language and author confusion and misunderstanding, since language that we all understand means communication.
“Actually, I’m fine in theory with abolishing marriage altogether and just having a series of private CONSENSUAL contracts regarding rights, Consensual polygamy…is fine with me.”
It’s fine with YOU. And YOU are so important that you should be able to abolish marriage.
“If I am an American man and I want to commit myself in a loving relationship with a woman from another country, because of my act of engagment that woman has the right to move here, marry me and establish residency. So please tell me why if I am an American man and I want to commit myself in a loving relationship to a man from another country, should that man not also have the right to move here, marry me and establish residency?”
You can go right ahead and commit yourself to that relationship. You don’t need permission. The man should be able to move here, establish residency and obtain a civil union with you. However, civil unions have been abolished in some places (like Ohio) because of gay rights activists, so you might have to suffer yourself for their actions.
“I’m awaiting one of the bigots to tell me that this is not about rights, it’s not about hating people who are different, but it’s about defining a word. Come on, oh logical ones, give it your best shot.”
Okay. It’s not about rights, it is about redefining a word. At least it is to me.
“Or just be brave, and admit that you hate gay people and want to discriminate against them. At least you’d be being honest.”
Maybe this is what you want, and what the activists want – hatred and discrimination against gay people. You are begging for it, and in the name of honesty! I wonder who is being dishonest. I for one would not hesitate to say if I hated something, so I will say that I hate activists for gay rights whether or not they are gay. “Gays” or “straights” has no meaning to me, as they are anonymous generalizations. I am interested in the individual, but when you mention gay activists, there is meaning to the term. They are the ones who cause harm to gays, hatred and division. You do not speak for all gays, nor do the activists I refer to. Also, since you want us to hate and honestly declare it, I cannot stand Gavin Newsome.
Wow, I feel so brave.
Rather than commenting on the topic of the post – my first thought is, how does this relate to healthcare??
” .. Or just be brave, and admit that you hate gay people and want to discriminate against them. At least you’d be being honest.”
OMG! You have accused “The Messiah” and African-American churches of gay-hate! How dare you!
Welcome to the bigots, justifying themselves in “majority opinion.” This may include Obama’s, for which he is dead wrong.
The plygamy argumet is actually nota bout polygamy. It’s about those opposed to gays and gay marriage lumping paedophiles and polygyamists (usually also of some fundamentalist religious persuasion) who prey on children, in the same camp as gays who want to marry. Rick Warren has done exactly that.
Actually, I’m fine in theory with abolishing marriage altogether and just having a series of private CONSENSUAL contracts regarding rights, Consensual polygamy (which does not include forcible marriage of old men to children the way it’s usually practiced here) is fine with me.
But that’s not the way the law works here. Marriage brings several legal rights with it and this is actually about civil liberties. So to my critics eagerly looking at their Google searches about Prop 8, you claim that this is about “words” and “definitions”. So let me ask you a concrete question.
If I am an American man and I want to commit myself in a loving relationship with a woman from another country, because of my act of engagment that woman has the right to move here, marry me and establish residency. So please tell me why if I am an American man and I want to commit myself in a loving relationship to a man from another country, should that man not also have the right to move here, marry me and establish residency?
Because they don’t and that is just one concrete right that the ban on gay marriage denies.
I’m awaiting one of the bigots to tell me that this is not about rights, it’s not about hating people who are different, but it’s about defining a word. Come on, oh logical ones, give it your best shot.
Or just be brave, and admit that you hate gay people and want to discriminate against them. At least you’d be being honest.
Matthew Holt- Just want to confirm that you are OK with Polygamy being legalized as well. I get soooooo sick and tired of people not including polygamists. man-woman, man-man, woman-woman. Why not man-man-woman, woman-woman-man, man-man-man-man, etc. Logic must follow that polygamists are consensual adults and should have the rights to marry just like gays right? Why are we discriminating and just trying to get gays the right to vote? If you aren’t ok with this then I demand that you stop being a ‘Polygamy hating’ person.
Yes, our President-Elect sided with the traditional African-American churches, 33 states, and the U.S. Congress to support the traditional definition of marriage. One silly male with one silly female — how ordinary and everyday!
How dare he! How dare they!
Their right to free speech is hereby revoked — NOW! And they also have to write a letter of apology to Code Pink!
What I have learned is that anyone who supported Prop 8 is a homophobe and a bigot. In order not to be those things, you have to submit to the side that defines what opinion is proper. Our incoming president, by contrast, allows all opinions – even those that are contrary to his own. It is a matter of respect, but now I see a number of his supporters are outraged at him! How dare he be for freedom of thought and opinion! The only freedom these people want is the freedom to impose their ideas on others. Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. There is no value judgement attached to that statement, but I am frankly confused at how both sides of this issue seem to think that “marriage” has so much more meaning than it actually does.
It is J-O-N.
Yes, bigotry is awful. The way that traditional African-American churches have been treated for Code Pink is disgraceful and hateful.
Shame on those hateful Code Pink bigots, and those who support hateful bigotry against traditional African-American churches in California.