Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As you know part of my contribution as a guest blogger has been the fact that I write much from personal experience. This particular blog is one that I’ve thought about for awhile and have had some trepidation in writing because as you will see it touches on a very sensitive topic for most males. As a boy coming of age in the 1950’s one of the unvoiced, but omnipresent topics was male homosexuality. For a male growing up in that period, among the most upsetting epithets you could be called was queer. This was especially disturbing for those entering puberty, which in the 50’s context was coming into the macho essence of your own self worth. If you were queer you were deemed to be less of a male, a wimp, a fag and most essentially a loathsome pervert who did disgusting things with other males. People were bullied and beaten at school while being called degrading names. Even though I was always big for my age, I was a gentle and sensitive boy and while when attacked I would always fight back, I would be throwing punches through tears of frustration and rage at the injustice of it all. As I cried and fought, all those demeaning epithets would be hurled at me by the jeering bystanders. If I had the temerity to be winning, then other boys would attack me from behind. Finally, a teacher or Administrator would break it up, many times though my rescuer would sneer at the fact that my crying was “unmanly”.
At the same time in the 50’s, stories would occasionally appear in the papers and TV, of police raiding homosexual nightclubs and arresting the participants for engaging in lewd acts. These stories were always couched in vague terminology since homosexuality was such a sensitive topic, indeed most discussions of sexuality in general were not considered decent topics for open discussion in the media. Even though my parents were very open about sexuality for the time and I was told the “facts of life” at a young age, they never discussed homosexuality with me. To be honest I never asked because my father was what you would call a “Man’s Man”, or “hale fellow well met”. He was large and had a history as a brawler in his youth. I wanted to be like him have his respect, so although I could ask him anything about sex, I never asked him about homosexuality. Taboo subjects interested me. The mystique surrounding homosexuality perked my interest. Through reading and from Freud, I tried to get a handle on what this strange “perversion” was and why it was considered so bad that it needed the intervention of law enforcement. My attraction was always towards women, but I wanted to understand why some men (and some women) were attracted to the same sex. There simply wasn’t enough information at the time to give me any sort of understanding and Freud’s position was among the least helpful. What I did know is that having been called queer and fag, knowing how it hurt, my empathy for those who were homosexual and how they were treated increased. It is the question of do you side with the oppressors, or the oppressed? What moved me to finally write this piece was a story out of Louisiana in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/louisiana-police-sting-gay-men-anti-sodomy-law_n_3668116.html It is about the Sheriff’s Office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that has arrested at least a dozen men since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with undercover police officers. What makes this case so bizarre for these times, yet so familiar when its law enforcement dealing with homosexuality, is that they were arrested under a law that had been declared unconstitutional?
“In all of the cases, the men were arrested under the state’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Technically invalid yet still on the books, the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same-sex or opposite-sex or with an animal” along with “solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,” according to Louisiana legislature.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, told the Baton Rouge Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
However, the Advocate also revealed that none of these cases had been prosecuted by District Attorney Hillar Moore III, whose office could find no evidence of any crime being committed by any of the arrested men.”
Obviously, District Attorney Moore had more common sense than the Sheriff’s Office that formulated the “sting”. The statement by Mr. Hicks is thoroughly disingenuous to say the least. Knowing the “law on the books” was unconstitutional they did it anyway as their way of harassing gay men and most probably because of their own distaste for homosexuality. Before SCOTUS rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas , all over this country the police were harassing members of the LGBT community. Some of this harassment was done because of the predominant religious mores of the particular community and some was done because by nature many police officers and District Attorneys in the U.S. see themselves as macho defenders of justice and more importantly public morals.
Even today when being Gay has been favorably portrayed in the media, when there are beloved Gay celebrities and when SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, there are many who are horrified by the notion of homosexuality and consider it evil. Many of these people are in positions of power today and the vileness, to me at least; of their statements railing against the notion of Gay Rights proliferate even though those rights are now being recognized as Constitutional guarantees. Below are some links that will give you an idea of the amount of anti-gay bigotry that is hysterically increasing in the face of this country becoming far more accepting of people’s inherent right to their sexual preference.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41549/10-craziest-michele-bachmann-anti-gay-quotes
There are many more quotations available, but let me point out that two of those links refer to people who were contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination and other was from a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Clearly the battle for the human rights of the LBGT community is far from over, even though much progress has been made. The fact is there are many in the United States that for religious reasons, personal prejudice and preference will keep battling against what seems to be a rising tide. I write this to emphasize that it is not time to rest in this issue which to me has an importance far beyond just the issue of who consenting adults have sex with. I have written before about the threat that religion of the extreme fundamentalist stripe creates towards the idea of democracy. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/morsi-democracy-and-problem-with-fundamentalist-politics/ . This blowback by religionists is taking place in many regions of the world.
“MOSCOW — A new law banning “homosexual propaganda” in Russia is raising concerns about the state of human rights in a country already notorious for silencing dissent.
The legislation is vague but its intent is clear: It is now “illegal to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18), and there are hefty fines for those who disobey. Foreigners are also subject to fines and can be deported.” http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/27/19699629-homosexual-propaganda-law-signals-latest-russian-crackdown?lite
This crackdown in Russia is now being pushed to further extremes and affects visitors there:
“In an even wider crackdown in Russia over expressions of homosexuality, gay athletes and fans will be prohibited from displays of affection and the wearing of pro-homosexual rainbow pins and badges during the 2014 Olympics. Violators face steep fines and jail time, foreigners will face similar penalties plus deportation.” http://www.catholic.org/sports/story.php?id=51935
Much of this Russian zeal to crackdown on homosexuals stems from pressure coming from the Russian Orthodox Church upon Putin and other Russian officialdom. In post Communist Russia the Orthodox Church has been a major player and has undergone a tremendous resurgence. It has definitely been an important political player and Putin et. al. have courted their support. The Russian Orthodox Church probably outdoes the Catholic Church in its opposition to homosexuality. However, homophobia in Russia has a long history and in 1933 Stalin also came down hard on homosexuals and led one of his characteristic purges.
“In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
On Friday Professor Turley even posted a blog about the situation in Russia. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/02/russian-gays-forced-to-drink-urine-and-beaten-as-part-of-cure-by-nationalist-thugs/
Another example of “legal” homophobia around the world are the attacks on homosexuals by various African Governments and the draconian penalties for being homosexual that are being imposed:
“More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and despite accounting for a significant percentage of new infections in many countries, men who have sex with men tend to be left out of the HIV response.” http://www.irinnews.org/report/87793
As we can see there is still significant oppression of homosexuals around the world and I haven’t even gotten into the dangerous situations in many other countries for those who don’t meet the standard heterosexual criteria. In the U.S. Russia’s anti-homosexual laws have drawn praise from a source that seems a surprise, but then again maybe not a surprise at all:
“As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.
“You admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda,” said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here.” Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. “We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on social issues,” he said.
Among others commending Russia’s anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”Russians do not want to follow America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth,” LaBarbera said on his website.
In a sign of Russia’s evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin’s Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html
My premise is that the battle for the right to be of different sexual orientation is a subset of the battle to impose a religious based morality on people under the color of law. The issue of Gay rights is just one aspect of this threat. It has assumed almost a center stage in the battle to theocratize governments because for males all over the world, the idea of not being “man enough” hits at the core of their being. I reject the whole concept that a male’s self worth should be tied up in his sexual preferences and experiences. Many who have known me view me in macho terms. As the son of a “man’s man” I learned how to interact with other males and can talk sports, cars and women with the best of them. There is a swagger to my walk and with my height and large head many friends called and call me “Big Mike”. I played many sports and while never a good athlete I was competent as a player. Those who really know me best though see my more sensitive, feminine and in many ways better side. I’m a bit of a gossip; I love Broadway Musicals; loved Judy Garland and Peter Allen and I cry copiously in both joy and sorrow. Yes those are clichés used regarding Gay men, but these clichés apply to me as well.
I believe that for the human race finally to learn to live together peacefully and harmoniously we need to learn to stop making these distinctions about what is the natural state for perhaps ten percent of all of humans and indeed animals. Our sexual drives are complex and the need to satisfy our sexual urges is what drives us to interact with others. Sexuality needs to be viewed in its true sense as a spectrum of responses humans make in the search for pleasure and fulfillment. A good part of sexuality is curiosity and indeed one of the reasons humans have progressed so far is that we have an insatiable curiosity. This leads me to my own confession which I alluded to in the title and in my opening of this blog. In the 60’s and in the early 70’s I was an active participant in what was known as the sexual revolution. For the homosexual community the opening battle for their rights could be said to have occurred in the Stonewall Riots. I had many gay friends and acquaintances when those protests began on June 28th 1969. I even knew some who directly participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
When news of the protests reached the media I cried in joy at the unity in fighting back against police repression and the corruption it engendered. In the following days I shared the sense of triumph coming from those protests with my Gay friends. To me looking back this was the opening shot of the fight for Gay freedom. Since I was so openly a supporter of freedom from oppression for the Gay community it was inevitable that a few years later one of my Gay male friends would proposition me. That this occurred was well known in my social group and there was good natured pressure on me to at least give it a try. This pressure arose partly because at the time I was involved in a ménage with two women and they playfully taunted me that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. It was with much fear and trepidation that I took my male friend up on his offer. My experience was a good one and there was pleasure to be had, but it also confirmed for me that my sexual preference was for the female body. So it goes and it matters not if it had led me on a different relationship path. It was said back in the day that one could be a married man for years, but if a man had even one homosexual experience he was a queer. That is frankly nonsense and is believed by ignorant people. Admittedly I gave into peer pressure and in a sense I can’t claim that my experiment was one of courage, but I would also be lying if I denied that I was curious about the difference between gay and straight sex. The truth is that there is really very little difference except body structure and the limits that imposes. The underlying reality though is that normal human interaction between individuals doesn’t differ to any great degree and depends primarily on the personality of the participants. I look back upon my experiments in sexuality with warmth and a certain amount of pride that I was able to satisfy my curiosity along with the pleasure it brought.
However, that is not my point. What one does with their sexuality, provided it is consensual and among peers, is nobody’s business but that of the participants. One’s sexuality neither defines ones character, nor does it define one’s self worth. Those “paragons” of morality, who would call those whose sexual practices don’t conform to their own “evil,” are to my mind somewhat crazy. Why should any of us care how people get their pleasure as long as it harms no one?
In many places of the world, in many eras of civilization’s long history, religion has made sexuality a target of hatred. Some, but certainly not all religions target sexuality as a means of gaining political power. In many eras through history religion and government have had a symbiotic relationship, with religious belief being used to assist the powers that be in retaining their power and their positions atop a society’s hierarchy. We see in the Gospels of Christianity for instance a Jesus who disdains wealth, abjures the rich and would even break bread with those looked down upon by society. Jesus never once deals with homosexuality. Yet the Roman Catholic Church began under the control of the Roman Emperor and so the emphasis of Jesus strictures to “turn the other cheek” or the difficulties of a rich man getting into Heaven were downplayed and the Pentateuch’s sexual rigidity was brought to the forefront. I don’t mean to single out Christianity in this respect, because we see the same pattern existing in all great religions. Economic disparity and oppression are hard to justify morally and certainly would put any religion on a collision course with the elite’s power that they seek to share, so sexuality becomes an easy focus. Those with political power and wealth don’t mind sexual repression since it never interferes with their own pleasures and it certainly helps to keep the common folk down. Since most places throughout human history have been dominated by Alpha Males repression of homosexuality has found approval, but no more so than repression of women’s rights. The irony is that some of the most “Alpha” of males like the Spartan Army and Alexander The Great were probably gay, or at the least “Bi”. Then of course they were pagans and in many of those religions sexuality was of little import.
The prejudice against the LBGT community is a real evil that we face simply because it is a prejudice against the reality of human nature. To demonize people for their sexuality, their sex, the color of their skin or for their ethnicity is the real evil in this world. I support, nay demand, full citizenship rights for the LBGT community and if in your opposition to that natural state you want to call me queer, go right ahead, I’ll wear the mantle proudly.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Harry Enfield – The Conjugal Rights Guide
SF, you were the one who brought up latex. I am all in favor of using gloves and condoms where appropriate.
As for your speculation about my sex life, the love of my life died two years ago. This coming August 19 would have been our 57th anniversary. I wrote about her on our anniversary last year.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/19/1121831/-One-of-the-great-love-stories-An-anniversary-diary
Do you enjoy causing others unneeded pain?
@OtterS:
The point was about sex, not Obamacare. I am uncertain why I should be concerned about doctors and nurses wearing gloves, unless I am playing doctor with somebody in my bedroom. Which, I don’t.
If you are comfortable with the whole rubber glove thingy being part of your sex life, then I suggest when you go on a date, along with a condom or two, you start carrying a couple of pairs of latex gloves in your wallet, or purse, whichever the case may be. Plus maybe some betadine scrub, lysol spray, a roll or two of paper towels, maybe some Little Tree air fresheners, a roll of visqueen, and a suitably marked Hazardous Material 55 gallon drum to dispose of said materials when you and your partner are finished expressing your deepest emotions.
However, the appearance of spontaneity may be a problem.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
David,
In my opinion, anyone who engages in an act where transmission of an infectious disease is either likely or possible, if they know they have the disease, should be liable if they do not tell the other person. That can be civil, criminal, or both. I am aware of some states where such a transmission is classified as felony assault. It should not matter how the disease is transmitted, just that one person put the other at risk through negligence, carelessness, laziness, or vindictiveness.
Of course, if the infected person is unaware, or has not been diagnosed, that is a different story. If a person is infected, then the other person should have the option of making the choice of using protection. I see a lot of clients who are positive for hepatitis. Same rules apply. I get to make the choice after assessing the type of hepatitis, which allows me to determine the level of protective measures I need to take.
Squeeks,
I don’t know how to break this to you, but it is mandatory for health care providers to wear gloves when doing a vaginal or any other kind of patient contact where bacteria or a virus might be transmitted. That includes the vagina, penis, mouth, eyes and skin, to name a few.
When handling chemotherapy drugs, most oncology units now require nurses and doctors to double-glove; that is, wear two pairs of gloves.
Sexually-related infections are not the only kind of infection health care providers are concerned about.
http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/2011/04/double-gloving-myth-versus-fact.aspx
@David
That was a FANTASTIC link you provided! I have bookmarked it for future reference. I love the Liberal Legal Activism analysis he gave. Plus, the whole “Gays ain’t getting married or staying married in significant enough numbers to matter” thingy. Which all the parrots here continue to ignore.
@VestalV: Oh, I agree with you that straights are nothing to write home about, either! After I chunked my last boyfriend out the door, I haven’t had another one, and won’t ever again. That was three years ago, and I haven’t looked back. Having a man around is like having a pet monkey. They are kind of cute, and they do funny things, but you never know when they will stick their tail in a light socket and burn the house down.
@others, I really love your hypocrisy. David makes a point about the whole p*nis and v*gina thing, which equates to, “But those two kinds of marriage [straight and gay] aren’t the same at all.” That’s an arguable point, but you guys just give him heck for making the argument.
Then, when the very Sotomeyor-ish question is put to you, what about polygamy??? Guess how you guys respond: “But the two kinds of marriage [gay and polygamish] aren’t the same at all! Wow, that’s brilliant.
@MikeS: I am beginning to think that you live in Fantasy Land, sort of a 50 Shades of Delusion world. You can’t think of anything yucky about gay sex except copraphilia??? My goodness, the sanitary aspects of gay male sex is probably what brought down the Wrath of the Hebrews upon them in the first place. Please read my GUESS above about about antibiotics and AUT infections.
That kind of sex, gay or straight, is simply chugging full of unhealthiness. If you think things can be sufficiently cleaned up, let me suggest an experiment for you! Go squirt some soap suds into your commode. Then, flush it twice. Now, get you a glass, and start getting your drinking water out of it! Nobody talks about that kind of stuff, because like I said earlier, it is considered de classe, (or is it decolletage??? I get my French words mixed up a lot.) but you know facts is facts. You really should read up on this kind of stuff before you give it the Spindell Seal of Approval:
Here is something from a Rabid Right Wing Lunatic Web Site that you might enjoy:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns
Some places suggest “latex, polyurethans or nitrile gloves to reduce the risk of getting STIs though tiny cuts on your hands.” Ewww! Yuck!!! Oh why do I think that our nation will one day be replaced by people who simply f*ck, without all the grease and accoutrements???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
(PS: Yes, Mike, I lied to you about it being a rabid right wing lunatic web site, but I figured that was the only way I could get you to read stuff that you might find uncomfortable about knowing.)
David,
Did you know that when lawmakers pass a law regulating some activity, a definition of that activity is typically inserted into the language of the law? They may or may not decide to use a standard dictionary definition for that language. I wrote a piece a few weeks ago about the new fifth edition of the “dictionary” used by mental health providers, called the DSM5. Even the American Psychiatric Association, hardly a liberal organization by any stretch of the imagination, deleted homosexuality as a disorder from the diagnostic manual a couple of editions back. Definitions of words change. The great architect invited King James I to see his newly completed cathedral. King James is reported to have exclaimed, “Sir Christopher, how awful, how artificial.”
Would you believe Sir Christopher was most flattered by the King’s comment? In the language of the day, the King was actually saying, “How awe inspiring and artistic it is.”
Incidentally, the King James version of the Bible has some of the same problems of language. Language has changed significantly since 1601, so people who quote that version verbatim may be turning language on its head.
Besides, what has intercourse got to do with marriage? It is usually a part of the activity of married couples, but not always. One does not need a marriage license to engage in consensual sexual activity of any kind, including intercourse. Notice I said “consensual.” Non-consensual sex is felony rape (either statutory or forcible) everywhere in the country. The same-sex marriage proposals and already enacted laws do not address the matter of sex. The purpose is legally recognized companionship, with certain rights and obligations attendant thereto. The only part of reproduction addressed by marriage laws have to do with child care and custody if the marriage dissolves. Government is supposed to stay out of people’s bedrooms. Anthony Comstock is dead and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) is the law of the land.
All Estelle Griswold and Lee Buxton wanted was to make their own reproductive decisions. The SCOTUS agreed their sex lives were a private matter, and the government had no business meddling with such a private matter.
OS wrote: “Did you know that when lawmakers pass a law regulating some activity, a definition of that activity is typically inserted into the language of the law?”
Yes. It is interesting how important definitions can be in the law. Here in Florida a few years back, it was reported that a lesbian lost her case against her lesbian lover who had not disclosed that she was HIV positive. She lost on appeal because of dispute over the meaning of the phrase “sexual penetration.” The Statute on incest defined sexual intercourse as, “the penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ, however slight; emission of semen is not required.” However, the specific statute regarding the requirement for informing sexual partners of sexual diseases with which they have been infected did not define the phrase at all. I read another appeal just last May where the State was appealing a dismissal by a trial court regarding homosexual oral sex, and it too hinged on this same situation of how this phrase “sexual penetration” is understood.
David,
“Seeing the complementary nature of the sexes, I see the conjugation of them coming together in marriage as being a kind of completion of that goal and purpose. I have not used this argument here because it is not a scientific argument and is more closely related to religion . . .”
Actually, David, you’ve used this argument many times on many different threads.
You expend much compositional energy to sound rational about the subject at hand, but your repulsive disdain is always exposed in statements such as these:
“I have never argued here that they should be denied the right to associate or to form a special union that grants them certain privileges that normal roommates would not have.”
Roommates? So if we as a society viewed SSCs as just “roommates” then all would be well?
“Unfortunately, it will do very little in making them feel better about their sexuality. Rather than helping them with their psychological issues . . .”
You have consistently stated that SSCs have made a choice, now you admit that you see this choice as representative of psychological issues.
“. . . and the extreme effort to deny those differences, to ignore those differences, to pretend the differences do not exist, well, it gets a little annoying at times.”
No one is pretending that differences don’t exist, it would seem the thrust of their argument is that these “differences” do not justify discrimination before the law and relegation to some special “roommate” status.
Have you ever been to reality, David?
It’s a lovely place.
And speaking of word play, David, if you want to argue that sexual intercourse is exclusively a heterosexual endeavor? I’m willing to have that argument too. Per the OED:
sexual intercourse
noun
[mass noun]
sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man’s erect penis into a woman’s vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.
Note the word choice “especially”.
especially /ɪˈspɛʃ(ə)li, ɛ-/
adverb
1: used to single out one person or thing over all others:
2: to a great extent; very much:
Now contrast with . . .
exclusively
adverb
to the exclusion of others; only
This comports to the reality that a great extent of sexual intercourse is comprised of heterosexual coupling as heterosexuals are the majority of our species, however, it does not limit sexual intercourse to those behaviors exclusively, instead giving heterosexual coupling as a prime but not sole example.
The primary aspect of sexual intercourse is actions taken for sexual purposes (including pleasure) that involve penetration.
Homosexuals can engage in penetration for sexual purposes ergo they can engage in sexual intercourse and are therefor perfectly capable of consummating their marriage.
Any other arguments you’d care to lose before you start them this morning?
DavidM: This is just more word games.
As are all of your points, since you want to protect the “definition” of marriage. What could be more word play than protecting a definition of a word?
DavidM says: What I disagree with is that they use their classification of sexuality to play this rhetorical game that ultimately destroys an institution that has been a basis for civilization.
First, there is no evidence and plenty of logic to conclude that marriage is NOT a basis for civilization at all; that marriage is a far later concept. Procreation and even commitment existed before marriage. To the small extent the Bible can be trusted to reflect the practices of society when it was written, modern monogamous marriage was certainly not the norm and mutual commitment was not a necessity for procreation or the many thousands of years of civilization that preceded the Bible.
Second, however it arose civilization is already here, and there is nothing inherently good about reverence for any scaffolding that helped build it. I think it is a fair argument that slavery played a significant role in construction of Roman civilization, but Rome can now continue without the aid of slavery, and without revering slavery, in fact Rome would best continue in the modern world if it condemns slavery and embraces freedom.
I think it is a fair argument that slavery and the genocide of native Americans played a significant role in the construction of America. It was reprehensible, and I believe unnecessary, but there it sits, an inescapable artifact of a deed we cannot undo, and although we are not personally responsible for it (because I do not believe in inheriting blame) the environment it created now benefits many of us.
We do not have to revere slavery or genocide or the subjugation of women because it indirectly served us. A child of rape does not have to admire rape. If bigoted marriage had anything to do with the formation of civilization (which I doubt), its job is done and we can move on to a less hateful form of it.
In order to continue preventing homosexuals from marriage, one must show that it is necessary to the continuance of civilization, not that is was necessary to the formation of it.
Clearly if you do not object to homosexuality per se or civil unions with all the benefits of marriage then you cannot identify anything that would prevent civilization from continuing with same-sex marriages by those that desire them, nor can you show any harm that would result from that, other than your fevered imaginings that future heterosexuals will be too stupid to understand such commitments or too stupid to make their own such commitments and have children without a proper (in your eyes) definition of some word.
That’s cute, David, but once again you’ve inadvertently shown you don’t know how to evaluate sources of information or expertise properly in the production of evidence. The definition I provided came from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Familiar with it?
“The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), published by the Oxford University Press, is by a considerable margin the largest dictionary of the English language. Work began on the dictionary in 1857[2]:103–4,112 but it was not until 1884 that it started to be published in unbound fascicles as work continued on the project under the name A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles; Founded Mainly on the Materials Collected by The Philological Society.[3]:169 In 1895, the title The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was first used[4] unofficially on the covers of the series and in 1928 the full dictionary was republished in ten bound volumes. In 1933, it fully replaced the name in all occurrences to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in its reprinting as twelve volumes with a one volume supplement[4] and more supplements came over the years until in 1989 when the second edition was published in twenty volumes.[4] As of 24 March 2011, the editors had completed the third edition from M to Ryvita. With descriptions for approximately 750,000 words, the Oxford English Dictionary is the world’s most comprehensive single-language print dictionary according to the Guinness Book of World Records.”
In the scholarly pursuit of language, it is considered the definitive dictionary.
Now where’s that specific harm?
Gene, you offered a definition for consummation which used the phrase sexual intercourse to define it. You assumed you knew what sexual intercourse was and that gay people can do that. What I did was give you the Oxford definition of sexual intercourse. Look it up. Be quick, because they have legalized gay marriage over there where the dictionary is published, so definitions are likely to change soon.
Btw, ever been to Oxford? It is a lovely town.
David,
I’m not making a statement about no fault divorce as either good or bad. I’m saying, the traditionalists claim of having concern for marriage is not borne out by the attention they give to no fault divorce, which is, apparently, zero.
It’s not “the final nail in the coffin” so much as “all the attention on one nail, no attention on the other”.
You raised another point. Divorce at common law, as I understand it, was never as strict as Jesus’ proscription on divorce in the New Testament.
What gives, heteros?
Vestal Virgin
Gene H – I tried to post two dictionary definitions for you, but WordPress blocked it probably for the words being used in the definition. If you care to free it to post or just read it privately, I would be much obliged.
While we’re at it and speaking of words with meaning . . . where’s that specific harm you’ve been unable to come up with?
consummation /kɒnsəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n, -sjʊ-/
noun
the action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse:
I guarantee you that homoseuxal couples can conummate their marriage.
Words do have actual meanings other than the ones you make up out of ignorance, fear, delusion, etc.
Sexual intercourse! It’s not just for
breakfastprocreation anymore, Anitia!Gene, thou dictionary lover —
WordWeb:
Noun: Sexual Intercourse
The act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man’s penis is inserted into the woman’s vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
New Oxford American Dictionary:
sex‧u‧al in‧ter‧course
▶ noun sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, esp. the insertion of a man’s erect penis into a woman’s vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.
—
Note: a woman strapping on a toy and inserting into another woman does not constitute sexual intercourse. While it might be fun and exciting, it does not create the same kind of relationship between the two as that created through true coitus.
David,
My position is that same sex marriage is a civil right for sexual minorities.
What I’m trying to point out is, the traditional marriage side doesn’t live the consequences of their own position, in terms of attempting to shape the law around their beliefs, as it would affect them. This is how you can have a mini-DOMA in a state with no fault divorce.
Actually, they don’t even pay lip service to it. It’s not like there’s a national discussion on the return of fault divorce, or any discussion at all for that matter.
That would be the starting point for a real discussion.
Vestal Virgin
V wrote: “It’s not like there’s a national discussion on the return of fault divorce, or any discussion at all for that matter.”
The grounds for divorce have been discussed way back over millennia. In the Talmud one can read the debate of such between Hillel and Shammai, and even Jesus was asked about it. There continue to be a lot of discussions about it, but no big national push to change the civil laws that have become more liberal about marriage.
One way to look at all of this, no-fault divorce as well as gay marriage, is that they represent an assault upon the institution of marriage. Do you think providing for gay marriage under the same banner as heterosexual marriage will make this situation better? No way. It is like the final nail in the coffin. Marriage now becomes even more meaningless in that it is now stripped of gender diversity, reproduction, and consummation through coitus. As has been documented in the nations already adopting gay marriage, people will no longer value marriage at all and simply choose to have children out of wedlock. The marriage contract will mean less, and it will be based upon nothing more than two people agreeing to cohabit together. If no-fault divorce bothers you, I’m sure the next step will bother you even more. The next step will be no need for divorce at all. Just like other contracts we enter into, you will simply have to agree with the other party that the contract has been terminated. Why waste money and time having to go to court about it? We don’t have to do that with other contracts where both parties agree to terminate the relationship. In the end, the fabric of a strong civilized society which is built upon the family unit will be seriously damaged. Some people want uncivilized society. I’m sure the anarchists and libertarians will love it.
DavidM: But my sexual activity and the bearing of children will be with other women who do not want the responsibility of parenting. Would this be a valid marriage in your eyes?
Sure. She might be infertile, or she might be asexual, or she might have other reasons she does not want children: Perhaps she knows she has a genetic predisposition to produce mentally disabled children, or children that will contract cancer, or carry a genetic disease. Perhaps due to accident or disease she is physically incapable of intercourse, but she is in love and knows her husband desperately wants children that are genetically his; and since she cannot provide them and artificial insemination is both expensive and (some believe) can have a higher rate of genetic error than natural insemination, she might not consider her husband’s extra-marital sexual activity as infidelity or cheating but a pragmatic and affordable means to the end of her own desire to raise children and have a family with a partner that loves her.
What adults agree to in marriage is their business, as long as nobody else is harmed and nobody is coerced (including the other women in this picture.)
I sincerely doubt the probability of your hypothesis, but it is at least possible and in my eyes could still constitute a valid marriage of emotional commitment without sex.
The more plausible scenario is simply elderly marriage, which may not involve any intercourse at all, but can still involve romantic love, companionship, commitment and trust in granting decision-making rights to one’s spouse.
Okay Tony, so now we have now we have to remove yet a third thing from the traditional laws concerning marriage — consummation. Please keep adding to the list of how the definition of marriage must be changed in order to accommodate the homosexuals and protect their alleged right to marriage. Marriage is completely unrecognizable at this point and we might as well become tribal barbarians. Let me look for my necktie so I can wipe my mouth.
davidm,
“The point is that the whining shriek of ‘they want to deny gays and lesbians equal rights’ is completely off base.”
It’s not off base. It’s a correct assessment. You hear it as a “whining shriek” because you don’t like what supporters of gay rights are saying.
Times change. Our views change. Things change. Women can vote now. No one is forced to wear a scarlet letter because they are guilty of adultery these days. This is the 21st century.
DavidM: You want to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person with whom they are in mutual romantic love and with whom they believe they want to spend their life; a right that heterosexuals already have.
The fact that this right is not explicitly written in the Constitution does not make it less of a right, the founders were quite clear that enumerating rights in the Constitution did not exclude the existence of other rights; and it is also clear that the enumeration of broad rights in the Constitution can logically imply the existence of more specific rights, particularly rights the founders did not anticipate, such as the finding of a right to privacy in one’s telephone conversations.
Marriage without regard to gender-matching will become such a right, it is (and I think always has been) the logical implication of the Constitution. It just sometimes takes generations for society to overcome the hateful bigotry they are taught as children and then try to teach to their own children. We are fortunate that many children have minds of their own and can learn on their own to resist passing on to their own kids the virulent worst of their parent’s harmful ideas.
I consider it society’s immune system functioning properly; to drive harmful ideas like yours into extinction.
Tony C wrote: “You want to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person with whom they are in mutual romantic love and with whom they believe they want to spend their life; a right that heterosexuals already have.”
This is just more word games. How many times do I have to say that I recognize the right of two people regardless of sex to form unions based upon romantic love. Do you even acknowledge that I recognize this right? I acknowledge the right of individuals to form civil partnerships regardless of their sex.
I also have agreed that the Constitution does not enumerate all the rights of individuals, so why the lecture on that?
What I disagree with is that they use their classification of sexuality to play this rhetorical game that ultimately destroys an institution that has been a basis for civilization. They truly think this will liberate them in the same way the Egyptians thought they would be liberated by replacing Mubarak with Mosi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, it will do very little in making them feel better about their sexuality. Rather than helping them with their psychological issues, we are patting them on the back like the guy wiping his mouth with his tie, and saying, good job, we like you, keep going.