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
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter,
There’s far closer symmetry between heterosexual hook ups in say, bars, or night clubs and homosexual hook ups in a park, as in the Baton Rouge story, than with the example you provided of heterosexual street prostitution, which, unlike the gay or straight hookups, involves an exchange of money.
Which gives the lie that this was about preventing self-destructive behavior or behavior that’s a public health threat. Assuming for the sake of argument no prior constitutional issues, it would be easy for the state to draw better circles on the Venn diagram that adequately captured those who are most promiscuous. But they don’t and wouldn’t of course, because this isn’t really about genuine health concerns, it’s about persecuting gay people. (What would make them so specifically concerned with gay people’s health, anyway? Do they not care at all about heterosexuals recklessly endangering themselves by hooking up?) The only way to make this argument becomes, then, to try to make gay synonymous with promiscuity, but this of course, no matter how many or how few promiscuous gay people there really are, is inherently indecent and inaccurate, because promiscuous gay people will always be a subset of all gay people, gay people will always be a subset of all sexual minorities, and promiscuous heterosexuals will always exist.
Other than that, I thought you made a lot of good points about the importance of a culture that emphasizes the cautious use of one’s body.
Sincerely,
Vestal Virgin
Vestal Virgin wrote: “this isn’t really about genuine health concerns, it’s about persecuting gay people. ”
Did you know that the law specifies both same sex and opposite sex activities? Why would it do that if it was about persecuting gay people? The persecution of gay people is manufactured by gay activists, just like when they manufactured the story about a gay couple who could not be buried together, even though the courts said they could, or the Windsor case where the court gave relief, but the SCOTUS still heard it even though the law caused no damages. When are you going to wake up and realize how the homosexual agenda is fooling a lot of people about discrimination that does not exist? The issue is about sexual morality, not sexual discrimination.
Vestal Virgin wrote: “The only way to make this argument becomes, then, to try to make gay synonymous with promiscuity, but this of course, no matter how many or how few promiscuous gay people there really are, is inherently indecent and inaccurate, because promiscuous gay people will always be a subset of all gay people, gay people will always be a subset of all sexual minorities, and promiscuous heterosexuals will always exist.”
You are identifying the confusion caused by the homosexual agenda. By falsely identifying homosexuality as a class that certain people are born into, then using an equality argument to claim falsely that their sexuality is exactly the same as a heterosexual’s sexuality, they fool people into thinking that there is no more promiscuity involved with what they do than the average heterosexual. In past generations, such an argument never made much headway because there were too many heterosexuals that were so far removed from the homosexual’s standard of promiscuity that they were not buying it. I mean, considering that one-fourth of homosexuals have had over 1,000 sexual partners, it took awhile before the heterosexuals could reach that kind of sexual immorality and be on the same level. I think it took certain sports figures, like Mohammed Ali, to brag about it before the majority of society began to warm up to the sexual standards that homosexuals have for themselves. Once the differences in promiscuity between these groups became less obvious, and once more heterosexuals wanted more license for their own sexual behavior, then people started agreeing with the homosexual agenda.
DavidM: It is not “spin,” and like most con-men your first defense is to accuse others of the crimes you commit.
Jefferson’s letters are clear, I have read the original text, most atheist clubs at most universities will have the collection of quotes. It is not “spin” if I read them myself and draw my own conclusions about Jefferson’s state of mind; either he is lying to many correspondents or he was irreligious.
You accuse me of spin while you engage in it; you accuse atheists of trying to silence you while you are trying to silence them, you accuse atheists of trying to take over Government while the Congress is packed 99% self-proclaimed deeply religious persons, and while you advocate an Amendment to prevent any consideration of atheistic organization while simultaneously demanding laws that enforce your religiously inspired point of view.
You are just full of hypocrisy and lies, David, just another zealot that will spout any lie to support your pre-determined conclusion.
Tony C wrote: “It is not “spin” if I read them myself and draw my own conclusions about Jefferson’s state of mind; either he is lying to many correspondents or he was irreligious.”
I hope you understand that when I spoke of spin, I had in mind atheist organizations at the universities I have been at here in Florida, as well as some of what they publish online. Have you ever had the experience of checking out facts only to find the person claiming to have the facts give you something taken completely out of context and misrepresented? I’m sure you have, because religious organizations do this all the time. Atheist organizations are even worse at doing this.
Jefferson was “irreligious.” However, he was not atheist.
I am irreligious too, probably more so than Jefferson. Jefferson could stomach going to church. I would have a hard time subjecting myself to that. Like Jefferson, I studied the Greek and Hebrew, and I began to see what so many in religion do with the Scriptures, and how they prey on the ignorance of others. That leads to a distrust of religion and especially the religious leaders.
However, like Jefferson, I too believe in God. No atheist would ever write something like the Declaration of Independence. None. In that document, Jefferson not only acknowledges the Creator, but outlines a duty given to us by our Creator and calls upon Providence to help us be successful in our revolt against the government of England.
The efforts that atheists go to trying to proclaim Thomas Jefferson as one of their own is completely absurd.
Tony C wrote: “you advocate an Amendment to prevent any consideration of atheistic organization…”
No, no. I think you misunderstood me here. I want atheist organizations to continue. What I was trying to convey was that a philosophical organization, whether it is atheist or religious, should be on the same footing. In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, I am arguing for freedom of atheist philosophy and organization.
My reason for speaking of an Amendment was because when the First Amendment was ratified, atheists were not really organized into any kind of establishments. So now we have the situation where they try to use a misinterpretation of the First Amendment to give them an edge in government and public education by proclaiming that government can freely embrace atheistic organizations and philosophies but they must shun religion of any kind. I think government should treat an establishment of atheism in the same way as an establishment of religion. Same protections. They should not respect one establishment over another, nor prohibit their free exercise. I hope this is more clear now.
Warspite: If you don’t have any lead to begin with, the handle just spins around to no purpose.
It produces excellent tinder.
rafflaw,
It’s also interesting how some individuals want other people to adhere to that individual’s “religious principles.”
Tony. If you have a solid base of knowledge from which to take off, contra-history (fancy name for Alt. History) can play a useful role. Metaphorically speaking, think of it as a pencil sharpener. If you don’t have any lead to begin with, the handle just spins around to no purpose.
But I think it safe to say that in certain fields of history, international affairs, etc., it can help one obtain insights you wouldn’t normally have reached. And, isn’t it always a good thing to try to understand another man’s point of view? I think one would really need a pretty good grasp of history and theology (some study of philosophy would also help) to reject Christianity and embrace Atheism.
On Jefferson, the biggest problem is that he wrote so much, over such a long period of time, its possible to find something to support any point of view. Sometimes you have to go way out of context, but I see folks do that with the Bible all the time. I’ve even heard homosexuals argue the Bible does NOT prohibit gay sexual relationships. They’re not very convincing, but they try.
Elaine,
It is interesting how blind adherence to religious principles can close one’s mind to the facts.
Make,
I’m worried about that David fellows homophobia …..
davidm2575,
“Marriage will become simply a contractual relationship between two parties. Marriage will basically become nothing more than a civil partnership.”
Fine. That’s the way it started out, as a contractual uniting of two tribes or families. That’s why parents arranged them.
“As in other countries that have had gay marriage, we will see less marriage happening resulting in more out of wedlock pregnancies.”
The first clause in your sentence has absolutely no connection to the second clause of your sentence.
There’s enough fear, intolerance, and hatred disseminated in the world, already. Please keep yours to yourself. If you like that kind of thing.
So far, from you, we have fear of blacks and gays. May we have another?
DavidM wrote: “Marriage will become simply a contractual relationship between two parties. Marriage will basically become nothing more than a civil partnership.”
Bob Kauten wrote: “Fine. That’s the way it started out, as a contractual uniting of two tribes or families. That’s why parents arranged them.”
I’m a little too progressive for this, Bob. 🙂 I think we should be moving forward in civilization, not backwards.
DavidM wrote: “As in other countries that have had gay marriage, we will see less marriage happening resulting in more out of wedlock pregnancies.”
Bob Kauten wrote: “The first clause in your sentence has absolutely no connection to the second clause of your sentence.”
I will slow down and try to fill in the gaps for you. When we take the definition of marriage and rip out its heart, well, what do you know, surprise, surprise, marriage seems to lose its meaning. When it loses its meaning, people fail to understand its purpose and do not engage in it.
Bob Kauten wrote: “There’s enough fear, intolerance, and hatred disseminated in the world, already. Please keep yours to yourself. If you like that kind of thing.”
I work hard to keep fear out of my life. I have often been told by others that I am not afraid of anything. As for intolerance and hatred, I believe we should be intolerant of evil and that we should hate evil. I wished you believed the same way.
davidm2575 1, August 5, 2013 at 10:43 am
Elaine M wrote: “How will allowing homosexuals who love one another to be legally married destroy marriage?”
Because in order to allow homosexuals to be under the banner of marriage, you have to strip marriage of two important aspects: 1) Gender Diversity, and 2) Reproductive purpose of sex
And as Rios pointed out, when you change marriage in these ways, the focus is upon love and romantic involvement only. As in other countries that have had gay marriage, we will see less marriage happening resulting in more out of wedlock pregnancies. Marriage will become simply a contractual relationship between two parties. Marriage will basically become nothing more than a civil partnership. So why destroy marriage? Why would society have to destroy it, only to have to reinvent it again after they realize the mistake they made? Why not discuss it first and learn from history?
*****
Here we go again with the gender diversity argument. How does that destroy marriage? If homosexuals get married, it will have no impact–negative or positive–on my marriage.
Regarding the “reproductive purpose of sex”:
Some heterosexuals who are married don’t have children by choice. Does that destroy marriage?
Many married couples use some form of birth control during their marriage. Does that destroy marriage?
Should older married women who can’t conceive and become pregnant be forced to get a divorce?
Elaine M wrote: “Here we go again with the gender diversity argument. How does that destroy marriage?”
I have repeated myself so often on this, that I hope you understand if I just pass from engaging you on this. I do not believe you want to enter into honest and serious dialogue on this or you would have tried to do that on one of the previous answers that I have given. Until you can engage on what I have already said in answer to this, the mountain of data and evidence I have that forms the basis for my opinion will not come forth.
Following is a link to just one of the many answers I have given to your question, which, coincidentally, is posted just below your post in that thread:
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/11/washington-attorney-general-sues-florist-who-refused-to-provide-flowers-for-gay-wedding/#comment-558032
Those that scream the loudest…. Usually have something to hide…..
DavidM: If we are going to define marriage based upon love and liberty alone, it will destroy marriage.
Then it needs to be destroyed, I guess, just like slavery and other forms of subjugation and bigoted discrimination. I am happy to let your version of “marriage” die and be replaced by what people really think marriage is about; a step toward reality is always a welcome change.
davidm2575 1, August 5, 2013 at 9:41 am
“Elaine – Rios comments were completely appropriate. If we are going to define marriage based upon love and liberty alone, it will destroy marriage.”
*****
How will allowing homosexuals who love one another to be legally married destroy marriage?
Elaine M wrote: “How will allowing homosexuals who love one another to be legally married destroy marriage?”
Because in order to allow homosexuals to be under the banner of marriage, you have to strip marriage of two important aspects: 1) Gender Diversity, and 2) Reproductive purpose of sex
And as Rios pointed out, when you change marriage in these ways, the focus is upon love and romantic involvement only. As in other countries that have had gay marriage, we will see less marriage happening resulting in more out of wedlock pregnancies. Marriage will become simply a contractual relationship between two parties. Marriage will basically become nothing more than a civil partnership. So why destroy marriage? Why would society have to destroy it, only to have to reinvent it again after they realize the mistake they made? Why not discuss it first and learn from history?
Juliet,
I think that issue was addressed in another thread recently.
Also, David keeps talking about “Natural Law.” He still has not gotten the memo that natural law is a philosophical construct, and varies depending on what philosopher or theologian you are reading at the moment. On the other hand Laws of Nature are immutable and only break down at unique places such as the event horizon of black holes.
I just replied to a comment by pbh51m in David’s (Nal) recent post. That thread was about neoconfederate denial of truths about the Civil War and the Constitution but hard core homophobes also fall into the same psychological category as other deniers. The comment is at the end of over six hundred comments, and that thread takes forever to load, so I will repeat it here:
There has actually been research on this phenomenon among neocons, neoconfederates and conspiracy theorists. The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance began as a serious issue with social psychologists beginning in 1954. More recently, research coming from behavioral scientists at the University of Kent in England has shed more light on the subject. These deniers/conspiracy theorists have many aspects of the Shared Delusional Disorder. However, instead of folie à deux, it morphs into folie à plusieurs.
Dr Wood from the University of Kent’s School of Psychology said: “Conspiracy theories are more about disbelieving the official story than believing in some alternative story, and that is reflected in how a lot of these online arguments unfold.”
In a nutshell, here is how a conversation with one of these folks typically goes:
The interesting thing Dr. Wood and his colleagues discovered was that the more facts, science, and hard evidence is presented, the harder conspiracy theorists hold onto the delusional belief. This is a pattern that borders on, or perhaps edges into, mental illness. I posted a story on climate change last night, and as Pete pointed out, that kind of story is a magnet for deniers. This is another area where deniers will still be denying when they are standing neck-deep in rising ocean water. One of the other things psychologists have observed is the fanaticism and persistence with which these deniers pursue lost causes on comment boards and blogs.
Security expert Dr. Bruce Schneier had a few observations to make about this phenomenon on his blog as well. Guess what? The CT folks were diving in on him with the first comment. Dr. Schneier observes that one might think the Internet and ease of access to vast amounts of factual information and documentation would make things better. As it turns out, the reverse is true. Schneier notes that in many ways the Internet has made it worse. He says:
“Through free communication, we will come to a more enlightened understanding. People can freely choose what to believe and what religions to join or not join. Government should stay out of it. Let the best religions win.”
*****
Why should religious beliefs determine whether gays and lesbians should have the right to be legally married?
David 2575, you have lost this argument.
davidm. wrote:
“Has it never occurred to you that some of us are very concerned about the harm that the gay lifestyle causes to those who enter it? Don’t you realize how many will be infected with AIDS? How many are going to suffer excessive mental issues like depression which leads them to commit suicide at a higher rate than others? I realize that you think that higher suicide rate is caused by society not accepting them, but others in society like me believe that it is completely unrelated to societal acceptance. We believe that their fighting so hard for societal acceptance and approval is simply a product of the internal turmoil caused by them engaging in homosexual behavior. Heterosexual promiscuity causes the same kinds of problems, so most honest heterosexuals know this all too well. ”
*****
Has it ever occurred to you that some of us are concerned that your view of gays causes them harm? How many gays suffer because there are people in our society who consider them to be immoral? How many suffer because people like you would choose to deny them equal rights? How many suffer because there are those who would deny them societal acceptance and approval?
Elaine M wrote: “Has it ever occurred to you that some of us are concerned that your view of gays causes them harm? How many gays suffer because there are people in our society who consider them to be immoral? How many suffer because people like you would choose to deny them equal rights? How many suffer because there are those who would deny them societal acceptance and approval?”
I know you think this, and this is exactly what is so troubling. There is no truth in what you are saying here. You are believing a lie, and you use that lie to justify bigotry and hatred against me. Now you use that lie to pass laws against people like us, to prosecute us under the law simply for trying to speak about what we believe.
I no more hurt a homosexual for trying to communicate with him about sexual morality than I hurt a promiscuous college student for trying to communicate how sexual promiscuity is dangerous and causes societal problems and problems for him. My actions and speech no more hurt the homosexual than I might in the minds of some people hurt my children by teaching them not to get involved romantically with other students, but to focus on their school work and objectives in life, and that sex is something wonderful to look forward to when they feel they are ready for marriage. What makes the homosexual so special that for whatever reason, the issue of sexual morality is off limits and not to be talked about? What is so special about him that any discussion about sexual morality suddenly becomes a civil rights issue, and now the conversation is no longer about what sexual morality is, but about how evil people like me are and how society needs to stop people like me at all costs? Suddenly, everything bad is being called good, and things that are good are being called bad. If there is ever an indictment against homosexuality, it is how their agenda has turned the discussion of sexual morality upside down so that evil is now good and good is now evil.
I have never, ever hurt a homosexual. Never. To my knowledge, I have never caused a homosexual to be hurt or to suffer in any way.
DavidM: There is quite a bit of evidence Thomas Jefferson was an atheist; not just in numerous letters but he rewrote the Bible to eliminate all references to the supernatural. If Jefferson met in the Capitol with religious leaders, he almost certainly was not “worshipping God.”
The relevant text in the First Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
It says nothing about “of” versus “from,” that is later commentary and a red herring. The Constitution does not guarantee freedom OF religion, either. It simply says Congress shall make no law about religion, and shall not interfere in the exercise of it. That is neither “Freedom OF Religion” or “Freedom FROM religion”, that is Freedom from governmental endorsement, interference or restraint in regard to religion.
And that means atheism is protected; the first Amendment does indeed provide Freedom From Religion, because Atheism is specifically about religious belief, and the government is prohibited from making laws in regard to religious belief.
Tony C wrote: “There is quite a bit of evidence Thomas Jefferson was an atheist;”
All spin, in modern times from establishments of atheism, and in history from establishments of religion. Jefferson hated religion almost as much as I do, but not quite as much because he still attended church whereas I do not. He saw the fraudulent activity of the leaders in religion and so he had disdain for how they pushed their cause. For this reason, religious people called him an atheist when he ran for election. Jefferson didn’t defend himself publicly, but in a private letter he wrote, I read him say that he was a true Christian, and that it was only against the religious leaders that he had issues.
Who would take the time to create another version of the Bible, a Bible that focused exclusively on the teachings of Jesus, if he did not believe in him? I don’t see any atheists creating another version of the Bible for us to read.
Tony wrote: “… ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;’ It says nothing about “of” versus “from,” that is later commentary and a red herring.
It is not a red herring. It is my interpretation of what this clause is trying to communicate. The SCOTUS did the same thing when they said that it means government should be neutral in regards to religion. Interpretations like these are not a red herring, but a way of communicating how the phrase should be parsed and understood.
Tony wrote: “The Constitution does not guarantee freedom OF religion, either. It simply says Congress shall make no law about religion, …”
No, NO, NO! You are not parsing the phrase correctly. You are ignoring the construction of “an establishment…” In today’s parlance, we would say Congress would make no law respecting a sect of religion.”
In other words, we would not have a State religious sect that is favored, like England has with the Anglican Church being the State religion of that country. If you say that it means no law about religion, then you are reading it to say freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion. That’s not what it says. The phrase is about particular establishments of religion, like favoring Catholics over Protestants, or favoring Methodists over Lutherans, or Jews over Muslims.
“As a society, we should allow religion to define sexual morality, and to expound upon it thoroughly and attempt to persuade us, but civil laws need to take a minimalist approach to it because of principles of liberty and privacy.”
Whose religion should define sexual morality? Do you think one religion should define it for a whole country?
Elaine M wrote: “Whose religion should define sexual morality? Do you think one religion should define it for a whole country?”
No way. Let all the religions analyze it and express their views. The overlap will be interesting. Areas of disagreement will as well. Through free communication, we will come to a more enlightened understanding. People can freely choose what to believe and what religions to join or not join. Government should stay out of it. Let the best religions win.
I find it interesting that the only topic DavidM seems to be interested in is homosexuality. Shakespeare once wrote something about protesting too much….
Warspite: Did you ever consider how different history might have been if Emperor Julian the Apostate (at least that’s his common reference) had not been killed in a skirmish,
No, I don’t know much about that. I am not opposed to alternative history science fiction as a form of entertainment, but like other entertainments it is kind of pointless, don’t you think? There might be some lessons to glean from such an exercise, but the number of things that might have been are endless.
I’m not sure the world being Muslim instead of Christian would mean anything much different. Modern Judaism and Christianity are far removed from their early forms. As much as the religious might like to think otherwise, religions adapt to the culture, technology, education and existential threats of their times. If one thinks of a “religion” as a protocol for dealing with the world, it must adapt itself to the world or lose relevance, and followers, and become extinct.
If the Christianity never was, an alternative religion would have been adopted or invented, and then adapted to resemble what we call “Christianity” today.
You think Pagan celebrations were adopted as a marketing strategy. True enough, what you may fail to realize is that, just like a business, a religion is an ongoing business enterprise that has to stay relevant to “customers.” It is constantly marketing itself to compete with alternatives and continue its revenue stream; it has bills to pay. If some tenet of the religion interferes with that, it gets retired.
If in some alternative history Christianity had not won that marketing race, then I still think the eventual dominant religion of the modern world would still have evolved to be pretty much like what we have now; it isn’t going to interfere too much with business and the necessities of work and life.
And as aspects of it started causing friction (like homosexual bigotry does now) and costing it adherents, the religion will adapt. In this case Christianity will cherry-pick some Bible quotes that throws those tenets under the bus, and move on (like the current infallible Pope saying the other day, “Who am I to judge homosexuals?”).
That may cost them a few true believer bigots, but that’s marketing: Their product cannot appeal to everybody, and as their market changes they need to move with it or die.
Tony, I think you’re being overly critical of religion.
As a Partner told me when I was a first year Associate at a law firm (in the mists of time, when facsimile machines were young, and there was a 5 yr route to being a Partner), everyone & everybody used to be someone else’s client.
Not entirely accurate, but true enough. Perhaps it’s somewhat the same in Religion, there is nothing new under the sun. Besides, I have a feeling you’re well aware that Christianity co-opted many pagan holidays, traditions, etc., as part of making people comfortable and generally “marketing” the religion. Insofar as a successful Religion becomes a business (and political force), its no surprise that, particularly when a start-up, compromise & accommodations are often necessary . Certainly necessary to “grow” (as some B-School people say) a Religion.
I’m not sure I take well to your “Grinch” criticism. Your clever veiled jab at a cartoon masterpiece- referencing it as “Pagan” (!) is unnecessarily provocative. In lieu of pagan, it’s possible to give many other readings of the show being clearly anchored in Christian theology. Admittedly, the Christian explanations and interpretations that fit best were deemed heretical by the early Catholic/Orthodox Church, and often eliminated “with extreme prejudice”. But for our purposes an, e.g., Arian Christianity is still Christianity, not Paganism. Yes?
Tony. Did you ever consider how different history might have been if Emperor Julian the Apostate (at least that’s his common reference) had not been killed in a skirmish, but instead ruled 20, 30 or more years? Perhaps most likely that much or all of Western & Central Europe would be Muslim?!?