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
David,
To convince me that sodomy statutes aren’t aimed at sexual minorities, you would have to show me that there were consistent and regular arrests and prosecutions of heterosexuals for violating them before Lawrence v. Texas to the same extent that there were for homosexuals and that states had attempted to account for the different circumstances under which gay hook up culture and sodomy and straight hook up culture and sodomy might take place.
There is apparently a Louisiana case that came out of an appeal by a straight male criminal defendant convicted under Louisiana’s sodomy law, but it kinda makes my point, He was arrested during a prostitution sting, and they added on an attempted sodomy charge or something because of what he asked for from the undercover policewoman. Okay, a single example, that came out of a prostitution story, but outside of that? I mean, back in the day, straight hookups were a regular thing on campus, if one gives any credence to straight people’s bragging, and stories abounded about what took place. Where were the police?
The Louisiana statute also has exemptions for rape. Which I understand to mean that the state doesn’t want criminal defendants arguing that they didn’t definitionally have sex with the victim. (I might have it wrong. If someone knows better than I, let me know.) Which means, the state is saying, when we disapprove of it, it’s sex. When we disapprove of it, it’s not sex. I’m not sure you can have it both ways.
I tried to look up statistics on promiscuity, but all I got was what appeared to be self-serving information from both sides, so I still don’t know. I’m not sure class characteristics, even if true, matter from the point of view of individual rights. But even if we go by the old stereotypes that heterosexual men are restrained by female sexuality, which means that homosexual men aren’t, doesn’t that leave you with homosexual women being less promiscuous than heterosexuals? And wouldn’t that cancel out your numbers? And doesn’t it mean that if a portion of gay men really are more promiscuous than heterosexual men, what you’ve done is to focus on a subset, then leverage the characteristics of the subset as a means of condemning the wider group?
Vestal Virgin
@oky1:
Well, if the preachers are having fun now, just wait and see what is going to happen if gay marriage becomes the law all over. That’s when they will get to tee off on the “But we’re just like everybody else!” foolishness. Because I am betting less than 10% of gays actually ever get married, and if they do most of those will be San Francisco marriages, where the right to have other “lovers” is built in. I would not be surprised to see a gay push to “recode” marriage licenses to thwart the collection of data which indicates the ‘sex” of the applicants, because that will not put them in a good light.
So, the preachers can stay busy with a lot more sermons about “Why don’t you bunch of lousy sinners get your tails to the church and get married!!!” Unless the Gaystapo is successful in shutting down free speech rights.
Gay marriage should be really interesting when it comes to divorces, particularly in those states where adultery might affect the property settlement. I would not be surprised to see a real big gay push to change those laws due to the nature of gay “commitment” or more properly, the notable lack thereof.
Gay pre-nups ought to be a riot, too. Hmmm, let’s see:
The Party of the First Part (PFP) may have up to 1 Designated Lover (DL) outside the marriage per month only with the express WRITTEN consent of the Party of the Second Part (PSP). If the PFP breaches this condition, then he shall not be entitled to any portion of the Financial Settlement as more particularly described below,
I feel comfortable guaranteeing you such agreements are already in use.
Personally, I can hardly wait for Reality TV to do a Gay Divorce Court show, and I bet the crazy histrionics will far outweigh anything like Rock Of Love Charm School could ever aspire to. It ought to be a hoot. Sooo, there is a bright side to all this, I guess.
This issue really needs an H.L. Mencken to do it justice.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
MikeS,
I’ve so much going on I can’t get to everything I wish to.
I’ve known gays, worked for gays & have/had gay friend, but I’m not gay.
Of course one gets older & I wonder what’s all the fuss about. 🙂
If gays want to fight with their spouse, like the rest of Americans, he’ll let’em have at it 🙂
As long as it’s between adults fine, none of my biz.
We know it’s mostly political & that’s about the only reason it’s an issue.
A lot of sinners down here where I’m at & the Christian preachers needed a whipping boy to make all their followers of Adulterers, thieves, murders & bankers feel good enough about themselves to give those preachers money & votes, so they beat up on gays.
I’m sure you remember stories like the gay guy drug to death down in Jasper Tx.
Many of us like Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter may not understand why gays don’t deserve the same rights/protects as the rest of us.
I see it as if the govt/religion can do it to that group they can also do it to me & groups I support.
Also like many older people I know I would think gays would support the 2nd amd. for their own protect if it’s needed.
From another thread:
**Mike Spindell 1, August 5, 2013 at 10:54 am
The police state is here and we are fast becoming the USSR that we feared in the “Cold War”. Our only hope is that before they finally come down really hard enough to end dissent, people will see what is going on and rise up in protest against it. The politics of left and right must be put aside to deal with this common threat to our civil liberties. We still have the power to fight back, as proven by the groundswell protests around the world, some of which have worked. The question is do people have the ability to put aside political differences to coalesce against the usurpation of our civil liberties? I think the jury is still out on that. **
Gay groups & others/I have to figure coalitions of both the Right & Left because all us face most of the same problems from the Demo/Repub Party leaders.
I’d suggest gay leaders reach out to Infowars/Rand Paul/Ted Crux/others & just ask where is any common ground. It could be public or private.
We’d all better figure it out fast I’m thinking.
David,
I hear tell Jefferson was not a believer in the sense that you proclaim…. As Tony’s said…. He has the right to be free from your religion…. Why anyone responds to you is beyond me… I think you have an inflated need for control and these are your lab rats…. I think your are really on the edge of some type of psychotic melt down…. But far be it from me…. I don’t know you… I know your knd…. And stay away fom them…. I’d much rather deal with a known atheist than a self proscribed Christian of your sort….
DavidM: It is very clear that no atheist wrote this law.
Only to a Theist such as yourself; Jefferson was not writing for himself but for the people. If I write about religion for the people, I could use similar language and reference the collective for whom I write, such as “our religion.”
You seem to have a serious problem in distinguishing what YOU think from what others think, in particular you fail to see the distinction between your own desires and the desires of those you represent (may fate forfend). Jefferson did not have that problem, he was smart enough to write on behalf of those that were religious without being religious himself.
DavidM: I am well aware of this law, but I do not understand why you quote it here.
Because it clearly shows that Jefferson (a strong advocate for providing the Bill of Rights), in providing Madison the language for the First Amendment, also supported the rights of Atheists to be free FROM religion.
Or have you given up your ludicrous position that the Constitution only ensures freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion?
Tony C. wrote: “Because it clearly shows that Jefferson (a strong advocate for providing the Bill of Rights), in providing Madison the language for the First Amendment, also supported the rights of Atheists to be free FROM religion.”
You are straining too hard to find freedom FROM religion in that quote. Your perspective makes Thomas Jefferson out to be a dishonest manipulator, pretending to be religious, and being able to speak in a way which he did not truly believe, in order to deceive others into abandoning religion. From my perspective, Jefferson, if alive today, would line up against the atheist movement, but from your perspective, you atheists are finishing what he started.
Let me quote it again for you, with my emphasis added:
“[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE TO PROFESS, AND BY ARGUMENT TO MAINTAIN, THEIR OPINIONS IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Clearly the intent of this law, which starts out with, “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free,” represents freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion.
I would say also that this law supports the idea that civil servants are allowed to present arguments for their opinion in religion and that a civil servant being religious and publicly expressing opinions that differ from other religious men does not diminish his capacity to serve as a public servant. In modern times, the atheistic paradigm has taken this idea further, to deny public teachers and professors any right to make any religious arguments whatsoever. Whereas Jefferson established a professor of ethics to present proofs of God in the university he established, the atheists today want to ban the word God and Creator from our public school systems entirely. The difference between Jefferson’s religious freedom and that of the modern atheist is as stark in contrast as night and day.
In Jefferson’s personal Bible, he wrote:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.”
In a letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote:
“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”
davidm2575 1, August 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
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
*****
I don’t think you have made a convincing argument. Not all people look at/perceive the world as you do. You believe giving homosexuals the legal right to marry is bad for marriage and society. I don’t. get over it!
*****
davidm2575 1, August 5, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Elaine M wrote: “I don’t think we need protection from married gays.”
I don’t think you understand the connection of the arguments for gay marriage with the case of Ariel Castro. The point is that the argument for gay marriage, that people should be allowed to marry whoever they love, fails when you consider men like Ariel Castro.
*****
It’s you who doesn’t understand that making that kind of connection is so wrong. Two homosexuals who love and marry one another cannot be compared to the kidnapping, imprisonment, and rape of three women by Ariel Castro. Those women didn’t love Castro. They didn’t choose to live with him. They were his sex slaves.
Elaine M. wrote: “I don’t think you have made a convincing argument.”
Obviously, but if you make no effort to show where you think I am going wrong, we cannot enter into any actual dialogue. You just keep repeating your question like someone who lacks comprehension.
Elaine M wrote: “It’s you who doesn’t understand that making that kind of connection is so wrong. Two homosexuals who love and marry one another cannot be compared to the kidnapping, imprisonment, and rape of three women by Ariel Castro. Those women didn’t love Castro. They didn’t choose to live with him. They were his sex slaves.”
I understand that adding these other elements change the situation. The point is that if we isolate just the principle of “the right to marry the one you love,” then this principle becomes a guiding factor to many other types of marriages. Even though the introduction of force will change the situation with Ariel Castro, there will be other situations where that might not be involved. NAMBLA makes this argument many times, that the pedophile relationship is normal and healthy. They too would agree with you about the way Ariel Castro went about it, but not with the general principle of age difference. They might argue what happens when a person is 17 and turns 18? Is there some magical change that takes place that makes the sex okay then?
Furthermore, whether you like it or not, identifying a principle that is invalid can have consequences in the mind of others who do not see the other principles that they violate. Ariel Castro was clearly doing this. He felt justified in his right to love those he loved, and he seemed perplexed that some people would think he was a monster. From his perspective, he treated the girls well; he provided for them. It was his love that mattered and he was too narcissistic to see that what he had was lust and not true love.
Back to the principle of the right to marry the person you love. This principle is way too emphasized by the homosexual agenda. What happens when the romance wears off, and the person is no longer “in-love” with that person?
The point is that emphasizing this principle to the degree that homosexuals do distorts the very meaning of marriage, and if it takes hold, it will work to destroy the very thing they claim to be making more available to everyone in society. For most traditionalists, this principle is very minor, almost non-existent, when it comes to marriage. Therefore, they are quick to point out how Ariel Castro emphasized the same principle as the homosexual do to justify his relationship. It is simply an example of how that principle being overemphasized will cause other societal problems.
Consider this part of the Statute:
“That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;”
Do any of you agree with this statement? How does it relate to compelling taxes be paid to promote and fund abortion and contraceptives? How does it relate to having public schools teaching sexual morality in a way that contradicts what the parents teach their children at home?
@TonyC:
You said: “Maslow’s Hierarchy is junk, more “science by assertion” than science supported by any actual study of actual people. [. . .] Remember the sense of community in America immediately after 9/11? The willingness to put aside political difference, religious differences, and pitch in to help?”
Uh, that is anecdotal evidence supporting Maslow’s Theory to wit: In the aftermath of 9/11, people went back down the hierarchy pyramid to a more basic need, that is “survival, recovery, and protection from a common enemy.” Once these needs were met, folks went back to worrying about political and religious differences. Same as with any emergency.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
(PS: I didn’t post twice above on the existential aspect stuff. My first attempt went into the spam filter, so then I put an “*” into “org*asm”, and it posted. Then, the first one got freed from spam jail.)
My last post to Tony was blocked by WordPress. Help from moderator please.
Squeeker: first had to concern themselves with tilling the soil and engaging in acts designed to actually produce babies, as opposed to merely producing orgasms.
On the contrary; evolution used orgasms as the payoff for engaging in acts that produced babies; the vast majority of brained animals do not mate to produce babies but for the pleasure of mating. The babies are a side-effect.
Only in humans (as far as we know) is the brain large enough to rationally learn that pregnancy is a direct result of sex. Which means communities of our ancestors formed societies long before they came to that particular understanding; and it means our brain is NOT wired to have babies, but to enjoy sex for its own pleasurable sake.
Society is not engineered around having babies at all. Society is engineered around much more immediately obvious concerns, like mutual protection, the leverage of group actions (like hunting or defense or collaborative search for resources (observational and wide-field sensory extension). For those purposes, “law” developed first, just as it did in most tribes or packs that form a community. Wolves don’t know why they mate, but they have definite rules in their pack that are followed and taught by punishment.
The ancestors of modern humans did not initially form tribes for reproduction per se, they formed them for an increased chance of survival, which “worked” and led naturally to greater reproduction. When we became rational, we inherited the pre-existing emotional equipment that lets us group into tribes, just as dogs have inherited their pack instincts that let them bond with humans.
Humans have never been out of a society, we did not come together as rationalists to form a society as a new invention: The first modern humans were born into a pre-existing society that already had rules.
Squeeker: Maslow’s Hierarchy is junk, more “science by assertion” than science supported by any actual study of actual people. Individuals will not follow Maslow’s hierarchy in any significant degree; Maslow assumes selfishness where the predominant emotion is NOT selfishness but a sense of community in which all people matter and differences matter little.
Remember the sense of community in America immediately after 9/11? The willingness to put aside political difference, religious differences, and pitch in to help?
Stress, hardship and threats tend to make differences and selfishness (for most people) irrelevant. For those in poverty, stress, hardship and threats are obviously greater than is true for those with more money, food, transportation and health care and the result is the opposite of what Maslow hypothesized; they become less selfish, not more so.
Oh, and something else all the pro gay marriage type name callers seem to ignore is the whole frigging rest of the world. For example, the small and insignificant country of India, for which I submit these two excerpts, with a link following:
Arranged marriages have been part of the Indian culture since the fourth century. Many consider the practice a central fabric of Indian society, reinforcing the social, economic, geographic, and the historic significance of India (Stein). Prakasa states that arranged marriages serve six functions in the Indian community: (1) helps maintain the social satisfaction system in the society; (2) gives parents control, over family members; (3) enhances the chances to preserve and continue the ancestral lineage; (4) provides an opportunity to strengthen the kinship group; (5) allows the consolidation and extension of family property; (6) enables the elders to preserve the principle of endogamy (Prakasa 17).
The practice of arranged marriages began as a way of uniting and maintaining upper caste families. Eventually, the system spread to the lower caste where it also was used for the same purpose. The specifics of arranged marriages vary; depending on if one is Hindu or Muslim.” Marriage is treated as an alliance between two families rather than a union between two individuals” (Prakasa 15). Ninety-five percent of all current Indian marriages are arranged, either through child marriages or family/ friend arrangement. The Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929-1978 states that the legal age for marriage is 18 for females, and 21 for males,with most females being married by 24 and most males being married by their late twenties (McDonald). However, many children, age 15 and 16 are married within a cultural context, with these marriages being neither void or voidable under Hindu or Muslim religious law, as long as the marriage is not consummated until the legal age of 18 for females and 21 for males.
http://postcolonialstudies.emory.edu/marriage-in-india/
The point being, not whether such things are right or wrong in some sort of cosmic sense, but whether or not, there is a certain tradition in their country and their culture. Are 95% of Indians all bigots, and homophobes, for arranging marriages designed to “continue ancestral lineage”??? Which ain’t gonna happen with gay sex.
Are 95% of Indians just trying to cram their religion down people’s throats by continuing to do what they have always done, and would probably be very reluctant to change???
Is the fact that there is even such a law on the books in India, homophobic and discriminatory??? Should the United States cut off trade and immigration treaties because of this horrible attitude???
Because I bet if the pro-gay tantrum throwers had their way, the answer would be “yes.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl reporter
DavidM:
Here is not just a letter, but a law: The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:
“[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Tony C wrote:
“The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:”
“[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
I am well aware of this law, but I do not understand why you quote it here. Do you think this makes Jefferson an atheist? Do you not know that it was believers in God, believers like Jefferson, who fought for religious freedom like this?
Consider all the language that preceded what you quoted. Notice to how he refers to Almighty God and “our religion.” Notice how he considers civil rights to be no more related to religious opinions than to scientific opinions (physics & geometry). It is very clear that no atheist wrote this law.
——————
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
——————
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter 1, August 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm
@elaine and rafflaw
It is also interesting how people who seem to believe in hardly anything, close their minds and expect other people to adhere to their lack of principles.
*****
How do you know what I believe in? You’re presuming something of which you have no knowledge.
Can you expound on my lack of principles–which you perceive in your own judgmental mind?
BTW, I’ll be gone for a while. This principle-less woman is going to spend the afternoon visiting with her elderly mother and then doing her laundry.
Have a nice day!
@elaine and rafflaw
It is also interesting how people who seem to believe in hardly anything, close their minds and expect other people to adhere to their lack of principles.
There is an existential aspect to any nation or culture. The whole existence before essence thingy. By which I mean a society IS a society before it actually sits down to contemplate what it wants to be as a society. Some of this is by necessity. I submit that Americans, and other societies, past and present, first had to concern themselves with tilling the soil and engaging in acts designed to actually produce babies, as opposed to merely producing org*sms.
Then, in accordance with Maslow’s Hierarchy, when those basic needs were met, and said society is no longer looking over their collective shoulder at the spectres of starvation and dire want, their thoughts can turn to such ponderous and weighty issues as to which restroom a trans-gendered person should go tinkle in, or whether or not Obamacare should cover foreskin reconstruction.
Folks who were otherwise employed in laudable efforts to elevate the REAL victims of discrimination, such as blacks, find themselves at an awkward place, where they were successful. But now, a significant portion of the newly freed persons are sooo busy sowing their wild oats and referring to themselves as baby-mommas and baby-daddies, that the gravy train is running out of gravy.
The Uplift Lobby is so frantic in its search for new victims to provide it meaning and/or a paycheck, that it grasps at such straws as Trayvon Martin, pretty much a mugger, or as in this particular example, the Baton Rouge 11, pretty much a bunch of creeps out looking for some cheap sex with some undercover cops.
Meanwhile, as I dive head first into a demitasse of declasse’, I note the ever practical male horn-dog lobby, is busy using the Internet to aid their brethren in the fines arts of playing in poopy, whether gay or straight, to wit:
http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_500/548_anal-sex-prep-guide.html
What a cause! To the barricades! Dark Sheets for everyone!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@elaine and rafflaw
It is also interesting how people who seem to believe in hardly anything, close their minds and expect other people to adhere to their lack of principles.
There is an existential aspect to any nation or culture. The whole existence before essence thingy. By which I mean a society IS a society before it actually sits down to contemplate what it wants to be as a society. Some of this is by necessity. I submit that Americans, and other societies, past and present, first had to concern themselves with tilling the soil and engaging in acts designed to actually produce babies, as opposed to merely producing orgasms.
Then, in accordance with Maslow’s Hierarchy, when those basic needs were met, and said society is no longer looking over their collective shoulder at the spectres of starvation and dire want, their thoughts can turn to such ponderous and weighty issues as to which restroom a trans-gendered person should go tinkle in, or whether or not Obamacare should cover foreskin reconstruction.
Folks who were otherwise employed in laudable efforts to elevate the REAL victims of discrimination, such as blacks, find themselves at an awkward place, where they were successful. But now, a significant portion of the newly freed persons are sooo busy sowing their wild oats and referring to themselves as baby-mommas and baby-daddies, that the gravy train is running out of gravy.
The Uplift Lobby is so frantic in its search for new victims to provide it meaning and/or a paycheck, that it grasps at such straws as Trayvon Martin, pretty much a mugger, or as in this particular example, the Baton Rouge 11, pretty much a bunch of creeps out looking for some cheap sex with some undercover cops.
Meanwhile, as I dive head first into a demitasse of declasse’, I note the ever practical male horn-dog lobby, is busy using the Internet to aid their brethren in the fines arts of playing in poopy, whether gay or straight, to wit:
http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_500/548_anal-sex-prep-guide.html
What a cause! To the barricades! Dark Sheets for everyone!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
(PS: Yes, I wrote this all by myself! So There!!!)
I want to echo Elaine’s last comment. Being gay is not an indication of pedophilia. We need more protection from religious zealots trying to make their religion the civil law of the land.
davidm2575
1, August 5, 2013 at 11:55 am
“In regards to sexual morality, I think there are many things religion can address separate from the force of law. That does not mean that we have a free for all in regards to civil laws. In particular, we need protections for children, such as protection from the sexual orientation of pedophiles like Ariel Castro…”
*****
I don’t think we need protection from married gays.
Elaine M wrote: “I don’t think we need protection from married gays.”
I don’t think you understand the connection of the arguments for gay marriage with the case of Ariel Castro. The point is that the argument for gay marriage, that people should be allowed to marry whoever they love, fails when you consider men like Ariel Castro. Clearly he committed a harm, yet his argument was the same. I would not be surprised if he justified himself from the societal influence of arguing for gay marriage. He is constantly being bombarded with the message that his love is pure, no matter who it is directed toward, and that he should be allowed to express his love and marry those whom he wants to marry. I’m sure polygamists will jump on the same message to justify their marriage goals. The point concerns the principle argument being made to justify gay marriage. It is not trying to associate gay marriage with pedophilia. It also points out how the gay agenda influences pedophiles and groups like NAMBLA.
Nevertheless, we need protection from married gays in the same way as other married couples, and we might add protection from gay priests who are married to their church.
Despite these acknowledgments, the issue of “gay marriage” is really an issue that needs to be considered separate from homosexuality. With gay marriage, the question revolves around whether same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions, with the same goals and consequences. My position is that the scientific evidence shows them to be different and should be considered by law as civil unions. Rights, duties, and obligations should be defined accordingly. We should not allow the hijacking of laws created previously for marriage through some sloppy analysis of same sex unions that is really motivated by a destructive activist agenda rather than careful logical analysis.