Thursday, November 25, 2010

The Post Gives Voice to Anti-Gay Bigots

The Washington Post has been painted into a corner by the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent designation of the Family Research Council and other anti-gay organizations as hate groups. The Post and similar mainstream media outlets have developed a philosophy of journalism that assumes the two sides of any debate are equivalent, concluding that unbiased reporting is reporting that covers them both equally. A statement is just a statement, it is not the responsibility of the media to determine if it is a lie, or even to report that it is a lie when it clearly is, the statement is simply written down and submitted to the gullible public as if two rational people were discussing a topic.

The Family Research Council has provided reams of copy to The Post over the years. They see a conspiracy by gays and lesbians behind everything, they imagine that schools and television and the Internet serve mainly to recruit young people into the "gay lifestyle," and they are unembarrassed to commandeer a microphone in a public place to talk about it. As is their policy, The Post writes down the quotes and reports these assertions as "controversy," as if a significant proportion of the population feels the same way. In fact, it would never even occur to the great proportion of people to theorize that gays and lesbians, of all people, were any kind of significant force in the world at all, beyond wanting to be respected as ordinary citizens. It is only because media organizations like The Post continuously pound the anti-gay drum that anyone marches to it at all.

So now the Southern Poverty Law Center, which very carefully weighs these things, has added some anti-gay organizations such as the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, and the American Family Association to its list of hate groups. They are lumped in with the Ku Klux Klan and that God Hates Fags Baptist church in Kansas. This has the potential of making it much more difficult for the Washington Post to continue quoting them as authorities.

Not a problem. The Post, which did not mention it when the SPLC issued their report, asks the Family Research Council how they feel about it.
The Southern Poverty Law Center this week labeled as "hate groups" several political and religious organizations that campaign against same-sex marriage and, the center says, engage in "repeated, groundless name-calling" against gays and lesbians.

Included on the list released by the civil rights organization is the Family Research Council, a prominent and politically influential group of social conservatives. The report by the law center, which has spent four decades tracking extremist groups and hate speech, accuses the council and a dozen other groups of putting out "demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities."

The report, which has sparked debate across the Internet, taps into the continuing potency of social issues, such as same-sex marriage, in American politics. Several of the groups described in the report supported a successful effort to oust state Supreme Court judges in Iowa because of a unanimous ruling last year that legalized same-sex unions.

The Family Research Council has been at the forefront of political activism against same-sex marriage. In explaining the decision to put the council on its hate-groups list, the law center highlighted comments by Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the council, who told MSNBC host Chris Matthews this year that he thinks "homosexual behavior" should be outlawed. 'Hate group' designation angers same-sex marriage opponents

Imagine it is 1960, and The Post has a headline: 'Hate group' designation angers mixed-race marriage opponents. Hopefully in a few years the intent behind this headline, and this article, will be obvious to any reader, as racist remarks from a generation ago are obvious to us today.

The former newspaper gave the top guy at the Family Research Council a chance to explain how he feels about it.
Council President Tony Perkins, who was also named in the report, called the hate-group designation a political attack by a "liberal organization."

"The left's smear campaign of conservatives is . . . being driven by the clear evidence that the American public is losing patience with their radical policy agenda as seen in the recent election and in the fact that every state . . . that has had the opportunity to defend the natural definition of marriage has done so," Perkins said in a statement.

"Earlier this month, voters in Iowa sent a powerful message when they removed three Supreme Court justices who imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Would the SPLC also smear the good people of Iowa?"

Iowans showed themselves susceptible to a well-financed media campaign and showed themselves not to have a good grasp on the concept of checks and balances. And let us not forget, the number of people who agree with a statement is no measure at all of its truthfulness. People can be wrong, even a majority of people.

It does not appear that the Washington Post actually spoke to anyone at the Southern Poverty Law Center, but simply read the report online.
The law center said it chose to highlight the groups on the list "based on their propagation of known falsehoods" and "repeated, groundless name-calling."

"Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups," the report said.

The debate over the list has focused on whether the law center is right to equate anti-gay views with racism.

The question is whether constant propagandizing against a group of people who have done nothing to harm you, because they are different from you, is "hate." The hoped-for result of the constant propagandizing is discrimination and prejudice, the inevitable result is shame and suicide in the population that is targeted by the propaganda.

There is no positive side to it, no benefit expected or hoped for. Gay people aren't going to stop being gay, I don't think even the Family Research Council believes they can or will. They aren't going to go away, they aren't going back into the closet. Gay and lesbian people are what they are, they are contributing members of society, and that's simple reality. Family Research Council leaders like Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins might feel uncomfortable around LGBT people for their own reasons, I don't claim to have any insight into why they feel the way they do, but there is no point to the stream of hateful filth they produce except to maintain prejudice and discrimination against a group of people.
Dan Savage, a gay rights advocate and columnist, said in an interview on CNN that "we need a cultural reckoning around gay and lesbian issues. There was once two sides to the race debate. There was once a side, you could go on television and argue for segregation, you could argue against interracial marriage, against the Civil Rights Act, against extending voting rights to African Americans, and that used to be treated as one side . . . of a pressing national debate, and it isn't anymore. And we really need to reach that point with gay and lesbian issues. There are no 'two sides' to the issues about gay and lesbian rights."

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, objected to his organization's inclusion in the center's report and said the notion that groups opposed to same-sex marriage are equivalent to racists is wrong.

"This is about protecting marriage. This isn't about being anti-anyone," Brown said. "The whole idea that somehow those folks who stand up for traditional marriage, like the Family Research Council, are hateful is wrong. [The law center is] trying to marginalize and intimidate folks for standing up for marriage and also trying to equate them somehow to the KKK."

The can try to re-frame it however they want, it is what it is. The National Organization for Marriage had a bus tour of the US this summer where they went from city to city spreading their message of hatred against gay people. In some cities crowds numbered in the double digits, generally fewer than thirty people showed up for each event, in cities of millions. These groups don't need to be "marginalized," they are marginal already. While many straight people might be uncomfortable with the image of two men kissing, and might find it difficult to understand why anybody would be that way, most people realize that somebody else's sexual orientation is none of our business. Groups like the Family Research Council and the Washington Post can focus on the discomfort and try to legitimize it, but ordinary people left to think the issue through come to the reasonable conclusion.

The Post includes Dan Savage's quote because certain readers will see it as saying that gay people are afraid to allow debate on the subject. But the fact is, the debate itself is what the debate is about. A small group of nuts will insist that "homosexuals are trying to recruit our youth and undermine the institution of marriage" or whatever, and the question is whether the press should publicize those paranoid statements. The Washington Post has obviously decided to buy into it, this article attempts to trivialize the SPLC's decision and put a sympathetic face on the poor bigots at the Family Research Council. The Post has taken sides in the debate: they have decided to treat it as a debate.

31 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

ho ho

Yes. The "small" group of "nuts" who voted against same sex marriage in California's Proposition 8.

November 26, 2010 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, people who oppose gay "marriage" are a small fringe group who has somehow found a way to control the electorate of every state in the U.S.

only in America, my friends

November 26, 2010 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Post and similar mainstream media outlets have developed a philosophy of journalism that assumes the two sides of any debate are equivalent, concluding that unbiased reporting is reporting that covers them both equally."

this statement is false

the opposite is true

perfect example is the global warming debate where the mainstream media assumed certain theories were fact, suffering enormous embarassment when this was shown not be so

now, the mainstream has bascially stopped covering environmental issues at all, even legitimate concerns

just a year ago, they were still repeating this, setting up a discrediting of the whole environmental movement

something similar is coming in the sexuality debate when everyone discovers that all the "studies" supporting the gay agenda are an unreplicated house of sham cards

November 28, 2010 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon:
What on earth does this mean?

"everyone discovers that all the "studies" supporting the gay agenda are an unreplicated house of sham cards."

Please describe this mythical "gay agenda", tell us where we can get a copy, and be more precise about your delirious allusion to "all the "studies" that make references to this so-called "gay agenda".

What is an "unreplicated house of sham cards"? That's nothing but baby gurgle! You are definitely delusional and emotionally disordered.
Plautus

November 29, 2010 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, Anon's statement was clear as a bell to me.

Maybe I can help you out.

The definition of "sham" is "to trick or delude."

A "house of cards" means that something is built on a shaky foundation that's sure to fall. You know, if you try to build a house with some cards, it always falls?

Hope I helped until the other anon arrives!

November 29, 2010 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

4:30 Wake-up
4:40 Shower
4:50 Breakfast
5:10 Gym
6:15 Work
2:30 Groceries
3:00 Call mother
3:30 Laundry
5:00 Dinner
5:30 TV and grading
7:30 Retire

Now what was this about a house of cards?

November 29, 2010 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's an interesting glimpse of your schedule, Robert

here's a schedule for many of the other gays who are way over-represented in local public schools:

4:30 Wake-up from dreaming about being in an offensive line stance

4:40 Play with the shampoo bottles in the shower

4:50 Eat breakfast quick so you can get to the:

5:10 Gym to ogle other guys working out

6:15 At work, finding myriad ways to indoctrinate teens with the gay agenda and starting gay-straight clubs ("come to the club at lunch and find out what sexual orientation you are!")

2:30 pick up phallic shaped veggies at the grocery store

3:00 call leader of local ACT UP! cell

3:30 wash Judy Garland t-shirt

5:00 eat dinner quick so you can:

5:30 watch the drag queens on the Logo channel and, at the same time, grade papers showing a bias in favor of essays against DADT

7:30 retire early to get to those quarterback dreams

what a day!

November 29, 2010 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gosh, Anon...your description of the so-called gay agenda indicates that you have either dabbled in homosexuality...or else you are so obsessed with homosexual behaviour ( of course, nothing like your cutsey description) that you want try to pass yourself off as an expert on homosexuality. Help out until "the other anon arrives"? You are definitely schizophrenic.

Of course, you have statistics and data to support your laughable contention that "gays who are way over-represented in local public schools" are the threat to your existence that you evince so frequently here.

Your daily agenda obviously includes spending time to obsess about and think of every possible slander and bigoted statement against GLBT people you can create in your warped mind. One wonders what you do for a living? Does your boss know that you spend an inordinate amount of working hours trying to be funny while spending his largess to support your smarmy
and insane rants on company time?

November 29, 2010 8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

talk about a rant

my agenda above was a parody of Robert's

the point is to counter Robert's inane contention that there is no gay agenda because he engages in mundane activity

but you can accomplish so much within that mundane context

like Robert thinks, oh I just go to work, how could I have an agenda?

but, if your work is teaching, you have ample opportunity to advance an agenda

OK, this is the last time I'm explaining things to you

I only did it this time out of benevolence

November 29, 2010 8:42 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The "gay agenda", as the anonymote knows, is nothing more and nothing less than full equality. He simply opposes such, and uses code words he's picked up in anti-lgbt writings to annoy people.

What kind of agenda is it when one gets up every day looking to get irk decent people?

You do paint yourself as kind of a prevert, anonymous; is that your intent?

November 30, 2010 5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are sooo kind, Anon. I can't thank you enough for your smarmy condescension and willingness to be the resident know-it-all. I am at least grateful at your promise not to explain anything at all to the readers here.

Enough of your blather...begone.

November 30, 2010 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we've made some progress here:

"Gosh, Anon...your description of the so-called gay agenda indicates that you have...dabbled in homosexuality"

OK, what's significant here is that this TTFer is saying that my parody agenda "indicates" that I have "dabbled in homosexuality."

For him to say that, it must be that the parody was actually fairly accurate.

Why else would he say that?

Then, look at this:

"You do paint yourself as kind of a prevert, anonymous;"

The interesting thing here, other than the fact that like most gay "teachers," Robert can't spell, is that Robert says the parody agenda is perverted.

Now, one TTFer says the parody agenda is close to accurate and the other says the parody agenda is perverted.

The only way to reconcile the two is to conclude that homosexuality is, indeed, perverted.

Tacit admission from TTF that homosexuality is perverted.

I think we've made some progress here.

November 30, 2010 6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "gay agenda", as the anonymote knows, is nothing more and nothing less than full equality."

For crying out loud, Robert, you're saying that heterosexuality, a civilizing force for good in society, is equal to hedonisitic homosexuality?

Only a twisted and wicked culture would buy into such an absurd premise.

"What kind of agenda is it when one gets up every day looking to get irk decent people?"

Now, Robert insists on showing us that, much like many other gay "teachers," he's not so good at grammaar.

No, Robert, I'm actually "looking to get irk" lunatic fringe gay advocates.

"You are sooo kind, Anon. I can't thank you enough for your smarmy condescension and willingness to be the resident know-it-all."

Here's someone who recognizes genius when he sees it.

November 30, 2010 7:00 PM  
Anonymous smokin' bloke said...

I say

this fellow, Robert, is a laugh and a half

the spelling and the grammar are enough but, then, the inane illogic takes it to another level

joly good show, TTF!

November 30, 2010 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon spends many waking and working hours obsessing about gay people, checking out everything about them from their fashion preferences to their TV viewing habits. Anon comes to this website almost every day, sometimes multiple times a day to read and rant about gay people.

Anon's conduct demonstrates the simple truth that Anon is obsessed with hatred for gay people. And in this thread, his obsessive hatred is personally directed against Robert.

Robert, please do not to engage this obsessive person anymore. You never know what level of acting out his homophobia may take him to next. Hatred is a powerful emotion and Anon is brimming with it.

December 01, 2010 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"OK, what's significant here is that this TTFer is saying that my parody agenda "indicates" that I have "dabbled in homosexuality."

Not everybody who disagrees with you or describes you as nuts is a TTFer, Anon. There are many of us who read entries here to keep up with what you lunatic right-wing Christo-fascists are up to.

Nothing new, though. Your redundancy of hatred and bigotry, not to mention your snarky attacks on people who might be gay or who you assume to be gay, is sooo boring. What an empty life you must lead!

Now...make your usual "Christian" value-judgment attack again. You are so predictable and pathetically laughable.

December 01, 2010 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"lunatic right-wing Christo-fascists"

this type of rhetoric characterizing the views of the average American is what just you guys an election

"his obsessive hatred is personally directed against Robert"

Don't hate Robert at all. Don't know him other than exchanges here but, just based on that, he seems likable enough.

His point about the gay agenda, which I've repeatedly given him a pass on in the past, had to be shot down. My parody was a particluarly effective vehicle to show that an agenda can be advanced by anyone, in the way they conduct their everyday, otherwise mundane affairs.

As parody, I was trying to exaggerate. The reaction of many of you leads me to think the parody was actually a little too close to accuracy for comfort.

December 02, 2010 7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "gay agenda", as the anonymote knows, is nothing more and nothing less than full equality."

To give Robert some credit here, he, at least, admits there is a gay agenda.

And, while his answer is actually correct in a technical sense, it is not specific enough and the lack of specificity is disingenuous.

What the perspicuous reader would infer was that the gay agenda is a plan to make sure that homosexuals are considered equal to heterosexuals. But no one, on any side, would disagree that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal as human beings before God.

But that's not what the gay agenda's goal is. The goal is to make sure that homosexuality is considered equal to heterosexuality. Those who know scripture to be God's word know this not to be true. To the extent that the gay agenda adherents try to inhibit the expression of this truth by legal means, they are unconstitutional and un-American.

December 02, 2010 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Anon...your paranoia is really getting out of control: "To the extent that the gay agenda adherents try to inhibit the expression of this truth by legal means, they are unconstitutional and un-American."

"inhibit the expression of this truth"? by legal means? (legal means are seldom unconstitutional), "un-American"?
Wow...Heil Limbaugh.

Your "truth" is a falsehood, a lie. Perhaps if you spent more time reading your Bible and taking to heart the admonitions and injunctions issued by God's "spokesmen" against the sins of heterosexuals you could somehow ameliorate your own sins. God will be your judge. You, Anon, are a pathetic hypocrite...and nothing more than a typical cafeteria Christian.

How do you like this "rant"? Does it come close to what you do in here all the time?

December 02, 2010 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't have it both ways "Anonymous"

On the one hand you say: "no one, on any side, would disagree that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal as human beings before God."

In your words:
homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal as human beings before God.

And then you say: "The goal [of the "homosexual agenda" (sic]] is to make sure that homosexuality is considered equal to heterosexuality. Those who know scripture to be God's word know this not to be true.

So...God recognizes the equality of homosexuals and homosexuals but those who know scripture ("God's word") know this not to be true. Are you challenging God's intent?

But then, haven't you said that the "homosexual agenda" wants to carry out the word of God and achieve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals?

Which is it: God's acceptance of all people of differing sexual orientation or YOUR own hatred, twisted logic, and wanting to play God?

It's you who are confused, not God!
Diogenes

December 02, 2010 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How do you like this "rant"? Does it come close to what you do in here all the time?"

As you and your TTF peeps know full well, I don't rant.

I respond to the rants of TTFers by coolly and dispassionately dissecting their fallacies with impeccable logic.

That's what really drives 'em crazy!

Rudyard Kipling:

"if you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs and blaming you"

I think Rudyard must have been a time traveller who knows me.

I'm like Oliver Douglas talking to Mr Kimball and Mr Haney.

December 02, 2010 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow Anon...your paranoia is really getting out of control: "To the extent that the gay agenda adherents try to inhibit the expression of this truth by legal means, they are unconstitutional and un-American."

"inhibit the expression of this truth"? by legal means? (legal means are seldom unconstitutional), "un-American"?
Wow...Heil Limbaugh."

is there an argument here?

try again

"Your "truth" is a falsehood, a lie."

actually, no it isn't

heterosexuality is the organizing principle of society which promotes civilization

homosexuality is not its equal

"Perhaps if you spent more time reading your Bible and taking to heart the admonitions and injunctions issued by God's "spokesmen" against the sins of heterosexuals you could somehow ameliorate your own sins."

it's a bizarre argument to say that sins against hetrosexuality are sins of heterosexuality but I guess you guys are desperate

"God will be your judge. You, Anon, are a pathetic hypocrite...and nothing more than a typical cafeteria Christian."

really? how so?

"You can't have it both ways "Anonymous""

look again

they're both the same way

"In your words:
homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal as human beings before God.

And then you say: "The goal of the "homosexual agenda" is to make sure that homosexuality is considered equal to heterosexuality. Those who know scripture to be God's word know this not to be true.

So...God recognizes the equality of homosexuals and homosexuals but those who know scripture ("God's word") know this not to be true. Are you challenging God's intent?"

you're doing it again

you're confusing behavior and desires and identity

people are all equal

acts are not

desires are not

all men are sinners, though the sins vary

but all have offended God and stand condemned without the intervention of God

but that doesn't make any of those sins, including homosexuality, the equivalent of virtue

despite the reality of sin, we should not forsake the aspiration to virtue

"But then, haven't you said that the "homosexual agenda" wants to carry out the word of God and achieve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals?"

no, I didn't say that

"Which is it: God's acceptance of all people of differing sexual orientation or YOUR own hatred, twisted logic, and wanting to play God?"

it's neither

and ranting won't change a thing

December 02, 2010 9:43 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

[Family Research] Council President Tony Perkins: “every state . . . that has had the opportunity to defend the natural definition of marriage has done so," Perkins said in a statement.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage: "This is about protecting marriage. This isn't about being anti-anyone," Brown said. "The whole idea that somehow those folks who stand up for traditional marriage, like the Family Research Council, are hateful is wrong. [The law center is] trying to marginalize and intimidate folks for standing up for marriage and also trying to equate them somehow to the KKK."

Marriage is a euphemism for romantic love.

It’s not the “traditional” definition of marriage they’re afraid of losing, it’s the definition of their love not being considered superior that they are afraid of losing.

But to say you want to protect the definition of love, is one step away from saying that LGBT love is fake, which would be much easier to construe as hateful. Thus the need to delude their brainless followers and the unwary into thinking that their motives are noble.

Anytime the use of this “protect marriage” talking point is used, it demonstrates that that person hasn’t even taken the time to think through what they are saying.

So they dance and dance and dance around their conviction that our love is fake without letting on that that is what they truly think.

From “Marriage on Trial” by Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier, two Focus on the Family lying S’sOS.

QUESTION 3. Shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to on another?

ANSWER. Yes, but we don’t always call it marriage.
Parents commit themselves to their children, but they aren’t married.
Friends love and commit themselves to each other, but they aren’t married.
Coworkers, athletes and soldiers can even love each other and enjoy great commitment, but we don’t call it marriage. [p24]


Translation:
Yes, but we don’t always call it romantic love.
Parents commit themselves to their children, but they aren’t in love with them.
Friends love and commit themselves to each other, but they aren’t in love with each other.
Coworkers, athletes and soldiers can even love each other and enjoy great commitment, but we don’t call it romantic love.

Ergo, gay PERSONS are too stupid to know what real love is, and therefore, their relationships should not be recognized in any way, shape or form, by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Making Brian Brown’s assertion that “This isn't about being anti-anyone,” patently false.

December 03, 2010 3:29 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

JimK: "The Post and similar mainstream media outlets have developed a philosophy of journalism that assumes the two sides of any debate are equivalent, concluding that unbiased reporting is reporting that covers them both equally."
Sociopathanon: this statement is false ... the opposite is true”

False indeed! Lies should always be considered equal to the truth. If we were considering the benefits of loving others, would we not want Satan’s input on the matter?
---
commeter with a conscience: "lunatic right-wing Christo-fascists"
Sociopathanon: this type of rhetoric characterizing the views of the average American is what just you guys an election

If the shoe fits…
---
Robert: "The "gay agenda", as the anonymote knows, is nothing more and nothing less than full equality."
Sociopathanon: “To give Robert some credit here, he, at least, admits there is a gay agenda [equal opportunity]. … And, while his answer is actually correct in a technical sense, it is not specific enough and the lack of specificity is disingenuous.”

And who better than our resident baseless-assertion phenom to know the meaning of “lack of specificity” and “disingenuousness?”

But to fill in the blanks of your own objections…

Offensive: "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda"

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people … seek to be able to earn a living, be safe in their communities, serve their country, and take care of the ones they love. Their commitment to equality is one they share with many allies and advocates who are not necessarily LGBT.

Notions of a so-called "homosexual agenda" are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of equal opportunity for LGBT people as sinister.
---
‘Pathanon: “Those who know scripture to be God's word know this not to be true. To the extent that the gay agenda adherents try to inhibit the expression of this truth by legal means, they are unconstitutional and un-American.”

And there be the anti-gay agenda’s Scriptural expression of God’s truth: murder.

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”


Not only are we to be murdered in the name of God, but we are to be blamed for it too.
---
I respond to the rants of TTFers by coolly and dispassionately dissecting their fallacies with impeccable logic.

There’s a difference between “logic” and logical fallacies. dictionary.com

December 03, 2010 3:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Marriage is a euphemism for romantic love."

This is completely wrong.

Marriage is a religious sacrament, instituted by God. Like many aspects of religiosity, it turned out to be beneficial for society and so secular authorities began to bestow benefits on the institution of marriage on order to encourage it. And, of course, once government starts to give out benefits, they need to determine who gets them and who doesn't so they needed to start officially recognizing it.

Why now should you seek government approval to change the defintion of marriage?

It's not a secular institution.

If you want official recognition of gay "romantic" relationships, make your case to the government for some kind of civil union. It's hard for me to see what the benefit to society would be though.

Alternatively, if you think gay relationships should be included in the defintion of marriage, seek out religious authorities. I'm sure you'll find some wacko "church" to agree with you, and given our freedom of religion, they would be free to marry you.

btw, "romantic love" is a fleeting feeling, subject to change, whereas marriage is meant to be a long-term commitment with a love that is more a verb than a noun

December 03, 2010 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to be very, very difficult for heterosexuals to commit to the idea that marriage is meant to be "a long-term commitment to love", Anon.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your insights as to why, give or take, 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. (And, please, spare us of your hackneyed argument that gay marriages are the cause of the breakdown of the "sacred" institution of marriage!) And...what does your Bible say about that?

December 03, 2010 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"what does your Bible say about that?"

all Bibles say the same thing

those that don't aren't the Bible

tell us why you think the divorce rate is relevant to whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include partners in deviancy

December 03, 2010 1:39 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2010 3:03 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

‘Pathanon:“all Bibles say the same thing … those that don't aren't the Bible”

If that’s the case, then apparently there is no Bible.
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/site-map/

BTW, your probably shouldn’t click on those, they may cause you to think.
--
Commenter with a conscience: “50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. …what does your Bible say about that?”
Sociopathanon: “tell us why you think the divorce rate is relevant to whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include partners in deviancy”

You didn’t answer the question, even though the answer was readily available to you. But knowing how Google-challenged you are, I’ll help you out.

Mark 10:7-12: 7) ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8) and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9) Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Obviously you have no concern with God’s Word on divorce.

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11) He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12) And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

And you obviously have no concern with God’s Word defining remarriage as adultery. Ergo, your concerns about homosexuality are NOT based on the Bible. You just use it as a shield to hide your personal prejudice.

Though injurious, I can handle honest hatred, as long as it’s expressed to my face. It’s the hypocritical cowardice of hiding it behind a book that infuriates me. That’s insult upon injury.

So much for the Golden Rule that Jesus taught.

December 05, 2010 3:11 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Marriage is a religious sacrament, instituted by God.”

Yet you seem to have no problem with God ordained incestuous and polygamous marriage.

“And, of course, once government starts to give out benefits, they need to determine who gets them and who doesn't so they needed to start officially recognizing it.”

So you rely on the secular government to officiate your “religious sacrament, instituted by God?”

“Why now should you seek government approval to change the defintion of marriage?”

You say that marriage is a “religious sacrament instituted by God … It's not a secular institution.” So why would you care about all the ‘invalid’ marriages that the government certifies? Or for that matter, why would want -- via benefits -- the government to intrude on your “religious sacrament”?

Do you always ask couples if they were married in a courthouse, and/or if they are atheists -- in order to determine whether or not their marriage is “real.”
--
“Why now should you seek government approval to change the defintion of marriage?”

1) If our marriages are equally recognized, so too will the rest of our equality. It’s the final nail in your coffin of disgust for LGBT persons.
--
“Marriage is a religious sacrament, instituted by God. …It's not a secular institution.”

So you’ve never heard of courthouse or atheist weddings?
--
“If you want official recognition of gay "romantic" relationships, make your case to the government for some kind of civil union.”

The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions

Civil union benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

THAT’S WHY.
--
"It's hard for me to see what the benefit to society would be though."

Opening your eyes an thinking for yourself might help.
--
“Alternatively, if you think gay relationships should be included in the defintion of marriage, seek out religious authorities. I'm sure you'll find some wacko "church" to agree with you, and given our freedom of religion, they would be free to marry you.”

You say “freedom of religion” as though it’s a bad thing. Whom else would you deny marriage to? Muslims? Atheists? Death row inmates? Please, feel free to elaborate on your disdain for the first amendment, and how the above mentioned would negatively affect your life.

wacko "church"

You mean “wacko Christians.” Tell me, if you had the power, what other “wacko churches” would you choose to religiously cleanse?
--
“btw, "romantic love" is a fleeting feeling, subject to change, whereas marriage is meant to be a long-term commitment with a love that is more a verb than a noun”

I understand that and I agree with it. Love is a choice, whether in a relationship or in dealing with strangers.

I used the word “romantic” to qualify that I wasn’t equating the love between partners and the love of ice cream. Apparently that wasn’t clear enough, so if you have a short and clearer way to express that point, I’m all ears, and I mean that.

December 05, 2010 3:17 AM  
Anonymous winnie the pooh quotes said...

awesomely inspiring piece of information,most inspiring. I had come to know about your blog from my friend ravi,vizag, I have read at least 7 posts of yours by now, and let me tell you, your website gives the best and the most interesting information. This is just the kind of information that I had been looking for, I'm already your RSS reader now and I would regularly watch out for the new posts, once again hats off to you! Thanks a ton once again, Regards, bob marley quotes

March 04, 2014 1:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home