(GUEST POST BY The CandyMan)Last night, as I unwrapped my shredded beef burrito and flipped on the TV, I finally felt it. For once, there was nothing to do. No blog to check. No phone calls to make. And what's more, I was not worried about what would come up on my TV screen. My nation was with me, and I felt a sense of unity and patriotism I have not felt since I was a child growing up.
I was proud to be an American again. And I was at peace.
To me, President Bush (and Sarah Palin, AKA Bush 2.0) represented the very worst of the baby boomer generation. Complete moral confusion, and the ensuing tendency towards religious fundamentalism later in life (Bush was a baal t'shuva). Unshakable convictions based on flimsy education. Complete personal identification with their family unit, to the point of fear and xenophobia. An unhealthy respect for money, a lack of secular ideals, and a disdain for science and academia. A penchant for emotion over reason. Too quick to use force, yet unwilling to get their hands dirty. They are, in my opinion, a lost generation, which too often makes the wrong choice.
They are not wholly to blame. They are the children of Depression-era parents who worried too much about money and didn't give them the moral direction they deserved. Their generation was robbed, by extremist assassinations, of the great leaders of their generation. Instead of Martin Luther King, they got Al Sharpton. Instead of John F. Kennedy, or even Robert Kennedy, they got Teddy Kennedy. Instead of Yizhak Rabin, they got Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon. Who knows what our people would have been capable of, if these leaders were still alive?
Obama is a uniter, but it would be a huge mistake to forgive and forget. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. As Americans, it is our duty to ask ourselves how we got to this point. We must never forget the way the Republican party, powered by the religious right, rode our country from the peak of prosperity all the way into the ground. They were after power by any means necessary, living the legacy of Newt Gingrich, to divide and conquer and rile up the middle class. We saw plenty of that from McCain/Palin in this election cycle. McCain's concession speech was good, but he should have said, "Hey, remember all that crap I said during the election? Well, I really really really really wanted to get elected, and I'd have said anything." (Hillary should have said the same when she conceded.)
The infusion of religious fundamentalist zeal into our politics is directly responsible for much of this mess, and we must stop and reflect on this and maybe even do something about it. Now would be a fantastic time to pass some legislation firmly separating church from state. We must recognize that doctrines of absolute truth are dangerous, which is the true lesson of 9/11, and never again elect a president based on our personal religious beliefs.
I find it strange to hear Republican pols and bloggers talk about how this election is a great victory for all Americans. Not for you, I say. You played no part in it. If you voted for John McCain, you cannot celebrate the election of Barack Obama. If you voted to take away marriage equality from loving same-sex couples, you cannot pop the champagne for civil rights tonight. We need more accountability in this country, not Ayn-Rand style all-equalizing love. Too often the Democratic party, in its false humility, forgets that it holds the moral high ground. No, the credit does not go to you, my conservative-leaning, Limbaugh-listening, McCain/Palin-donating friends. I sat with two lesbian couples as the returns came in for Proposition 8, and you hurt those friends of mind, you made them cry, and you get no credit or respect from me for that. You do not get to tell your children you voted for Obama, any more than those who voted for Nixon can say they supported Kennedy. This is not your victory. This is your defeat. The victory belongs to people like me
If you haven't noticed, I'm not some dovey hippie with his head in the clouds. Nor am I a fool with a messiah complex for our President-Elect. Barack Obama is an improvement, but he still suffers from some of the same moral hangups as his predecessors. Three state propositions banning gay marriage - three disgusting shit stains on our Constitution - were voted into law the very night Obama was elected. Even as we were celebrating the fall of one equality barrier, another one was being erected in its place. The night, for me, was bittersweet, and it's Obama's own fault. If he had stood up for gay marriage to begin with, these propositions might have failed. Barack is either unable to separate church and state, or afraid to do the right thing, and we have suffered for it.
We lost the battle, but we won the war. And I am hopeful. Barack's much smarter than Bush, and he's a man of reason and he's a man of peace. His social skills are off the charts; he's steady as a rock but also knows how to get what he wants. He is inspiring at center stage, but knows exactly when to let someone else take the wheel. He is our second celebrity president. With all the problems we have, we're going to need that.President Bush, for all his shortcomings, was always a great believer in democracy. Bush's whole idea was that democracy works, and that the world just needs to see it to believe it. In his arrogance, he thought he could make this happen in Iraq. Instead, ironically, Bush helped prove the power of democracy right here in the USA. By being such a disastrous president, Bush became Barack Obama's single biggest supporter. He helped elect, in a landslide, an African American whose middle name is "Hussein" to the Presidency of the United States. So in a way, Bush is a champion of democracy, although maybe not exactly the way he expected.
Karma's kind of funny like that.
-------
[* I'm LNM, and I do not approve this message.]
87 comments:
"If you voted to take away marriage equality from loving same-sex couples, you cannot pop the champagne for civil rights tonight."
To me, the refusal to accept homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality proves that there is some shred of sanity left in this country.
I am proud again to be an American.
JP - if you knew even one loving same sex couple who have celebrated being together for 25 or 45 years (as I do) you would not be nearly so ignorant nor arrogant.
"Obama is a uniter, but it would be a huge mistake to forgive and forget."
You have made very clear how you disdain democracy. A loyal opposition is what a democracy needs. For the record I am not a supporter of Rush.
"We must recognize that doctrines of absolute truth are dangerous, which is the true lesson of 9/11,
The true lesson of 9/11 is that some for some their beliefs in absolute truth could cause them to neasrly paralyze a nation. You have no absolute truth except seeing this belief be upheld and if successful you will surrender our country.
"...never again elect a president based on our personal religious beliefs."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. based his beliefs in equality on religion. He had every right.
RG,
MLK went through a skeptic period and credits it with "freeing his mind from the shackles of religious fundamentalism." Read his autobiography.
I do believe Jesus would be standing up for gay marriage and equality today, just as would Moses, Isaiah, and Hillel. There is good religion and there is bad religion. Unfortunately, most religious leaders today don't understand this.
"I do believe Jesus would be standing up for gay marriage and equality today, just as would Moses, Isaiah, and Hillel."
I don't. In any event I feel like a political outsider. I quite disdain Rush to a great degree. I neither love Obama nor am I filled with great enthusiasm for his opposition or politics altogether. I have fears for the world but I can't even garner emotion over it. I hope for the best and my world lies more amongst the stars now.
Excuse me; however this post is so full of fallacies and deception, I can’t believe that it’s not written by Richard Dawkins himself.
“President Bush (and Sarah Palin, AKA Bush 2.0) represented the very worst of the baby boomer generation. Complete moral confusion”
That’s a baby boomer thing? Has anyone heard of Richard Nixon, born in 1913?
“ensuing tendency towards religious fundamentalism later in life (Bush was a baal t'shuva).”
As is Barak Obama.
“We must never forget the way the Republican party, powered by the religious right, rode our country from the peak of prosperity all the way into the ground.”
From 1991 to 2000, the U.S. experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record. We had a Republican president, Bush senior, until January 1993.
“The infusion of religious fundamentalist zeal into our politics is directly responsible for much of this mess, and we must stop and reflect on this and maybe even do something about it.”
Ridiculous bigotry. Irresponsible borrowing is responsible. Are most bankers, or their customers, religious fundamentalist zealots?
“never again elect a president based on our personal religious beliefs”
Why not? Because we aren’t allowed to have any?
“Now would be a fantastic time to pass some legislation firmly separating church from state.”
The United States has never had an official state church.
“We must recognize that doctrines of absolute truth are dangerous”
Like what? That 2 + 2 = 4? That George Washington was the first president? What’s dangerous is believing that you will not be punished for doing destructive things, which is why atheism is so dangerous.
“If he had stood up for gay marriage to begin with, these propositions might have failed. Barack is either unable to separate church and state, or afraid to do the right thing, and we have suffered for it.”
In China same sex marriage is not permitted. Is that because the church is so powerful in China? Or could it be that sane people realize that heterosexual marriage produces children, homosexual marriages produce nothing useful and therefore the two are not equivalent?
That was seriously one of the most ill-informed, closed-minded, and petulant pieces I have ever read. It lacked entirely for nuance and reflection but was simply a pouring forth of bile.
You convince no-one with pablum like that, though it probably warms your heart.
My general disposition would be to debate you on some of your more ridiculous points, but from your tone it is clear that your mind is closed.
Oh, the irony.
I am proud again to be an American.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jewish non philosopher. You sound just like Michelle Obama. You would not be proud to be an American if they did not vote your way. What ever happened to the law of the land is our law ? I am always proud to be an American and also a Jew by the way. Did you ever think that an atheist can be proud to be a Jew.There are many of us out there so try to be a little more understanding of your fellow American Jews......Avi
"You would not be proud to be an American if they did not vote your way."
I would be very afraid of the direction America is going in.
In China same sex marriage is not permitted. Is that because the church is so powerful in China? Or could it be that sane people realize that heterosexual marriage produces children, homosexual marriages produce nothing useful and therefore the two are not equivalent?
Then are you for the U.S. government requiring fertility testing for everyone applying for marriage license and an automatic denial for those infertile, post-menopausal or not interested in procreating?
I'm just pointing out that this same sex marriage prohibition is universal, it's not just a fundamentalist church thing.
And just by the way, I see no evidence that George W. is personally more or less religious than Obama.
Do you also advocate the death penalty for:
Striking a parent (Exodus 21:15)
Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9)
Sorcery and Augury (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
Sabbath breaking (Exodus 31:12-17, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-10, 17:2-7, 18:20-22)
Contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
Unchastity among those engaged to marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-29)
Because I have to say, the population of Jews would start to seriously dwindle if you do.
Yes, pretty much, in ancient times when the Jewish courts functioned.
However, based on Talmudic sources, the homosexual penalty applies to gentiles as well and even today.
Whoa. So non-Jews are supposed to follow laws that are d'rabbanan? How does that work? And by that logic, what makes their laws non-applicable to us?
Not to mention, have the scholars given us a total out on shomer shabbos? Contempt of court? Did they all come at the same time? Is it at all possible that the time is yet to come for homosexuality? By the way - these talmudic sources you speak of...infallible? Shouldn't we just create a big g'zeirah around the Jewish community and opt out of the rest of the world then?
Actually there are certain commandments which according to the Talmud apply to gentiles as well as Jews. They are all death penalties and that penalty would apply today as well.
I would follow the Saudi model on homosexuality.
I would be very afraid of the direction America is going in.
___________________________________
Jewish non philosopher, maybe it's time to leave the Lord out of this and start doing some thinking of your own. This country is probably going to be going in several directions all at once, and although I always say " Saying tehillim may not help but it certainly cant hurt" In this case those who wait upon the Lord for help are lunatics......Avi
JP,
I'm just pointing out that this same sex marriage prohibition is universal, it's not just a fundamentalist church thing.
Oh please. It's been legalized in Canada, Spain and Norway. It's totally a fundamentalist church thing.
It's sad that the churches and synagogues let the child molesters and wife beaters roam free while they spend all their money and energy defeating a just cause like gay marriage. And people wonder why the youth is not religious...
@anono,
That was seriously one of the most ill-informed, closed-minded, and petulant pieces I have ever read. It lacked entirely for nuance and reflection but was simply a pouring forth of bile...
So, you loved it? You might also enjoy this catchy little tune by NOFX.
Look, as the Torah says, you gotta rebuke your neighbor, rather than keep it in your heart. I'm not going to lie to you and tell you I think Bush was a good president when I think he was the worst in history.
My general disposition would be to debate you on some of your more ridiculous points, but from your tone it is clear that your mind is closed.
Oh, the irony.
That's not irony.
@HH,
I love this. You say Barack is a uniter, but then you say shit like this.
Look, someone has to say this stuff. Barack isn't going to say certain things in public because his JOB is to unite. But behind closed doors, I'll bet he thinks Bush is an idiot and the Republican party has ruined the country.
No wonder I can't stand you.
You just hate losing arguments, HH.
If you voted to take away marriage equality from loving same-sex couples, you cannot pop the champagne for civil rights tonight.
Well, Barack didn't vote on this because he lives in Illinois and not in California. Nonetheless, he, too, is on the record as being against same-sex marriage. Does that mean that Barack Obama is not entitled to pop the champagne for civil rights as well?
The Wolf
"It's sad that the churches and synagogues let the child molesters and wife beaters roam free while they spend all their money and energy defeating a just cause like gay marriage. And people wonder why the youth is not religious."
You just let accusations fly with little or no grounding in reality. And then you wonder why conservatives accuse liberals of having low IQs. And no I'm not really a conservative.
HH said: No wonder I can't stand you.
You just hate losing arguments, HH."
CandyMan first you have to make an argument in order to have someone lose to you.
HH said:"Nice friends you have there Lubab."
For now at least they fit.
>Oh please. It's been legalized in Canada, Spain and Norway. It's totally a fundamentalist church thin
Norway is a registered partnership, its not called a marriage.
@Wolf,
Well, Barack didn't vote on this because he lives in Illinois and not in California. Nonetheless, he, too, is on the record as being against same-sex marriage. Does that mean that Barack Obama is not entitled to pop the champagne for civil rights as well?
YES. Of course Obama opposed Prop 8 publicly, but his general waffling on the subject of gay marriage probably cost us the vote in CA. I took him to task in the post, if you read it.
It's not marriage equality. It is redefining marriage and then charging inequality.
Jesus loved the sinner. Moses prayed to protect the fallen. Barack Obama wants to educate, to illustrate, and to inspire.
You only seek to draw further battle lines, then dance on the graves of your enemies. You make me sick.
anon,
Jesus loved the sinner. Moses prayed to protect the fallen. Barack Obama wants to educate, to illustrate, and to inspire.
You only seek to draw further battle lines, then dance on the graves of your enemies. You make me sick.
Another Bush Republican weighs in :)
You should be sick at the homophobia that your religious cohort expressed on November 4. All I did was call you haters out on it.
CandyMan,
It sucks that Prop 8 was approved by the people of California but that's about the only thing we agree on here.
> Obama is a uniter, but it would be a huge mistake to forgive and forget.
I couldn't DISAGREE more. Now is exactly the moment to put aside our differences and come together. The war is over. It's time to get together behind our new leader and get this country back on track.
> The infusion of religious fundamentalist zeal into our politics is directly responsible for much of this mess, and we must stop and reflect on this and maybe even do something about it.
The infusion of religious fundamentalist zeal into the McCain campaign was Palin (both literally and metaphorically). In the end she was a drag on his ticket ("59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job") The inclusion of a religious fundamentalist was not enough of a draw to push McCain over the top. Religious zeal does not inspire enough of the American electorate to make a difference anymore.
> If you voted for John McCain, you cannot celebrate the election of Barack Obama.
I vehemently disagree with this statment. Millions of conservatives simply disagree with Obama's policies and have the right to vote against them. People who looked past race and voted against Obama because of his politics (not because of the color of his skin) also have reason to celebrate. They too transcended our racial divide.
The campaign is over dude. Like Barack said on election night "we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America."
HH,
Norway is a registered partnership, its not called a marriage.
Wrong. That registered partnership bullshit was signed into law 15 years ago, and was finally replaced this year with a marriage equality law.
LNM,
The war is over. It's time to get together behind our new leader and get this country back on track
I disagree that the war is over. I am and have always been behind Obama, but if McCain were elected there's no way I'd unify behind him.
Well Lubab it looks like we owe you an apology. Sorry. We thought if he posted on your site he represented you enough since he put your name in the post.
As for you CandyMan it is disgraceful how you do not applaud democracy. The message should always be vote whether for my guy or against him but vote. If you can't say that even after the heat of the election then you are aiming for an atomosphere of dictatorship.
Candy Man,
You say I have no right to celebrate the election of Obama. Okay.
But what should I celebrate? Someone who wants to expand the federal government way beyond any president has ever done before? Someone who is going to defund our military, raise taxes and enact economic
policies that are going to cost jobs. Someone who wants a domestic force that's the equivalent of our military? Someone who wants mandatory community service for 11 year olds? Someone who's ill equipped to deal with Iran or the Russians.
I'm also not celebrating because I know that now he can't just vote "present" and read from a teleprompter. He has to govern and actually make decisions. And while I hope he makes the right ones, everything in his background tells us he'll avoid making them or make the wrong ones.
So let's save the celebrations until He takes office and has to deal with real problems and crises. If He handles them well I'll be happy to celebrate His growth in office.
Ichabod Chrain
Me too. I'd love to be wrong.
Me too. I'd love to be wrong.
Candyman, you and I actually agree in some ways but your belligerence is very off putting. I get the sense that you believe winning is determined by who hurts whom the most.
Obviously, you admire your own advice. I just hope someone lets Obama in on the secret. He does still have cabinets posts open.
FTR, very few people take Limbaugh seriously. He is an entertainer and people enjoy him for the same reason they watched Johnny Carson. You might consider taking the "bitter" out of your diatribes and putting in some humor. It could mean a better living. I understand Rush is doing well.
Unfortunately you will never de-religionize society. Even Atheism is a form of religion which can be just as demanding as any other fundamentalist group going. You are a good example.
Yes MLK freed his mind from "fundamentalism" which translates into getting rid of all forms of leaglism. Doing that enables one to truly love a neighbor who is otherwise contrary. Any love he would have had for you would have been motivated by the presence of religious convictions not the absence of them.
As for Jesus, there were plenty of gays in His day. It was an accepted form of birth control in some cultures (the idea of marriage was never discussed) and Jesus never mentioned it once. His silence is telling. He also never negatized the oppressive and abusive government to which He and Israel were subject.
He certainly loved and cared about every person (sinner) but He chose to accept every person through forgiveness. No one meets God's standards, gays or otherwise.
“Now would be a fantastic time to pass some legislation firmly separating church from state.”
What you really mean is the abolition of church from state.
"Oh please. It's (gay marriage) been legalized in Canada, Spain and Norway. It's totally a fundamentalist church thing."
Correction, it has disallowed in fundamental America and ATHEIST China. In that regard the Philosopher's point is sound.
"Religious zeal does not inspire enough of the American electorate to make a difference anymore."
I'm not sure that is absolutely true. I am a Bible believing Christian (I must avoid saying "fundamentalist") and never voted for Dems until this election. Very proud to say that I voted for Obama, CandyMan. I believe the religoius right (hate the categorization) have become wary of the lip service Republicans pay to the "issues." They (we) are no longer gullible.
"...if McCain were elected there's no way I'd unify behind him."
I am wondering if there is anyone behind whom you would unify.
Have enjoyed the discussion. CandyMan, I am sure you have redeeming qualities. They aren't bbviously apparent in this post.
>I disagree that the war is over. I am and have always been behind Obama, but if McCain were elected there's no way I'd unify behind him.
From Obama:
" As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."
What can ANYONE on this blog say anymore about you? You are just a nasty nasty person. Even Lubab is shocked by you.
Candyman and Jewish Philosopher
I am beginning to see the resemblances.
Candyman, look who is talking about allowing child molestors to go free. A study shows 1/3 of pedophile victims are males while only about 5% of the population is homosexual.
Personally, I don't particularly like gays, atheists or Muslims. I'm proud to say that. I oppose evil. I think most sane, decent, God fearing American agree.
"but if McCain were elected there's no way I'd unify behind him."
CandyMan wake up. Realty check: McCain has been constantly bipartisan. He worked succesfully with Democrats. He was hated by Conservatives and traditionally also by the Christian Right. In the end he was only supported because he won the nomination of his party. He even almost became a Democrat and you can't picture yourself behind him.
OK JP - If the Noahide laws include
Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
And you won't allow monogamous gays and lesbians to marry, you are creating a situation where they either break this law.
I know, they could live as a celibate but give me a break. 6% of the population is not going to live as celibates and you are creating the situation whereby they break your law.
WTF? I voted for McCain because I agreed with him more than I agreed with Obama. Hell, I WANTED to like Obama, but in the end I found his desire to create more entitlement programs by raising taxes in a perilous economic situation to be extremely misguided.
But I won't lie to you - the night Obama won the election, this McCain supporter had tears in her eyes. Even though he wasn't my candidate, the triumph of Obama has demonstrated that American democracy is indeed so potent, and its people so amazing, that a member of an historically oppressed minority group has assumed leadership of a nation that a mere 40 years ago would have had him arrested for even trying to vote or sit at a lunch counter. I mean, when, in the history of the world has a major power done anything like this?
I agree with holy hyrax: Jewish Philosopher and the Candy Man are nothing but flip sides of the same coin. Extremism is extremism no matter which side it's coming from.
"6% of the population is not going to live as celibates and you are creating the situation whereby they break your law."
What would you suggest pedophiles do?
"Extremism is extremism no matter which side it's coming from."
What about being extremely honest or extremely kind or extremely intolerant of evil? I see nothing necessarily wrong with extremism.
Gay men and lesbians are not equivalent to pedophiles!!!
A same sex couple is a person who can consent to marrying a person of the opposite gender marrying another person who can consent to marrying a person of the opposite gender. You are prescribing which gender they can marry.
A pedophile rapes children.
"A pedophile rapes children."
But you have no problem demanding that they remain celibate because what they want to do is a crime. That's what I say to gay men.
NO jewish phil. Not because it is a crime. Because it steals the life and body of a child. I don't give a shit whether or not it is a crime. It is a child with no capacity to consent or fight back.
You are truly the heart of evil or you are so blind that you cannot see what you write.
Also, if you knew me, you would know how much this sentence:
You are the heart of evil - regarding only sexual satisfaction as your highest value, like an addict desperate for heroin. Revolting.
makes me laugh out loud and how immensely far it is from true!!!
BTW - you never answered about the rape of a child or the Noahide law. Nice change of subject. Actual philosophers would laugh you out of the room.
"Faith said...
Male homosexuality has not caused the HIV epidemic - a virus has."
The source of the virus at least in our continent has been from homosexual sex. Others spread it rather than creat it.
"You do realize that you are making death threats, don't you? And that it is in public and that I can link to your name? What are you thinking?"
In America that's not called a death threat.
@Ichabod,
You're not celebrating, but that was only part of my point. The other half is that people like you bear responsibility for ruining our country and confusing our moral fiber with the most toxic face of religion.
@ennips, I liked your response.
Candyman, you and I actually agree in some ways but your belligerence is very off putting.
Glad you agree with me in some ways. Feel free to elaborate. As for my belligerence, everything I said is true and we should not shy away from speaking our mind.
As the Bible says, Do not hate your neighbor in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor and rebuke him again, and absolve yourself of his guilt.
FTR, very few people take Limbaugh seriously.
You're right, I should have said Sean Hannity.
Unfortunately you will never de-religionize society. Even Atheism is a form of religion which can be just as demanding as any other fundamentalist group going. You are a good example.
I'm not exactly an atheist and I do not base my political views on religion. America has been progressively de-religionized for years for our betterment and I'd like to see that trend continue.
There is good religion and bad religion. But these days, the religious right has chosen the bad religion over the good.
Yes MLK freed his mind from "fundamentalism" which translates into getting rid of all forms of leaglism. Doing that enables one to truly love a neighbor who is otherwise contrary. Any love he would have had for you would have been motivated by the presence of religious convictions not the absence of them.
I think you're wrong. You see, I've read MLK and it's not just about Jesus to him. Jesus had a vote, but not a veto. MLK's influences were broad, and the US Constitution was just as important to him as anything in the gospels. I will post on this later.
As for Jesus, there were plenty of gays in His day. It was an accepted form of birth control in some cultures (the idea of marriage was never discussed) and Jesus never mentioned it once. His silence is telling. He also never negatized the oppressive and abusive government to which He and Israel were subject.
He negatized plenty against the Pharisees. He called them a brood of vipers.
Look, you and I are going to disagree about Jesus. To me, he was just a man. Like MLK, he was caught up in his own civil rights struggle, and like MLK, bad people assassinated him before his time.
Jesus didn't fight for racial equality. Does that mean that slavery is OK? Of course not. The question is, what would Jesus do today.
“Now would be a fantastic time to pass some legislation firmly separating church from state.”
What you really mean is the abolition of church from state.
Freedom of religion is fine, but religious laws have no place in our American law. That should be obvious by now, but it's not.
Religion has, unfortunately, played a terrible role in our politics. Jesus' message has been corrupted and twisted. The result is that the position and credence of religion has been weakened in our society.
I'm not sure that is absolutely true. I am a Bible believing Christian (I must avoid saying "fundamentalist") and never voted for Dems until this election. Very proud to say that I voted for Obama, CandyMan. I believe the religoius right (hate the categorization) have become wary of the lip service Republicans pay to the "issues." They (we) are no longer gullible.
It's great that you and I voted the same way about Obama. I encourage you to continue reading the works of Jesus and MLK and also try Ghandi and see where you stand after that.
"...if McCain were elected there's no way I'd unify behind him."
I am wondering if there is anyone behind whom you would unify.
There is a balance to be struck between unification/compromise and foolish naivete. We must never forget the damage the religious right and Bush have done to this country.
If you think "mission accomplished," you might remember what happened the last time we said that.
Have enjoyed the discussion. CandyMan, I am sure you have redeeming qualities. They aren't bbviously apparent in this post.
Every post will be different and I'm a complex guy. If you enjoyed the discussion, I encourage you to take a look at some of the other posts I have made, which are a little softer.
@HH,
Candyman and Jewish Philosopher
I am beginning to see the resemblances.
You are the one who sides with JP 90% of the time, HH.
"The Candy Man said...
@Ichabod,
You're not celebrating, but that was only part of my point. The other half is that people like you bear responsibility for ruining our country and confusing our moral fiber with the most toxic face of religion."
CandyMan people like you are ruining the country. We stand for freedom of speech and of the press and of the people to protest for a redress of greivances and we also stand for freedom of religion and from religion. You stand for dictatorship where if one votes against your views or one expresses other views they are to be condemned. You are not a complex man as you say. You are very singleminded and not brilliant with people.
I resent the implication that I am trying to polarize anybody. I am expressing outrage at the Bush years and outrage at the McCain campaign and outrage at the disgusting discrimination against gays that was expressed Tuesday night on the national stage.
My position on gay marriage may seem "extremist" to you. But it's not an extremist position, it's the Consitutional and democratic position. And the proof is in the pudding. In twenty years, my position is going to be mainstream.
I'm sure back in the day there were plenty of folks who lamented the extremist policies of the liberals who worked for civil rights. But today they're American heroes.
As for McCain/Obama, my point was not that whoever votes for McCain is an idiot. I just think they're wrong, and we should not sugar coat it. If someone was moderate and on the fence and finally voted McCain, I'm OK with it. Hell, I actually like McCain, at least before he got emasculated by the Bush religious right. But if you are someone like HH, who is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and fights every liberal cause I mention in my blog tooth-and-nail, then no you have no seat in the celebration tonight. If he really believed in civil rights, he should have voted No on 8.
"Jesus didn't fight for racial equality."
CandyMan modern racism did not exist in Israel. The Greek philosophers invented it and it took a while to cultivate it. Rabbi Akiva was the grandson of converts. Countless Talmudic rabbis had humble origins. We can't even ascribe modern notions of high class rabbinic birth to Talmudic times. You are being anachronistic.
He negatized plenty against the Pharisees. He called them a brood of vipers.
He did mention the Pharisees but He never attacked the Romans whom the Pharisees and most of Israel hated. His silence again is telling. If Jesus supported a reactionary, activist mentality why did He say and do nothing that would reflect it? He was actually very Ghandi-like in that regard.
And even the Pharisees were handled very gently by Jesus. He referred to them as vipers only at the end of His ministry. He had plenty of opportunities to nail them with some strong language but was very patient instead. It is interesting that He said nothing until the end.
"He did mention the Pharisees but He never attacked the Romans whom the Pharisees and most of Israel hated."
The Pharisees were content to live under Roman rule to the extent they could still have freedom of religion. It is the Romans who earned the rebeliousness of Jews fighting for independence.
@ennips,
His silence again is telling.
You're reading a lot into what is not there. Again, Jesus does not speak of slavery. Jesus does not speak of child abuse. This does not mean Jesus approved of these institutions.
If Jesus supported a reactionary, activist mentality why did He say and do nothing that would reflect it? He was actually very Ghandi-like in that regard.
Jesus himself often took action to prove his point. He was a vocal critic of the Pharisees, provoking them and actively engaging them. He went to the Temple and overturned the tables of the money-changers. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
Ghandi, too, was most certainly a reactionary, activist type. He understood very clearly that if you want to foment change, you need to take action. He led the charge in South Africa to attain equal rights for the Indian people. This meant a huge grass roots civil disobedience movement. The same goes for MLK.
This is something both Ghandi and MLK emphasize. The ethic of non-violence is not the same as non-action.
You're reading a lot into what is not there. Again, Jesus does not speak of slavery. Jesus does not speak of child abuse. This does not mean Jesus approved of these institutions.
I was speaking to the way Jesus responded to those things. I never meant to suggest He agreed with them.
There were plenty of societal ills which could have been addressed but Jesus generally said nothing about any of them. He came to forgive not correct or condemn. Everyone needs forgiveness, homosexual and heterosexual alike. "Republican and Democrat" is not synonymous with "right and wrong."
My problem with the gay rights issues is the lack of honest dialogue, from both sides. We are so focused on genitalia that we forget there are real people with personal concerns involved. And there may be some serious scientific realities to cconsider. Very little scientific discussion is engaged.
Jesus himself often took action to prove his point. He was a vocal critic of the Pharisees, provoking them and actively engaging them. He went to the Temple and overturned the tables of the money-changers. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
Jesus only over turned the tables of the money changes twice, once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end. Otherwise He was very gentle and respectful toward the religious leaders.
On those occasions when He was questioned by the Pharisees, which usually involved an implied accusation, He was very calm and clear in His responses. He gave them answers they couldn't refute. He was reasoned not reactionary.
On one occasion a lawyer (a phaisee) asked Jesus how he could inherit eternal life. Instead of giving an answer Jesus honored the Pharisee with a question of His own. He said, "what does the law say, how do you read it?"
The Pharisee, knowing the law, gave his answer at which point Jesus again honored him by recognizing and accepting his answer. He said, "correct, do that and you shall live."
Why didn't Jesus just tell him the answer up front? What Jesus did here was almost a non-reponse. We, on the other hand, even before we are asked a question, throw opinions, Bible verses, legal language and accusations at people like confetti.
Even Christians do this. Maybe I should say especially Christians or especially deeply religious people. We tend to be more protective of what we perceive as truth than we are of people. My point is, Jesus was not like that. He led people to truth rather than just tell them truth. That was a way of honoring their intelligence and even their moral sense.
ennips, that is a nice statement and I won't dispute it. I'd like to turn the convo in another direction.
You are a minister. Is your parish gay-friendly? What are you doing, if anything, to "lead people to the truth" about gay rights?
One of the things *I* find frustrating is the absolute failure, on the part of religious leaders, to acknowledge the part they have played in bringing us to this point.
What responsibility, if any, are you willing to accept for the role religion has played in denying equal rights to loving same-sex couples? In spreading and even cultivating fears and prejudices against homosexuals in the name of Christ?
All of those are very good questions and I am concerned about the issue. I do believe there has been a lot of "hate" generated around this topic, unfortunately on both sides.
And, the fears associated with gay issues is really a reflection of ignorance, here again, on both sides.
If a gay person has the right to equality then non-gay people have a right to have their concerns allayed.
FTR, I would never advocate executing gays, unless we execute everyone not at the synagogue on Friday evening or doing any form of work on Saturday, not too mention adultery, fornication, etc., etc.
Where I think the religious right has been wrong is in there refusal to entertain any discussion on the issues. Even now, as progressive as "fundamentalists" have become they still tend to avoid the topic.
Where I think the gay rights folks have been wrong is in their inability to see this tendency (trend) as anything other than a normal progression in human culture.
This is a serious issue which needs to be openly and genuinely addressed by both sides.
I wouldn't consider myself "gay friendly" but that by no means suggests I am hate gays or would never have them around my home or church. I will entertain any person. I care about people and think they matter to God.
None of us can earn God's acceptance on a personal level but all of us have access to God. So I have a problem with treating gays generally as the scum of the earth.
That is a very short answer to a deep question. I am actually headed for a series of meetins now and might be absent for a while. But, I will be back.
The New York Times just published an article that says exactly what I've been saying about Republicans celebrating Obama.
Read it here.
Note what Harry Reid says: “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like — if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did."
@ennisp,
And, the fears associated with gay issues is really a reflection of ignorance, here again, on both sides.
This tendency to equivocate between the left and the right drives me nuts. There is no more moral equivalence between our two sides than there is between IDF soldiers and Hamas suicide bombers. The left has the high ground. As Ecclesiastes says, I have seen the difference, and it is the difference between the darkness and the light.
If a gay person has the right to equality then non-gay people have a right to have their concerns allayed.
No. This is America, not Napoleanic France. If you don't like my lifestyle because of your religious beliefs, that is your problem. There's no two ways about this.
FTR, I would never advocate executing gays, unless we execute everyone not at the synagogue on Friday evening or doing any form of work on Saturday, not too mention adultery, fornication, etc., etc... I wouldn't consider myself "gay friendly" but that by no means suggests I am hate gays or would never have them around my home or church. I will entertain any person. I care about people and think they matter to God... So I have a problem with treating gays generally as the scum of the earth.
Hooray for you. You don't advocate execution of gays. You're not a total homophobe. But you're not leading the world with that attitude, either.
This is the problem with religion today. A lack of vision on the part of its leaders. I'm sorry to call you out on it, Ennis, but I am just being honest with you. For what its worth, none of our Jewish religious leaders are any better.
"@Ichabod,
You're not celebrating, but that was only part of my point. The other half is that people like you bear responsibility for ruining our country and confusing our moral fiber with the most toxic face of religion."
Candyman, sometimes I think you just write on automatic pilot. I'm not ruining our country. Maybe you're confusing me with Acorn, or Harry Reid, or Bill Ayers, or Robert Kennedy Jr. They're the ones who are trying to ruin the country, not me.
And what are you talking about with the confusion of moral fiber and the toxic face of religion? (I'm a skeptic btw, that's why I'm here) And how am I responsible for whatever it is you mean? And what does it have to do with my comment?
Anyway, yes I'm not celebrating, but you know what--it's your fault.
See, here I was reading your posts and never once can I remember you giving me a good reason to vote for Obama. You gave me reasons to invite him for dinner, or to vote for him for chief of protocol, or to appoint him as Ambassador to some place like Monaco, and you told us how exhiliarated you were to be campaigning for him.
But you didn't give me any reason to vote for him for president.
Limbaugh on the other hand (who actually usually is worth taking seriously) gave me good reasons not to vote for him.
So what was I supposed to do? I couldn't wait until after the election to hear what your response was to Limbaugh's arguments, and I wasn't going to vote for McKinney, so the only one left was McCain.
Now I'll tell you something else about your post. Remember the reactions from the Dems after Bush won the elections. Remember all the stuff about "He's not my president," and Alex Baldwin's tirade, etc., etc.
Here are the Republicans trying to be nice, and what do you do, you blast them. And why? Because they didn't vote for Dems you get all agitated when they don't act like the Dems did after Bush's election.
That's something worth getting agitated about? What if they would have acted like the Dems? From what I can tell you would have gone after them for that too. Maybe not, but that's the way it looks from what you've been writing.
(BTW although I disagree with you and think you let your emotions run away with your reason, I don't agree with the term one of the other commenters used about you on his blog.)
Now can we can get this blog back onto skepticism, which is why many of us came here in the first place.
Ichabod Chrain
It looks CandyMan like you have been addressing the wrong crowd. Those skeptics are more Conservative than a moderate political liberal like me. If this keeps up JP and Faith and some Mormons will be your basic audience.
@Chrain,
Well you listen to Limbaugh. We're not going to see eye-to-eye politically.
@RG,
It looks CandyMan like you have been addressing the wrong crowd. Those skeptics are more Conservative than a moderate political liberal like me.
I think you are right. I have learned something here, which is that skepticism does not (necessarily) a liberal make.
It will be fun to think about why...
It's a lesson for you. But the answer is simple. People don't automatically become skeptic for the same reasons they become liberal. In your case and in Lubab's case it was for the same reason. I have to admit I don't hate you but that's because hate doesn't come easily for me. But you really could kill Lubab's site.
"Well you listen to Limbaugh. We're not going to see eye-to-eye politically."
But I wanted you to give me a reason to agree with you, and you didn't. That's what the problem was.
As for Limbaugh, lots of liberals listen to Limbaugh. Some even call in and he's usually very courteous to them.
Besides, who do you think has more substance, Kathy Couric or Limbaugh? For all his faults (which are there, but not as much as some liberals say) he's usually quite good. He gives a different perspective from that of the networks or most big city newspapers. He also has a sense of humor.
He might help you understand why some skeptics are conservative.
Ichabod Chrain
RG said,
"But you really could kill Lubab's site."
I'm not so sure. This kind of thing sparks a lot of responses. CM agitates a lot but his comments are not without thought. Maybe not always exactly on target and maybe a little too infused with venom but not completely off the point either.
I consider myself very conservative but I agree with his general analyses of the Bush administration and I was one who "wanted" Bush to be right. Unfortunately, I can't be dishonest about his mess ups. Clinton's mess ups weren't as damaging as Bush's.
Anon said,
"As for Limbaugh, lots of liberals listen to Limbaugh. Some even call in and he's usually very courteous to them."
It has been a very, very, very long time since I last listened to Rush Limbaugh but I never recall him being courteous to anyone. His responses were condescending to those who agreed with him and scathing to those who didn't (a bit like CM). Maybe he has moderated some. I'm sure it helps his bottom line.
Anon said,
"Here are the Republicans trying to be nice, and what do you do, you blast them."
Don't take this personally but I hosed myself at the remark. Neither side can claim the "Mr. Nice" prize. Politics brings out th worst in everyone, Rep or Dem.
CandyMan,
You didn't even recognize my comments much less try to give an argument.
FTR, in spite of being very conservative I think it might be a politically smart thing to allow same sex marriage. When I discuss this with people like you, however, the responses are always eruptive. Its almost as if you wish to blast opponents into submission.
Please understand that there is no MLK for the same sex marriage cause. If these marriages are allowed it will be due to many people from both sides working and dialoguing respectfully to reach a "compromise."
And that (compromise) is what I am looking for not moral equivalence. You think your side is completely right. I think my side is more right. And please spare us the comparisons to the conflict between IDF and Hamas. The issues are totally different. You're the only one acting like Hamas.
I'm not looking for a way to make same sex marriage right. I am looking to find a way to make it tolerable (compromise). That is the nature of politics.
In this case, however, neither side will even listen to what the other says. We stand miles apart and throw stones. You have actually perfected the art.
Same sex marriage represents the biggest change in cultural mores ever in the history of the USA. To compare this with inter racial marriage is embecilic on several levels.
Do I think same sex marriage will be recognized? Yes. Do I think people like you will lead the way? Hardly. If you care about gays then why don't you speak and act a little more agreeably. Jeers from the sidelines won't get much done.
And...I resent the fact that you think of yourself and your kind as the only ones who care about gays. Who the heck are you? What diff have you made? As far as I can tell, zippo.
And why would you mention Napoleonic France? Napoleon actually introduced many very welcome religious changes and the conflict there was religion on religion not religion on non-religion.
Now, if you want to discuss the issue let's do it. Put up a post and introduce some area of concern and let everybody address it. It would be interesting.
@Ichabod Chrain
> Besides, who do you think has more substance, Kathy Couric or Limbaugh? For all his faults (which are there, but not as much as some liberals say) he's usually quite good.
Don't confuse entertainment/preaching to the choir with informative substance. Rush is very good at being entertaining, rallying his base, and beating the war drums. I don't deny that. But he doesn't hesitate to be intellectually dishonest and change positions as is necessary for whatever agenda he is pushing on a given day. I used to regularly listen to the guy (back when I leaned right) but he isn't always consistent. And you should certainly never confuse him with a news outlet.
I find Rush to be a down the line party man. As for Bush I think he made a mistake going into Iraq when he did at least. We are there though and if we leave without the overly broad goals the Bush administration laid out for the war we will have lost the war to people who will milk that victory for all its worth.
"And you should certainly never confuse him with a news outlet."
They can be just as bad.
Lies your naivete Lubab as you think the Right's accusations concerning Obama are just made up.
That is therein lies your naivite I meant to write.
@ennisp,
You didn't even recognize my comments much less try to give an argument.
I did quote you and I tried to give an argument. Maybe I wasn't respectful enough, but believe me I like your general sentiments and am happy to be having a discussion with you.
I like talking to people who actually know something about the texts. I actually spent three years in a Rabbinical school, and we probably share a certain passion for justice and peace. But I will push you on this issue, because I think it's a very important one for religious leaders to get right.
I consider myself very conservative but I agree with his general analyses of the Bush administration and I was one who "wanted" Bush to be right. Unfortunately, I can't be dishonest about his mess ups.
I know a lot of people like you and believe it or not I used to stick up for Bush too! Now everyone I know personally basically agrees that he's an idiot. So I don't worry too much about the folks on this blog who call me an extremist.
FTR, in spite of being very conservative I think it might be a politically smart thing to allow same sex marriage. When I discuss this with people like you, however, the responses are always eruptive. Its almost as if you wish to blast opponents into submission.
Ennis, of course you are right, but it is very very rare that a conservative comes out and says what you just said. Even our Democrats won't come out and say what you just said. That is why I fight. You have to give a voice to the oppressed, and sometimes it's got to be a loud voice.
I think if you look through the history of my posts you'll see that I don't always shout. Sure, I'm part Batman, but I'm also part Bruce Wayne.
I once even played a game on the blog called "We Agree."
And...I resent the fact that you think of yourself and your kind as the only ones who care about gays. Who the heck are you? What diff have you made? As far as I can tell, zippo.
Oh, Ennis, I've been fighting for gay rights for nearly ten years now. I take time out of my schedule to support gay causes on a regular basis, I have tons of gay friends, I blog about it a lot (fomenting discussions such as this one), and I spend money on the cause.
For an example, read this post.
You're a relatively new commenter. I encourage you to read what I've written over time, continue to read, and judge for yourself where my values lie.
Now, if you want to discuss the issue let's do it. Put up a post and introduce some area of concern and let everybody address it. It would be interesting.
Uh, what do you think I've been doing for the last two months?
If you have a parish, you can also make a difference by discussing this important issue with your faithful. The issue sort of found me in just such a religious community discussion about 8 years ago. (I do intend to blog about that someday.) Until you get personally involved, it's hard to really understand how gay rights really affects people.
Lubab are you able to say everyone who voted thereby promoted democracy?
LNM are you able to say everyone who voted thereby promoted democracy?
CM,
I haven't read all 81 comments before this but I'll comment on the general gist of the post.
Let me first tout my credentials. I voted for Obama in the end.
Your post reflects a black and white thinking which is something that we tend to accuse conservative moralists of doing. Conservatives are all bad and liberals are only good. It sounds a bit Messianic to me.
You have used the age thing against my 48 years. I don't know how old you are, but your post rings of a younger idealist unmoderated by the life wisdon of "things aren't so simple". I think that different times call for different sorts of leaders with different responses. I don't think that a knee-jerk liberal or conservative reaction is best at all times. I voted for Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, GW, and now Obama. And no, I'm not confused.
Not everything that is wrong with America is Bush's (or the conservative's) fault. Nor have liberals been responsible for everything good that happened.
@drj,
If there's one thing I could redo in the post, it's singling out the boomers. It was kind of a dumb thing to say. It was really me lashing out at my parents, although of course they never voted for Bush. (They have, however, made my life an absolute living hell for just dating a gentile woman - and have never spoken to a rabbi about it.)
When I wrote the post, I thought you had voted for McCain (as you had posted originally), and it troubled me that a smart guy like you would do that. I'm glad you came around. Not that you represent all baby boomers.
I was sitting on the couch when Prop 8 passed with a friend who is about 55 years old. He lamented its passing, to which I said, "It's a generational thing." His reply was, "Fuck you!" which I thought was appropriate.
I am not so young, in my fourth decade of life already. I do feel frustrated that the boomers as a whole have left my generation a pretty messed-up country and world. Specifically, I think they've given religion way too much say in things. But there's no question that terrorism had something to do with it as well. I guess I just wish the leadership had been stronger.
"Oh please. It's been legalized in Canada, Spain and Norway. It's totally a fundamentalist church thing"
Norway is a registered partnership, its not called a marriage.
Wrong on both counts.
Wrong on the fact, because while we did originally get a Partnership Act 1993, this has now, as of June 11th this year, been erased from the books and replaced with a new and more comprehensive Marriage Act, which also covers same-sex marriage.
Wrong on the assumption, because guess what was the reason it was called partnership and not marriage back in -93? Our increasingly marginalized church and its affiliated bigoted religious groupings wouldn't accept it. So yeah, it is in fact totally a church thing.
And as for whoever used 'atheist China' as an example of how it's so normal to not allow gay marriage - I just have to mention this, since no one else has pointed it out. Communism is a religion too. It's political instead of spiritual, but that's just semantics; it qualifies on all counts. Look up the definition.
Prohibitions of homosexual activity is definitely a religiious thing. Anywhere you find religions that are founded on or strongly influenced by the Bible (Old or New Testament) in any historical era you find society is usually very prescriptive as to what is and is not allowed. Leisha's poiint about atheists religions being prohibitive is valid.
It is interesting that religions that recognize a supreme being but are not influenced by the Bible are generally more generous toward this orientation. Blame it on the Bible.
The people of Western Europe, however, are not a good example to follow. They are in a very different place on the religious learning curve. I (citizen of America) think there is a lot to learn from the European experience but using them as the example to follow doesn't go down well with the general US public.
I also think it would be shallow just to "do as they do" without serious thought. We can't just assume that where they are is exactly the best place to be.
Their response to the religious oppression of types like John Calvin was complete license. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone is advocating that, not even those who are confused sexually.
LC,
"And as for whoever used 'atheist China' as an example of how it's so normal to not allow gay marriage - I just have to mention this, since no one else has pointed it out. Communism is a religion too."
And communism has little to do with why China does not permit gay marriage. Throughout Chinese history, homosexuality has never been accepted as equal to heterosexual relationships.
And communism has little to do with why China does not permit gay marriage. Throughout Chinese history, homosexuality has never been accepted as equal to heterosexual relationships.
I don't have the data to prove this but I would be willing to bet that prohibitions against homosexuality were much more aggressively enforced under communism (a religion) than before.
And since they either execute or imprison homosexuals they don't have such a large number of practicing homosexuals to deal with. We do.
We can't be very proud about not executinng homosexuals if we continue to treat them as less than human. What we do now is very much like our colomial forefathers who made adulteres wear the large letters "AD" on their apparel.
The question is, will we approach this from a religiously limited mind set (every thing is either all black or all white) or can we allow ourselves to visit the grey areas?
En,
"I don't have the data to prove this but I would be willing to bet that prohibitions against homosexuality were much more aggressively enforced under communism (a religion) than before."
And therefore what? Correlation is not quite the same thing as causation y'know.
"We can't be very proud about not executinng homosexuals if we continue to treat them as less than human. What we do now is very much like our colomial forefathers who made adulteres wear the large letters "AD" on their apparel."
Right. They are treated as less than human by being free to do whatever they want and treated the same way as everyone else save for their relationships being legitimized by the state as marriage.
Though frankly, as a separate point, - there *should* be severe social consequences for adulterers.
Though frankly, as a separate point, - there *should* be severe social consequences for adulterers.
I think this raises the question of how to "legislate" morality in a secular democratic society. As I put it in a previous post,
So far, this country has made a mess of secular ethics. Our President uses family values as an excuse to deprive homosexuals of their Constitutional right to marriage equality. Well, shouldn't he be more concerned about the adulterers in our midst? Or the wife beaters? There's a lot more of those than there are homosexuals, and they pose a far greater threat to family stability. Yet there is practically zero national discussion about such issues. Perhaps the Spitzer fiasco will spark some discussion about real family values. Secular ethics offer us a way out of outdated double standards and cultural norms. But in reinventing society, how do we strike a balance between what is good for the family and what is good for the individual? When it comes to sex, what can we realistically expect from human society?
OP said,
They are treated as less than human by being free to do whatever they want and treated the same way as everyone else save for their relationships being legitimized by the state as marriage.
Are you denying that there is a stigma associated with being homosexual? Would you deny that the stigma is encouraged and magnified by the religious right? Would you agree that this mind set is a bit petty, especially for grown adults?
Religous people don't like homosexuality, see it as deviant and find it difficult to even consider it with an open mind. We rarely engage the discussion and are offended by those who do. I may not be talking about you exactly but that pretty much describes most people who are strongly religious. We refuse to play the game and hate it when others do.
BTW, disallowing marriage to same sex couples is like disallowing a disabled person to own a car even though we allow them to get a license.
The problem, as I see it, is perspective. We allow only two views. We see homosexuality as something to be abolished, either by execution (which most have the sense to recognize as obscene) or by persuasion (which no one has effectively done). Any other option (from a religious mind set) is seen as an endorsement of the life style. So we equivocate. We sit in the middle doing nothing constructive other than throw stones and argue a lot. We encourage no constructive difference. Doing something wrong would be better than doing nothing at all.
I would suggest that makinig allowances for same sex marriage is no more of an endorsement of homosexuality than making allowances for the disabled is an endorsement of disability.
Allowing same sex marriage is a way of bringing order to what we view as license. It encourages regulation not deregulation. It subjects those homosexuls who wish to be married (only a small percentage as I understand it) to all the same laws that any other married person must obey and it makes all other HS's look worse because of it. As I understand it, same sex couples want the kind of security that law brings to our relationships. What good reason can we have for denying it.
There is very strong evidence indicating that some people are born gender confused. Some so confused they must make a decision which gender they will pursue. Repugnance is not an appropriate response for these people. Compassion is.
I am sure that some choose homosexuality for reasons outside of science and genetics but we aren't absolutely certain how to determine who is who. Should we penalize everyone or make considerations for those who are genetically predisposed.
You have to admit that CM made some very valid observtions in his comment. There are many ills in American society. Homosexuality is only one and it is far from the worst. Homosexuality isn't rape, child abuse, prostitution, wife beating or anything else against which there are many laws. Allowing same sex marriage isn't an endorsement of any of those things not even homosexuality.
CM,
"I think this raises the question of how to "legislate" morality in a secular democratic society."
I didn't say the state ought to legislate on the matter per se, but that society ought to be far less accepting of adultery.
En,
"Are you denying that there is a stigma associated with being homosexual?"
Are you admitting that a 'stigma' is hardly the same as treating them as less than human?
"BTW, disallowing marriage to same sex couples is like disallowing a disabled person to own a car even though we allow them to get a license."
Actually it's more like allowing the disabled person to own and drive a car like everyone else, except we give them a different kind of license. Big deal.
The fact is that they're driving a different kind of car so they ought to get a different kind of license.
OP, answer this one question. Is your refusal to entertain the idea of same sex marriage motivated by a desire to avoid giving any recognition to or endorsment of homosexuality?
If not, why do you resist?
What damage to society are we avoiding by not allowing same sex couples to marry?
Post a Comment