For those of you who were reading my blog back in February, you may remember a couple of posts about Elyse Crystall, a liberal professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The school is apparently a southern outpost for PC-America.
Mike S. Adams, a conservative and professor at the school (and one of my favorite columnists) skewers liberal academia on a weekly basis in his column for Townhall.com.
Adams exposed Crystall as the raging leftist she is after her attempt to suppress the speech of a conservative student. She also ridiculed him by sending e-mails about the matter to other students! In a class called “Literature and Cultural Diversity”, the student had the nerve to say homosexuality was “disgusting.” I guess the professor doesn’t appreciate cultural “diversity” of ideas, does she?
Crystall wasn’t fired, unfortunately, but she had to apologize. Additionally, a monitor was sent to observe her class for the rest of that semester. I know she hated that. (See these posts for my take on the matter.)
Here’s an update on the situation. The Department of Education said Crystall’s e-mail campaign constituted discrimination and harassment. Because the school handled the situation properly, however, no federal sanctions are forthcoming. Lucky libs!
According to the Herald Sun:
“The e-mail message not only subjected the student to intentional discrimination and harassment, but also discouraged the robust exchange of ideas that is intrinsic to higher education and is at the very heart of the Constitution’s protection of free speech,” said the report prepared by the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights and released Wednesday.
Adams continues to fight the good fight. This week he reviews a book titled Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas, by Daniel J. Flynn. Adams writes:
Contrary to the wishes of some of my readers, I will not be writing a profile of Sanger’s life now or at any time in the future. That is because my friend Dan Flynn has done it to perfection in his outstanding new book, Intellectual Morons. If the 21-page chapter on Sanger were the only chapter in the book, Flynn’s latest (published by Crown Forum) would be well worth the purchase price. Anyone interested in saving the life of the unborn simply cannot afford to miss Dan’s latest work.Flynn’s characterization of Sanger as a “world-class liar” who “embraced tenets of Nazism, terrorism-and abortion for any reason at any time” sounds harsh at first glance. Regardless, Flynn doesn’t sound harsh for long, because he provides quote after quote to substantiate his allegations. Sometimes he quotes those whose articles Sanger published in The Woman Rebel (TWR). For example, Flynn quotes a TWR article by Robert Thorpe, opining that “lower forms of life must give place to higher forms,” in the context of Thorpe’s call for the assassination of John D. Rockefeller.
But, mostly, Flynn directly quotes Sanger, who, for example, advised women to avoid pregnancy by consuming quinine (a medicine used to fight malaria) and laxatives “to assist with the menstrual flow.” Apparently, in the twisted mind of Margaret Sanger, a bowel movement a day, keeps the baby away. Unfortunately for some unsuspecting women, Sanger’s advice didn’t flush out in the final analysis.
These Sanger quotes were bad enough, but good grief.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 43 comments }
The fact that there are people willing to vote for John Kerry indicates a broken education system.
I’m sorry but John Kerry makes me break my rule not to resort to ad hominems. This tree swining moron who hasn’t EVER even set foot in Iraq is for his own personal ambition questioning the EYE WITNESS WORD OF THE IRAQI CITIZEN AND PRIME MINISTER ALLAWI IN HIS FACE!!! While I still say we haven’t prosecuted this war properly, I am not stupid enough to go on national media and contradict the words of the MAN himself? Progress has indeed been made over there. Kerry could at LEAST recognize that fact and give credit where it is due.
My God, to think there are actually people out there who will be voting for Kerry is pure testimony that our education system is broken.
While the Prime Minister of Iraq comes all the way to America, speaks before Congress and gives us his gratitude, this blow dried traitor continues to paint a picture of pessimism and doom. UNBELIEVABLE!
Like it has been said, for Democrats to do well, America has to fail. Not a positive message in Kerry’s body. While he changes positions on every topic every day, he has done nothing! He has never lead anything or won anything. His legacy is one of cowardice and retreat. Even his “band of brothers” witnessed him run home from Vietnam and leave them without a commander in a time of war. Kerry hasn’t changed anything. President Bush on the other hand, like him or not has CHANGED THE WORLD!!!
God Bless President Bush and GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
Funny that the most intolerant people are the liberals who tell everyone we should be tolerant of all views.
Ain’ that the truth. Another truth is that the entire concept of liberalism is based on lies. Liberalism cannot take root without deception, thus why it is so easy to defeat liberals in the market place of ideas. All you have to do is tell the truth. Use facts and they wilt.
Raymond
and when you confront liberals with the facts they become mad and personally attack you. Sorry liberals just because we disagree with your ideas doesn’t mean we hate you.
I agree with what has been said here. I find it amazing that the same people who call for “diversity” “free speech” etc., are the first ones to shut down a white christian male. Regardless of individual opinions on homosexuality, a student should not be shut down for his opinion. IMO, she is the one who has created a “hostile environment.”
Great post LaShawn. I love Mike Adams too – His book the Ivory Tower of Babylon is great reading, and being a grad student I can totally relate to all that PC stuff – even in a Christian university!
The professor in question certainly showed poor discretion by emailing other students concerning the matter. But calling homosexuality “disgusting” is akin to describing Jews as “greedy” or African-Americans as “lazy” – the student should have been challenged.
For all you college types:
Facts are to liberals as _______ is to a vampire! LOL!!
A) Garlic
B) Holy Water
C) A well placed stake to the heart
D) All of the above.
I just purchased this book on last Sunday. I haven’t finished it yet but I love every page. It is amazing some of the things he has revealed in the book. Some facts he brings up are quite humorous while others simply make you cringe at the ideas of some of these people!
All I can say is AMAZING!
Coincidentally, I love Mike Adams as well, he is a great columnist, very intelligent with the humor and wit to match.
Great post Miss Barber!
PARDON ME!? Alex,
I vehemently object to the lumping of satanic sex in with one’s ethnicity or religion. Homosexuality IS unquestionably disgusting. Physically, socially and of course moraly. To even compare the filthy and vile practice to being Black or Jewish is all the more insulting and disgusting.
NOTHING makes THIS black man angrier than to hear a gay equate its cause to what my ancestors had to go through just to be recognized as HUMAN! Heck, a gay white male STILL faces fewer obstacles in this society than I have to overcome so I’ll be darned before I let them just claim the battle honors earned in blood, sweat and so many tears by the warriors of the Civil Rights era. Heck no. No passes on this issue.
One of the most vile crimes in American history is the homosexual lobby’s disrespectful, BLOODLESS usurping of the Civil Rights legacy to further their sick quest for special rights, family destructive redefinition and a forced rubber stamping of a perverted lifestyle.
Thank you Raymond!
Raymond – tell us how you really feel.
GO MAN GO!!
Good call, Raymond.
I bought this book last night and made it through the introduction and Chapter 1. I’m eager to read the rest.
“But calling homosexuality “disgusting” is akin to describing Jews as “greedy” or African-Americans as “lazy” – the student should have been challenged.”
FYI, I agree with Raymond.
I disagree with Alex
Here’s my logic Alex:
There is a race of people called Jews
There is a race of people called African-American (Forget that PC stuff – Black People)
Jews and Blacks CAN be Lazy
Jews and Blacks CAN be Greedy
Jews and Blacks CAN be Homosexual
A Jew and a Black CAN exhibit homosexuality.
Each of these CHOICES can be described as “disgusting”.
I fail to see how calling the choice of homosexuality disgusting akin to calling anyone else any thing else.
Alex, I look forward to your explanation on the logic you used on this issue as stated by you.
Do you think Pedophilia is disgusting; Bestiality?
I don’t think its that hypocritical to have to tolerate intolerance, just like its ok to hate the haters.
I mean, not hypocritical to NOT tolerate intolerance.
My comment on the Kerry response to Allawi is this — we see how seriously he takes foreign policy when he skips an address to Congress by a foreign leader in whose country we are fighting a war so that he can make a campaign appearance.
The professor in question certainly showed poor discretion by emailing other students concerning the matter. But calling homosexuality “disgusting” is akin to describing Jews as “greedy” or African-Americans as “lazy” – the student should have been challenged.
Comment by Alex
I think this comment shows a profound lack of clarity. I think gay sex is disgusting. I think heterosexual anal sex is disgusting. I think toe sucking is disgusting. I think eating raw fish is disgusting. All of these are personal feelings about an action. None of these are in any way akin to stereotyping people based on race or religion.
Alex and the professor in question have fallen victim to the modern multi-cultural mindset, which started as a good idea but spiraled ridiculously out of control. The original idea was respect for those who choose differently than others. This has somehow morphed into a requirement that each and every person agree with every choice of every other person.
The question isn’t what do people think about these actions, but rather what do people think we should do about them. I think we should do nothing since they’re none of our business. But Alex’s idea that our opinions of the action somehow make us some sort of “*.ist” is just a complete failure.
Similarly, I love how the professor characterized his comment as “violent”. From what I can tell, the guy was saying he’s not threatened by homosexuals as gay advocates would have us believe. He just thinks it’s disgusting. This is violent?
Orwellian.
I’m actually not talking about everyone agreeing with the the choices of every other person. I teach college students and the issue of homosexuality comes up from time to time. The problem with calling homosexuality “disgusting” (or calling African-Americans “lazy” or Jews “greedy”) is that it is intellectually lazy and almost always prevents any kind of substantive discussion of what the issues are. People the world over engage in all sorts of different practices with which we have a right to disagree (though for some reason sexual practices evoke the harshest responses). This in itself isn’t bad, but it’s not enough to call something disgusting. It’s too easy. If a student disagrees with homosexuality I want to know why – and there are lots of legitimate reasons, but none that are not open to discussion.
As far as pedophilia and bestiality are concerned, whether or not they are disgusting isn’t the question. I’m more interested in who is involved in these practices and why. Then we can talk about what, if anything we should do about them.
I feel obligated to at least say something about Mr. Coleman’s equation of homosexuality with satanic sex as well as his obvious anger about the co-option of the 1960s civil rights movement and the more contemporary gay rights movement. If you want my opinion here it is: I’m always perplexed by the stinginess of spirit displayed by many African-Americans concerning the gains made by the civil rights movement. What’s the problem? Would gay americans receiving equal protection under the law hurt blacks somehow? And the gay rights movement has never been and isn’t now “bloodless.”
And furthermore, I think in retrospect we’ll look back at the silence (or outright opposition) of the Black churches on this issue as one of the great failings of the contemporry Christian Church. Black Christians are uniquely positioned to understand the struggles of gays in our society and ought to be ashamed of their lack of faith.
In fact, if MLK (not to mention Jesus himself) were still alive today, I think he would be out in front on this issue, as he was on so many other issues (i.e. poverty, the War in Vietnam, etc.)
Alex
In your first comment you said the student in question was guilty of an offense akin to stereotyping based on race or ethnicity. Now you appear to be saying he’s not really guilty of anything except not dealing with what you perceive to be the main issue regarding homosexuality. That’s quite a difference, so which is it?
You also claim there are no reasons to disagree with homosexuality not worth discussing, apparently except the reason that this particular student gave.
It looks to me like you just assume anyone to your right automatically believes all positions to your right. Then instead of dealing with their actual positions you refute something else.
mj-
In my first post I was trying to say (and apparently unsuccessfully – that’s my fault) that the problem with the “disgusting” comment is that it actually has no content. It doesn’t indicate anything meaningful that can serve as the basis for discussion, and so in that respect I don’t think a student should be allowed to use it unchallenged in a classroom setting. Of course each person feels how he or she feels, but a significant part of learning is trying to understand how other people feel and think. In retrospect, the “lazy” and “greedy” comments are probably different since a student might be drawing on some kind of (albeit distorted) empirical evidence for each of the two designations – something like Black people are on welfare so they’re lazy and Jewish people own media companies and they’re greedy. What I think connects the three together though, is how they end conversations rather than begin them.
I’m not sure what your last comment means.
“My comment on the Kerry response to Allawi is this – we see how seriously he takes foreign policy when he skips an address to Congress by a foreign leader in whose country we are fighting a war so that he can make a campaign appearance.”
He could just wait till hte next bush campaign stop and hear the same thing.
Or wait for his trained monkey Lockhart to say he could see the hand inside Allawi’s shirt moving his mouth.
That’s the problem with hiring clinton’s monkeys… they fling their poo all over the place…
Alex:
It does have content, it expresses how he feels. The fact that it isn’t useful for you to challenge or discuss means it’s probably valid, not invalid. From what I can tell, it was offered as a refutation of the common fallacy offered by gay activists that anyone not sufficiently supportive of their lifestyle is “threatened”, a “homophobe”, or a closet homosexual. I don’t know all the details, but I find this comment in this context perfectly acceptable.
I’m at a complete loss to understand why you believe someone’s personal reaction to such an action needs to be “challenged”. I told you I find gay sex disgusting. Do you think I need to be challenged? Do you think you have some basis for me to decide I shouldn’t feel that way? If so, let me add that I think coffee’s disgusting. Do you think I need to be challenged on that as well? I’d be happy to listen to Juan Valdez if he’s available, but I think even his chances of changing my mind are pretty low.
My last comment relates to this issue. You seem to think saying homosexual sex is disgusting means something else. For example, do you assume that anyone who feels that way necessarily hates gays or thinks gay sex should be illegal? I think you must, because otherwise your comments make no sense.
If the guy said gays should be stoned to death, or that they should use separate bathrooms, or even have separate dorm assignments I could understand where you’re coming from. But you’re taking something that is neither a policy statement nor defamatory yet acting as if it is.
I also find it disturbing that you think learning includes discovering how others feel, apparently with the exception of people who feel homosexual sex is disgusting.
What scares me most is that you seem to feel such a need to argue this issue you’re willing to act as if someone said something they didn’t in order to make a point. I had a host of professors who routinely did just that. Perhaps they justified it by believing making the point was worth the cost. But in the end I guarantee it wasn’t. We scorned both the professors who engaged in such tactics and the parrots that repeated them. You can’t respect people that aren’t honest even when you agree with them.
I’m willing to believe most of the discrepancy is misunderstanding the issue. But I think you need to be honest with yourself and admit you’re not reacting to what this kid said, but what you’re afraid he left unsaid. That would also mean your policy of challenging similar statements in your classroom should be stopped since you should be able to admit there’s no basis for challenging someone’s personal feelings. Instead, try asking them what they think public policy should be. My guess is you’ll find the vast majority of those that think homosexual sex is disgusting recommend no laws against it. If that’s the case, what are you arguing for?
“In fact, if MLK (not to mention Jesus himself) were still alive today, I think he would be out in front on this issue, as he was on so many other issues (i.e. poverty, the War in Vietnam, etc.)”
Alex, that statement illustrates perfectly the problem of contemporary Christian ideology. Don’t even go there. By that, I mean don’t equate Jesus with any person. While MLK was a fallible man, created in the image of God, Jesus was without sin and as such, incapable of changing his view of good and evil, much less evolving his standards to that of contemporary mores.
Yes, you may think that if MLK was still alive that he might, like Jesse Jackson, be out in front of the issue of homosexuality, abortion or what have you. However, there are plenty of others, in fact a significant majority of blacks, that don’t appreciate the gay attempt to equate homosexuality as a civil right. More specifically, that the right to be gay deserves special protection over and beyond the basic freedoms and rights enumerated by our constitution.
While I may have gay friends and acquaintances, I will still consider the act to be disgusting, even tho I will defend their right to be disgusting. This distaste is on par with the distaste I have for drunkeness and other social ills as exhibited by my friends, acquainances and strangers alike.
By the same token, I will not TOLERATE attempts to prevert the solemnization of matrimony. Especially when activists attempt to do so over the objections of the people via judicial fiat.
Going back to Jesus, the only thing we have are His words and deeds, as well as the commandments laid down by His Father. Jesus’ sole mission was to take on the human body, declare Himself to be the Messiah and then die a most excruciating death and by doing so, fulfill God’s promise and bear the sins of the world with His blood. He did not come to be a social or political activist!!.
In fact He was so disgusted by wicked human nature, that if it were up to Him, He’d just as soon obliterate the entire human race (Lk 12:49-51 not very tolerant by contemporary standards), but He was constrained by His mission to save whomever will listen and obey. His caveat is that one should not confuse His compassion for toleration.
The lesson we take from this is that we as Christians need to have compassion for those lost in sin — yes Virginia, homosexuality is a sin –. Compassion, in the hopes and prayers that the subject sinner will repent and turn to God.
All the same, we are also instructed to resist or reject immorality, that means speaking up against evil such as gay marriage, or for that matter racial preferences.
On the flip side, that doesn’t mean we should embark on some sort of jihad to go around gay-bashing or beheading abortionists. That sort of final solution is best left to God, lest we preempt any chance of repentance and forgiveness that God may have intended; for which we will surely be judged in the hereafter.
Wow! Some pretty interesting and somewhat disturbing posts on this issue. First, let me say that I agree with some of what Alex has said here. As someone who works in higher education and teaches part-time I think it extremely important that students be afforded the opportunity to voice thier opinions regardless of where they stand on “any” issue. The issue of homosexuality tends to evoke emotional responses from many, as it has here and as it did from this student. To suggest that he explain, not defend, his opinion is not to suggest that he has “ulterior” motives or is somehow closeted but simply to engage in dialogue. Also, by asking the student to explain his “disgust” is in no way indicating that he is wrong and the professor is right and that his opinion needs altering.
The problem, as I see it, is that topics such as this one tends to rile people up to a point where they either chose to censor themselves for fear of retribution, emote vile and contemptuous pejoratives or they are willing to discuss the topic but end up being patronized by the person in the front of the room. I think a lot of this has to do with the inculcation of multiculturalism and diversity initiatives on our college campuses that tells students, agree with us or we will brand you a homophobe, sexist, zenophobe etc. It is my opinion that these types of initiatives, while claiming to advoacte “inclusion” do just the opposite thus forcing the student, administrator, staff member who disagree to stand in the corner.
Second, I agree that the black civil rights movement has been co-opted by gay activists and agree that this is the wrong move. I for one have been in many conversations with friends about how disingenous the analogy is and that at the end of the day a white gay man is still white. However, gays are still human beings and why I think there is a need to make the connection. Third, to call gay marriage “evil” is, in my opinion, pejoratve. While I may not support gay marriage I wouldn’t go as far as to call it evil.
I’m sure comments will be forthcoming.
You’ll all have to forgive me, I’m a bit of a liberal. I live in a very liberal area, and any political conversations we have are very one sided, and many people really dont understand the conservative standpoint. I am looking to bring a little more fairness to the table, and was wondering if someone can explain how gay mariage hurts straight marriage. While my friends are quick to resort to the ‘conservative automatically equals wrong’ idea, I would like to understand where the other half of the country is coming from.
Phil, this is a deep topic; you might start by looking thru back issues of La Shawn’s postings–in particular when the FMA et al started heating up back in Spring/early Summer. Then you can bring up specific questions the next time Ms Barber brings it up.
Gay “marriage” is a foul perjorative term in and of itself in that you don’t have to destroy REAL marriage to create whatever type of sick union homosexuals feel they are entitled to. Just leave marriage out of it.
There is marrigae and then there is something else. There is basketball and then there is women’s “basketball.” There is tennis and then there is women’s “tennis.” There is baseball and then there is women’s fast-pitch softball.
In general, there are sports and then there are weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions thereof.
Calling gay “marriage” marriage doesn’t make it marriage, but redefining it does hurt the true meaning and the people sacredly bonded by its requirements.
“There is marriage and then there is something else. There is basketball and then there is women’s “basketball.” There is tennis and then there is women’s “tennis.” There is baseball and then there is women’s fast-pitch softball.
In general, there are sports and then there are weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions thereof.” – Raymond C. Coleman
Leaving the anti-gay rhetoric aside for a moment, don’t you think this is kinda sexist?
No, wait. Flagrantly sexist?
I wouldn’t tell Lisa Leslie or Venus and Serena Williams that their sports are merely “weakened, diluted, redefinitions, alterations and versions” of male sports.
It wouldn’t be true.
Oh yes! ABSOLUTELY it is sexist. Did you for some reason think you were on the Politically Correct Blog Site? LOL!!
“Sexist”, “homophobe”, “abortion”, etc. Other examples of those politically charged buzz words designed to perjor and indict simply by the label.
If sexist means that I recognize the physical and emotional differences between men and women then I am most certainly an UNABASHED sexist.
When Lisa Leslie dunks on Shaq or ANY NBA or COLLEGE or even most HIGH SCHOOL players for that matter, THEN and ONLY THEN will I retract my comments regarding women’s sports being legislated dilutions of the real thing.
Women seem to think that leaving them out of sports and the military and the police stations and the firehouse is some kind of conspiracy.
Nonsense. These entities were not created with the exclusion of girls in mind. They are what they are and the only way women are capable of participating in them as a whole is by LOWERING THE STANDARDS!
Raymond -
Come on! Your’re joking, right? I don’t think there is anybody who will disagree that there are substantive differences between men and women in a number of areas, but I for one am looking forward to having my daughter participate in athletics when she gets old enough. Just because she probably won’t ever be able to dunk on a guy doesn’t mean there aren’t terrific benefits to her participating in organized athletics.
I have a daughter as well and I hope she can reward daddy’s portfolio with a scholarship, but it will not drive her.
You do of course realize you morphed the discussion. LOL!! I am all for women participating in athletics, but not at the expense of real sports. In otherwords. ABOLISH Title IX. This still leaves the girlie man sports like gymnastics and field hockey.
If women want TRUE equality as they claim then they will work harder and get strong enough to complete at THE standard and try to get on the teams that happen to be populated with mostly men and not beg for lower standards. Isn’t this what we tell Dependent Americans who think they are entitled simply because of who they are?
It just drives me nutz to be at an NCAA football game and hear the announcer ask fans to support THE soccer team when there are no men on it nor are they allowed to compete for slots on it. How is that equal?
And the biggest pet peeve of all: When did CHEERLEADING become a sport? I guess when some idiot propose Title IX.
Well, sexist comments aside, i dont feel my questions have been answered. Women playing basket ball doesnt make Jordan any less of a terrific player. The williams sisters dont hurt the legacy of ash. I still dont see how allowing gays to marry weakens the bonds of straight marriages.
Allow me to clarify my issue here. I havent heard any arguments against gay marriage other than ‘i dont like it’ and ‘my religion doesnt like it’, and i dont see either of those as proper justification for outlawing something. There are a lot people speaking of this bond-weakening phenominon, and i just want to hear what that means. Feel free to ht me with some facts, we can see if i burst into flames or something.
They don’t hurt Jordan’s legacy because what they do is not what Jordan does. It is something else. Women’s” basketball is no more basketball than gay marriage is real marriage. To think it is is silly.
When I watch a WNBA game. I watch the couple of minutes out of curiosity, but I in no way equate it with basketball. It is a perverted, lower level version of the real thing. Sorry.
The Williams Sisters CANNOT hurt the legacy of Arthur Ashe because they are not playing the same game. The are playing a game with the same name.
Lets drop the sport analogies, cause we arent getting anywhere. All im looking for is an explanation of how two people of the same gender getting married weakens straight marriage. Can someone give me a straight answer?
Phil,
It appears you have those I don’t want to hear the answer bliders on. You can’t understand how the redefinition of mariage destroys it because you do not want to.
I’ll give you an example you may be able to understand. I am a member of a professional business FRATERNITY. It used to actually be a a FRATernity and then someone got the bright idea to let girls in soooooo please tell me how an organization that was once all me and correctly defined as a FRATernity is still a fraternity is girls are now allowed in?
It is of course NOT a fraternity. It is now an abomination of the former much in the same way marriage would be if it is allowed to be infected with homosexuality.
Like previous writers have explained, gays are trying to redefine marriage and that action redefines the family and the traditional family structure is the foundation for EVERYTHING American. Homosexuality on the other hand is a sick lifestyle choice and moral abomination encasing a set of definat rules and values anathema to a healthy and prosperous society.
Homosexuals by definition are unable or unwilling to produce life yet their number seem to increase let them tell it. How is that? It is done through the recruitment of children and by redefining the filthy practice into one that is accpeted and normal. In fact, the AMerican Psychological Association (APA) waited until they could get a 4 vote majority on their board and without the application of scentific methods VOTED homosexuality and other sexually deviant mental ilnesses off the list of those types of illnesses.
My religion doesn’t like it is as legitimate if not more so than you trying to force people to defend marriage. The burden of proof my man is on you as to why one should replace the tried and true with the disgusting and unhealthy.
It doesn’t weaken it. It destroys it. If I change to now allow any one available to take confession does that change the ritual?
If we allow Ferraris to be made on the Civic assembly line and they come out looking like Civics are they still Ferraris and would anyone buy it that they were?
By the way, there is no such thing as straight marriage. There is MARRIAGE and then there are perversions of marriage.
“Allow me to clarify my issue here. I havent heard any arguments against gay marriage other than ‘i dont like it’ and ‘my religion doesnt like it’, and i dont see either of those as proper justification for outlawing something. There are a lot people speaking of this bond-weakening phenominon, and i just want to hear what that means. Feel free to ht me with some facts, we can see if i burst into flames or something.” – Phil
You won’t.
There’s nothing really wrong, impractical, amiss, or otherwise problematic with homosexual marriage.
No bonds weakened, no social fabric unraveled.
Given America’s ever-expanding civil rights and civil liberties protections (present Administration excluded, of course), present-day prohibitions against homosexual marriage will, I believe, one day shatter under the overwhelming historical momentum of American perceptions of a just society.
Ever since the Civil War, our nation has, over time, tried to expand freedom and justice for all its citizenry, rather than contract those ideals and shut out various minorities deemed unacceptable and untouchable by other groups.
My fervent hope is that soon America will realize that its fighting a losing battle against its national character with the fruitless attempts of some of its citizens to engender difference in our national population through the continued banning of homosexual marriage.
We can’t effectively discuss homosexual political issues in the classroom if our law promotes a gay vs. straight divide in our body politic. We can’t even unify to combat terrorism while remaining that divided.
Phil,
If I see gay person acting a sick manner in public, I will call them on it, just as I would anyone else doing the same/similar thing.
I can only speak for myself, and as a former democrat, I know I don’t speak for all conservatives. But here goes, my objections to gay marriage: (in order of how much it bunches my boxers, greatest to least)
1). How they are going about it. In CA, there is an actual law, brought about by one of CAs beloved ballot props, that explicitely defines marriage as = 1 man + 1 woman. Rather than working to change the law or repeal it, activists in politics and the judiciary decided to break the law. Including members of the executive branches (mayors etc), whose main job is to administer and enforce the law.
They could have challenged the law in court, or brought about a campaign for change (and some are working down the right path) but instead decided to ignore the rule of law. And I am pissed the Ahnold didn’t take a stand to uphold the law.
2)The way Soc. Sec and other systems treat marriage weren’t designed for many gay couples. This applies to many straight couples as well. Being mostly DINKs, with decent jobs and retirement options, the last thing this broken system needs is another group drawing on deceased loved ones SS payoffs. I think the system needs massive reform anyway, to account for the straight DIWKs and DINKs, as well as a host of other flaws. So it is fair to say that objection 2 has more to do with SS being FUBAR than anything the gay community has done/proposed etc.
3) Marriage, by definition, is a man and woman etc. It has had this meaning since jump, and please, nobody get semantic by finding a definition that omits the word heterosexual or the like. I am fine with the notion of a civil union, to work out issues of inheritance, power of attorney, medical choices etc. This keeps the fundies from getting too huffy, after all, as well as providing for most of what the gay couples are asking for (the rest falls into the ‘we want it called this because you don’t want us to’ category, from what I see)
4) the slippery slope arguement. If you are going to change the meaning of marriage, best take special care in doing so. Polygamy, for one, is currently illegal (and has objection 2 issues as well), but if M/M and F/F are okay, why not M/F/F or F/M/M etc? I won’t get into where I feel about these combos, but where is the line drawn, and why? And the way the gay rights folks are going about it (activists judges etc), they are following a Pandora’s box route of potential precedents. For once I won’t go down the path of silliness or extreme situations, and I’ll leave off the potential challenges to the age of consent or folks that love their pets too much.
***
Now there are some that oppose all things gay on a matter of principle. Many of them always will. I don’t take much of a side on this, since my actions cannot really effect those who wish to live this lifestyle one way or another. Any action I take to prevent it, to me, is probably worse than letting them live their lives in peace. Notice the in peace part… I expect to be left in peace as well
As for the “God don’t like it” argument, who am I to say? The 10 Commandments doesn’t cover this one, though there are passages in the Bible that support the notion that God is not pleased. But I think this is a case where God can sort this all out after we all die. If I spend an extra century in purgatory for not knowing God’s exact intent on this one, I can live with that. Chances are I’ll be spending time there as it is… and while I may be my brother’s keeper here and there, a line must be drawn IMO.
Well, Phil, I hope that comae out as cogent on screen as it sounded when I was typing.
I didn’t feel like jumping in on this one but was encouraged to do so by someone else. Just a few thoughts hopefully offered in a spirit of humility.
Re: homosexuality. Just from the standpoint of nature, it appears to be a rather obvious aberration. The function of the parts is quite obvious. In addition, even the animal kingdom, by design or chance, doesn’t function this way. It seems nature is designed to reproduce…
As a Christian, it appears to me that homosexuality is clearly a vile sin, which in the OT deserved death. There is a reason homosexuality is referred to as sodomy. Although God also destroyed that city for neglect of the poor, the homosexual act is called sodomy, not poverty. My Bible college rommate, who is now a liberal Presbyterian, disagrees with me but I must stand firm.
Re: homosexuality as a condition, or sin or preference or “born that way”…or?
Again as a Christian, it seems to be a choice but I think there is evidence that environment can determine that choice. I would rather not judge motives but I do have a hard time accepting the contention that homosexuals are born that way. In another sense, it is a sin like all others but I caution that there appear to not have been other cities destroyed and then named after their prime sin into perpetuity. It is also true, again from a Christian perspective, that God loves homosexuals not one whit less than those who sit in judgment on them. In God’s sight, we’re all the worst of sinners, not even one of us does good, not even one of us seeks after God. All the rough and rude talk directed against them is not from God, no matter how vile and disgusting their behavior might appear to us. God knows the secrets of our hearts and a lot of what we say and do is probably vile and disgusting to Him. But He looked beyond our fault and saw our need. That offer freely extends to homosexuals also.
Re: homosexual marriage and unions
First, it won’t hurt marriage. That is a canard. How much more can marriage be hurt? I speak as one whose father left my mother for another woman when I was 12 after he served on the board of our fundamental church for 15 years. Apparently, divorce in the fundamental/evangelical church is at the same rate or only a little less than those in society at large. I would say to folks like Mr. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc. “Be quiet and help us take care of our own house.” Christians like to say that homosexuality and euthanasia are at or near the bottom of the slippery slope to destruction. This a canard. The destruction of a young, budding life in the place where it should be the most safe is the bottom of the slope. The shedding of innocent blood trumps other sins every time. My former roommate tried to equate abortion with the deaths in Iraq. This is near blasphemy. I speak as one who has stood in front of abortion clinics and gentley encouraged the moms to think about their choice one more time.
Re: homosexual marriage with regards to the Constitution
I believe it will sooner or later become law because science trumps religion and the Constituion is quiet on the issue. Most Christians think that the Constitution contains God’s law and is a Christian document. This is also a canard. It is a thoroughly secular humanist document and was designed to be so. A defense of marriage amendment would settle the issue but will never happen because Republicans don’t want it, including many in the Bush administration. The President will give it lip service, the VicePresident is ambivalent if not supportive and nothing will happen. Considering the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, I’m surprised that the law in Massachusetts hasn’t been extended to other states. I think efforts are being made in that direction. I am strongly in favor of that amendment but Republicans are divided and that will be the end of that.
Re: the homosexual rights movement being equated with the Civil Rights movement, this is a monstrosity. As a white who cheerfully participated in that movement and followed it up by years of inner-city work, I take umbrage with those that even hint at a connection between the two It is an horrific affront to generations of blacks, some of the most noble people God ever made, who quietly suffered and worked to get the full rights of the Constituion and the principles of the Declaration extended to themselves and their posterity to the benefit of all of us.
Stan in San Diego
Comments on this entry are closed.