***Scroll down for updates — Interesting Bible-reading project with black actors***
Later…Nasty hate e-mail below
Deval Patrick, who probably will become Massachusetts’s first black governor, is a godsend, of sorts, to homosexual “marriage” advocates across the country.
If he’s elected, he will try to repeal a 1913 state law that prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state. Sounds like a reasonable restriction to me. How about you?
Well, Patrick and others claim the law was designed to prevent interracial marriage. In my latest Townhall column, I argue, “So what?” The original purpose of the law is in dispute, but whatever its origins, it protects marriage and prevents the state from becoming a “Las Vegas for same-sex marriage.”
Check out what is sure to generate lots of controversy, Deval Patrick: Homosexuals’ Great Black Hope?
But I gladly take the heat because somebody has to stand up for what’s right.
States without express prohibitions against homosexual “marriage” need to write and pass laws against it now. There’s no time to waste.
Related posts:
- Loving v. Virginia: Legalizing Interracial Marriage
- Lawrence v. Texas and the Push for “Gay Marriage”
Update (7:34 a.m.): And the e-mail begins already. Text below the fold (spelling corrected and CAPS removed):
Who Cares.
The press had 24-7 coverage of 171 white Americans sickened by packaged
spinach.Thousands of Black Males are shooting, stabbing, beating other Black males in our Black/Democrat neighborhoods; thousands killed. in Philadelphia: almost 400 suring 2006. Houston about 400: God only know in other major cities. No news coverage.
Black homosexual males are infecting thousands of other homosexual males in our ghettos with HIV/AIDS And Hundred Of Homosexual Black Males are dying from the desease.
No news coverage….
Blacks have more important social and deviant behavior of the black race to worry about homosexuals using black/s tactics to pervert American law.
You can’t win. When I blog about black crime, I’m called a self-hater. When I blog about other topics, they say I don’t care about black people.
That’s why I just blog about whatever I want. 
In other news, black actors reading the Bible…
Later… I wish I’d hear from more people like this commenter:
Hi La Shawn –
I am from Massachusetts.
I am white.
And I am a homosexual.And I could not agree with you more… gay marriage is ridiculous. And for gay people to equate ANYTHING in their lives with the true Civil Rights struggle in this country is heinous. I was recently having this very conversation with a friend of mine (also gay) who is “married†to his partner. When he started in on the “oppression†speech, I told him that with their two expensive homes (one in the city and one at the shore), a couple of six-figure careers, their two Mercedes coupes and more frequent flyer miles than most that he and his “husband†were hardly oppressed.
I find it so ironic that many mainstream gays have come to this. For years they were screaming about being accepted even though we’re “different.†“Embrace diversity…†Blah, blah, blah — and now they seem to have chucked the “diversity†out the window for “sameness†in the name of some perverted sense of equality.
Let me be clear that I am no self-loathing homosexual. I accept who I am but my sexuality is hardly the one quality that defines who I am unlike the screamers on the left.
It sickens me. Thanks for a great article.
This is a heavily edited piece of e-mail I received today:
You’re a f****** c***. You’re nothing but a stupid Aunt Jemima bitch who if she had her way would put homosexuals in concentration camps. Go back to practicing your Eugenics lessons and go back to writing Mein Kampf Edition 2. You are a stupid dumb bitch and you should go f*** yourself you stupid c***… F*** you for bashing homosexuals you stupid holocaust denying bitch. AND PLEASE, for the love of god stop trying to make your people look bad.
If you can believe it, I left out the worst part. 
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 67 comments }
Interesting La Shawn,
You are called a race hater but yet blacks find it ok to compare being black (which is not a sin) to being homosexual/sodomite (which is a sin)… talk about race hating to the nth degree
and still no outrage afrom the black “elites” to include this wanna be governor at that???
Just keep on blogging about what you want
so the truth will get out.
Good to hear from you, Renee!
Thanks for your support.
yet blacks find it ok to compare being black (which is not a sin) to being homosexual/sodomite (which is a sin)… talk about race hating to the nth degree
What blacks are you referring to?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040315-122503-3346r.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/10/black_clergy_rejection_stirs_gay_marriage_backers/
Hi La Shawn –
I am from Massachusetts.
I am white.
And I am a homosexual.
And I could not agree with you more… gay marriage is ridiculous. And for gay people to equate ANYTHING in their lives with the true Civil Rights struggle in this country is heinous. I was recently having this very conversation with a friend of mine (also gay) who is “married” to his partner. When he started in on the “oppression” speech, I told him that with their two expensive homes (one in the city and one at the shore), a couple of six-figure careers, their two Mercedes coupes and more frequent flyer miles than most that he and his “husband” were hardly oppressed.
I find it so ironic that many mainstream gays have come to this. For years they were screaming about being accepted even though we’re “different.” “Embrace diversity…” Blah, blah, blah — and now they seem to have chucked the “diversity” out the window for “sameness” in the name of some perverted sense of equality.
Let me be clear that I am no self-loathing homosexual. I accept who I am but my sexuality is hardly the one quality that defines who I am unlike the screamers on the left.
It sickens me. Thanks for a great article.
I’d love to hear from more people like you, D2Boston. Thanks for stopping by.
Shade,
You made my point exactly…
look where you found those..buried on page D20 or something… interesting, they don’t make A1 on any news site.
La Shawn-
Thanks for this post, I live in Massachusetts and this somehow escaped me. The things about Mr. Patrick that horrify me are his stance on providing illegal immigrants in state tuition at our universities but also drivers licenses. That coupled with his work on behalf of a convicted rapist (Ben Laguer) and not as his lawyer, to have him set free. Mr. Patrick is free to represent whom ever he would like, but in this instance he was on his own supporting a convicted rapist, that he had never even met. If he is willing to do that as a lawyer I wonder what pardons he will be willing to sign without knowing the facts. There is much to fear in Massachusetts because it looks like he will be our next Governor.
Hi La Shawn. I think D2Boston’s comments are far more reflective of most people who identify as gay. At least that is some of the feedback I get as well. It’s an important perspective that needs to be heard alongside of activist rhetoric. So kudos for D2 being willing to think outside of the box and kudos to you for being willing to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
I cosign with D2Boston. Not every gay person is a far left liberal, Christian-hating, marching for “their civil rights”, person. Politically conservative gays get nailed to the wall by gay activists. The civil rights movement has been hijacked by the gay movements and some of us gay folks aren’t ashamed to say so.
#4
Interesting. I always thought that the real oppression of gays happened in Muslim countries. That’s where you can be executed for being gay. Maybe you could recommend “While Europe Slept” ( http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0385514727/sr=8-1/qid=1161623844/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3710243-4339829?ie=UTF8 ) to your friends so they can understand the true source of homosexual persecution in the West.
LaShawn, I’ve read Chapter 207, Section 11. I don’t see any mention of race, or banning of interracial marriage. So where is Mr. Patrick and his homosexual supporters coming up with this notion? Sounds like they are using race even though it doesn’t apply just to get what they want. In other words “pimping the race card”. Am I wrong on this?
#10 “so they can understand the true source of homosexual persecution in the West.”
Apart from being an Abrahamic Religion, how is ‘Islam in The West’ the ‘true source of homosexual persecution’ in the West? Homosexuals were persecuted variously by Christians, National Socialists and assorted gay-bashers long before Muslims began living in the Western World.
I’d like to add this as well. Although the hijacking of the civil rights movement by the gay rights movement is in my opinion wrong and offensive, I don’t think the so-called “black leaders” of today see it as such. The black leadership has become so watered down with a lack of character and ethics, that the likes of Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Harry Belafonte and others are too blind to see that the struggle of blacks during the 20th century is a far cry than what gays go through. These leaders are so full of hatred and malice, that they are blinded to anything that resembles truth and honor. I do believe that gay partners should have some legal rights when it comes to estates, medical, and other benefits…..but civil unions and/or legal paperwork take care of that, not a LEGAL RIGHT TO MARRY.
#12
John you’re right. Replace “true” with “current” in that sentence.
Read the book. Islam isn’t an Abrahamic religion. Allah is a different god than Jehovah. The Muslims claim Abraham as their father, but as Jesus said “God can raise up from the stones children from Abraham.” It’s not a valid argument. This has been dealt with time and time again.
#14.
“Replace “true†with “current†in that sentence.”
That’s subjective. Your ‘truth’ is subjective. The “be thankful you aren’t being executed” argument is ridiculous.
The West has persecuted homosexuals, and continues to, although because of secular law it is thankfully marginalized.
David Morley – murdered this month for being gay by beating on 23/10/06 (this, after personally surving the 1999 nail-bombing of a gay club)?
In America, this year, nationwide, 2,475 people were victimized by anti-gay violence, up 10 percent from 2,249 in 1999. Not ‘true’ persecution? How many ribs broken is ‘true’? How many noses smashed is ‘true’?
Not ‘true’ persecution?
Let us look at the legal meaning of the word…
PERSECUTION – The infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive.
So I guess when my upstairs neighbour just moved out (half of a gay couple), she was only imagining her taunts and beating in the local park from which her and her partner fled?
My wife saw a Hasidic Jew being persecuted in London recently by teenagers. They would run up to the fellow and pull at his clothing, one of them kicked him and laughed and they ran away. Is that not persecution? If I was to use your logic then it would be correct to point out to this Jew that “true” persecution was actually in Germany during the war.
I admit that kind of skewed logic angers me enormously, and I am not ashamed for my anger.
What quantity/quality of beating, insults, taunts, inequality or murder directed at any group must be experienced to qualify as ‘true’?
And who calls that shot? You? An anti-gay coalition? A right-wing activist? A Muslim cleric?
Who calls that shot?
Erratum. Apologies Walt, please replace ‘truth’ with ‘current’ in my last post. Or mix them up, I think you’ll find the point still holds on both counts.
Persecution is persecution, current is current. Current may be objective to some
, but I see a murder or assault in Islam and a murder or assault in the ‘West’ to BOTH be ‘current’ if they happened in the last few years.
Regards,
John
#15
My wife saw a Hasidic Jew being persecuted in London recently by teenagers.
Huh. There’s a lot of Muslims in London. The same persecution that affects the gays there affects the Jews. 25% of the anti-gay crimes in the UK are committed by the Muslims, who compose 2% of the population. Interesting, isn’t it? I wonder how it is in France, where Muslims compose 12% of the population.
I wish you the best.
#16
Walt Schulte said:
“My wife saw a Hasidic Jew being persecuted in London recently by teenagers.”Huh. There’s a lot of Muslims in London.”
Walt, with respect, these kids were three snow-white cockney’s dressed in sports gear. But what is the point in informing you that? You do seem to have an agenda to deny *current* non-Muslim persecution of gays, and your assumption that the teenagers that my wife saw kicking a Jew were probably muslim was that agenda in action. You studiedly skate over the 75% of anti-gay crimes that your source reports as *not* committed by Muslims.
I won’t chew over the ‘Abrahamic’ argument, but agree to reach a compromise: ‘Patriarchal religions emanating from the Middle East’ do seem to have rather an argument with homosexuals. Even the so called ‘moderates’ are far more fire and brimstone about same-sex love than they are about eating shellfish or committing divorce. All sins being equal, coulda fooled us!
“Muslims, who compose 2% of the population. Interesting, isn’t it?”
Not at all interesting. Their religion tells them that gays are bad, m’kay? To be expected.
I know some of you may think this theory is out there, but looking at history, and the behavior of other similar mammals, I’ve come to conclude that due to the sheer number of hormones that run through their body, most men are probably bisexual, in the sense that to varying degrees they are physically attracted to both sexes, and whether or not they act on these impulses is a product of their respective society’s culture and the stigmas or lack of stigmas it encompasses.
With that said, I think stigmas are very important even if the behavior is normal, because societies have figured out that producing children is important to a culture’s survival, and marriage is the most stable way to achieve those goals.
I hope Deval Patrick is defeated in the upcoming election, and I applaud you for fighting against him.
Walt, with respect, these kids were three snow-white cockney’s dressed in sports gear.
Chavs. They were probably chavs, a new breed of London low-life, unfortunately.
Comment rule #1: Don’t insult the blog hostess. I’ll give you one more chance to play, but next time, make an argument and don’t insult me in the process. – Admin
Melinda, I couldn’t agree more and have been thinking this for a long time. In a state of nature men will have sex with just about anything, but why return to a state of nature? It’s ironic that some of the same people who claim to be for “progress” want us to return to pre-historic moral chaos.
Some of these people need to go back and read Randy Shilts’ “And the Band Played On” just to get a clue about unrestrained homosexual license in action, and its consequences.
#1
“but yet blacks find it ok to compare being black (which is not a sin) to being homosexual/sodomite … talk about race hating to the nth degree”
Renee, do you really thinking that comparing persecution between blacks and homosexuals is extreme ‘race-hate’ against ‘blacks’?
With respect, that sounds like playing the race-card in about as twisted a way as I’ve ever heard.
I’m sure the parents of a lynched/assaulted black kid could easily have discussed their feelings with the parents of a lynched/assaulted homosexual kid, and found that their experiences were very similar.
Racial abuse? Gender/sex abuse? – both hurt.
Only an extremist would say that homosexuals have suffered similarly en-masse with segregation laws and poverty etc, but even then, comparing and likening experiences is surely not an incidence of ‘race hate to the nth degree’ as you claim?
Regards,
John
As a young African-American who is also of Latin decent, I can tell you what black civil rights leaders would think of the comparison between gay rights and their struggle. Coretta Scott King was a fervent and public supporter of same-sex marriage and said it was a cause dear to her heart. In fact, Mrs. King said her husband would have been a major supporter of gay marriage. Civil rights legends John Lewis and Julian Bond also support gay marriage, and have denounced the religious right’s opposition as cruel and bigoted. And now Deval Patrick, also known as a civil rights activists, likewise supports gay marriage.
See, you forget that so many black and Latin people are themselves gay or bisexual, which means many of us have family members who are denied this basic civil right. Especially amongst my younger generation of African-Americans, support for same-sex marriage has grown as we have embraced our gay and lesbian brethren as equals deserving the same human rights as everyone else. Polls show that voters in Massachusetts now support gay marriage by a significant margin. Likewise, national polls consistently show that people my age, 18-35, strongly support same-sex marraige and it has become the “issue” of activism amongst college students. At the same time, more and more churches are not only blessing gay unions and marriages, but also engaged in activism for gay rights. My Lutheran church blesses same-sex unions, and the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut just announced that it would bless same-sex unions. Recent studies have even found that young evangelicals largely disagree with previous generations about this issue, to the consternation of their elder evangelicals. SO, no Deval Patrick’s stance is not radical in this era, and will be even more lauded in future.
# 19 & 21
Being male, and thus possessing a strong sex drive, I must say that the thought of relations with another man repulses me.
I’m sure, as you say, that there are many more bi-sexual men than are imagined, and the religious ’stigma’ of same-sex relations is a powerful repellant, and on the flipside a strong ‘forbidden thrills’ attractor.
But the fact that the thought of relations with a woman can repulse a gay man seems to have escaped your theory!
Many contemporary ‘prehistoric tribes’ (Irian Jaya, for instance) religiously practice(d) ‘homosexuality’ when young, believing adult male semen to convey to them the power of ‘heterosexuality’/fertility.
Upon a certain age they would become fully ‘heterosexual.’ Although none of this bears any relevance to Western/Judaism terms or constructs.
Obviously, religion proves to be a powerful tool for instilling ‘gut instinct’ and ‘urges’, just as ‘nature’ does.
#24 My Lutheran church blesses same-sex unions, and the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut just announced that it would bless same-sex unions.
What does your Bible tell you about them?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
If you are referring to blessings from the one true God, please don’t say “bless” & “same-sex union” in the same breath/sentence.
As LaShawn has repeated, please don’t compare the civil rights movement to the “gay rights” movement. They are NOT the same – it is offensive to suggest it is the same struggle. Homosexuals are NOT denied “basic civil rights” -that is, if you are defining “basic civil rights” those rights that were denied to Black Americans until the ratification of the 13th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Whew!
The assumptions about gays just go on and on and on. As if all gays are alike!!!!
We have no idea of how many gay men and women there are in the 300 million of us.
We have no idea of how many gay men and women there are in the 300 million of us who are “in the closet.”
We have no idea how many gays would line up to be married and what percentage of the total (unknown) gay population they would comprise.
And all this back and forth about persecution of gays, blacks, Jews, etc. is fatuous. What next? A special border patrol to protect a black gay Jewish Mexican from attack by the Minutemen if he sneaks across the border?
I want to see it clearly stated why the institution of marriage between one woman and one man should be amended to include gays. There has to be a compelling reason. What the heck is it?
It is hard to conceive the comparisons between homosexual marriage and the civil rights movement. As far as biblical condemnation, some modern translations of the Bible have diluted the judgment or compressed it to include only a facet of the original sinful act (E.G. homosexual prostitution).
If I may reprint 2 verses here: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27)
Such a clear condemnation is never issued against so called ‘interracial’ marriage. Moses, married outside of his people group(Numbers. 12:1).
Further, it is clear what God thinks of “races”
And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Act 17:26)
Racism cannot be condoned by the Bible, and neither can homosexual ‘marriage’ be justified to it.
Hi LaShawn,
I hope you don’t let those hate emails get to you!! Just laugh at them. Just keep on writing whats in your heart and if some have a problem with that maybe they can make an intelligent argument and refrain from the name calling.
Can someone tell me how two people of the same sex, having sex, makes them a minority group? Who think they are entitled to special treatment? Plus they compare themselves to the Civil Rights Movement and the Holocaust? Spare me Please!! Not even close!! I don’t hate gays. What I don’t like is having it shoved in my face and telling me I have to accept it or I’m labeled a bigot homophobe. Can’t wait to see the next Vent!!
#25
“Many contemporary ‘prehistoric tribes’ (Irian Jaya, for instance) religiously practice(d) ‘homosexuality’ when young, believing adult male semen to convey to them the power of ‘heterosexuality’/fertility.
“Upon a certain age they would become fully ‘heterosexual.’ Although none of this bears any relevance to Western/Judaism terms or constructs.”
It seems that, rather than become “fully heterosexual,” they become “tops” rather than “bottoms,” as they have to convey that fertility to those younger than themselves.
Oh those poor Irian Jaya!
There is always some tribe locked away somewhere in the Pacific Islands to turn to as an example. And when there isn’t, why they invent themselves. Margaret Meade was led down the primrose path with cooperative Samoans and the “lost tribe of Mindanao” had its day until Ferdinand Marcos got caught with the script.
Primitive people do primitive things. And, you will always find someone to promote them as next to nature and therefore next to Gaea. It may work for the agnostic, but it doesn’t cut the muster with those who believe in God.
Indonesia is chocked full of Muslims. The Irian Jaya had best get with the program, or find another spot for their sport.
Their cousins, the Irian Jawa, a few islands to the south certainly learned to reform. They have converted to Islam.
Homosexuality is a behavior. Learned, genetic, religious, spontaneous, a cultural identity or some of each, it doesn’t matter.
When it becomes a requirement to own land, vote, buy groceries or go out in public, people will look at it differently. Meanwhile, the remaining population will view the behavior differently. Some will accept it and promote it. Some will be repulsed and forcefully reject it. Others will just do their best to ignore it.
Good job!!!!!(as usual!)LaShawn!!!!!!
Keep on blogging your heart and mind, we’ll be with you.
Signed by Lonevoice, just another mixed blood mutt(good thing I’m kinda well off, or I’d REALLY be pissed)
Heliotrope,
Because government marriage is not marriage as instituted by God? And frankly heterosexuals have run the institution of marriage into the ground, stomped and pissed on it, then spit on it after that. And supposidly with God’s blessing. So I’m not comfortable with making any claim homosexuals shouldnt be extended this privilage. If a religious institution won’t marry a homosexual couple thats fine, but I don’t see why they should be denied a government marriage.
>>Because government marriage is not marriage as instituted by God?>>
So…what is the function of government as far as marriage is concerned? Are you saying that society(which uses government as it’s enforcement)has no interest in the institution?
If not, then do we fall back on might makes right on child custody, responsibility for children, division of property etc? Would you then require that in order to address these matters, that we forget the general laws and just stipulate that all “married” people have legal agreements prior to marriage?
I think society _does_ have a vested interest in a stable environment for raising children, and that’s why we have laws about marriage. There’s also the preservation of property rights which is probably the starting point of most of our marriage law/tradition, but that’s another matter.
It seems to me that gay marriage is about two issues: a)the demand for acceptance as “normal” even though by definition they are not and b) government bennies. Neither seems to me to be good enough reason to change millenia of practice and understanding of the institution.
#36 suek
Ditto
Gay marriage. It’s been tried 2000 years ago. Nero married a young man in a public ceremony. He was the wife.
“So I’m not comfortable with making any claim homosexuals shouldnt be extended this privilage. If a religious institution won’t marry a homosexual couple thats fine, but I don’t see why they should be denied a government marriage”
They aren’t denied any priveledge that heterosexuals have. They can marry, but they cannot marry each other. Government places restrictions on other kinds of potential marriage too. You can’t marry your sister or brother. You can’t marry your dog. You cannot marry your sister *and* your brother. You cannot marry more than one woman (if you’re a man) or more than one man (if you’re a woman).
Not to be crass, but government restricts all kinds of things. (When you can drive, age of consent, etc). And government promotes all kinds of things for our society’s well being also. The things that they restrict or promote are, of course, up for debate, but there can be no debate that government can and does regulate certain things for the society’s well-being. It’s how our representative system works.
I don’t find government to be a religious institution. To me there is nothing Godly about government and government is controlled by politics. And I further more believe it to be a corrupt institution not based on anything Christ-like. So if you base your not warranted gay marriage on religious principles fine, but to me that has nothing to do with a government marriage.
1. you cannot marry a dog or animal because it cannot give consent to marry. That makes sense to me
2. Marrying siblings causes generational disease and birth defects. That makes sense to me.
3. Polygamy probably biblically based, but of course there are so called -”Christians” who say its allowed. But hey if its consensual and some bloke has enough money to support his wives, they the heck not?
4. I don’t see how gay marriage in itself will negatively effect societies well being.
#40 Our government isn’t Christ-like, but it is ordained by God.
Romans 13:1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
1Peter 2:13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
So as a common grace to mankind, God put rulers over us to keep order. Allowing gay marriage wouldn’t keep good order. We’d have a new Sodom on our hands. That turned out rather badly. God restrains evil through government.
The latest poll has Deval Patrick up by 26 points so this must not be an issue that resonates with the voters of Massachusetts.
Also, as a resident of Massachusetts, same sex marriage has really become a non-issue.
It was a huge issue when same sex marriage was legal 2 years ago but now it is not even discussed.
So Zakia…
What do you see as the purpose of marriage? Do you see it as _having_ a purpose?
“God restrains evil through government.”
Best comment ever.
Regards,
JohnD.
“Primitive people do primitive things.”
Although Heliotrope is still attempting to skew my points and use the resultant (pro-primitive?) sack of logic as a strawman argument here, I don’t have the energy or inclination to defend something that *wasn’t* my point.
My point (addressed to 19) was that I *don’t* agree that most men are ‘naturally’ bisexual.
My related point (which Heliotrope deliberately mangled) was that religion is a very powerful suggestive force, and can instill murderous behaviour, sexual behaviour, benign behaviour, peaceful behaviour etc etc. To use ‘religion’ as a proof that something is or isn’t ‘right’ is nonsense. It just doesn’t make sense. (Unless one is religious and inclined to defend a respective doctrine lest in disappear in a flash of fairy dust)
Y’see, religion is primitive too, no matter how one dresses up it up, it’s still a superstition concerned with placating or ‘embodying’ invisible controllers of ‘destiny’, or setting them amongst us in the shape of priests, shamans, clerics, prmoiser’s of eternal life and doomsayers of deadly doom!
Like all human constructs, it is important to understand and respect the limits and handicaps, the errors and fallacies of any political avenue or religious doctrine.
Ideas have power, and we can all fight forever about whose ideas are having the most power over us. But let us at least be honest in our discussions and our tactics. Strawmen are dishonest.
So you may undertsand when someone tells me that ‘God sent kings and leaders to govern us’, I may be excused for a tear at the millions of departed souls who were sent to early graves for being ‘evil’ or ‘against the Nation’, or ‘against God’.
Apologies, that last sentence was in reference to Walt Schulte’s argument about God sending kings, government etc.
#47 Take your pick: anarchy or government.
#46 JohnD finally lets the cat out of the bag: “Y’see, religion is primitive too, no matter how one dresses up it up, it’s still a superstition concerned with placating or ‘embodying’ invisible controllers of ‘destiny’, or setting them amongst us in the shape of priests, shamans, clerics, prmoiser’s of eternal life and doomsayers of deadly doom!”
Have you a moral code? How was it derived? How is it spread? Why should it be respected? Who are the players in creating it? Or is everything concerning morality just relative?
Unfortunately, JohnD, when you interject your opinions, it is fair to state the authority on which you base them.
I am sorry you have such a low view of religious belief systems. I will pit the Bible and Christianity and its positive impact on the world against the UN Charter, the Nobel Committee or the Club of Rome any day.
#47 Take your pick: anarchy or government.
It’s not that simple though is it?
There is limited goverment, totalitarian government, democratic government, feudal laws, monarchies, etc etc.
Are you telling me that God sent ‘kings’ to lord over us?
Not all are equal. And where is the proof (for instance) that your God sent the German government to ‘govern’ the Jews, the ‘foreigners’ and the homosexuals?
Regards,
John
#50 If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m speaking in general terms. In general, it’s better to have a government than to have criminals running around rampantly. Extremely bad governments, like the Taliban or the Nazis, fill in a vacuum of solid, stable government. The Islamic courts we’re seeing appear in Somalia right now will be yet another example of this. Working off the assumption that you are not a Christian, suffice it to say we live in different moral universes. I wish you well.
#49, ah, how many straw men, and how many worth battling?
Ah well, in for a penny, in for a pound:
“Have you a moral code?”
1. Yes.
2. What’s it to you?
“How was it derived”
Parents, books, teachers, religion/superstition, politics, life-experience, history, instinct, and logical reasoning, common laws, postive human examples (and the flipside, I strive not to emulate anti-heroes)
Please don’t press me for percentages I haven’t that much time on my hands or (honestly) respect for the tone or framing of your question.
“Why should it be respected?”
Ridiculous question. People who know me respect me. I prefer to be respected than to be liked.
My morals are good, they speak for themselves in my honest dealings with others.
Where they are weak, I admit them and try to improve them. That too is a moral I guess.
Morals are very important to me. My morals are probably unimportant to you in and of themselves because I have stated that I think religion is superstitious, however you will still judge them using religion as a gauge – hence your question (with the due respect) is illogically framed.
“who are the players in creating it?”
See above.
“Or is everything concerning morality just relative?”
Again, see above, illogical question from a strongly religious person.
“Unfortunately, JohnD, when you interject your opinions, it is fair to state the authority on which you base them”
Ah, my ‘authority’ comes from me. That is liberty. Not Sharia, not the Vatican, not the government, not the bible, the Torah, the Book Of The Dead, the Vedas. They might all try to tell me what to think, but true liberty is freedom of thought and expression. I am not so arrogant as to walk around claiming ‘divine’ authority. Isn’t that what American liberals do? -)
A moral doesn’t require authority. Just as a parent has authority over it’s own children, so should a man have authority over his own thoughts and actions.
“I am sorry you have such a low view of religious belief systems.”
Phew, this last one is a great strawman, it also has it’s own hat and expression. Well done.
If you read my post properly, it says:
“Like all human constructs, it is important to understand and respect the limits and handicaps, the errors and fallacies of any political avenue or religious doctrine.”
And yes, I subscribe to a bit of fairy-dust, the wonder of the great Unknown, the excellent (if plainly common sensical) morals in certain holy books, the afterlife or even a bit of politics, but I don’t respect in and of themselves for all the harm they have done and continue to do.
Maybe one day I will find One True God, through whatever avenue, but the longer the respective fundies co-opting the high-horse and sneering their derision, the longer I’ll trust my common sense of decency that has been instilled by a millenia of religion, fairy tales, critical thinking, history, philosophy, human rights, folklore, customs, laws, parents, nature and culture.
Is that too ‘pick and mix’? I hope so.
I would hate to follow a moral code just because it was written down by someone and claimed as a fundamental law.
Tried and tested morals are pretty good if subject to intense criticism.
Now, really, I must quit this tiring tilting at strawmen.
All the best,
John.
“If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m speaking in general terms.”
Ah, you see, I thought you were speaking in Biblical terms.
Sorry.
Regards,
John.
Walt:
#54 I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I was just explaining the biblical doctrine of the civil magistrate. I would argue against making homosexuality illegal. I would also argue against legalizing homosexual marriage. You could probably make a valid libertarian argument that government has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage in the first place. Unfortunately, our tax codes are so byzantine that we’d have a lot of prep work to do before we could get government out of the marriage business.
#52: There are a lot of nuggets in your post, but for the sake of time, I’ll nitpick one…
“I would hate to follow a moral code just because it was written down by someone and claimed as a fundamental law.”
I agree with this point…technically, because in a vacuum there is no authority attached. However, earlier, you say this: “A moral doesn’t require authority. Just as a parent has authority over it’s own children, so should a man have authority over his own thoughts and actions.”
If a moral does not require authority, where does the ‘ought’ come from in following it? Why should you or anyone else follow your morals? And further, if my own thoughts and actions lead me to steal your car, why aren’t my morals just as good as yours? If there is no authority, there is nothing to prevent me from picking and choosing my own morals and stealing your car would be perfectly okay with me. Plus, if you actually lived by those words, you would have no grounds for objecting to my behavior. If we pick and choose things that are moral, based on our own choices, then we would have no foundation to object to any behavior whatsoever if others are picking and choosing their own morals. But this leads to obvious absurdities.
Thanks Russ, for your interesting reply. I’ll try and answer it, although I’m no expert in philosophical conundrums!
“If a moral does not require authority, where does the ‘ought’ come from in following it?”
I think a moral *is* a kind of authority in itself, in that it governs one’s actions. And you picked up on a discrepancy seemingly inherent in my reply to Heliotrope. What I mean, is, a moral doesn’t require a *specific* external authority in order for it ot be considered a moral. i.e it doesn’t have to be believed to be an instruction from a deity.
I suppose common usage becomes a kind of authority, but not in the way that written code, a religious text, or a more specifically enforced (by law) moral.
So some morals have authority of law, some have ‘authority/authenticity’ conferred upon them by customary and long usage, and some morals (ethics?) are dictated to us by personal beliefs (vegetarian/vegan/anti-cruelty, not buying from the mafia or chinese, etc etc)
Where a particular moral comes from dictates how or how not I can answer your question. I am not generally an absolutist, and I have no philosophical problems in seeing the fine grades that exist between a moral, a custom, a behaviour, a guilt mechanism, modesty, a law dressed up as a moral, a moral dressed up as a familial custom etc, etc. This doesn’t mean of course that *no* morals have any kind of ‘authority’, it just depends whether one chooses to accept the authority of them, or not.
For instance, if the Nation A worshipped a spaghetti monster in the sky, and their holy books said: “Kill your sister with small pointy-things if she fornicates before marriage”, and Nation B worshipped another spaghetti monster in the sky (with a different name) yet their holy books said “kill your sister only on a Sunday with medium-sized pointy things if she fornicates before marriage”
Then who has the ‘authority’?
Futhermore, what if both holy books said “Do NOT kill your brothers and sisters”??
Why should a person from Nation A respect the moral of not killing from a person from Nation B?
Even if they both had the same ‘moral’? The fact that they both claim to have The One True Spaghetti Monster means that neither can accept the other’s moral ‘authority.’
So, by your reckoning, why should we listen to that moral in the first place?? What authority does it have?
Unless Spaghetti Monster A’s convert to Spaghetti Monster B’s (or vice versa) then we have a fight about who is the most moral, and who is really *NOT* killing their brothers and sisters for the right reasons.
Religion can make my head ache, and my heart sink.
As it stands, I see way too much evidence of earlier customs and tribal laws, attitudes and religious rites having been adapted by monotheism, and regurgitated with renewed ‘authority’ and fearmongering/paradise-promising to be overly impressed by one groups cliams of ‘authenticity or authority.
I am authentic. My honesty and my moral codes are authentic. It would be easier for me to point at one book. But I can’t, it would be dishonest of me.
Russ asked:
“Why should you or anyone else follow your morals?”
Firstly, I never claim that I am the progenitor of all of my morals. For instance, I won’t hurt people if they don’t want to hurt me or other people. Most humans have that moral. Why should you follow it? That’s up to you. If you are a Christian maybe you would need ‘proof’ from the Bible that it is a good moral?
One thing my parents taught me, is that ‘honesty’ is one of the highest moral standard.
I bore this out in later life through study and observation, and I truly believe that integrity and honesty are immensely important. Why should you follow that moral coda, you may ask?
I don’t know, that’s up to you. I didn’t invent honesty, and neither did any religion.
Lastly, you ask (I’m trying o tbe brief but this is an enormous subject!!):
“If there is no authority, there is nothing to prevent me from picking and choosing my own morals and stealing your car would be perfectly okay with me.”
There is legal authority in my country against stealing cars. Many people choose not to accept the authority, or choose the more common moral/ethic of *not* stealing. I hope I can catch thieves at it. I hope they spend a long time locked up or repaying many times the damage they did by choosing their own path against the wishes of their society.
Morals don’t exist in a vacuum. Moral culture has it’s own complex ‘authority’ within a society , and is bound in law, religion, custom, social etiquette, community, etc etc.
No, it’s true, I don’t have on old manuscript to thump in order to give me authenticity. But I do, like most, have millennia of wisdom, morals, customs, guidance, local culture and my own personal relationship with the Great Unknown/Spirit – whatever you want call it. Where I differ is not wanting to enforce my morals on others, or believing there is One Book.
So you’ll have to accept or not accept my morals (i.e. ‘honesty’) depending on whether your culture or religion, or personal moral belief system accepts it or not?
I hope I made some sense,
Regards,
John
#57 JohnD:
You are the product of centuries of fine minds who wrestled the Judeo-Christian ethic into a workable temporal code for society. The tap root of that ethic is the 10 Commandments.
English Common Law springs largely from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Although parts of ancient Roman Law also under gird English Common Law those parts are not incompatible with the Judeo-Christian ethic.
You have been born into an ethos with distinct moral standards. Like it or not, your society is fully ensconced in the Judeo-Christian ethic. How familiar you are with that ethic and how well you understand it is not readily apparent.
The rub come in when you deign to pick and choose the parts of the ethic you will pay heed to. That is moral relativism. It is egocentric. So long as you do not break statutory law, you are free to espouse any ethic you wish. However, when you start bashing others, expect them to ask why they ought/must follow your lead.
You seem to have a particular interest is homosexuals. Homosexuality is a behavior. Moral relativism is a behavior. Evangelical Christianity is a behavior. Current society has found the means for accepting all of these. Cannibalism, which is another behavior, is not accepted.
Individuals who engage in homosexual behavior have all the rights any other individual has. They can marry, but not someone of the same sex. (Statutory Law based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.)
Some people do not like homosexual behavior and they taunt or even attack those who practice the behavior. The law does not permit this.
You might like to refresh yourself with the Mongol horde. There was a strange ethic at work there. It was one of kill or be killed. They brought Europe to its knees and created the “Dark Ages.” They reduced an advanced and advancing civilization to tribes and clans who took to caves and hid in the forests. And they left nothing. Nothing. No literature, no belief system, no art, no architecture, no sauces for the food, no anything but chaos.
And in their wake, the Northmen brought their raping and pillaging and left nothing on which to build.
Through all of this, small pockets of Christians kept the lamp of the Judeo-Christian ethic burning. There was no stopping its rebirth and spread.
So many skeptics look back on the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the corruption in the Papacy and the Conquistadors and they see massive hypocrisy. But what they are really seeing is the corrupting influence of great power upon the frailty of man.
To reject the life of Christ because some terrible moments in history were committed in His name makes no sense. No Christian can claim to be Christ. One can only try his best to walk in His footsteps. Occasionally, a Christian spell binder pops up and amasses a huge following and then goes off on a power trip and crashes and burns. The frailty of man is not a pretty thing when it is in wide public view.
Mr. JohnD, you are the product of the Judeo-Christian ethic and the statutory law that stems from it. And you are hard up against the pressure of first adapting to and then adopting Sharia Law. Let’s see how your moral relativism works out then.
The best to you.
Heliotrope says:
“The best to you.”
I sense dishonesty and snide derision in your in your ‘well wishes’. Sorry, but there it is.
“And you are hard up against the pressure of first adapting to and then adopting Sharia Law. Let’s see how your moral relativism works out then.”
SO much for your pre-emptive assumed moral conundrum regarding the sacking of Europe by Islam. Maybe the small hole in your reckoning is that I hold nothing but hostility for shariah law? Maybe. I’m sure someone not-so-clever could convice themselves to spin it anyway.
So I guess you can keep that strawman to yourself, and your passive-aggressive ‘moral relativism.’ strawmen too.
You will never convince me that Christianity alone invented ‘honesty’ or ‘property rights’, or ’sex codes’, or ‘law’ because it didn’t. It also takes much more than someone who appears only to wield a hammer to convince me that I am a nail.
You might also want to read of Gods and Goddesses that were worshipped long before Christianity, you might see some glaring fundamental similarities. Christianity brought much religious liberalism to European religion, and for some of that I am thankful. However, not all of it. I cannot tell a lie to pacify a Christian, and I am thankful that Christians have re-interpreted and ignored parts of the bible over time. Is relativity choosing what to believe?
John
JohnD, I appreciate your thoughtful response.
Moral relativism can be attractive. And at first glance to me, was intuitive. Then I tried to carry the thoughts through and unpack the layers logically and found it wanting.
I don’t want to confuse religious commandments and customs with morals. I think if a religion is true, it should fit with how the universe really is, but it is not the dictator of morals. One of things about how the universe really is is that there are ‘oughts’ and ‘ought nots’ out there. The idea that murder is wrong is something that is self-evident. (Some things have to be self-evident or we would not ever be able to prove anything). It exists outside of any religious beliefs or laws. If a society had no law against murder, would it then be okay? Is it ever okay to torture babies for the pure pleasure of it?
Does the law make morals? You point out that there are laws that would provide justice (an interesting concept in its own right – where does it come from?) by locking up the thieves of your car in our hypothetical example. Does the immorality of thieves stealing your car exist independently of the law? Or does it only exist because of it?
It would be much more comfortable for me say “live and let live”, but if I go into any depth with that I realize that I cannot possibly live by that creed, nor can expect anyone else to. If there are no ‘oughts’ in the universe, then there is no authority behind any morals and the concept becomes meaningless. If there ‘oughts’, then the implication is that they transcend any invention by humans.
John, you say this: “Where I differ is not wanting to enforce my morals on others, or believing there is One Book.”
Can you really live by this? Is it an immoral thing to enforce your morals on others? If you were stranded with 10 others on a remote island, would you not want to enforce your moral that? you should not murder on the others on the island if they did not believe it to be so? Or would you let them murder others or you? Would it be wrong for them? Would it be wrong for you to *not* enforce your moral on them, even if all 10 believed murder to be okay? (I know, lots of questions, but most are rhetorical)
I can respect the fact that you may not believe in “One Book”. I suspect you’ve given the matter a lot of thought. But I’d challenge you to dig a little deeper into where morals come from and whether they exist independent of us or whether they are a human invention. I think it’s pretty obvious where I stand on that. If morals are a human invention, there is no foundational reason whatsoever for me to follow them. If it’s the law, then all we’re doing is abrogating the decision about them to those in power. In which case, I’d hate to be a Jew in nazi Germany with their ‘morals’ and laws. The nazis where wrong to try to exterminate the Jewish race, whether anyone stopped them or not.
For the record, I am not an absolutist about everything. But, there are certain things in the universe that exist. Among these are some things that are self-evident. All it takes is one moral that is self-evident to refute the idea that we can pick and choose our morality. (I’m not saying that all things that we call morals are self-evident, or that all of these things should be forced upon others. But, clearly, some morals should be forced on others, like it’s wrong to torture babies for fun. And morals like this exist whether we believe them or not or whether a majority believes in them or not.
If all they came from are laws, then on what grounds would we ever be able to change a law. Slavery was legal here for a time. Was it immoral? If the law determines morality, then it could not have been immoral. And there would be no foundation for ending it. The Jews would have not grounds to object to their own extermination in nazi Germany. This is absurd on the face of it.
That’s all I have time for now. I also, hope this makes some sense.
-Russ
Thanks Russ, for your time. This is now way off topic, I’d be pleased to answer in full via your blog maybe?
Would agree that it is. When I get a minute, I’ll try to post an entry to open up the discussion. As you may have noticed, my blog is in its infancy, literally and still needs a lot of work. But it the next couple of days, I’ll try to write someting and get it going.
-Russ
Indeed they were, but homosexuals themselves have also persecuted and exploited others when they got the chance. The Biblical narrative for example records 2 instances of attempted gang rape by homosexuals. The incident in Genesis 19 of Lot in the City of Sodom is of course well known, but less well known is Judges 19, where homosexuals beset an innocent stranger for the purposes of rape.
In ancient Greece the pattern repeats itself, as homosexual elites sexually exploit vulnerable young boys and men. When homosexuals get in a position of power, they do not hesitate to exploit and persecute others. See this link for example: http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/greece.html
Too often gays tell a one-sided story of oppression and gloom, but the reality is that they themselves are quick to oppress others when they get the chance.
“When homosexuals get in a position of power, they do not hesitate to exploit and persecute others.”
Just like heterosexuals then?
Exactly.
Hello everyone. I am 16yr old and a homosexual.
Listen, Gay marriage will one day be legal ALL OVER THE WORLD. Sorry, it’s just the way it’s gonna be. Get over it. People are finally starting to realize that you only get only ONE life and you should live it the way you want to. Why live a life from a book that’s… I dunno how many years old, when life’s way to short? If God does exist then he doesn’t want you to worry about the what’s gonna happen to you after you die, worry about THIS life NOW. Then you can worry about the afterlife. Go live. If you’re a man, and you want to marry a man, DO IT. If you’re a woman and want to marry a woman, DO IT. Who is anyone to say it’s wrong? They’re not a God.
i think this state will be in jeopardy if folks vote people like deval into office.He supports a cause that is abominable and God will deal with him if he supports that lifestyle here and in etrnity.
Methinks Brian Perez has another thing coming if he believes that gay marraige will be legal all over the world any time soon.
But then again, he’s obviously a product of our current education system where social studies consists of mult-kulti pyschobabble, never mind critical thinking. Unfortunately for the naif, fully 1/3 of the world’s population live in an environment where ‘just do it’ can mean a permanent end to one’s short life. And who’s Brian to say that that is wrong? I’m sure Dafur victims would love for him to give Sudan a good piece of his mind.
Other than that, La Shawn, you’ve nailed another excellent post!!! Too bad I can’t roll up my sleeves and dig in
Comments on this entry are closed.