Harry's Place

I was quite well disposed towards Mormons after New York Doll. But if a religious hierarchy mobilises as a religion to change the law and deny rights to others, that is a true disgrace.

Over 70% of blacks in California and over 50% of Hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. How will you oppose them “root and branch”? Who or what will you boycott?

What about the African American Churches ? They got out the vote to back this as well :

“Exit polls showed that older voters were the most staunch supporters of the measure. A majority of white voters opposed the measure, but one of the most significant voting blocs were African-Americans, who voted 2-1 in favour. Their turnout boosted by the candidacy of Barack Obama, African-Americans made up 10% of voters on Tuesday.

Their support represents a victory for the tactics employed by the Prop 8 campaign, which worked with African-American churches to mobilise support for the measure by suggesting that gay marriage was a threat to their family values.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/07/us-elections-2008-gay-rights

Take it to the Baptist headquarters ! Demonstrate now !

Err – perhaps not.

What utter pathetic hypocrisy.

And the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco invited the LDS to participate in the campaign.

Here’s two good pieces on this issue.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/mormons-vs-gays.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-chill.html

Obama opposes gay marriage as well though he was against prop 8 (typical sophistry to try to appeal to both sides).

Demographically, a high turn out of black voters will have resulted in an increase in the pro-Prop 8 vote

i saw pictures of the Mormon ban gay marriage election party. it looked really wild.

the term Christianists is rather misleading; I know its supposed to compare them to violent and anti-democratic and revolutionary Islamists. which is rather different to churches mobilising democratically to oppose a law they dont like, which they have every right to. slight difference between opposing gay marriage and hanging gays dontchathink?

also the Mormons arent really Christians.

“”Religion”" , does anyone still want to give “any respect” to these ancient harry potter books, sorry third rate harry potter books. Religion is the adults father christmas, unless we stop pretending it is “REAL” we will never progress as humans, sorry if this upsets the religious but it has become to serious to continue to give you any “respect”.. Respect for everyone is are achilles heel, people who believe in religion, any religion, no matter what qualifications they may hold, have infantile minds.

Erm, if this is about Mormons, why does the title of this piece allude to Christians?

In any case I don’t see that they have done anything wrong: trying to exclude religious groups from expressing their opinions on vitally important social, political or moral issues (or, like this question, all three) is not something that any democratic state ought to be involved with. (As many undemocratic and antidemocratic past precedents prove)

Well Anax here’s your chance to explain why Martin Luther King had an infantile mind.

Boycott Mormon Businesses! screams Daily Kos.

You CANNOT generalise about what individual Mormons might believe or do on this issue.

I would not boycott Salt Lake City as a whole – why should I?

This is about what a religious hierarchy has done, not the individuals who follow this religion.

Ven – are you doubting the truth of the revelation of Joseph Smith?!!!

For the record, I would have voted “yes” were I a californian, but would have preferred a referendum that nullified the judicial fiat and forced the issue in the cowardly legislature.

No More Mr. Nice Gay

Daniel Ginnes carried a banner declaring: “No More Mr Nice Gay.” Brian Lindsey held up a sign billing Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as a “prophet, polygamist, paedophile.” Hundreds of others simply chanted: “Mormon scum.”

-The Independent (UK)

Lets boycott the Democratic Party! After all, their leader opposes gay marriage and their electorate voted against it.

Bollocks, I just typed a long (but unfinished) comment and it disappeared when I refreshed the page. Not the first time that this has happened either.

And I don’t have time to recreate it. Sorry David T, I am doubting the truth of that revelation.

But – I accept the right of others to disagree with me, above all on issues of the profoundest importance – such as the structure and lexis of what constitutes a family and the sacramental (or non-sacramental) nature of marriage, as to whether marriage should constitute a lifelong bond between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, or not, without feeling the need to “boycott” them.

But our new anti-Christian commissars (using – whether they realise it or not – the same tactics, methodologies, and above all, ideologies – as their precursors in the Soviet Union of 1917 to 1927, especially) do not have that generosity of spirit, nor the broadness of vision and respect for diversity of opinions. That is precisely why, using “salami slice” tactics of picking individual single-interest issues that are blown up out of all proportion to their actual importance, they seek to close down debate, whether by ridicule or facile tarring of their opponents as bigots, rather than using reason and argument to find what sort of compromise that takes into apart broader societal interests might be feasible. And given what happened AFTER 1927 – it is of the utmost importance to the survival of our civilisation – that they be fought.

All the churches are entitle to lobby I don’t see anything wrong with that.
People also have the right to avoid giving them cash, I don’t see a problem with that.
Boycotting businesses based solely on the religion of their owners is reprehensible, and it does seem an easy get out to blame one part of the Proposition 8 for its success.

Interesting election result: Salt Lake County (which includes Salt Lake City) went 60-38 for Bush over Kerry in 2004 but only 49-48 for McCain over Obama.

I actually don’t like prop 8 but I don’t see anything wrong with a group organizing to support something they believe in. In the end that is what democracy is about.

As far as I understand it the LDS (strongly) encouraged members who were pro-prop 8 to do something about it. They didn’t donate significant sums of church money to pro prop 8 groups or directly run/finance advertizing campaigns.

Florida and Arizona also passed anti-gay marriage propositions. To pass in Florida it had to achieve 60% pf the vote.

Over half the states in the US have constitutional provisions that make same sex marriage impossible.

“Interesting election result: Salt Lake County (which includes Salt Lake City) went 60-38 for Bush over Kerry in 2004 but only 49-48 for McCain over Obama.”

That is so astonishing, Gene, that I had to go and check and catch your error. There is no error. Damn.

When Archbishop Tutu campaigned against Apartheid and Martin Luther King against segregation they were on the right side? When Muslims campaign against cartoons they are wrong? In a democratic society any group has a right to campaign and no group has a right to “special privileges”. If religious groups keep to peaceful campaigning within the law that is their right. If you don’t like it, refer to the banner on this page!

Gene,
Salt Lake City has a remarkably low age profile.
That may explain it.

Robert Kirby’s comment are illuminating:

“Anger is heady stuff. Not only is it a great motivator, it’s all we need to understand important stuff. Nothing convinces the human mind that it’s right about something more than its ability to get really pissed.

Unfortunately, the angrier we are about something, the greater the odds that we’re headed for a misunderstanding, and zero the odds that we’ll be able to fix it when we get there.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I wrote a column about California’s Proposition 8, essentially how I didn’t care if gays got married. It might even be a good thing.

Predictably, it made some supporters of Proposition 8 mad. Here’s a sample of the responses from fellow Mormons: “Disgusting! Have you ever even had a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, or did you lose it in journalism school?”

“Thankfully there are members of the church who can be counted in moral crisses [sic]. You aren’t one of them.”

Oddly enough, saying that I didn’t care if gays got married also made some gay people mad.

“Your indifference to us is the same as not caring if any group of Americans is denied equal rights. Why didn’t you just say that you don’t care if people kill us?”

“Thanks for reinforcing my belief that everyone in Utah is a narrow-minded Mormon breeder.”

Religion is a touchy subject. So is politics. When I wrote a completely bipartisan and open letter to the new president (without knowing who it was yet), some people only saw their own agenda in it.

“That letter to President -elect Obama was shameful and retarded. He is a great man. Your [sic] nothing. Who pays you to be a bigot?”

“That pointless liberal crap is exactly what kept John McCain from being elected and helped put a Muslim in the White House. Thanks for nothing you [deleted].”

“I wrote in Nader and your letter wouldn’t have applied to him but I still think you’re a [deleted].”

Then there was Bob Valdez. Following the column about having him put down, readers with different points of view came away with the same understanding.

“What kind of [deleted] has a cat? Get a pit bull. I’ll sell you one. They eat cats. If you want me to keep reading, grow a set and get a real pet or not one at all.”

“You threw away an animal like it was garbage? I’ll never read your horrible column again.”

This sounds grimmer than it really is. Most of the feedback I get is relatively positive. And even people who don’t agree with me are more often than not nice about it.

That’s good, I suppose, but also a lot less fun. “

Over 70% of blacks in California and over 50% of Hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. How will you oppose them “root and branch”? Who or what will you boycott?

Gay rights is basically a white issue.

If those statistics are correct, and I suspect they are, then perhaps it’d be a better idea to demonstrate against Afro-American and Hispanic congregations whose members actually live in California and can vote in California.

But everyone knows that race trumps both gender and sexual orientation in America, and so gay rights campaigners, most of whom are white, aren’t really allowed to oppose and challenge the real culprits.

And so they toddle off to Salt-Lake city and tear a strip off lilly- white Mormons.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/radical-california-gays-lash-out-at.html

I voted “No” on Amendment 2 in Florida.

Don’t try to blame this shit on me. :D

“Salt Lake County (which includes Salt Lake City) went 60-38 for Bush over Kerry in 2004 but only 49-48 for McCain over Obama.” “

Disgruntled Romney fans?

It’s called democracy. Get used to it.

Mormon’s have a right to express their opinions but the church certainly doesn’t have a right to avoid paying taxes if it’s going to be lobbying on political issues.
IF gay people having their rights taken away have to pay taxes, consider this an all-american tax revolt. They should either stop paying taxes, or the government can take away the Mormon’s ludicrous tax holidy.

Its not at all just the Mormons that are getting it in California actually, read some of the stuff here http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077

“It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.”

“My little sister (0.00 / 0)
is black AND Mormon. Good thing she’s currently working in Texas. If she were in CA this week I’d tell her to lay low for a few days for her own safety. THAT makes me sick.

FUCKING GOD, how is it that a day after such an historic Presidential election, the race-baiting protests have begun, but it was QUEERS who started them??

What the fuck is happening here?”

Sounds like its getting a bit nasty. I reckon Obama needs to get over there quick and weave some of his charismatic rainbow coalition magic :)

modernity, despite this setback, what matters is that some years ago, most people would simply dismiss not only same sex marriages, but also any other type of legal protection for same sex couples. so, there is an evolution.

many of the people who oppose gay marriage would gladly lock gay people in psychiatric hospitals for life because they think it’s sick. but, and here’s the beauty of liberal democracy, that’s just out of their reach, and most don’t even dare admit it…

Sorry, but this outcome is the democratic verdict of the voters of California. And I already abide by a policy of constructive avoidance of that shower.

many of the people who oppose gay marriage would gladly lock gay people in psychiatric hospitals for life because they think it’s sick. but, and here’s the beauty of liberal democracy, that’s just out of their reach, and most don’t even dare admit it…

You’re both paranoid and disrespectful of democracy.

And the push for gay marriage isn’t grassroots by any means, but is in fact rammed through by pink mafiosos who’ll go so far as to use the @N@ word when things don’t go their way.

The proof of this is borne out by the fact that when gay marriage was legalised in Canada there was an initial boomlet in gay marriages and then virtually nothing.

For something portrayed as so pressing and so essential to our self-esteem and well-being, you’d expect there’d have been a lot more of them.

And you as a feminist should remember that when the definition of marriage is fundamentally changed, it leaves the door open for other forms of marriage ( ie polygamy) that are corrosive of women’s rights.

This is where feminists, were they properly informed, should be diverging from their traditional alliance with gay rights groups because the interests and utimate aims of each no longer dovetail.

If opening up the definition of marriage to allow for same-sex nuptuals ultimately leads to the erosion of women’s rights, then why should women be supporting it?

Don’t you realise you can’t have it both ways anymore?

indeed Sarah, and when this Prop 8, is overturned I doubt that we’ll hear “this outcome is the democratic verdict of the voters of California.”

Whatever happened to marriage being a terrible tool of patriarchal society that was legalized prostitution etc. etc…? Ban it, that’s what I say.

By “I” I mean The Hidden Cameras of course.

Jonh P:

First of all:

How the hell are you to call me paranoid???

that is a personal attack and I resent that. It’s disrespectful and not compatible to a loyal debate, which is what I expect when I put comments in this blog.

Second:

You obviously take conclusions without any base. I’m not an anti-feminist, and I think feminist theory and practice have some very interesting features, however, I’m not a feminist follower, neither as political activist, nor as a student.

so, cool down.

I have only to add that I have been blogging on a daily basis for the last 4 years, and I have found some nasty people, others very nice, I’ve had many discussions and even once two bloggers tried to create me problems at my job by denouncing my nickname…

you are probably not the worse person I have come across in blogs. but you are the most bitter person I have ever met in comment boxes.

man, life is beautiful! everybody has problems, but nothing justifies the level of bitterness you display.

Democracy in action. Groups within civil society – including churches – have the right to mobolize over ballots. But this is a public action, and it is perfectly reasonable for others to hold them accountable for the stance they have taken within the parameters of democratic politics – ie through protests and boycotts.

so, cool down.

And this advice from someone who thinks “many” of the opponents of gay marriage want to lock gays up in mental hospitals.

Strange you don’t you find such ridiculous, outrageous and unfounded assertions just a tad inflamatory AND an affront to your reputation?

JP,

in reality, Sarah was being fairly polite to you, you should stop and reflect on your utterly negative and aggressive attitudes they don’t help you much

you should stop and reflect on your utterly negative and aggressive attitudes they don’t help you much

Characterising many of the opponents of gay marriage as wanting to incarcerate gays in mental hospitals, as Sarah F. has, is completely over the top.

Come on!

You’re no doubt in favour of gay marriage, but such foolish hyperbole doesn’t help your cause and, in fact, reflects badly on all those who support it.

Jonh P,

One of the things I love more in liberal societies is how people refrain themselves from being intolerant.

believe me, the time I spend studying societies and groups where uncivic values are dominant allow me to understand that, if the environment of liberal societies was to change, those very people that say, like the queen of Spain has said recently, that she respects people with different sexual orientations, but… would openly express their disgust in a very violent way…

you are the one who claims to be gay, not me, I don’t make statements about my sexual orientation…

so, if you read me with an open mind, something I am starting to doubt you are able to do, you would have understood what I meant.

yes, I don’t have the slightest doubt that many people would have no problem in dumping gays in a gulag-style psychiatric hospital or see them hanged like in Iran. that’s why I support liberal democracy and civic values. I live in a society where civic values are not sufficiently solidly rooted, I know what I am talking about, I know how cruel people can be if they find a person unprotected. I know of this man who was not even allowed to attend the funeral of his companion and I don’t think it’s fair. If changing that will bring other problems, well, we’ll have to face those problems too.

1. Marriage has always been understood as a heterosexual arrangement. The attempt to redefine the word in legal terms is an entirely novel development and its proponents should not be surprised if they face opposition from various quarters.
2. The US Constitution establishes the separation of church and state. It does not establish the separation of religion and state. In other words, individual citizens are not required to abandon their world view (religious or secular) when they engage in political activity.
3. Mormonism has always been a fringe sect of Christianity and its core beliefs have never been accepted by Catholic or Protestant Christians.

Nothing is out of reach in Church of Latter-day Saints, when reality knocks on the door the master con man Joseph Smiths God is all ears and in no time will the prophet in charge get a revelation to accommodate the any threat.

When statehood for Utah was initially rejected due to Smiths ideas of polygyny and in 1890 as the government was about to seize the assets of the LDS Church God made a accommodation revelation to the prophet. When in the 1970s the Latter-day Saints institutionalized racism no longer was acceptable to society (i.e. IRS was to cancel the Latter-day Saints non-profit tax exempt status), God wasted no time when a serious power as the IRS challenged his favorite Latter-day Saints and made a revelation to the prophet in charge that he no longer supported racism.

You can either have democracy and trust the people.

Or you can have rule by unelected judges determining who has human rights and who doesn’t.

ever heard of, tyranny of the majority?

Democracy is not about disenfranchising the rights of homosexuals to equality before the law.

That’s it. Pure and simple. Homosexuals are being discriminated against.

How about if a proposition was put forward to criminalise Mormonism?

Is that Democracy? No.

field, you’re wrong in putting things in such an oversimplified way. Democracy is a balance of both.

Unelected judges too are part of democracy. They can abuse their power, it’s true, but so can populist elected politicians. That’s why civic values are so important, it’s one of the ways to protect ourselves against abuses of power.

Democracy is a much more sophisticated and complex system than merely a reflex of the will of the majority. Abuses of power are much more likely in a non democratic system or in non-consolidated democracies…

Well I’m an atheist and think Mormonism is trite, in a strongly contested field. I and am all for equal rights for gays on inheritance and pension, but think it’s just silly to call gay unions ‘marriage’.

If that word is purloined, then a new handle will doubtless be created to describe a heterosexual union. Perhaps HP could hold a contest to select the best from candidate terms.?

I nominate the neologism hetroconjugality, but admit it’s a tad clunky….anyone any batter ideas?

Oh what absolute preposterous nonsense (which makes me think that the intellectual and spiritual inheritance of our civilisation is crumbling: perhaps it it just the consequence of progressive notions of education that have done so much damage in recent decades) it is by seeking to ensure that marriage continues to retain its traditional meaning of the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN constitutes “discrimination” (and as an aside I lament the hijacking of this term to mean something inherently evil, rather than it’s more basic meaning of choosing between legitimate and illegitimate forms of action) against anyone.

What would constitute illegitimate discrimination would be, for example, if men of one (say) ethnic or social group were legally prohibited from marrying a woman, or if women of one (say) ethnic or social group were legally prohbited from marrying a man.

Anything else is not marriage. End of story. It’s very very very very very silly and deluded to pretend that that is not so.

What are the origins of “one man and one woman” and do they also specify “until death”

“I nominate the neologism hetroconjugality, but admit it’s a tad clunky….anyone any batter ideas?”

The Preacher asked her and she said, “I do.”
The Preacher asked me and she said, “Yes, he does too.”
The Preacher said, “Son, I give you ninety-nine to life.
She’s no lady, she’s your wife.”

-Lyle Lovett

“1. Marriage has always been understood as a heterosexual arrangement. The attempt to redefine the word in legal terms is an entirely novel development and its proponents should not be surprised if they face opposition from various quarters.”

Liberty has always been understood as the freedom of the king to do what he pleases with his subjects. The attempt to redefine the word in legal terms is an entirely novel development and its proponents should not be surprised if they face opposition from various quarters. Also, if you redefine freedom this way, suddenly 75% of the people will want to have sex with dogs and marry them, and you will be forced to attend to their weddings.

“by seeking to ensure that marriage continues to retain its traditional meaning of the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN”

Yes, and until fairly recently in history, the traditional meaning if “franchise” meant seeking the opinion of white, male, property owners… so what?

If the best argument against gay marriage is the adoration of the purity of language…

“What would constitute illegitimate discrimination would be, for example, if men of one (say) ethnic or social group were legally prohibited from marrying a woman, or if women of one (say) ethnic or social group were legally prohbited from marrying a man.”

Why? Until relatively recently in many countries inter-racial and inter-religious marriages weren’t recognisned. How far back is “tradition”?

Do you wish to bring back slavery? It is still within ‘living memory’ (the oldest woman to vote in the recent US elections was the daughter of slaves). Is that “traditional” enought for you?

“Sorry, but this outcome is the democratic verdict of the voters of California. And I already abide by a policy of constructive avoidance of that shower.

In that case you should have no problem with a referendum by some Southern states on whether to reintroduce segregation.

It seems to me that the reason countries have constitutions and bills or rights is precisely because some rights are fundamental and not subject to the whims and fancies of popular opinion.

yes, I don’t have the slightest doubt that many people would have no problem in dumping gays in a gulag-style psychiatric hospital or see them hanged like in Iran.

Prop 8 concerns California, not Iran.

I know many people who oppose gay ‘marriage’ and they are far from frothing maniacs.

In fact, they articulate very intelligent arguments against the concept, but are always shouted down by intolerant gay blackshirts who, ironically, spend much of their time asking for tolerance.

Gay activists have a vested interest in always portraying those who oppose gay marriage as knuckle-dragging, red-neck Appalachians, when many are, to be honest, polished professionals who see things another way for very valid reasons.

The Catholic church is opposed to gay marriage. Do you really think The Church wishes to see gays locked up in “gulag-style” psychiatric hospitals?

If so, you’re cruising the boundries of ‘area 51′!

What people fail to understand is that the happy alliance of leftist interest groups no longer holds water.

Gay rights, in more and more situations, run directly counter to women’s rights, and minority rights counter to gay rights, etc, etc.

ever heard of, tyranny of the majority?

I see. So when the majority don’t vote the way you’d like them to, you cancel and/or circumvent the popular will by declaring that open and democratic result the “tyranny of the majority”.

I’m pissed that Obama won, but I’d never refer to his victory as the ‘tyranny of the majority’ for the simple his win reflects the free expression of the popular vote.

You need a refresher in poli-sci 101, Modernity.

You appear to know less about it than ‘First Dude’.

In that case you should have no problem with a referendum by some Southern states on whether to reintroduce segregation.

There are many problemes with that slick and dishonest statement, Brett.

Firstly, it’s not as though gay marriage is already an acquired right that is in the process of being rescinded.

Second, race and sexual orientation are two very different things.

Third, the right to marry, when other legal options such as civil unions are readily available, can hardly be compared to Blacks being segregated, abused and lynched.

I mean, have you ever seen lunch counters or drinking fountains segregated according to sexual orientation?

“The Catholic church is opposed to gay marriage. Do you really think The Church wishes to see gays locked up in “gulag-style” psychiatric hospitals?”

You are right. The Church used to burn them at the stake. What is with this gulag bullshit?

“In fact, they articulate very intelligent arguments against the concept”

Sadly, they are not on display here.

Why two consenting adults cannot get married?

Because you think the heavens will fall?

In fact, the argument here that legalizing gay marriage leads inevitably to legalizing poligamy or child-marriage is just a very stupid excuse to hide the fact that you oppose gay marriage because the Church fathers opposed it, because in a book says that God killed sodomites. Your only argument is the authority of religion. The rest are only excuses.
If you believe in your religion fine, don’t get married with another man. But you have no right to forbid that from other consenting adults.

Jonh P:

it is obviously impossible to expect that you will not distort my words, but please don’t take the other readers as stupids, because normal people understand what comparisons and analogies are.

You are right. The Church used to burn them at the stake. What is with this gulag bullshit?

Fabian, up until the issue was pushed to the forefront The church never had much of anything to say about homosexuality. It was only when gays began insisting they should have the ‘right’ to get married in a Catholic church, or that practising gays should have the ‘right’ to be priests that the fecal matter hit the fan.

Trust me, there is no official Catholic policy of burning homosexuals at the stake.

In fact, the argument here that legalizing gay marriage leads inevitably to legalizing poligamy or child-marriage is just a very stupid excuse to hide the fact that you oppose gay marriage because the Church fathers opposed it, because in a book says that God killed sodomites. Your only argument is the authority of religion. The rest are only excuses.

No it isn’t. The neighbouring province, Ontario, legalized gay marriages a couple of years ago. Since then it has also begun de-facto recognition of polygamous marriage arrangements even legitimising them in its welfare provisions. The bureaucrats keep hoping the issue doesn’t break out into the open.

Now that is a fact, unlike Sarah F’s. fantasy about locking gays up in psychiatric gulags.

Your only argument is the authority of religion.

And so there is no element of biology and/or reproduction when it comes to defending traditional marriage between one man and one women?

If gays would spend more time and make more effort to think this through, they’d realise that in the long run their best interests lay in keeping marriage the way it is.

<i.it is obviously impossible to expect that you will not distort my words, but please don’t take the other readers as stupids, because normal people understand what comparisons and analogies are.

Sarah, opponents of gay marriage are not into incarcerating gays in psychiatric gulags.

That is a gross, misleading and slanderous characature of people holding a viewpoint that is as legitimate as your own.

“And so there is no element of biology and/or reproduction when it comes to defending traditional marriage between one man and one women?”

It is not an argument at all! I can get married with a woman and never have children. Sue me for sinning against biology.

“Fabian, up until the issue was pushed to the forefront The church never had much of anything to say about homosexuality.”

I suppose that people were openly gay 200 years ago. Yeah, right. Everything was perfect until they started asking for the right to get married. Come on.

“No it isn’t. The neighbouring province, Ontario, legalized gay marriages a couple of years ago. Since then it has also begun de-facto recognition of polygamous marriage arrangements even legitimising them in its welfare provisions. The bureaucrats keep hoping the issue doesn’t break out into the open.”

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

“If gays would spend more time and make more effort to think this through, they’d realise that in the long run their best interests lay in keeping marriage the way it is.”

You are not explaining why.

“No it isn’t. The neighbouring province, Ontario, legalized gay marriages a couple of years ago. Since then it has also begun de-facto recognition of polygamous marriage arrangements even legitimising them in its welfare provisions. The bureaucrats keep hoping the issue doesn’t break out into the open.”

BTW, you do realize that your argument, besides being a fallacy, is nonsensical? Who are those that engage in polygamy? The dreaded homosexuals who wanted to get married or the heterosexuals? So how come you want to deny a right to homosexuals because of something you find abhorrent which is done by heterosexuals?

Marriage is a union that is recognised by the state and the law, due to either historical, social or religious reasons. I don’t think therefore anyone really has a “right” to have their relationships “recognised”.

I personally believe that marriage has a specific purpose.

It serves to create a legal framework for the relationship between a man and a woman.

As I oppose sexual intimacy outside of the legal framework of marriage, marriage also serves to legitimate sexual relations.

As the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, has the general potential, to bring forth new life, a framework is created, that states the obligations and responsibilities of each partner. As heterosexual relationships are likely to produce the next generation, it has a huge social importance, and hence is recognised and in some cases privileged by the state.

The relationship between two men or two women, in general terms, has little social importance. It is rightly very important, of course, for the individuals involved, but not for the society in which they live. As such it does not require the same legal recognition.

In simple terms I deem the relationship between a man and a woman of public interest, and the relationship between two men or two women as a private concern.

I believe what has happened, is that the traditional understanding of marriage, due to many things, such as the legitimisation of sex outside marriage, has been abandoned by the majority of people, who now see marriage as simply a public deceleration of love, and a desire for that love to be recognised by others. If you hold to this definition then it is quite natural to argue in favour of homosexual marriage, and indeed it would be unfair to deny them this.

I think people on both sides of this debate have the right to express their opinions. Neither is being subversive of bigoted by doing so.

“As heterosexual relationships are likely to produce the next generation, it has a huge social importance, and hence is recognised and in some cases privileged by the state.”

Yossi: they are likely. They are not necessarily going to produce the next generation. Following this line of reasoning I see two possible outcomes.

1. Heterosexual marriages that do not produce the next generation (say, when women reach menopause or if she or he is sterile or impotent) have to be annuled by the state, since they are unimportant – only a private matter, as you say.
2. Homosexual marriages that adopt an orfan child have to be recognized by the state, since they fulfill a very important social function (I would say, even more important than having your own child).

So your argument -which, I recognize, is new in this thread- doesn’t negate the right of homosexuals to marry, as you think.

3. Heterosexual marriages between sterile people (or too old to be fertile still) need not to be allowed by the state if the criteria is social utility in producing the next generation.

Fabian,

Your points are well made, and I anticipated them in my post above by the use of the word “general”

The majority of heterosexual relationships tend to produce children, and the majority of homosexual relationships do not. (Again this may change as values change).

The law or the recognition afforded by marriage, is expressing a societal value put on the marriage of a man and a woman, due to the effect that the majority of these marriages have on the community.

Combined with the legitimisation marriage affords to sexual relationships, I believe my argument is still consistent.

I suppose that ultimately it comes down to a societal view. Those like me, who view the relationship between a man and a woman, as the very bedrock of society, wish to maintain the uniqueness of this institution. Those who take a different view as to the purpose of marriage will clearly disagree.

One thing I think it important to add, is that the hostility and outright hysteria expressed by people on my side of the debate is out of place. More damage has been done to traditional marriage, by heterosexuals themselves who’s conduct while married, leaves a lot to be desired, than by the call to legally recognise homosexual relationships.

I suppose that ultimately it comes down to a societal view. Those like me, who view the relationship between a man and a woman, as the very bedrock of society, wish to maintain the uniqueness of this institution.

It is depressing that such a self-evident truth has to be repeated.

What other bedrock does a society have?

Once reproduction has been completely divorced from sex and marriage, and looking 20 years down the road, we’ll find ourselves in a world of designer babies, tailor-made children whose genetics, at least in part, will be composed of spliced genomes.

We’ll be smack-dab on the doorstep of a world dominated by eugenics, one in which the ‘task’ of reproduction may even be contracted out.

Obama is against same-sex “marriage”, easily carried California which voted convincingly for traditional marriage, and comfortably carried Florida which voted heavily for traditional marriage.

The Mormons are on difficult ground here: they believe in traditional marriage in practice but polygamy in principle. By contrast, it was the black churches and the Catholics who carried the day both for Obama and for traditional marriage (money is one thing, but there are not many Mormon votes in California or Florida, although I grant you that there are in Arizona). They – we – have no such problem.

Anyway, “Christianists”? Hardly! “Mormonists”, perhaps. The Mormons are a serious problem for the idea of America as a singularly Christian country. Third only to the Catholics and the Southern Baptists, they believe that the Native Americans are descended from the Ancient Israelites, that Jesus actually visited America, that the Church flourished there for centuries before Columbus, and that the Second Coming and subsequent earthly reign will taker place in and from Missouri.

(Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists and others all likewise simply presuppose that that Coming and reign will be in and from the Good Old U S of A, as if it were self-evident. Doubtless, so do many millions more in other communities.)

The East Coast media’s problem with his Mormonism is that it is so Western, so much of that vast space between Chicago and California which they cannot even begin to comprehend. They can cope with the South, which they know about, even if they only know that they viscerally detest it. But the West is a different world. And Mormonism is very much of the West.

Indeed, there are so many Mormon facilities in Las Vegas that one might reasonably assume half its population to be at least nominally Mormon, and a sizeable proportion to be a great deal more active than that. Yet well over half the population of Las Vegas is employed one way or another by either or both of gambling and prostitution. As Americans themselves say, go figure. Not least, go figure not only that Romney won Arizona, but that so did Clinton, a very “understanding” wife…

The Mormons are polytheists, anthropomorphists, believers that human beings can become gods (and, indeed, that all gods were once human beings), and, I say again, not in principle opposed to polygamy. So, I say again, “Christianists”? Hardly!

“Not least, go figure not only that Romney won Arizona, but that so did Clinton, a very “understanding” wife…”

“Nevada”, obviously.

Time for bed, obviously.

Brett:

“In that case you should have no problem with a referendum by some Southern states on whether to reintroduce segregation.”

I would have a big problem with that, but I’d just have to suck it up.

“It seems to me that the reason countries have constitutions and bills or rights is precisely because some rights are fundamental and not subject to the whims and fancies of popular opinion.”

I agree. We are all born with those rights. But so is every serf, every child prostitute, every battered wife, and every gay man in Tehran.

We aren’t born with a guarrantee that those rights, and liberties, will be upheld and enshrined in law. The legal and social recognition of our rights is something we confer upon eachother, and regularly replenish at the ballot box.

The laws of nature do not include ever-advancing social progress. Because they reflect us, and how we really are. A constitution is a splendidly useful device, but ultimately anything crafted by human ingenuity, and moral integrity, can be laid waste by human decadence and duplicity.

“The law or the recognition afforded by marriage, is expressing a societal value put on the marriage of a man and a woman, due to the effect that the majority of these marriages have on the community.”

Hi Yossi: but that is not a good argument. Just because the majority of musicians are not genius like Mozart doesn’t mean that you have to allow the study of music only to genius.

If you don’t have (like I don’t have) any objection in principle to adoption of children by homosexual couples, then there is no objection in principle to their marriage by social utility. Imagine, following your criteria, that you demanded a signed declaration by heterosexual couples who want to get married that they will have children, otherwise they could not get married (and actually the logical step would be to marry couples only after they have children – fulfill their social function). Then you could ask for a similar declaration by homosexual couples that they will adopt a child (fulfill their social utility). Get it? Whether any of these couples will comply is another subject. You could set a number of years as limit.

That was according to your criteria of social utility. I don’t share your criteria, but I hope I showed that it is not incompatible with gay marriage.

“Once reproduction has been completely divorced from sex and marriage, and looking 20 years down the road, we’ll find ourselves in a world of designer babies, tailor-made children whose genetics, at least in part, will be composed of spliced genomes.” (John P.)

You will have all that even without homosexual marriages. Your arguments are so bizarre that I question whether you are homosexual as you say, or you just use that as a cover (they way antisemites try sometimes to speak as “insider Jews”).

*geniuses*

Hello again Fabian,

“Just because the majority of musicians are not genius like Mozart doesn’t mean that you have to allow the study of music only to geniuses.”

Ah but in the issue of marriage, your above illustration is a category confusion. I think the corresponding comparison would be, funding music lessons in a school for plumbers.

I understand your point, that if homosexual couples adopt, then there is a utilitarian reason for marriage.

But as I don’t simply see this from a utilitarian vantage point, but also see marriage as a legitimisation of sexual union, the above arguments do not completely satisfy.

Also there is a significant difference in the union of a man and a woman, that produces children, and a homosexual couple who adopt or have a surrogate child.

Heterosexual sexual activity, brings forth new life. The child is a product of both parents. Part of his or her identity derives from the fact that he/she is as the Torah says is”flesh of my flesh”. This is not the same with any other coupling.

As in society we recognise the uniqueness of the male/female sexual relationship, and it’s unique effects, we reserve marriage for heterosexuals.

Acceptance of homosexual marriage, is a declaration that society considers the relationships of homosexuals as equivalent in the majority of cases to the relationships of heterosexuals in the majority of cases.

Due to the uniqueness of heterosexual sexuality, and by extension, relationships, I believe that this would be a mistake.

Hi Yossi:

I guess that we have dealed with the utilitarian argument. Right? Your last arguments are not utilitarian.

“As in society we recognise the uniqueness of the male/female sexual relationship, and it’s unique effects, we reserve marriage for heterosexuals.”

In this argument I don’t understand why the recognition of the uniqueness of the union of a spermatozoid and an ovule through normal coitus has to be done by reserving the institution of marriage for some. Heterosexual couples that use artificial insemination then, by this criteria, are not “unique”, and therefore would not qualify for marriage. Moreover, the recognition of uniqueness can be done by different means than forbidding marriage for homosexual couples or even it should not be done by the state at all. Why is better or unique to give life through normal means? To give life through artificial insemination is not unique? To help the next generation through adoption is not unique?

“Due to the uniqueness of heterosexual sexuality, and by extension, relationships, I believe that this would be a mistake.”

But in this extension is that your argument fails, in my opinion. Heterosexual sexuality may be unique, but only because it is biologically unique. Marriage, on the other hand, is a social institution, which is not always founded on the expectation of bring forth children to the world. Rape with conception produces the same biological uniqueness that marriage with conception does, but we don’t sanctify rape with special rights for the rapist.
The difference is not biological but social or psychological: the existence or non existence of love.
And since love between two people is what marriage is for (not conception, since conception can occurr outside marriage and outside love), I can’t see no obstacle for the state recognizing love between to men or between two women.

Yossi: I think I hear another argument in your comment. It is the argument of what the majority of heterosexual and homosexual couples do. But that, of course might change, when homosexual marriage is better received and adoption is not frowned upon. It is a circumstantial objection only.
Am I right?

The Democratic Leader in the Senate is an active Mormon.

Hello again Fabian

“The difference is not biological but social or psychological: the existence or non existence of love.
And since love between two people is what marriage is for (not conception, since conception can occurr outside marriage and outside love), I can’t see no obstacle for the state recognizing love between to men or between two women.”

But by this argument, why not have the state recognise marriages between relatives? Or between multiple partners? Why limit the number to two? If marriage is just the recognition of love between people, then why can’t a brother and sister be allowed to marry each other.

Clearly marriage and sexual intimacy are very deeply linked. (I think this was demonstrated in the UK when two sisters were denied a civil partnership).

“Why is better or unique to give life through normal means? To give life through artificial insemination is not unique? To help the next generation through adoption is not unique?”

I believe it is better for a child to be brought into this world by an act of love by the two people who created him. And then to be brought up by those very same people. If this is not possible then alternatives have to be found I agree, such as adoption. But in the case of these alternatives, they should as much as possible seek to emulate the ideal.

You seem to argue that if the “utilitarian” argument is not absolute it has no value. In this I disagree.

Again I repeat, the sexual relationship between a male and female is of great value as in the majority of cases it brings forth new life. As this is so, society through the state, grants recognition to this coupling, through the institution of marriage. Society, promotes, esteems and privileges marriage. The small minority of heterosexual relationships that cannot reproduce, do not detract from the notion that male-female relationships are special. (Besides, the huge invasion in privacy and cost of discovering if a couple can or cannot have children, mitigates against excluding this small minority)

Homosexual relationships are in a completely different category as this type of sexuality never ever reproduces. Hence society need not and in my view should not extend, its legal recognition and privileges to them. If it does so then it states categorically that marriage is, as you say, only the recognition of love. I don’t think it is the place of the state to create entire legal categories just to recognise the private love between people, of any gender.

I feel that on this subject Fabian, you and I will simply have to disagree.

Incidentally all the above has been an argument against homosexual marriage in secular non-Jewish society.

Clearly Fabian, the issue of Homosexual marriage within Jewish society brings up many other arguments.

Finally, I must stress, that my arguments are not made out of any hostility towards homosexual relationships. As I have said on another previous post, I think the heterosexual world could learn a great deal from the love, support, mutual kindness on display in many homosexual relationships. My arguments are simply due to my belief in the social value unique in heterosexual matrimonies.

Kol Tuv