Yesterday Frank/Melaleuca used his weekly full page ad space to plea for support on HJR2, the gay marrage ban we will vote on this Election Day. (For a “wellness” company, they sure push on a lot of divisive issues.)
I thought I’d start a discussion on this to see what people think. Is it needed? Is it redundant? Is it bigotry? Is traditional marriage really under attack?
I’ve said before that I personally don’t feel any pressure in my marriage from gay people getting married. I don’t feel the sanctity of my marriage is threatened or weakened or devalued because gays might also get married. I really don’t care if they get married; there are much bigger problems that have my attention.
Butch Otter told me gay marriage needed to be banned because it wouldn’t be the same, kinda like changing the colors of our flag. Jerry Brady told me this amendment is not needed because gay marriage is already legally forbidden.
My opinion on this amendment is obvious; what do you think?
Popularity: 19%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 155 comments… read them below or add one }
I couldn’t agree more with Jerry Brady. There is no need to make the same law twice, it is kind of redundant.
While I don’t share the same views as homosexuals, I could care less what they do. If they get married somewhere that allows it, good for them. At the same time they need to respect the laws of this state and/or country and not start a spectacle.
When African Americans were being used as slaves and later being unjustly treated, they had a reason to fight for there rights. Homosexuals aren’t being forced into slave labor, we don’t make them sit at the back of the bus, and we don’t have seperate bathrooms for them either. They aren’t being treated unfairly.
Hopefully they will find a way to have their dreams of marriage fulfilled but I somehow don’t think it will be granted in Idaho, or most of the country for that matter.
I don’t think it’s a matter of hatred but more a matter of trying to keep the “old ways” intact. I really hope it’s not turned into a huge media tangle and extremely hope it is not a huge topic for the candidates in this years elections. I believe that there are more pressing needs, number one being improving education, number two, improving education, and finally number three, improving education.
Because I really don’t care one way or another for gay rights issues, I would skip over this vote on the ballot completely except for one reason, and that is Idaho’s national image.
Idaho has an unfortunate reputation for bigotry. I don’t see this amendment helping that image.
When Kansas tried implementing their anti-evolution agenda in the school curriculum, I heard many biotech firms that were thinking of relocating there suddenly dropped their plans.
I just don’t think it’ll help us diversify our economy if we adopt bigotry into our state constitution.
What about what Jerry Brady said that gay marriage is already against the law? Is it? What law or statute does that?
I agree, Idaho, mainly northern Idaho has the reputation for bigotry and hatred (Aryan Nation). Hopefully with time that image will fade.
Two state statutes are pertinent when discussing same-sex marriage in Idaho:
32-201, What Constitutes Marriage, reads in part that marriage in Idaho consists of a “personal relationship that arises out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.” No specific mention of same-sex marriage, but the “man and a woman” wording implies no same-sex marriages are allowed.
32-209 is more clear. The statute, Recognition of Foreign or Out of State Marriages, reads in full “Marriages that violate the public policy of that state include, but are not limited to, same-sex marriages, and marriages entered into under the laws of another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of the marriage laws of this state,” i.e. no polygamous marriages, married parties must be 18 years of age or older to marry without parental permission, don’t marry your first cousin, et cetera. The state also does not recognize common law marriages.
State statutes are available online at http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/idstTOC.html . Marriage statutes are under Title 32, “Domestic Relations.”
So frankly, same-sex marriages are already prohibited in Idaho. HJR2 is overkill.
HJR2 is just another attempt by the religious right to get their drones excited enough to go to the polls. Issues that really matter, i.e., the economy, taxes, school funding, the environment, etc. just don’t have the appeal to these folks that gay bashing does. They will be there on Nov. 7th to do the job they have been admonished by their religious leaders to do.
Northern Idaho skin heads with their shaved heads, tattoos and swastika necklaces may not be as presentable as our squeaky clean, church going bigots down here and they aren’t nearly as organized but they seem to share the same type of hatred for minorities. Indeed, they may be losing their bigot’s crown to these better organized neighbors to the south. And it’s just a matter of time until the folks from SE Idaho send another Gomer to Boise wanting to mandate the teaching of “creation science” in our schools. Anybody out there old enough to remember state congressman, Preston Brimhall? Then we could positively join Kansas in a race for the most ignorant populace.
Hey dnix0112,
Let me see if I understand your post. You don’t want gays creating a spectacle. No holding hands in public? And because we don’t treat them as we did the blacks in the 1950’s, means that they are not treated unfairly? And last but not least, you say that there is no hatred involved in the pending referendum, just a yearning for doing things “the old way”. Does that mean, as it did with Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (who was beaten mercilessly and left to die on a barbed wire fence) that they should not be included for hate crime protection as are many other minorities? Would you deny them the chance to have a civil union that would give them the same legal options that we married heteros enjoy? Is that the status quo you long for? Wow!
I think meso and I agree against this amendment, but those analogies are stetching it quite a bit. Matthew Shepard was a tragedy, but I don’t think debating this (redundant) amendment against gay marriage is the same as advocating violence against gays.
There are many old ways that just aren’t that way anymore, and I think this amendment is part of trying to keep hold of that.
I remember when Bush ran for president the first time, and I saw Dick Cheney’s speech to the Rebublican convention. He talked awhile about the ‘good old days’ and painted quite the verbal portrait to stir up wholesome nostalgia, and promised him and Bush could bring back those days again.
I thought, “Who the heck is he fooling? Nobody can bring back those days!” Get over it, and make the best of today rather than trying to recreate the best of yesterday.
I have also heard the national Republican party likes to get amendments like this on the ballot because they can leverage many more conservative voters to the polls.
Which to me sounds like a national political machine using innocent locals as their tool.
Anyone read last week’s time magazine, that guy in the White House who said evangelical Christians were used like tools for their support, then never got even 1% of what was promised to them?
Holy cow, hold the phone there Meso, I in no way meant that the way you took it. I was just saying that for the most part, people in this country don’t really mind the “gay” populace. Back in the 50’s blacks were treated horribly, by a good percentage of the white population. The difference is in the way we let them do there own thing and don’t exclude them or try to persecute them. (Although the gay marriage amendment does) And by the “old way” I meant the good ol’ 50’s where you went to school, got married, had kids, white picket fence, ect.
Please don’t try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I realized today the gay marriage issue is unfortunately played out to be a zero-sum game. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.
If gays are allowed to marry, conservatives will be upset. If gays are not allowed to marry, conservatives will be happy but of course gays will be upset.
It’s disappointing this is so. I don’t feel their win is my loss, I don’t know why anyone would.
Perhaps people who are voting for this amendment should try reading the book “Non zero sum”? which describes numerous ways that everyone can be happy.
It was interesting to read this morning’s Parade that said Massachusetts has the second lowest divorce rate (2.2 per 1,000).
Wasn’t Massachusetts supposed to be huge liberal hotbed of immorality and indecency?
It should come to no surprise where i stand on this issue – first, of course the law is redundant. Adding an amendment that clarifies marriage ignores the purpose of a constitution – to create a basis of law and prepare a governing body to create law. Look, the constitution doesn’t need to be amended if the laws currently on the books have defined marriage!
Second, there is a fairly insidious part of the law that I can’t get over – many people want this law passed so future “liberal judges” aren’t able to grant homosexual couples the ability to marry in the future. In short, proponents aim to change the way this country was designed to work – by cementing current law for fear of future change. This nation’s basis of law was designed to be flexible, and people who favor this amendment ignore that fact.
Lest we forget that it was “activist judges” who gave African-Americans the right to vote? Who granted womens’ suffrage? All the while, they were faced with the same opposition that gay rights advocates are facing today.
To conclude, I heartily believe that twenty years from now, we will view the topic of gay marriage the same we view inter-racial marriage today, and we will all shake our heads in amazement at how silly we were in our bigotry.
Wow, great points Jeremy. Especially the point about “cementing current law for fear of future change”.
And how will history view Frank Vandersloot’s antics? I can only imagine the 25/50/75/100 years back column in the Post Register looking back at Vandersloot’s activities.
I should mention at this point how utterly disgusted I was at yesterday’s “Community Page” which featured a mock ballot with checks on the choices which Mr. Vandersloot believes we should all make. Specifically, vote Republican and conservative.
Even though the page is a paid-for ad, are they exempt from journalistic ethics? Does having money exempt one from moral responsibility? Vandersloot likes to throw mud at the Post Register for being Liberal, but how many times have they come out with a “vote this way” section?
I hope the Post Register will eventually cut Melaleuca off from running their full-page ads. Enough is enough.
Maybe Vandersloot should just start his own paper, people will realize how full of crap he is, and it will go belly-up.
I keep waiting for Vandersloot’s downward spiral, ala Mark Foley, Ted Haggart, and other right wing moralists. Somes of their loudest voices…Bill Bennett, turned out to be addicted to gambling, Rush Limbaugh to oxi/contin, and Ralph Reed, the poster boy for the religious right, addicted to the power corrupting influence of Jack Abramoff. The GOP seems to be overflowing with people who spend their lives preaching to the rest of us against the very vices that they seem so enamored with themselves. Is it the fact that they have lost control of their own sex lives that they feel the need to control everyone else’s? The GOP certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on hyposcrisy but they certainly appear to be in a mad scramble to attain one.
Wow, this discussion stayed civil. That gives me hope.
Meso – I know what you mean. It’s a concept that has a name that I can’t remember from my Psychology 101 course. I think it’s projection … basically, we hate in others what we hate about ourselves. For example, there’s a new story out about an Evangelical mega-pastor who was one of the nation’s most vocal antagonist of gay rights, and it turns out he may have exchanged homosexual relations for methamphetamine.
The house of cards that ultra neo-cons has built is starting to crumble. The ones among us who see through their BS are laughing all the way!
What we need in this country is a good dose of moral awakening…no, not the type Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell espouse. We need elected officials who vote their conscience (for those who still have one) and not the party line on every issue. Jeremy is right, the moral right is on shaky ground, a house of cards if you will. The moralizing ilk we have elected in this country must be recognized for their hypocrisy, not simply because it exposes them for what they are but so that we can better understand and scrutinize the impact of their decisions on our social fabric. To do any less is to perpetuate and maintain an unhealthy atmosphere of lies and deceit. Truth is necessary to a healthy democracy, hypocrisy is a curse on it.
Jeremy, I think it was Freud who coined “reaction formation” to describe the defense mechanism that causes us to condemn others for the same faults we find in ourselves. My dictionary calls it “a behavioral tendency developed in direct opposition to a repressed impulse”. Perhaps that sheds a little light on one of our local citizens, who erects billboards and buys full page ads in our local paper in order to further his gay bashing agenda (or perhaps not, but it certainly leaves one wondering).
I was reading the paper a little while ago (or maybe it was “TIME” Magazine) and there was a cartoon in it that went something like this.
A man says to his wife, “Honey, I’ve found a way to save our marriage!”
Wife says, “You’re going to stop drinking, staying out all night, and cheating on me?”
Husband hold up a ballot and says, “No, I’m going to vote to ban gay marriage!”
Zing.
The framer and proponents of HJR 2 are so certain of their stance that they have made a pre-emptive change to the Idaho constitution in order to make judicial review an impossibility.
Last week on Idaho Public Television, Marcia Franklin hosted an extended segment of Dialogue devoted to the issue of HJR 2 to make any marriage other than between one man and one woman unconstitutional. The panel discussion consisted of two proponents of the resolution and two against it. Franklin asked the proponents why they wanted a constitutional amendment such as this. The reason was that they didn’t want any future judge(s) to rule that either of the two existing laws that forbid gay or lesbian marriage are unconstitutional. To do that, the Idaho state constitution had to be changed so that it clearly denies any configuration than one man and one woman the legal right to marry. It’s a pre-emptive strike against so-called activist judges. For the proponents of HJR 2, there is apparently no such thing as judicial review–something the framers of the constitution clearly envisioned as a means of making the constitution a living document (see Marbury v. Madison)–instead, they call it “legislating from the bench.”
No one has been able to tell me how gay or lesbian marriages would undermine the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. The author of HJR 2, when Franklin asked him about this, said that it would make his heterosexual marriage seem like something “less, somehow.” But he wasn’t able to articulate what that meant.
The passage of HJR 2 makes this a sad day for Idaho.
Agreed.
HJR2 signifies an irreparable and permeating sense of homophobia in Idaho, an unreasonable knee-jerk stifling of a significant portion of the state’s populace.
I will re-state this: In twenty years, gay marriage will be viewed the same way that voting rights for African-Americans are today. We will be so ashamed to tell our grandchildren about the 2006 Idaho Midterms.
… and we should all spend more $ in Blaine County (where this thing failed).
Kudos to Teton County…they apparently saw through the smoke screen and voted against the amendment also. Perhaps Tom Walsh, a frequent contributor to the Post Register op-ed pages, has some sway in that “island of blue in a sea of red” (as the PR described Teton County). Hope to see you on the ski hill this season, Tom.
“Tradition is the tyranny of the dead over the living” -Unknown.
I don’t understand why people are so uptight about Gay Marriage. Who the hell would it hurt?
“A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril”.
-Winston Churchill
Hmmm…..if enough people converted there would be no procreation….no procreation no births….no births=death of society.
Ummm…how do you convert to being gay? I just don’t see it. I have a best friend who is gay and he has never been able to make himself interested in females, not even when he’s been celebate for years…
Yeah, I remember voting against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s because I didn’t want to have to use unisex toilets.
Extreme possibilities are great for scaring folks away from granting others the same rights as the rest of us have.
Great use of quotes, both of you!
I knew a couple of guys that dated women all through high school and college and than one day decided they wanted to “play for the other team”. So yes….it is possible to be “converted”.
I don’t think they converted, I think they decided.
Besides which, I think a lot of people are bi, and could theoretically be interested in the person, and not necessarily in the gender.
Most guys are pressured into dating women as a cultural thing, and it takes a lot of courage to finally decide, it’s okay for me to be who I really am.
I met a man who married and had children and didn’t have the courage to decide until he was 48. But it’s been 20+ years and he hasn’t gone back, and he’s happier now than he was before.
This is a situation where my libertarian views say, why do the rest of us think we have to care, what other adult a person wants to have relations with, or marry? Why is it our business, if it’s two consenting adults?
I believe we already had this debate back in the JeremyPlo days with his issue regarding gay marriage. I don’t have a problem with it, I just don’t believe that’s the way God or “nature” intended it. We can go round and round over this issue (and we have), so I’ll just state my view and leave it at that. I’m against gay marriage and the lifestyle. I don’t care if you THINK you were “born that way”….it’s not the way nature intended it.
I’ve had lots of gay friends (both men & women) and they were great people, I just didn’t approve of their lifestyle.
When it boils down to it, I could care less what they do behind closed doors. That doesn’t mean I have to approve of it.
I saw the documentary about Rosie O’Donnell’s cruise for gay families a couple of weeks ago. Lots & lots of gay couples there, raising kids of all ages. One lesbian couple was trying to get pregnant through artificial insemination, but found a couple of gay men who volunteered to donate since the AI wasn’t taking for them. Another gay couple (men) were raising a child conceived by a surrogate; they have no idea who the biological father is.
Seems like there’s plenty of gay couples procreating out there. Death of society? I hardly think so.
I feel sorry for poor kids that have to grow up in that environment, not having a real “mother & father”. These kids don’t deserve that! Yet the gay folk don’t want a “real” relationship in the traditional sense, but they still want kids. It’s crazy! Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. But they don’t realize the emotional upheavel their producing in minds and hearts of these kids. It’s a sad state of affairs.
But again…that’s just my opinion.
CR67, your opinion isn’t based on any real facts, just your impression of “what it must be like for these kids.” Study after study shows no statistical difference psychologically between kids of gays & other kids.
Those kids on the cruise sure looked happy to me. The only time they related any bad feelings was when others made them feel “different”, like saying they didn’t have “real mothers & fathers.” They do have real mothers & fathers, sometimes more than one of each, or either. There’s no difference between these families & families who adopt, or families who divorce, or families with only one custodial parent.
Sounds like you have a really warped understanding of what actually happens in these kinds of families. Maybe you should study the literature & read some real accounts of what these families mean to the kids they raise. The emotional upheaval you imagine happening isn’t backed up by the evidence.
Boy CR67, I have always kind of sided with your posts until this last one (#30). A lot of children are raised in a single parent household without a “real mother and father”. My children were raised without a father. Yet they were raised with love. I have known children that were raised without a mother, and yet they are being raised with love. I have known children being raised by a gay couple and they are being raised with love. I have known more children being raised by a “real mother and father” that are constantly exposed to bickering, fighting, and hostility; often times resulting in divorce. This is a better environment to raise children in because there is a “real mother and father”?
Culture and morals matter. What people do openly in society matters. If folks want to go behind closed doors and play house that is fine with me. However, just because they do doesn’t mean I have to like it. (Comment #28) It also doesn’t mean that I have to agree to confer the same rights and privileges as married couples with men and women. If gay couples want to adopt I have no problem with that. It is better that children are surrounded by people that care about them.
The bottom line here is that society has made a consistent choice not to afford the same privileges of heterosexual marriage onto homosexuals. You can call it discrimination but that is not accurate. In many cases, society chooses to encourage certain types of behavior and discourage others. This is done through the tax code all the time.
When society stops caring to encourage certain types of behaviors and everything is acceptable look out–moral relativism–everything is okay with me can be, and has proven to be dangerous. Some people may not like the morals society has laid out. If that is the case, you work to change it through education and making the best case possible. Calling people warped or homophobic is no better than many blacks and hispanics calling white people racist because they don’t happen to believe in conferring rights and privileges on people just because of skin color. The same can be said for sexual orientation.
Live your life and don’t push your morals down my throat and I won’t push my morals down your throat….but realize that society is not ready for acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the same footing as marriage between men and women. It’s not about discrimination, it’s about a realization of upholding morals and beliefs that, in part, perpetuate society.
Mike,
You said “It also doesn’t mean that I have to agree to confer the same rights and privileges as married couples with men and women.” The majority of United States citizens appear to agree with you.
You say that a morals decision is the right of society. This same rationale was made to support slavery, to deny women the right to vote, to support racial segregation, and to deny the right of people of mixed races to get married. The latter two issues were still being contested legally when I was a young woman.
Society tends to fear and reject what it does not understand. I do not call your fears/beliefs warped, merely different from my own. But the difference between you and I is that I would allow rights to gay adults to match my own, instead of saying that I am more deserving of those civil rights due to my being part of the (moral) majority in this country.
I don’t believe in conferring rights just because of skin color or sexual orientation. What I believe is that those basic rights that everyone has, can’t be taken away from someone just because of their skin color or sexual orientation.
So I see that just as there were long and fractious fights for rights in all the above issues, the fight for the basic equal rights of gay people is continuing.
Mike, if you truly believe in the rights of gays to adopt, how would you handle the legalities of adoption without the adoptees being able to marry? You’re creating more legal hassles for these couples, not decreasing them.
This is one reason I believe that marriage should be taken out of the government’s hands altogether. Every couple should be entitled to the same rights through civil unions. If couples find a church willing to marry them, fine. But marriage shouldn’t define the legal rights of gay couples. Civil unions should cover all rights for everybody; including adoption, medical matters, insurance coverage, and division of property after the union is dissolved.
You want marriage to be defined as only between one man & one woman, fine. Your basis for this desire is Biblical & religious in nature, and that’s fine too. But keep your religion out of my (and everyone else’s) civil affairs.
oooh child….I never said my post was based on real facts….that’s why I noted at the end that it was “just my opinion”.
As for 3333…. there’s a big difference between having only one parent due to divorce or death in the family and having two gay parents. Plus I never mentioned that they couldn’t be “loved and cared for” just as well as your typical “mother & father” type parents.
I’m merely concerned about the child here. One can only imagine what these kids go through growing up, being teased by the other kids in school and whatnot. I can only imagine the ridicule they go through on a daily basis in school. Kids are mean to each other, thats a fact. And sure, these kids can have a happy loving homelife, but that wasn’t the issue I brought up. These kids are automatically brought up differently and are seen as being “different” by their peers. And it’s not the kids fault.
Like I stated in comment 28…. I don’t have a problem with it. I just don’t agree with it.
The same can be said about an inter-racial couple. My brother is married to a black girl and they have a child who is “mixed”. Although she’s more black because the gene’s in blacks are more dominant. The looks they get are unbelievable. The whispers behind their backs. And let me say….its usually more than just “whispers”. And thats just when they go somewhere as a couple. When they take their child somewhere it’s 10 times worse. People are always making rude comments. I know for a fact that this child is being raised in a loving environment. But growing up, this childs life is going to be hell in the regards to dealing with all the insults, criticism, teasing from not only her peers, but people in general.
One thing we have to remember is….. a lot of people “look happy on the outside”, but are really hurting on the inside. Just because somebody is laughing and having a good time on a cruise ship (which you can’t help but do on a cruise ship), doesn’t mean their life is all pink roses and butterflys. So there’s no need for me to “study literature….I have “real life experience” in this matter. It may not have to do with a “gay couples”, but it’s the same principle.
And let me reiterate: I don’t have a problem with it, it’s just not something I agree with.
Thankfully, the generations coming up in this country are losing those preconceptions you harbor, CR67. Younger folks just don’t share your opinion.
Just as my mother had racist inclinations but refused to pass those on to me & my brothers, I hope you don’t pass on your prejudices to the next generation you come in contact with. We can stop the cycle.
Yeah CR! It’s a real shame you have an opinion! Hopefully you won’t pass that trait on to your kids. Give me a break oohchild…..how many times does the guy have to tell you “he doesn’t have a problem with it”. Perhaps if he says it a few more times you’ll actually understand it, instead of reading only what you want to read. The fact is, he makes some valid points. It’s not CR67s fault that people whisper and talk behind his niece’s back. It’s a fact of life. People talk and whisper about things that aren’t “the norm”. It’s been going on since the beginning of time. Just because you’ve never been predjudice about anything in your life, (which I highly doubt) doesn’t mean we have to have the same opinions or views on a subject that you do.
Having lived in California for a time, I witnessed quite a few gay couples with kids in tow. They seemed happy to me. But that didn’t keep people from staring and whispering. And just because a section of the population wants “equal rights” for every man woman, animal and mongoloid, doesn’t make it right. The fact is woman was put on this earth to procreate with a MAN. PERIOD. Not man & man and woman & woman. It’s got nothing to do with religion. If that’s too hard for some people to accept, than it seems those people are the one’s with the issues. Call it “old fashioned”, but that’s just life. I
And the next time somebody has an “opinion” that differs from yours, try not to call them a “racist”.
*******Blown out of proportion alert*******
What’s next? Are you going to want equal rights for man and dog? I know many a man who love their dog more than they do their wife. Shouldn’t we let them marry and enjoy the same benefits as gay couples? It only seems right and it would be the next logical step in the evolutionary chain of developments the way some here see it.
Wow Guest_007, try reading what I wrote next time. I guess you could say I called my mother a racist, but then I would know, wouldn’t I? I’m proud of the fact that she made great efforts to make sure her children didn’t carry on her bad opinions.
If your opinion is based on religion rather than facts, that’s your problem. Like I said, just keep your religion out of my civil affairs, okay? It’s not “old fashioned” as you put it, it’s unconstitutional.
Read what I read…..I said it’s got nothing to do with religion. And nobody is pushing their religious beliefs on you. If you honestly think that man was put on this earth to be with another man….than something is seriously wrong with your thought process.
007, you stated your opinion, but you said it was a fact. It may be your religious belief, but it is not a fact.
“The fact is woman was put on this earth to procreate with a MAN. PERIOD. Not man & man and woman & woman. It’s got nothing to do with religion.”
It’s clear that you believe this with all your heart and soul, and that is very much okay with me. You are entitled to your opinion. But it is still your opinion, it is not a fact. The fact is, some adults in our country are not allowed to have the same civil rights as other adults, because of the fact that they are homosexual. Because many people’s opinions are that they do not deserve those same civil rights.
As far as your blown out of proportion alert, thanks for bringing that up. I also thought about how far this could go, if we’re talking about civil rights for adult US citizens.
But I decided that consenting adults is as far as these rights should go. An animal, or a child, each being incapable of giving legal consent to marry, could not participate in these rights.
We already see what’s happening with the religious groups who claim to know what’s best for their female children, and marry them off to older men in the name of procreative religious freedom. Those children did not have the legal capacity to give consent to get married, by the laws of the state in which they resided.
I just want the gay adults to have the same freedoms that I have, as citizens of this great country.
If marriage is SO sacred, make divorce illegal.
…
As for a man loving a dog, A dog has no consent.
“When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” ~Epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich, 1988
I’m sure if homosexuality was a CHOICE, I’m pretty sure people would make the EASIER choice, which would be heterosexuality.
In comment #41, Nemesis stated, “I just want the gay adults to have the same freedoms that I have, as citizens of this great country.”
As citizens of this country they already do have the same freedoms. It seems to me that as gays, they want more rights than anyone else.
Since when does heterosexual marriage become a separation of church and state argument. That is rich!!! This is an old fall back position liberal activists use to try and get the Courts to intervene and rule by judicial fiat because they can’t get the popular vote to pass putting homosexual unions on the same pedestal with heterosexual marriage.
Marriage does not define one’s rights in society. Many states offer civil unions. Go live there. The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution confers states the abilities to make these types of decisions. Certain states who don’t agree with putting homosexual marriage on the same level as heterosexual marriage does not make them racist or homophobic…..it is simply just another “lifestyle preference” to use the favored term. Consenting adults can do what they want with other consenting adults; however, for the ‘moral’ majority as Nemisis put it to just cave in to homosexuals whose behavior they don’t agree with is patently ridiculous and undemocratic (with a small “d”).
The debate here is basically that heterosexuals should just cave in and go hide their beliefs in a cave. Labeling beliefs as unconstitutional, racist, homophobic will not go a very long way towards civil dialogue. Ooh and her supporters will spew vile remarks and those of us on the receiving end won’t embrace that kind of vitriol. Slavery, as Nemisis pointed out, was a moral choice as well. However, there were moral persons that were against slavery as well. Eventually, through education and debate that addressed economic, social and other elements reshaped the issue for the better.
Additionally, if we had listened to Democrats during the Civil War who wanted to sue the South for peace and to leave slavery intact to save the Union the result would have been slavery alive and well. If it were not for MORAL people, such as Abraham Lincoln, sticking to their guns and prosecuting the war the result would have been quite obvious and detrimental to the United States and all people of color. We see the supposed “moral” quandry in Iraq right now. The bottom line is that all of this talk is about moral choices. These choices are based on belief systems that have solidly held core truths that have benefited society when the rubber hits the road. To ask people to throw those beliefs out because it makes one look more tolerant and politically correct is basically itself intolerant and immoral. Ya’ll remember the saying, “If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.” Many of us choose to stand for what we believe is right. How can that be wrong? Is it realistic to demand one lay down their belief system in favor of political correctness? That seems to imply very powerful reminders of fascism.
Most excellent rebuttal Mike. Very well said!
Yes, Mike, you made a very good argument, as did 007, for your sides of the story.
When #43 said they want MORE rights, I’m now wondering…
What MORE rights are they asking for? They’re asking to get married, which the STATE regulates and licenses. Marriage is a right of heterosexual couples that is given by the state and denied to homosexual couples.
Or, let’s say they they don’t want to get married, only live together as many domestic partners now do as heterosexuals. In some states these couples have full rights to health insurance offered by the partner’s employment. But homosexual couples in these same domestic partnerships (in most states) do not have those same rights, unless the corporation has a specific policy.
So the rights I’m asking for, the rights I myself as a concerned MORAL citizen (much as others before and after me take up these MORAL causes) are the same as are offered to other adults in our society.
Maybe, as Mike was alluding to, some rights were given only after a painful battle because society was not yet ready to grant those rights (I made that argument myself) until many MORAL individuals stood up and said, “This is wrong to deny these people the same rights as the rest of us”.
It took long painful battles for many types of freedoms, and I believe this is no different.
Good people on BOTH sides of the issue have very strong and MORAL feelings about their position. Thanks for sharing yours.
If the objection to state-recognized gay civil unions isn’t based on religious beliefs, then please explain to me what it is based on. If it’s based on the fact that two people of the same sex can’t procreate, I’ve already pointed out that many gays & lesbians seem to be able to have children. Many more adopt children. Further, if that’s the objection to gay unions then explain to me why I should be allowed to marry my husband, since we decided not to have children or adopt kids to add to our family.
I’d still like for Mike to explain how supporting gay adoptions isn’t hampered by his rejection of gay unions.
I’d also like to know what “vile remarks” I’ve made to anyone here, Mike. I think I’ve been quite restrained in my distaste for your position.
I distaste your opinion too. Who cares if it is a religious based objection, personal preference, psychological or sociological objections to homosexuality. Ooh thinks it’s fine. Okay to think that. Just don’t expect the rest of us to come over to your “enlightened” and superior belief system anymore than we should expect that you should convert to our line of thinking. However, last time I checked majority rule meant something in this country….even if you don’t like it.
Gay adoptions and gay unions really have nothing to do with one another. Single people can adopt as well as married couples as well as homosexuals. The difference is that the adoption agencies and/or the parent(s) adopting out the child can (and do) use moral judgments when deciding if a particular living arrangement is what they are comfortable with. Unless the government gets in the adoption business and sanitizes those of us with opinions and beliefs that run opposite of Ooh then it is all perfectly legal and within their rights to reject or approve homosexuals to adopt or not adopt.
Majority rule doesn’t negate the rights of the minority. The majority in this country wanted racially segregated marriages, but it was still unconstitutional. Majority rule isn’t the safety net you want it to be, Mike.
A lot of people care if laws in this country are based on religious considerations. I know you’re educated enough to know about the Lemon test, Mike. Or are you one of those folks who want to do away with that, too?
BTW, the government is already in the adoption business. I still wonder why you support gay adoptions, but want to make it twice as difficult for a gay couple to adopt as compared to a married couple. I think you may not be as supportive as you claim.
Still looking for those “vile remarks”, kiddo? I’ll wait.
I agree that it doesn’t matter if it’s personal or religious, the majority of the people in this country have an aversion to gay marriage, or to gay people being given the same rights as heterosexual adults.
The majority held similar opinions about civil rights for black people, (and still do in many areas of our country).
…
The optimist in me sees our Constitution as a foundation that helps our federal government to override the tyranny of the majority, and protect the rights of the individual.
Just to inject another viewpoint into the mix: years ago, I helped a gay couple adopt a “special needs” child; his mom had basically dropped him off with a friend one day and disappeared. This couple had fostered the little boy for several months and they were business owners, stable relationship, great family for this little guy.
And I met so much resistance! I was truly mystified by the response: here was a chance for this boy to have a “family” that loved him and more importantly, wanted him. Yet some biases were very hard to overcome. Eventually, we were successful when it became clear to all the naysayers (the court, the social workers) that the other option was to place the boy permanently in foster care, waiting for an ‘older child, special needs’ adoptive placement that would most likely never materialize.
I hear from this family from time to time; they are doing great. Whatever my or anyone’s beliefs about homosexuality, I can tell you I knew I was doing the right thing for this boy.
A loving, supportive home and two supportive parents: what does it matter what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults?
Thanks for the civics lesson and the Lemon Law. I really must be a stupid redneck or something.
LOL….oh boy, tensions are high today on IFz!
Great comment by Mike in post #52. For once I agree with him.
LOL Carl!
California supreme court struck down their gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. They said: sexual orientation, like race or gender, “does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
Just those wacky liberal commie Californians, right? Wrong, 6 of the 7 justices are Republican appointees.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
As California goes, so goes America. How now, brown cows?
Speaking of gay marriage bans, since HJR2 was passed Idaho’s divorce rate must have dropped like a rock right? Traditional marriage was saved by HJR2 right?
States rights at work. What more could we hope for? Guns, God and Gays….what a great country we have.
I hope they take the same position with religious issues too. And why they are at it, protect the boy scouts from harm. Let them have their rights to not be inclusive and the gays can have their rights to have fun amongst themselves and have people leave them alone.
- Moderated (personal attacks) –
Writing about giving same sex union rights to gays, Mike says “To ask people to throw those beliefs out [Old testament sanctions on homosexuality?] because it makes one look more tolerant and politically correct is basically itself intolerant and immoral.” To that I must say — Who is more tolerant and moral — the person who denies rights to his fellow man because of his sexual orientation or the one who accepts him and defends his rights as a minority participant in society?
- Moderated (religious discussion, personal attacks) -
Meso, I truly have enjoyed your writings for the most part, and much of what you say in comment #59 is very valid. However, imo it then goes on to be a personal attack on Mike.
Lord knows Mike and I disagree as often as any of you here, but I think he has a valid right to believe the way he does. I will try to defend my opinion (that gay people in this country deserve to have every civil right that I have), but I will not put him down for his beliefs to the contrary. I will disagree and debate.
Mike is also (by far) NOT the only one in this thread of comments that appears to be anti-civil rights for homosexuals.
I used to say, “The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance” but that was (in a way), a wry attempt to point out that I think that all of us have our own prejudices even when we believe we do not.
It’s so easy to pass judgment on others, I also do it frequently. Yet I have my own flaws as well.
But for the most part your comment was very well said, I agree that it is very odd to see this (majority) Christian nation be so un-Christ-like in their aversion to homosexual adults.
Nemesis,
Mike may have a “valid right” to believe that gays should be denied their civil rights just as many of our grandfathers had the “valid right” to believe that blacks should be denied their rights. Apparently people like Mike feel that since heteros are the majority, we have the right to exclude those in the minority (gays) from enjoying the same rights legislated to us. John Stuart Mills and Thomas Jefferson warned us of the tyranny of the majority in a democracy, yet Mike and others on this thread seem only too willing to vote with the majority on issues like this. It makes me wonder how folks like Mike would feel if the shoe were on the other foot…suppose that gays were the majority segment of society and voted en masse to exclude heteros from participating equally. Would Mike still be on a soap box touting majority rights? I think not. He would jump on that same soap box and protest loudly that his civil rights were being trampled…and rightly so.
The only time we have a “valid right” to remove one’s civil rights in this country is when they have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison. Last I heard, homosexuality was not a crime. Sure, Mike and his ilk have a valid right to think anyway they want but they damn well don’t have a valid right to impose their religious biases on the rest of society and if it takes the California Supreme Court justices to remedy those inequities, then so be it.
I’m just lovin’ my state, right now…
California rocks!
Meso, it apparently is a religious belief that homosexual behavior is immoral and deviant and heinous. In fact, just as with interracial relationships, homosexual behavior used to be illegal in many states.
I disagree with that belief, I believe there is nothing wrong with this behavior between consenting adults. I disagree that it is immoral or deviant or heinous.
But how do we tell someone that their religious belief is wrong? I can’t go there, even if I disagree with it. People have the right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish.
I can only try to argue that while they have the right to believe the way they want to, they do not have the right to inject their religious beliefs into the government in an effort to override the constitutional rights of others. You have it correct there, imo.
Nemesis,
It appears that you are being way too respectful of a person’s religious beliefs in these matters. I suspect that if homespun Christian Taliban moralists attempted to pass legislation in this country to mandate the wearing or burkas or similar attire on the female citizenry, you would not be so complacent. Certainly the stoning of recalcitrant children or adulterers as directed by the Old Testament would elicit further disapproval from you. So why then are you so reticent to oppose those who, on the basis of their religious beliefs, would deny rights to a significant portion of the population?
Don’t be a fence sitter here, Nemesis. Certainly each citizen of this nation can believe whatever they want regarding the belief in a supernatural being but those beliefs cannot and must not be used as a weapon to exclude, from equal participation, any segment of society that believes otherwise. If that means you have to express disfavor with the religious beliefs that fuel their rants, then by all means do so but do so without regret. Your right not to believe is just as important as their right to believe.
Meso, you are a very eloquent speaker! And I don’t sit on the fence when it comes to religious beliefs…I am an avowed atheist. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever. I am also a cynic, and I don’t believe in the essential goodness of humanity, so folks who want to attack me for my beliefs can’t rightfully call me one of those “secular humanists”…
But I do believe in people’s rights to have their own religious beliefs. I feel I should respect their right to believe, just as I feel they should respect my right not to believe.
I also said I don’t think they should use their religious beliefs to deny another their constitutional rights, no matter that they are in the majority. The Constitution was set up to avoid that very issue, with our Bill of Rights.
This particular issue, to me, is a constitutional right that is being denied to a segment of the population due to other people’s fears and religious beliefs. I think the denial of constitutional rights is wrong, no matter why it’s being done.
So I will argue this issue on the basis of supporting the constitution. I will not tell them that their beliefs are wrong. I happen to know some good people who, to my sorrow, truly believe homosexuality is a sin. I wish I could convince them otherwise, but since it’s not my place to denigrate their religious beliefs, I can only hope to win them over with patriotism!
Thanks for the discussion.
“It appears that you are being way too respectful of a person’s religious beliefs in these matters.”
Yeah, I can see the tolerance overflowing with Mr. Meso. Practice what you preach-pure and simple. Or do you enjoy discriminating against people with religious beliefs. People can do what they like so long as they aren’t hurting anyone….but it doesn’t equate the public monies, facilities or institutions have to bend over backwards to accomodate objectionable beliefs. If the Boy Scouts can be denied access to public buildings and public recognition and standing by government, then government should take the same approach for homosexuals as well. Fair is fair….or shall we be more ‘fair’ to those whose political agendas we agree with?
I have received several complaints about the personal attacks from post #59 and #61.
I supports freedom of speech and on a forum where topics hit close to home, tempers are likely to flair up and complaints are going to come in. However, as much as possible lets try to keep the discussions on the issues, and not target out individuals. It will make for a better community for us all.
I agree part of post #59 was an obvious targeted personal attack on another user. Post #61 has some good points and could be viewed by some as a personal attack, but I’m going to err on the side of free speech.
People are obviously passionate about the topic. I think a good, healthy, passionate debate can be a good thing, so please feel free to join in with your thoughts.
Nemesis said – Comment #60
“But for the most part your comment was very well said, I agree that it is very odd to see this (majority) Christian nation be so un-Christ-like in their aversion to homosexual adults.”
My only comment is that I’m pretty sure that Christ was clear that homosexual marriage is forbidden. If anything, the Christian nation is just supporting its own belief system.
MarketingMomma,
Where in the scriptures did Christ say anything pertaining to homosexuals? The only belief system a Christian nation might possibly use to support the persecutions of gays would be in the Old Testament. Are you suggesting that this nation follow those scriptures (OT) for it’s moral guidelines?
This seems to be turning into a religious discussion…..aren’t those forbidden here?
And how will anyone really be able to argue “faith” or “beliefs”? By their nature, these can’t be argued for or against. They simply are or are not part of one’s belief system.
It does seem to be walking a very tight line here. We’ll have to leave this one up to Joe E. to see what he thinks….perhaps he’s easing up on this type of discussion some.
If you can come up with a non-religious reason to ban same-sex unions, I’d love to see it. I’ve been asking around for a long time, but no one has ever been able to present one.
If people bring their faith & belief into governmental affairs, then it’s fair game to ask for evidence. If they want to keep it at home where it belongs, I really don’t care what they believe.
non religious? evolution and perpetuation of the species (the underlying, scientific reason for sexual relations); not possible with homosexual “coupling”.
I was unaware homosexuals were unable to have children. Somebody oughta tell that to the many children born to gays today!
ha ha How did I know “ooh child” would immediately jump on the defensive???
“ooh child” you asked for a reason; I gave one: homosexual couples cannot produce a child through sexual relations.
I am not saying I agree with any of the opinions; I am not saying gay people shouldn’t have children with the aid of sperm or egg donors or adoption;
I am simply saying that biologically, two men cannot produce a child. Neither can two woman. Still takes a sperm and an egg.
Why is that a *reason* to ban same-sex unions?
Should we ban unions between infertile individuals; or people past child-bearing age?
How about someone like me, who decided not to have children? Should my marriage be invalidated by the government?
The point is, it’s not NATRUAL oohchild. plain and simple.
What’s not natural, CR67? Homosexual sex? It occurs in nature, so what’s your definition of “natural”?
Or do you mean it’s not natural for two women or two men to have babies? Ever heard of artificial insemination? Should that be banned since it’s “not natural”?
Like I said, there’s no non-religious reason to ban same sex unions. This is an example of the “reason” not being applied to the general population, only a select few. Otherwise, there would be other groups that the ban would cover.
“Just because it’s icky to see two guys kissing” isn’t a reason, either.
Like I said…..it’s not natural. (and last I checked, we’re not animals in the wild outdoors) In nature it only happens in a couple of instances of which their are extinuating circumstances in regards to the reproduction of that species. There is no “artificial insemenation” in nature, so that arguement isn’t even valid in this converstation. That fact is, without AI gay couples can’t reproduce and no matter how you want to twist it around to make yourself feel better, and give everyone “equal opportunities”, we weren’t meant to have same sex partners.
So like other posts, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Hey CR67,
Last I checked, we are still animals on this planet…the most highly evolved, yes, but still just part of the fauna that populates this globe.
Our nearest relative in the animal kingdom, the Bonobo chimps of Zaire, Africa have extensive same sex relationships. I could list a myriad of similar traits in other species but, with you, I have a feeling they would fall on deaf ears.
Oh boy! Here we go with neverending debate of eviloution.
CR67, as meso pointed out there’s a lot more than just a couple of instances of homosexual sex in nature. Bonobos, penguins, dolphins, bison, and almost 500 other species practice some form of homosexual sex. You’re argument doesn’t hold water, dear.
Artificial insemination is one way gay folks can get pregnant, but it’s not the only way. I wasn’t even suggesting AI was used in the wild, but I can understand your confusion based on your weak argument here. Try to keep up, okay?
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you are routinely condescending?
BTW, your attempt to use the little smiley face on your post above reeks of trying to put a happy face on a put down–but that’s just my opinion–trying to ‘keep up with the Jones’.
I guess it all depends on if you believe the whole ape into man thing. (which I don’t) But I can appreciate your argument.
ditto to #83………..especially about the smileys…..arrrgghhhh
CR67,
It appears from many of your previous posts that you don’t always agree with the scientific explanations of the universe we inhabit (global warming, etc.). I remember most your remark about South America and Africa splitting apart during the early cretaceous period and to the buzz around the campfires that that event would have elicited from the folks in attendance. I recall getting a good chuckle from that. So it comes as no surprise to me that you (in your post #85) don’t believe in evolution or that you (post #79) contend, “it’s not natural” when referring to same sex attraction in nature.
Pray tell, CR67, where exactly did you get your scientific knowledge…or can one infer that this is an innate ability of yours to understand the nature of things by your own deductive reasoning powers? As I recall you mentioned that you had attended college. Where might that have been…Kansas? Just curious…
Best regards,
— Meso –
You’re absolutely right Meso, although there’s no reason for the snarky condesending comments.
But it must be my innate ability to understand the nature of things by my own deductive reasoning powers! Excuse me if I don’t think a guy should be sticking his ya ya into another mans dumper. If you think that’s “natural”, than hey, whatever works for ya! You can keep twisting this topic around to suit your own perverted tastes and/or lifestyle, but you won’t sway my mind with no amount of “scientific mumbo jumbo”, because in all reality, you’ll find scientific reasonings go both ways on the topic. Just like with over-hyped “great global warming swindle”.
I guess my reasoning must be skewed since I for one don’t think of people being just another “animal” on this planet.
But you keep up the good fight though!
First to Babs & Bundy (& CR67) – I have to spread a little snark when someone claims (incorrectly) that there’s only a couple of instances of homosexual behaviour in nature or AI is the only way gay couples can reproduce. I can’t help it if someone doesn’t know the answers, but if they give the wrong ones I’m going to point it out. I’m sorry if my response came off wrong to you, but I think a little snark now & then blows off steam.
Second I’d like to thank CR67 for confirming my suspicion that the only reason you are grasping for weak reasons to oppose same-sex unions is the “ick” factor. Guys kissing & making love grosses you out. You’re not even mentioning one-half of all the couples who are affected by the gay marriage ban. You’re only focusing one area of gay love. There’s so many other physical aspects to it.
Oh, and the scientific mumbo-jumbo line is classic. Are you related to Kent Hovind?
Here you go….
I don’t mind a little snark now and then.
I can appreciate your animal planet views on gay relationships. But you mentioned there being other ways gay couples can reproduce besides artifical insemination. Would you mind mentioning those to the class?
thanks so much!
Well, plenty of gays have children the old fashioned way, before they “come out of the closet.” Others are actually bisexual, but are committed to a same sex partner. I’ve also heard of couples “pairing up” to procreate, gays & lesbians who feel more comfortable knowing the donors involved. Some don’t bother with the turkey baster method.
so then it is not really procreation between homosexuals at all, is it???
“) ,
Re Comment 79, “same sex coupling is common in hundreds of species.”
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html
CR67, stop making facts up as you go! If you make them up, they just don’t count as facts! You are undermining your own arguments!
I agree with CR67.
Crystal, you’re more than welcome to classify yourself as an “animal”, just don’t classify me as one.
Thanks
CR67,
Then what else are we?
The word animal has as it’s root the Latin, Anima,
anima-, anim- (Latin: animal life; breath; soul; mind).
Anima- is “a living being” from a Latin form meaning, “of air, having a spirit, living”, which in turn comes from another form meaning, “breath of air, air, soul, life”.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1an·i·malUN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
Pronunciation: \?a-n?-m?l\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from animale, neuter of animalis animate, from anima soul — more at animate
Date: 14th century
1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
2 a: one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings b: mammal; broadly : vertebrate
3: a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational; also : this nature
4: a person with a particular interest or aptitude
5: matter, thing ; also : creature 1c
— an·i·mal·like \-m?(l)-?l?k\ adjective
this is getting ridiculous. can we please get back on topic?
Here is a link to sites of gay conservatives and libertarians. I looked it up because it seems like folks here keep using the terms Gay and Conservative as if one necessarily precludes the other.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27333.html
Let’s just ban marriage.
Imagine, a world without Divorce Attorneys.
Eventually the ick factor makes this argument so difficult to have. My buddy CR67 said it all in #88. It’s just too much for him to try to accept.
Others have religious issues, mostly old testament stuff, that combined with the ick factor, keeps them far away from acceptance, too.
It won’t change in our lifetimes. Civil rights for all adults will be a fight that goes on long after me and my husband are gone.
But maybe, within the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, it will get easier for those whose rights we are fighting for.
I can’t help but think that thinking about other peoples consensual sexual behavior is ickier than whatever their behavior is. Why would you spend time thinking about other peoples sexual activity? ICK!
We should be far more concerned about over-population, which heterosexuals are notorious for.
Crystal, sometimes you are a hoot! #102…hey, men are the ones who make the pornography trade such a profitable enterprise in the first place. I’d be surprised if there were very many of them who DON’T spend most of their time thinking about/watching other people having sex! (I know, I know, there are exceptions to every rule…)
and in #103, you are spot-on with that one!
I’m always amused when I hear people say the world is overpopulated. (especially coming from crystal whos always so concerned about eveyone elses “facts”)
thanks for the laugh!
I have to agree with House on this one! And before Crystal goes on a cut n paste field day….please read this link. http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml
Enjoy!
Hey, CR67, that link was fabulous, and I think I’m crazy about Jeff Lindsay, already!
Love that sense of humor he has…
ditto to 105 and 106…..
please, Crystal, no more “definitions” for us!!!!!!!!! we don’t need them and they just make you look silly…..IMHO
Here is an interesting link to a lengthy discussion on whether or not homosexuality is inherently destructive:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/333125-homosexuality-inherently-destructive.html
Anyone interested in debating the issue here will find this forum stimulating as well.
Over 400 posts in that thread since 5/19!
Interesting link/discussion. However, alcoholism is something we could define as “inherently destructive”, yet we let alcoholics have civil rights in this country.
We don’t debate whether we should not give the right to get married to people who have “inherently destructive” descriptions, unless they are homosexual.
But it is an interesting link. Thanks for the heads up!
You are so right Nemesis!
How would you describe the nature of the debate there, in terms of exchange of ideas and how the forum is moderated?
Nice to know that we have double standards on posting. The exact same language in HJR Posts #59 and #61 was used in the How to Improve Idfallz.com. Meso’s use of ‘ilk’ was what Meso Jr. used before Joe Eagle censored it. Joe left Meso’s ‘ilk’ comment up and cut the other one down.
If you are for free speech then be for free speech at all time, not just when it is politically expedient. If one decides to censor one and not the other there will be more defections from this site than just Meso, Babs, and myself. IMO, there has to be a clear and convincing reason to censor someone. I didn’t agree with Meso’s attack(s) on me and I told Joe that I didn’t appreciate it one bit.
We can all grow a thick skin, but it won’t do us any good if we can’t get support for name calling and personal attacks ALL THE TIME. If it becomes situational then this site will degenerate into personal attacks on posters vs. debating the ideas. We all fall into that category at times and need to be encouraged and guided back to the topic of the thread. This is where moderators and other posters come in…..but decisions on baiting, attacking, etc…has to be consistently made by Mr. Eagle. Otherwise, no one is going to want to post here.
I can disagree with Meso without calling him ilk….while I wish he could have done the same, it is important to note that he feels as strongly as I do. His/her views are just as important to be aired. However, the personal attacks needed to be taken out. If we can’t accept that then we can and should get out go back to reading books full time.
I agree with you.
“If you are for free speech then be for free speech at all time, not just when it is politically expedient. If one decides to censor one and not the other there will be more defections from this site than just Meso, Babs, and myself. IMO, there has to be a clear and convincing reason to censor someone”
well said, Mike. I agree, it should be up to Joe and Joe alone; I realize that is a burden but that is the only way to avoid outright censorship, which no thinking people want on a “discussion” site….
Thank you Mike, #114, for a well-written, thought-out comment. These are the ones that are a joy to read and discuss.
I had no idea that “ilk” had such a negative connotation.
I don’t even know what “ilk” means. I thought it was a typo.
It seems to me this same issue keeps popping up in every topic. Whats up with that? Can we keep this issue confined to the “how would you change IFz.com” post instead of bits and pieces of it apprearing in every post? It’s getting hard to follow.
What gets me is the posters that are the most outspoken and the ones who “stand up to the establishment the most,” where the ones who left. And they weren’t even the ones who’s comments were edited. Am I the only one that doesn’t understand that one?
Where is Crystal when you need a good cut n’paste dictionary definition of ‘ilk’? I am too lazy to google it…………
I concur. Seems she’s our newly appointed “resident cut n paster/definition getter”.
Noun
S: (n) like, ilk (a kind of person) “We’ll not see his like again”; “I can’t tolerate people of his ilk”
ilk 1 (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can’t trust people of that ilk.
pron. Scots
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.
——————————————————————————–
[Middle English ilke, same, from Old English ilca; see i- in Indo-European roots.]
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, “kind or sort,” is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning “of the same place, territorial designation, or name.” This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning “Guthrie of Guthrie.” “Same” is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.
Thesaurus: ilk
noun
A class that is defined by the common attribute or attributes possessed by all its members: breed, cast, description, feather, kind2, lot, manner, mold, nature, order, sort, species, stamp, stripe, type, variety. Informal persuasion. See group.
Open letter to Mike,
Mike, I apologize, I thought you were a bit too thick skinned to be so sensitive to my rebuttal of your position on homosexuality. It was sophomoric of me to compare your beliefs to those of skin heads from Northern Idaho and if the word “ilk” is troublesome to you, please replace it with “sort” or “kind”. I singled you out for criticism simply because yours was the best articulated (although skewed) argument against equal rights for gays.
One troubling aspect of your argument was when you said, “Many of us choose to stand for what we believe is right. How can that be wrong? Is it realistic to demand one lay down their belief system in favor of political correctness? That seems to imply very powerful reminders of fascism.”
Political correctness in fascist, Nazi Germany meant persecuting Jews, homosexuals and a whole litany of “undesirables”. Political correctness in this country means acceptance of those minorities and their inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If your choices are based on “belief systems that have solidly held core truths that have benefited society when the rubber hits the road”…then it seems to this observer that you are the one who is accepting political correctness…the political correctness of Nazi Germany. Remember, many in fascist, Nazi Germany were also standing for what they believed was right and that meant singling out Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and other minorities for unspeakable atrocities. You said, “If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.” What exactly do you stand for Mike…if not the equal rights of all American citizens…then what?
Mike, please don’t construe this as a personal attack. I am not baiting, I am not taking pot shots…I just want to understand your justification for and your reasoning behind the authorship of your posts on this thread.
Best regards,
Meso
Well said.
I love apologies.
The Mormon Church is once again meddling in California politics.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_re_us/mormons_gay_marriage
It makes one wonder how they maintain a tax exempt status..
I was wondering the same thing, Meso.
Thanks for the link Meso! (and this is why we have “seperation of church & state)
Ah, I didn’t go to the link because I didn’t want to be mad. Dang it.
On the one hand, I support religion’s right to preach against something, but on the other hand, when it uses organized time and money it becomes a political action committee, not a faith.
If we all believed the same way it would be so simple. Since we don’t, we need to keep that separation line very strong and supported.
According to the IRS, churches may not endorse or oppose specific candidates, but they may work for or against legislation, as long as they do not devote a substantial part of their activities to those efforts.
The Mormon church lost me the day a member of the bishopric came to my house with political brochures to urge me and my family to vote to ban gay marriage in 2000.
I understand the IRS interpretation, but still think it is a violation of honor, if not tax code, and having been raised with the teachings of Jesus Christ, I don’t think there is anything Christ-like about banning gay marriage or preaching the evils of homosexuality.
A very lucid, concise few paragraphs, Crystal. I may start liking you again with comments like those. A nice concise piece of writing, indeed, young lady.
And they say I ran you off!
She still has a hard time READING though. Look at his second sentence, “I may start liking you AGAIN”.
(So I wouldn’t press my luck if I were you with the snarky comments)
I do agree with Meso in that its nice to see an intelligent comment from you that’s not a prepared statement from a search engine or a link. Keep up the good work!
Is that supposed to not be rude?
I took comment #134 to be be said with a smile, and a chuckle, nothing more. Certainly wasn’t worth any further discussion. Gee whiz.
I’m in my 60’s, and grew up in a time where, here in Idaho Falls, a hetero couple holding hands was viewed with some distaste because it wasn’t properly modest. Later, kissing a spouse or girlfriend in public was viewed the same way… I got a lot of dirty looks when I reached out of the bus and kissed my girlfriend as I left for the Navy.
Only the degree of things changes; I watched a lady very impolitely gape for a very long time at a hetero couple who walked in to a local gas and go store… they were both dressed pretty outrageously, and the gal gave her guy a big long smooch, accompanied with a little butt-pat, before she went one way and he the other to pick up some stuff. From the woman at the counter’s expression, you would have thought they engaged in the down and dirty right on the spot.
I have some gay friends, male and female. All are Idahoans, and most still live here. None ever act ‘out’ in public, not because they are ashamed, but because they were raised to be modest and proper, especially in public.
This state is old-fashioned to be sure. But I have yet to see anything about allowing gays to marry that could be harmful to hetero marriage, even though the right loves to say otherwise. For once, I would like to see a little bit of proof to those claims. As far as I see it, any committed relationship between two people is good, and all folks should be allowed to enjoy the many benefits of legal marriage.
I may not be comfortable with the thought of gays raising kids, but so what? What they do, and what their aspirations may be are no business of mine, and I feel no need to be the ‘decider’… we all know how that worked out. Chances are a gay couple raising kids couldn’t be any better or worse than hetero couples- we are all human, and that’s the core of it. Live and let live.
Boomer, those are awesome and refreshing comments. Thank you!
Word Perfect co-founder and former Mormon donates $1M to defeat California’s Prop 8.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10489514
“It makes me wonder how folks like Mike would feel if the shoe were on the other foot…suppose that gays were the majority segment of society and voted en masse to exclude heteros from participating equally. Would Mike still be on a soap box touting majority rights?
LOL, what were you smoking back in May of 2008? If gays were the majority, I think we would have more to worry about than our civil rights…we’d be on the path toward extinction! Some of you people confuse the hell out of me.
LOL good point Marcus
What part of subjunctive phrasing don’t you two clowns understand?
Marcus,
I would wager that you are confused most of the time.
haha! cr ….lets see you juggle some flaming sticks while riding a unicycle.
BLT – Thank you for enlightening me!
I’m still waiting for the flaming sticks and the unicycle…and while you’re at it, make this snow stop! lol
To be honest…right now…if the majority of us were gay, I think it would take a long time to reach a point of extinction…And there is, after all, the biological imperative.
It would probably mostly just create a high market for adoption and people being paid to have children, and invitro fertilization, etc…
Hmmmmm…I think it would work out just fine, actually
Ladies & Gentleman….step right up and witness the greatest show on earth!! (cue clown music)
I’m personally terrified of gay marriage. I mean, if gay people get married, that means I can’t be married anymore! Whatever shall we do.
I don’t know anybody that believes that. Trying to figure out what group you’re making fun of Jeremy.
The concept of “protecting traditional marriage.” You’re awfully aggressive lately, Marcus. Not sleeping well?
You could say that.
I still don’t know anybody that believes that. Surely they must be out there if you’re bitching about them.
It appears that Iowa (I think it was Iowa) has now legalized gay marriage.
Did the LDS church try to fight the passage there like they did California?
There wasn’t anything to fight with this decision, Alice. Their Supreme Court ruled the law passed to discriminate against gays was unconstitutional.
Now, the folks of Iowa can try to change their constitution just like we did here in Calfiornia. But from what I understand, it’s much more difficult to amend the Iowa constitution than it is to change California’s. So, I don’t see this ruling being overturned anytime soon. Go Iowa!
My personal feeling is it’s way too easy to get propositions on the ballot in my state. Our system needs updating.