When Paul Day returned home to see “die fag” spray-painted on the steps of his smoldering mobile home, he was frightened, but not shocked. Day and his boyfriend had been harassed before, and their hometown of Lakeland in Florida’s Polk County also boasts the First Baptist Church at the Mall, whose head pastor is spearheading the drive for a constitutional… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (32)Page 1 of 1 pagesLet’s quit calling these anti-gay activist religious conservatives and describe them for what they really are: NAZIS. The Nazis targeted gays, as well as communists, Jews, and other groups they did not approve of. I doubt these intolerant fools have different feelings than the Nazis about the aforementioned groups.
It is one thing to personally oppose homosexuality, but it is another to bring that prejudice into the public and manifest it into overt discrimination. People like Rhonda Storms fear what they do not understand, and instead of attempting to educate herself and her child (God! Now there’s a thought!) about different people, she chooses to use HER bully pulpit to to push the GLBT community into the fringes of society and reinforce the cycle of ignorance and hate that encompasses so much of the Midwest and South.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 30, 2005 at 10:30 AM Liberal Posted:
“People like Rhonda Storms fear what they do not understand, and instead of attempting to educate herself and her child (God! Now there’s a thought!) about different people,........”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly! And how in the hell do we convince these incredibly frightened people to let go of their fears and actively try to learn about life around them as it IS, instead of how they want their tiny, limited personal worlds to be?Along with their overwhelming fear comes a very strong and rigid denial system that is hard to break down. I would give anything to be able to understand how to cut through that terror that binds them to reach them and pull them out.
Posted by auntikrist on Aug 30, 2005 at 3:16 PM This is Lefty. For the last two weeks I haven’t been able to post under that name. I kept getting redirected to a page that said the site was under repair and would be back up in 15 minutes, or words to that effect. So, I re-registered as Leftist. If ITT doesn’t want my comments on this forum, they should grow a pair of testicles and send me an email. Until then, I’ll proceed under the presumption that it’s a technical defect they haven’t corrected.
In the mean time, the only thing worse than a muslim extremist is a christian extremist. IMO, christianity is a disease state, a mental disorder, a cancer on humanity. And G.W. Bush is a malignant tumor who needs to be chemically disintigrated.
Posted by Leftist on Aug 30, 2005 at 3:25 PM I agree wholeheartedly with the basic position that people in influential positions,such as clergy or educators,should not try to use their office(or pulpit)to incite actions against people with opposing opinions.Having said that,I also agree wholeheartedly with Rhonda Storms when she asserts that children that have not yet reached the age of reason should not have to contemplate issues that,as of yet,have no bearing on their young lives.In effect,it also throws a sucker punch at the parents of these innocents by making them deal with complex issues well before their young ones are ready for it.I would also like to suggest that gay rights activists and zealots should back off when their issues cross paths with childrens issues.Decent people,whether they be hetero or gay will not long tolerate using young kids as a political football,to say the least.
Posted by Dr.D on Aug 30, 2005 at 4:59 PM My favorite scripture is “Whatsoever you sow, so shall ye reap.” We can all rest assured that the next hurricane God send through that part of the world will flatten the first baptist church of the mall and leave hundreds of thousands of homophobes homeless. Vengence truly is the Lord’s.
Posted by Billtalk314 on Aug 30, 2005 at 5:25 PM “My favorite scripture is “Whatsoever you sow, so shall ye reap.” We can all rest assured that the next hurricane God send through that part of the world will flatten the first baptist church of the mall and leave hundreds of thousands of homophobes homeless. Vengence truly is the Lord’s.”
Posted by Billtalk314 on August 30, 2005 at 6:25 PM
Really? Then why aren’t the entire Bush crime family in jail?
Posted by Leftist on Aug 30, 2005 at 8:47 PM ‘“I do not want to have to explain to my [6-year-old] daughter what it means to be questioning one’s sexuality … or what a transgender person is, or what a bisexual is or what a gay or lesbian is,” said Storms.’
Try this, Commissioner Storms: When your daughter asks questions about being gay/lesbian/etc out of her God-blessed capacity for curiosity, phrase your answer in terms of love, rather than sex. Don’t say, “men who have sex with men” or “women who have sex with women”, say “men who love men”, etc. This will spare you the discomfiture of having to discuss the realities of sex before your daughter is intellectually and emotionally ready to understand.
And after all, much of this is not so much about who one fucks, but who one loves. If it was all about coitus, or promiscuity, making an example of oneself, etc, better look to the heteros as much or more than the homos.
But having said that, if your daughter isn’t ready yet for such conversations, rest assured she will be very soon, whether you’re ready for it or not. And she’ll have plenty of questions about the way real life is, including the demonstrable fact that, yes, some men do indeed fall in love with and/or feel sexually attracted to other men. Add in the “LBT” along with the “G” as well. All of them are real parts of the real world, observable by the simple gesture of opening one’s eyes.
Neither my ideology nor yours changes this.
It may be that our daughters (and sons) will be ready to question those features of life before we’re ready to come to grips with them. My advice? We (as well as the Commissioner) better get ready to discuss them, and fast. Hopefully those discussions needn’t include hateful diatribes against those who love in ways your ideology frowns upon.
...............
And I also can’t hold back my usual comment about the appalling effort to actually amend the Constitution in order to define marriage! I tear my hair out! There’s a reason why the Constitution was made difficult to amend; so as to discourage and hopefully prevent the re-shaping of the Law of the Land so as to fit a popular prejudice or spurious, emotion-laden cause. It’s an insane effort, smacking of majoritarian tyranny and aggressive, hidebound religious-exclusivist ethics. Judeo-Christians did not invent marriage, they do not own any historical rights to dictate its form, they should be prevented with all energy from amending the Constitution and thereby seizing the fundamental law in order to shape it according to their angry, offendable worldview.I’ll likely be tagged as anti-Christian by saying that, it’s happened before on this site when I’ve gone off on this issue, but it just ain’t true. What I am against, though, is any subculture’s ability to enshrine their ways in the form of Constitutional law. Whether they’re the majority or not (and I’m far from convinced that the majority of Americans want an anti-gay marriage amendment… though even if they did want it, they shouldn’t be allowed to get it), it can’t be just for a majority group to bully a minority group regardless of cultural orientation or the emotionality of the subject being fought over. Regardless as well of scriptural citations in support of the bullying.
Bad enough all the “protection of marriage” laws at the state level (all that really needs “protecting” is someone’s preconceived notion of how the world should have been made, seems to me); the concept of doing the same sort of thing at the level of the Constitution is horrifying. I wish it horrified more Americans!
Posted by Kuya on Aug 31, 2005 at 12:48 AM By the way, what if the law reflected my own values? Answer: you’d be able to marry whoever you want, presuming they’re a consenting adult. When the “marriage protection” value holds sway? Answer: some are prohibited from marrying who they want. Permission v. restriction. Simple dichotomy, just plain true.
Posted by Kuya on Aug 31, 2005 at 12:54 AM In the mean time, the only thing worse than a muslim extremist is a christian extremist. IMO, christianity is a disease state, a mental disorder, a cancer on humanity. And G.W. Bush is a malignant tumor who needs to be chemically disintigrated.
Posted by Leftist
Dude, it’s maybe no wonder that they’ve been less than keen to have you post (no offence)… though I agree with you that, if that is the casem they should have the stones to tell you, or better to suggest you tone down a bit.
Have to say I disagree with what you say (in the literal sense, of course...) but I appreciate and empathise with your frustration. I’m from Northern Ireland, and I’ve grown up in bigotry. Thankfully my country isn’t powerful enough (oreven close) to impose its tinpot barbarism on anyone else.
Back to the topic ...
What this Storm woman says is ridiculous. Firstly trying to Shield her child from the realities of the world, whether she likes it or not, will not prepare her for anything. I’m not saying she should be forcing things down her daughter’s throat, but just as bad is cotton-wool wrapping.
Also, I doubt very much if she objects to her daughter being exposed to heterosexuality, in terms of love or a basic level of physical intimacy (kissing, holding hands etc). The fact is when she says:
“I don’t want to explain to my daughter what it means to be questioning one’s sexuality… or what a gay or lesbian is.”
she is painting heterosexuality as the default (and correct) sexuality, and others as unnatural and subversive.
This is just plain bigotry.
It also displays an alarming (though very common) ignorance as to what sexuality is - rather than a series of common umbrella definitions, sexuality is a thing unique to an individual. It’s also a fluid concept within itself, determined by a complicated blend of genetic predisposition and life experiences.
Maybe I’ll just stop here, it’s a long post as it is. I’ll leave the discussions on sexual individualism (as opposed to the “umbrella” batching - and the intolerance thus created) and what determines who a person finds attractive (including the fact that attraction is a compulsion - ie not a choice) for a more relevant time.
Posted by freebird on Aug 31, 2005 at 5:43 AM Some questions:
Should polygamy (and polyandy) be allowed between consenting adults?
How about generalized “group marriages”?
How about prostitution, again between consenting adults?
What personal standards does the state have a legitimate stake in? Should the state even involve itself in an institution like marriage (in any of its forms)? Should the state give tax benefits to married couples? Parents with children?
Why should we even consider such questions? My reason is to clarify the *desired* role of the state in such personal relationships.
One might imagine that the reason the state ever got involved in marriage was to encourage the “growing” of the next generation. Thus stable man/woman relationships that would typically produce children were singled out for benefits. More benefits were granted when children were actually produced. Perhaps the time for this particular social engineering is over (do we really want to encourage people to have kids?)? Or perhaps not. . .
Posted by wolf on Aug 31, 2005 at 8:20 AM Wolf, gay marriage is the sanctification of a loving relationship between TWO people, not three or four, or two dozen. Legalizing it does not open a can of worms that leads to the legalization of all sorts of bizarre personal relationships. Loving another of the same sex is not a choice that is made, it is an incontrovertible, permanent physiological condition that is entirely different than the CHOICES of polygamy. One is not born a polygamist, but one is born homosexual. Can you not see the difference?
Finally, if the purpose of marriage is to raise children to be good stewards of civilization, what precludes gay people from doing that? Lesbian couples can get invitro fertilization and have children. Gay men can adopt unwanted children who otherwise would have a horrible life. The child does not have to be theirs biologically for the couple to be good and loving parents. You see, gay couples can raise families just as well as anyone else, and allowing them the same benefits as heterosexual couples does not mean less of them will get married. Why would legalized same sex marriage discourage marriage among heterosexual couples? It wouldn’t. No problem then.
Posted by Liberal on Aug 31, 2005 at 1:01 PM Liberal - personally i think we are all born polygamous, whether we are born gay or straight. But the issue is MUCH more than that. It is whether the state should involve itself in such personal matters, and, if so, for what purposes and reasons.
Furthermore it seems extremely likely that sexual orientation is a combination of both nature and nuture. Why this matters to anyone, i really don’t know. People are often born defective with any number of diseases (and no, i am not saying that “gayness” is a disease, only that being “born gay” does not logically preclude it from being a disease anymore than “choosing to be gay” makes it a disease).
Why can’t i love two women? Or a woman and man? Or who/whatever i choose. . .? What is the states interests in these matters?
Posted by wolf on Aug 31, 2005 at 1:42 PM wolf re your questions.
Some of the issues you raise I believe are down to convention.
You ask yourself whether the state should involve iself in marriage. If it doesn’t then marriage becomes, in many senses, meaningless. It would be purely ornamental. From a legal point of view, matrimony binds two people together legally (and financially), the philospohy behind which is that it is a legal recognition fo binds that are already there - ie two people whose lives are inseparable. Most people get married because it is a commitment, in a very real sense. The symbolism is very important too, but (ironically) this is lent much weight by the legalities involved.
As to whether they (couples) should get tax breaks… different question. Though I support the gains they get in terms of inheritance and such.
When it comes to getting tax breaks because you’ve got children, this is because children are expensive - and should be well looked after. Everyone deserves a fair start (and also middle and end) in life.
In practice this is not the case, of course. But this is a different issue, removed from the philosophical questions you are asking.
A slight aside - I believe prostitution should be legal, licensed, and looked after. Personally I find the whole thing a bit creepy, but I’m not sure I find it particularly immoral, ultimately. Also, (and this is a very spurious argument I know, as it can be applied to any illegal activity) it will happen anyway, so why not protect those who may be vulnerable involved with it.
As for your last point about social engineering… I talked in my last post aboutthe “default” nature that is prevalent in society vis a vis heterosexuality. Any way you look at it rewarding couples who are opposite gender and no others is just pandering to this - so I disagree with it. The motivation ("growing" a further generation) is unimportant for many reasons - I’ll just state the obvious practical one, that those numbers will take care of themselves.
Also when you say you think everyone is born polygamous… what exactly do you mean by this? If you mean that everyone has urges whereby they need to not limit themselves to one partner? If so I agree, but only to a point. This doesn’t allow for the fact that many people can, and do, disregard/no longer feel the need for other partners when they meet, for want of a better expression, “that special someone” (perhaps more accurately, a special someone). Not everyone is itching to break away from a relationship that they’ve been in for more than a few minutes/months/years.
With regards to many-person “marriages”, or whatever they would be called - that’d take another post as long as this. Given I’ve only skirted over the issue I’ve addressed so far I think it’d be better to cut and run. This is a forum, not my podium.
Posted by freebird on Aug 31, 2005 at 3:05 PM Hello wolf,
In response to your questions, I would like to see the law begin to expand to accommodate non-"traditional" relationships, for want of a better term. The state’s interest in regulating marriage (and promoting one certain form of it) should at the very least be called into sincere question at this point in history, because people whose lives and values don’t fit that “one certain form” are increasingly demanding that the law give them equal protection. As I’m sure is clear from everything I say in this forum on the subject, I think they have a valid argument and I certainly promote equalized rights in this very personal and important area.This would include full marriage rights for gay/lesbian couples. As for plural marriage(i.e. more than 2 spouses), it seem to me that the property sharing aspect of that type of marriage could be patterned along the lines of limited business partnerships, though of course this would not be a perfect fit. There would no doubt be times when new legal standards would have to evolve in response to new situations, e.g. if a woman with more than one spouse dies, are all of the spouses equally responsible for her remaining debts? I believe laws can be devised that bring about just solutions to the questions that plural marriage would bring about. As for child raising and custody issues, guardianship rights can also be legally shared among the set of spouses, and in the case of divorce perhaps the biological parent/s would have prior rights/responsibilities unless they formally gave up those rights and one or more of the other spouses took charge of the child. I’m not able to anticipate every possible question that might arise, but again, I see no reason to consider these legal questions insurmountable.
It is also worthy of questioning whether the state should give special breaks to married v. single taxpayers, or parents v. those with no kids. Having benefitted from my “married with children” status for years, I honestly would not get too worked up if those differentiations were dropped and each taxpayer was taken as an individual, regardless of civil status. My taxable income would increase, but I doubt the difference would end up drowning me in red ink; other parents might have a different perspective. The point cited in the post above about the many expenses linked to parenting is valid, but to tell the truth, the little bit of benefit I get on tax day is pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the endless outlay of money I still make each year in spite of the deductions. Not to complain about it too pointedly, of course. I consider most of what I spend to be more like an investment rather than a mere personal cost.
Those were interesting questions you asked, I’d be glad if more people were willing to ask them.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 1, 2005 at 2:07 AM I’ll have to be more attentive before I post, that last one sounded a little repetitive and blathery at points.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 1, 2005 at 2:09 AM Hi ho,
Good to see you back,Lefty.Probably a technical error with the system.Rumplestiltskin/Sybil is no longer around.What happened,I wonder?Let’s remember that at the core of these dogmatists(let’s not even call them Christian,that’s soooo disrespectful to Jesus)is fear.
Fear of what?
Fear of change.
Why?
Change means you have to adapt and think.If you’re stupid or lazy,this will leave you behind and possibly strip you of the privileges your predecessors your gained by simpler, violent means.So,how to get back or keep what you’re to lose?
ONWARD,CHRISTIAN FASCISTS!
VIOLENCE FOR THE LORD!With this as their guiding premise,Christians keep trying to hold the hands of the clock at 1959.
By the way,those on the left who pray,since I don’t pray would you ask God to improve his aim?
I’m sure that last hurricane was meant for Florida and not New Orleans.I mean really,take out the city with the Mardi Gras celebrationand leave the state who gave us the BU ll SH it administration unscathed? Something’s wrong there?Then again,extreme anger can foul your aim.Gee wwoods,why would God be mad Florida,aside from putting Bush in office?
How about putting a mall in a church?
“For yea,I verily say unto thee,as ye shop,so shalt ye pay,and the just shall find their needs find providence marked down twenty percent,and the promise of good parking. -Falderal II,4:17-18
When these dogmatists get a whiff of evil,they are smelling themselves.
Posted by wwoods on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:04 AM Typo,
should be"church in a mall”Not concentrating.Still flabbergasted at the idea of a church in mall.That’s so perverse,it could be contagious?Didn’t Jesus get angry when the money changers set up shop in the temple?Now we’ve done vice versa.
W.W.J.D?
Posted by wwoods on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:10 AM Wolf said:
“Should polygamy (and polyandy) be allowed between consenting adults?
How about generalized “group marriages”?
How about prostitution, again between consenting adults?”
Hmmm! Sounds just like corporate mergers and acquisitions to me. Why do corporations have more rights than people.
Posted by Leftist on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:19 AM Lefty here,
I just recieved an email from Brian Cook who explained that I, Lefty, was “banned” from ITT for referring to Palestinians as Philistines, which Mr. Cook found to be racist, although he acknowledges the historical connection.
Hmmm! I would have thought that my previous comment that “negotiating with Palestinians is like negotiating with cancer” to be more offensive than that, if not more likely than calling Palestinians Philistines (which they are), to get someone banned. It certainly was a much more recent post.
Anyway, I will repeat what I have said many times before, that we are all racists. That humans have a primative genetic, vestigial, survival instinct for tribalism, which cannot be overcome by logic, reason or education. Only racist behavior can be changed.
I will close by asking the members here, if you are not free to express your opinions on this forum, racist or not, then what good is this forum?
Off to the “Liberal Forum” where I am known as Lefty2.
Goodbye!
Posted by Leftist on Sep 1, 2005 at 8:02 AM hey everyone. I’m a young gay man in the south and I have to say...things are looking scary, not just in the south, but everywhere. I think this upswing in (visible) homophobia is part of the cultural trend towards hateful, narrow-minded, and divisive thoughts and behaviors. I am not only scared for myself, but for anyone else who is “different”. Right now, its apparently OK to preach intolerance and hatred of homosexuals, and crimes against the un-straight are rising and there seems to be minimal concern. What next? *WHO* is next? The same hatred and viciousness that fuels this round of gay bashing and anti-gay violence will fuel other attacks, even more hateful and even more violent, against those who are seen as “The Other”..not like the rest of “us,” “deviant”. But I’m not just scared. I’m furious. I go to school, I volunteer, I contribute to the community...and public officials, ostensibly representing the public with *me* included, feel that it is somehow justified, perhaps even righteous, for them to preach hatred and intolerance of *me* and other un-straight Americans? My fellow citizens think that the proper thing to do is to deny me and others the right to marry, just because the person I want to wed is also male? And I’m supposed to do what...crawl on my hands and knees begging to be left alone, begging for the right to exist? Or am I supposed to slink back into the closet? Is homosexuality OK if I love other men while hating myself, and feeling ashamed, and keeping it oh so “private” (lest my neighbors get offended, or their children “confused” ?) I refuse...I refuse to hate myself, I refuse to live in shame. I refuse to beg for scraps of “tolerance” or “acceptance”. I don’t really care how others *feel* about my homosexuality--I dont have the time, energy, or inclination to play shrink to those whose hearts are filled with hate. If someone wants to spread vile hateful filth, I think they should at least be honest about it. Quit hiding behind God or Jesus--I’m religious, and this “God told me to hate you” rhetoric strikes me as utterly blasphemous. Quit hiding behind tradition--human beings are capable of finding new and wonderful ways to live...we dont always have to follow the old rules. And quit hiding behind the mask of pseudo-tolerance (its OK as long as they don’t, like, hold hands in front of me or kiss in public). Those who hate need to stop hiding and face the rest of us with their mean-spirits and ugly souls laid bare...*that’s* what’s behind the growing intolerance of “The Other” in this country. And, maybe someone could hand them a mirror...I think if they saw venom that was destroying them and those around them, maybe they’d change. Maybe.
Posted by theresabetterway on Sep 1, 2005 at 12:28 PM Just to be clear here. Not approving of gay people and not wanting them to be extended the “right” to marry a same sex partner does not imply hate or fear. Many in this country consider gayness to be at best a disease and at worst a moral failing. In matters such as these, right and wrong are meaningless concepts (opinions can be useful or destructive, but not right or wrong).
Furthermore most mainstream Christian churches teach that acting on gay impulses is sinful. However note that *everyone* in a Christian church is in fact a sinner themselves, most of which see their own sins as less bad than other peoples sins (human nature?). Love the sinner, hate the sin being the normal advice given there.
theresabetterway i wish you luck and happiness in all your endeavors. But i am more than a bit grossed out by guys kissing (to be fair, i make up for that somewhat, i suppose, since i find cute girls kissing to be even more erotic than male/female kissing <grin>). But like you say, how i feel about such things is my problem, not yours.
Posted by wolf on Sep 1, 2005 at 2:22 PM wolf-
I appreciate your response. I’m going to focus my response on the gay marriage thing. Marriage, despite all this talk of being “sacred,” is a contract. Marriage has traditionally been based less on love than on a stable, economically productive couple that generates and accumulates wealth, socializes children, and then passes any accumulated wealth onto the next generation. This is why ending a marriage, but not any other sort of relationship, requires a divorce or annulment; the contract must either be found void (annulment), or voided based on specific “grounds” (no-fault divorce made this much easier, but the concept remains the same). I am entitled to the right to marriage because doing otherwise puts homosexuals at a disadvantage; marriage is an excellent way to pool assets, share debts, and improve one’s financial condition in other ways. I read a study recently in which it was found that the continued denial of marriage rights to lesbians and gays has put us at a financial disadvantage, compared to our heterosexual peers who are allowed to wed. Marriage also carries numerous other legal benefits and obligations that are found in no other sort of arrangement, even the “civil unions” that have been popping up lately. The very existence of a “civil union” to me implies that the government has made a grudging acknowledgement of the validity of homosexual relationships, but has chosen to (arbitrarily) set up a separate system with stripped-down rights/obligations under which homosexuals can unite. Looked at from a financial stand point, the denial of full marriage rights basically amounts to a “gay tax”; since I am gay, and not allowed to wed, my lifetime wealth accumulation will be less than that of similar heterosexuals. So...I’m losing money because I’m gay. I work hard. I’ll gladly give my money to charity, but I don’t see why I should be subjected to this ridiculous “sin tax”. In addition, continuing to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a *contract* on the basis of Judeo-Christian ideology re-inforces the notion that homosexuals are somehow less deserving of civil rights and happiness than heterosexuals. I fail to see any compelling reason for the government to continue to deny me the right to wed simply because (some) religious people consider my behavior “sinful” or “deviant”. I say some religious people because I am religious myself, and there isn’t any contradiction between my (Quaker) faith and my desire to marry...if anything, the 2 are highly compatible, since my faith values committed relationships and love. Continuing the denial of gay marriage on the basis of “tradition” is utterly illogical; if we were to consistently follow that line of logic, inter-racial marriages would not be allowed because of the old anti-miscegnation statutes...also, people considered “mentally feeble” or “mentally unfit” would also not be allowed to wed, since statutes prohibiting unions involving these “undesirables” were followed for a long, long time during the Eugenics Movement. I respect other’s beliefs, but I expect others to honor my *rights* as a fully equal citizen and human being. If a religious group opposes same-sex marriage, they can forbid their members from entering them and refuse to perform the ceremonies. Beyond that...whatever reservations they may have, I expect religious leaders and their flock to back off so I can get on with the important business of living my life.
Posted by theresabetterway on Sep 1, 2005 at 3:58 PM I think the woman [Storms] is just lazy… she doesn’t want to teach her children anything. When of course, they’re gonna learn whatever she would say about it from their church anyway, all the anti-gay crap that they spew out.
Posted by razrgirl on Sep 1, 2005 at 4:25 PM Excellent posts, theresabetterway. I sympathize with your plight. Just as in the great civil rights movement forty years ago, we shall overcome.
Posted by Liberal on Sep 1, 2005 at 8:27 PM Hello theresabetterway,
You hit the nail directly on the head with the reference to being a “fully equal citizen” in your post above. The question for rights-deniers is, upon what basis can a minority group be marginalized by law? If anyone is to be deprived of a right, there must be a sound basis for such a reduction. Liberal’s reference to denial of rights on the basis of skin color is entirely apropos. For me, a sound basis most certainly does not include traditional understandings, offended responses from other citizens (even a majority), nor scriptural definitions based on a long-past culture’s attitudes.You were even more dead-on by pointing out in your earlier post that if they can go after your rights, they can do it to me or to anyone else. I’m hetero and married, but I have no illusions that such a status insulates me from persecution, if there should ever be a group who, gaining access to the halls of power, might decide to mess with me and strip me of rights for whatever reason they have in mind.
Maybe since I’m a semi-regular poster here at ITT, I espouse liberal views and am highly critical of the sitting government would be enough reason. It’s not inconceivable that these could be seen as damning somehow in a near-future time when even more rights are lost to us.
(so, ITT webmaster, if the gestapo arrives, hit the EMP trigger! only semi-kidding)
Good luck in your attempts to gain full legal rights, theresabetterway. It will be my victory too, even if I’m not gay and am already hitched.
........
And hello again wolf,
Just reflecting off your mention of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric. I’m reminded of several churches I visited back in the day when I felt that finding a church home was an important thing to do (big surprise, I never really fit in).It may be that your experience is different from mine, but every time I heard that line, there was something in me that detected a note of insincerity insofar as the “love the sinner” part. I couldn’t help but feel that love was the furthest thing from the minds of the pastors and their listeners. This is in the context of the vehemence with which gay-related issues were discussed, with heavy emphasis upon the “abomination” or the “unnatural acts” (yes, they’re quotes, oft-repeated I might add) associated with gay love. One congregation I almost joined actually fired their pastor when he said from the pulpit that he had no intention of attacking gay people in his sermons, considering it against the ethic of love he felt was more appropriate to a Christian life. He was outta there in under a month; I was personally acquainted with the family so I know a bit of the details. “They will know we are Christians by our love”, a line from the hymn, you may be aware. Most inspirational pastor I ever heard, too bad he was drummed out.
I think it could be intellectually possible to be against gay marriage and not be filled with hate, but to tell you the truth, I see that same vehemence emerging whenever the issue is discussed. It looks like hate, to me. Or at the very least a level of disdain that effectively dehumanizes the people whose rights have been abridged.
Just a few thoughts. What are your thoughts on the amending of the Constitution to define marriage?
Posted by Kuya on Sep 2, 2005 at 2:04 AM Kuya,
I’m all for it.As well,we should take a hard look at our separation of church and state.If Robertson and Falwell can use their positions to influence,if not dictate,public policy and promote politicians who are basically their shills(Santorum),then they can certainly pay taxes.However,we are so intimidated by accusations,or even allusions of being god-haters that know one will challenge these holy low-rollers.
Posted by wwoods on Sep 2, 2005 at 6:33 AM Kuya - i agree that many who preach “love the sinner, hate the sin” really mean hate the sinner. I suppose as an agnostic i have no right to claim that this is a corruption of Christiantiy. I do know some pastors who see it as a corruption though (and i agree it is, for what little that is worth).
If i had my druthers, i would make marriage a strictly religious institution. I would take the state entirely out of the matter. To make up for the loss, i would make civil unions that encompass the current rights that marriages have. Thus one could be married, be in a civil union, or both.
Some churches would marry gays (or groups, i suppose). The state would only issue licenses for civil unions, which would be an exclusive contract between any two people, i suppose. It need not be a romantic relationship (perhaps two sisters might want the advantages of the “extra” rights the state would grant). But why should people who are not in romantic relationships be penalized?
It does get complicated, and clearly i do not have all (any?) of the answers. And to be fair, i am not in the position that theresabetterway is in (who i think makes his point quite cogently). If i were, it might make the issue more urgent and emotional with me.
Posted by wolf on Sep 2, 2005 at 8:42 AM Thanks wwoods and wolf, for your responses. :-) Til next thread.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 3, 2005 at 6:52 AM Wolf wrote: Not approving of gay people and not wanting them to be extended the “right” to marry a same sex partner does not imply hate or fear.
Give me a break. It implies hate and fear and acceptance of the irrational ( = religion).
Wolf wrote: Many in this country consider gayness to be at best a disease and at worst a moral failing.
They like their brains washed at least once a week.
Wolf wrote: In matters such as these, right and wrong are meaningless concepts . . .
Sure they are. Completely meaningless. Sure.
. . . (opinions can be useful or destructive, but not right or wrong).
Opinions are either intelligent and informed or ignorant and uninformed.
I live in Canada. We have had all of these ridiculous arguments here at one time or another. My partner and I have been together for twelve years and were married two years ago. Do yourselves a favour: move to Canada and move on with your lives. Or at least move to a state where your neighbours are not religious neanderthals.
Liberal wrote: Let’s quit calling these anti-gay activist religious conservatives and describe them for what they really are: NAZIS.
Not Nazis but Satanists. These people have been crucifying Christ for two thousand years and calling themselves Christians. They have the power of the state behind them and they have no hesitation in using it. If Christ came back tomorrow they would do it all over again. They worship power and domination ( = Satan).
Posted by Fowler on Sep 6, 2005 at 10:58 AM It is truely pathetic that in todays America there are still so many prejudicial bigots. The advent of the internet, while providing for liberal pundits that otherwise might not be seen, also allows for the more prejudiced people to show themselves also. With the Ultra Right now in control of all three branches of the government I fear that there will be even more of this hate filled retoric being spewed out of the mouths of these small-minded people.
I think that society as a whole while it may feel it is wrong to discriminate against Gay people, will not stand up and denounce it as long as the discrimination is endorsed by the ruling Administration. I think that the Government is so against Gay people not because it really thinks it is a bad thing so much but rather that it keeps the masses occupied so that they do not pay much attention to what is really going on in governmental circles. The scientific evidence is becoming so obvious that homosexuality is something you are born with that it gets harder for the Ultra Rightwing to deny it. But as long as they can use this issue as a tool to control the people the government will never endorse it.
Posted by reddragon696 on Sep 13, 2005 at 3:58 AM theresabetterway writes :
“Looked at from a financial stand point, the denial of full marriage rights basically amounts to a “gay tax”; since I am gay, and not allowed to wed, my lifetime wealth accumulation will be less than that of similar heterosexuals. So...I’m losing money because I’m gay. I work hard. I’ll gladly give my money to charity, but I don’t see why I should be subjected to this ridiculous “sin tax”.”
David in Canada writes :
Since I am single and have not found a wife to marry my lifetime wealth accumulation will be less than that of married people ( straight or gay ). So .. I’m losing money because I’m single and don’t see why I should be subjected to this ridiculous “ single tax “.
Just saying.
Posted by David in Canada on Sep 18, 2005 at 2:50 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Andrew Stelzer
- A Dark Night in Iceland
Environmentalists decry the privatization of their country's clean energy resources - Anarchist Cheerleader Elected
Lake Worth City Commissioner Cara Jennings refocuses her radicalism after surprise win - Road to Riches or Ruin?
Army recuitment may be down, but economic hardship keeps the troops of Halliburton at high levels - Ready for Dialogue
- Official Bigotry
In Florida, both anti-gay political rhetoric and hate crimes are on the rise
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
