For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
I beg you to take a look at what's going on in Massachusetts and ask yourself honestly whether you think this would be a good development nationwide.
Here's one item among many: [emphasis in the original]
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
- Comment (183)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
James Of England
I would appreciate a clarification from Katie, who posted this, that she feels a proper contempt for statements like:
My ancestors fought, and in two cases died, protecting the Common Law from similar Napoleonic assaults.
James, that aspect of the issue is outside my ken. I am concerned with the big picture, viz. the practical ramifications of making SSM legal. I took the post as showing that the sort of things that opponents of SSM foresaw would happen if it were legalized, are in fact happening in Massachusetts. That's all.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 10:23pmMar '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
And what happens when these same people in power get home schooling banned?
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie O
Ah shoot Trace, I was with you, but now I think you went and made katievs's point. If it's not about extending marriage to gay people, but forcing others to condone homosexual acts, that runs smack up against religious liberty. · 19 minutes ago
But doesn't that simply "out" the argument? (Pun fully intended.) And if it is about religious liberty, what is the role of the State in that debate? Shouldn't it remain agnostic, leaving distinctions as to the status of various type of unions to churches?
KatieVS was making the case (I think) that opposition to SSM had nothing to do with religion but was about what is best for society and that was the basis for government involvement.
I'm merely noting that at some level the argument about marriage is essentially the argument about homosexuality itself. Michael Horn's good-hearted argument for civil partnerships alongside marriage I think reveals the fig leaf nature of the marriage topic. On both sides.
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie: I have nothing more to say on SSM. However, congratulations! You just broke the century mark in comments, which is the sign of a serious subject (this thread) or something completely unserious (I nearly made it with my inquiry about bodywash).
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
I took to heart and have enjoyed my subsequent back and forth with Katie who, to her great credit, rarely if ever loses her temper.
I've enjoyed it to0, and I credit the intellectual stimulation with curing the migraine that laid me low all morning. Normally, when one comes, I'm down flat for three days. This was only 2 1/2.
While I ate my lunch, I read, in the introduction to Tom Bethall's new book about Eric Hoffer, the Longshoreman Philosopher, this, about his first meeting Hoffer in 1980, after having read several of his books:
I'm a little like this too. Better at staying cool in writing than in person. This may partly explain why I have never yet appeared at a Ricochet Meet-up. :)
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 11:38pmDec '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
katievs
I'm a little like this too. Better at staying cool in writing than in person. This may partly explain why I have never yet appeared at a Ricochet Meet-up. :) · 4 minutes ago
Oddly enough, I have a tendency (or used to when I would engage in similar debates on Facebook--not recommended) lose my cool much easier online than in person.
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Michael Horn
Oddly enough, I have a tendency (or used to when I would engage in similar debates on Facebook--not recommended) lose my cool much easier online than in person. · 1 minute ago
Ditto. That's why the CoC is actually important for Ricochet.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 10:59pmAug '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
"Marriage" was redefined many years ago and was established by law when no-fault divorce laws were adopted by numerous states. The change was significant: From a covenental relationship between a man and a woman supported by a widely held worldview that marriage had a purpose and more or less accurately reflected moral reality and human nature, the definition morphed into a relationship defined primarily by the desires of the participants. A spouse who no longer thought his spouse met his felt needs was free to divorce and move on, pursuing his desires, nevermind the long term consequences to his children, extended family, etc.
With that understanding, it is very easy to say that homosexual unions are no different from the modern understanding of heterosexual marriage-a lifestyle choice based on personal desire and according to one's own desires. Therein lies the problem...once the basis for "marriage" is the pursuit of one's desires, who is to say "marriage" can be limited to heterosexual or homosexual couples? Why not polygamous marriages? Why not polyandrous relationships? A man & goat? A man & his sister? Note: I'm NOT arguing these examples are morally equivalent. But they logically follow.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan:
Are you arguing that the government should be concerned with encouraging procreative sex over non-procreative sex? With what is harmful to the body? Government's concern should be with promoting families, not regulating sexual acts.
I'm saying that we, as a society, should recognize in our laws the dramatic natural difference between marriage, which is the life-long union of a man and woman and the natural foundation of family life, and all other human relationships.
What we should not do is use the force of law to deny that there is a difference; to assert and insist that a SS relationship is the moral equivalent of marriage.
No child in a SS household shares both parents genes. No child is the natural offspring of his parents union. That makes a difference.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 12:34amApr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie O
Ah shoot Trace, I was with you, but now I think you went and made katievs's point. If it's not about extending marriage to gay people, but forcing others to condone homosexual acts, that runs smack up against religious liberty. · 2 hours ago
Is there a position that can not be defended by religious liberty? I mean religions can create whatever irrational beliefs their founders and adherents want. If your religion teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old and made by God in on a Tuesday does the teaching of Modern cosmology and its promotion by NSF run up against your religious liberty?
When you say forced you make it sound like you will be water boarded until you admit homosexuality is normal. That isn't what they are doing in schools. It seems to me you don't like having to compete with another ideology.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Here you're mixing two separate questions: what I want and what I think is sound public policy.
Since I think homosexual acts are immoral, and since I care about people and want everyone to live in full accord with his or her nature and dignity as a human person, made in the Image and Likeness of God, I wish no one would commit those acts, just like I wish no one would lie or cheat or harm an innocent.
Do I think homosexual acts should be outlawed? No. Do I think homosexuals couples should be left in peace and treated with the kindness and respect we all owe each other? Yes. Do I think they should adopt children? No.
Above all, I think we should not use the instruments of power to establish in law the lie that there is no important difference between the union of a man and woman in marriage and a "life commitment" between two homosexuals.
Nov '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Science will soon overcome your first objection. Then your second objection will be dissolved within the confusion of "evolving concepts of reproductive freedom."
Only God can save us now!
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
KatieVS was making the case (I think) that opposition to SSM had nothing to do with religion but was about what is best for society and that was the basis for government involvement.
Not quite. I am making the case rather that one can oppose SSM on Natural Law grounds, just as one can oppose abortion or theft or lying without quoting the Bible, or being religious.
(The whole American experiment is grounded on the Natural Law. Abandon that and all that's left, really, are competing interests.)
It goes without saying that there are also religious grounds for opposing SSM. And Christians (among others) are right to be concerned that the legalization of SSM will involve encroachments on religious liberties.
It is funny that you write as if I am asking the government to "get involved", when what I ask is that the entire western tradition regarding marriage not be tossed overboard to accommodate the demands SS lobby.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 12:37amMay '12
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
You no longer need to project. Late last year Canada fended off a challenge to the 122 year old ban on polygamy from FLDS Mormons in BC. Nor was it or will it be the only example of marriage being redefined again and again. Polygamy in a Muslim context has reared its head in Australia and the UK. The UK is also facing distinct problems with 'Cousin Marriages' among its Muslim population which presents its own costly problems when these cousins have children;
"British Pakistanis, half of whom marry a first cousin (a figure that is universally agreed), are 13 times more likely to produce children with genetic disorders than the general population, according to Government-sponsored research.
One in ten children from these cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-threatening disability.
While British Pakistanis account for three per cent of the births in this country, they are responsible for 33 per cent of the 15,000 to 20,000 children born each year with genetic defects."
May '12
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Continued;
"Everyone carries some abnormal genes, but most people don’t have a defect because the normal gene overrules the abnormal one. But if a husband and wife both have an abnormal recessive gene, they have a one in four chance of producing a child with defects.
These include blindness, deafness, blood ailments such as sickle cell anaemia, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and myriad complex neurological or brain disorders.
Even their healthy children have a one in four chance of being a carrier of a defect, with terrible implications for the next generation.
The problem is most serious in Bradford. A recent survey of 1,100 pregnant women in the city showed that 70 per cent have husbands who are first cousins — a higher percentage than the average of 50 per cent among Pakistanis across the whole of Britain."
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394119/Its-time-confront-taboo-First-cousin-marriages-Muslim-communities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html#ixzz1uz2ZuLMb
Also, (trying to bring it back to SSM) note that the FLDS lawsuit came merely four years after Canada legalized SSM in 2005. All while using similar arguments that the SSM advocates used.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 1:29amJun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan:
The State can fairly distinguish between two-parent households and poly-amorous communes. That is a distinction I am easily able to make. Just as I can make a distinction between faithful and open marriages.
On what grounds? Why should the state distinguish between two-parent households and three-parent households?
Why do you insist on using terms like "communes" and "open marriages" to marginalize and exclude polygamists? Why should a husband with 4 wives be presumed to be any less faithful to his wives than a husband with only 1 wife? I'd be astounded if such a man had the time or energy for an affair...
I might ask you the same question you asked earlier: how many families in plural marriages do you know personally? Are you basing your bias against these families on personal experience or stereotypes and misconceptions?
Nov '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Exactly. Well said. As I've pointed out before, it was Nietzsche who, over a hundred years ago, saw where all this was headed.
He realized that if you reduce marriage simply to "love," then you simply get rid of the institution.
Amazingly prophetic, even if he speaks of marriage in his own time as existing on its "last legs"; this wasn't readily obvious to anyone back then except to someone of his discernment.
Dec '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
I am tired of her starting threads containing the same flawed reasoning and inviting the same pile-on of people agreeing with one another. Putting her on notice means that I intend, as much as possible, to challenge her each and every place she insists on repeating her flawed and tired arguments -- particularly where those arguments are promoted to the public-facing thread.
Join the 'other club' at Ricochet, Trace.
Apr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
katievs
James Of England
I would appreciate a clarification from Katie, who posted this, that she feels a proper contempt for statements like:
My ancestors fought, and in two cases died, protecting the Common Law from similar Napoleonic assaults.
James, that aspect of the issue is outside my ken. I am concerned with the big picture, viz. the practical ramifications of making SSM legal. I took the post as showing that the sort of things that opponents of SSM foresaw would happen if it were legalized, are in fact happening in Massachusetts. ·
We each have our own understandings of what the big picture is. To me, maintaining the America envisioned by the Founders is a much bigger deal than whether 2% of books read by schoolkids involve dumb gay plotlines/ characters.
I agree that it's a instinct confirming lie, but think the lie more important than the confirmation. It's rare to find America hating on the right, but it should be rebutted when found.
Apr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Jim Ixtian:
Also, (trying to bring it back to SSM) note that the FLDS lawsuit came merely four years after Canada legalized SSM in 2005. All while using similar arguments that the SSM advocates used. · 11 hours ago
Edited 11 hours ago
To my mind, polygamists have way stronger legal arguments than gays. Gays can be socially married anywhere in America; the government merely withholds tax benefits, visitation rights, etc.. Polygamists get arrested even when they go to great lengths to hide any suggestion that they're married; the government really imposes its choices on them.
Furthermore, the test case on polygamy, Reynolds v US, was in 1878 and suggests that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the Feds from intentionally outlawing religious practices. I don't think it stands up to modern Religious Liberty doctrine.
It wouldn't surprise me if polygamy was available in 50 states before SSM was.