The Shotgun Blog
« Ontario regulations stymie voluntary ride-share | Main | Marc Emery wants Vancouverites to get serious about the economic downturn ahead, but voters just want their pet projects paid for and the media wants its circus »
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8
Some gay activists are causing a stir in California through demonstrations against the Mormon Church, and for occasionally demonstrating vile racism (see updates) in response to voting analysis that shows blacks voted in favour of Proposition 8 -- the ballot initiative that overturned the California Supreme Court ruling granting marriage rights to homosexuals.
Celebrities like Roseanne Barr have piled on to suggest that blacks were wrong to vote for Prop 8, and singer Melissa Etheridge has claimed that she will not pay her taxes in response to the vote (here's hoping she sticks to her guns and becomes a full-on tax protestor).
And now Keith Olbermann -- the foil to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly -- finished his show two days ago with the following:
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 13, 2008 in U.S. politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535f2c888970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8:
Comments
I will not be lectured to by Keith Olbermann on meaningless hate and division.
Posted by: Daryl | 2008-11-13 9:11:22 AM
It's nice to know that the CBC's journalists and editorial staff will have a place to go once the CBC is burned to the ground. We'll see if their anti-American hate will count against them; at the very least it would be ironic.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-13 9:25:46 AM
Even a jackass can be right sometimes. And he's right here. "What is this to you?" is amongst the most conservative things you can say.
Posted by: Robert Jago | 2008-11-13 9:31:55 AM
Jaws,
Of course, everything he said is right. But I have two different reactions to seeing this clip:
(1) There is no point in talking about logic and facts to bigots. The reigious fascists who seek to limit the freedom of others don't care for logic or facts.
(2) I don't ever watch Olbermann. This is probably the second or third of his bits I have ever seen. If I did not know that Olbermann was for real, I would have thought that this was a clip from a fictional film being badly over-acted by a scenery-chewing prima donna. But knowing he is for real, he's kinda scary in a nut-job way. "Keith Olbermann -- the foil to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly" you say? Yes indeed.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-13 9:39:37 AM
Redefining marriage? Maybe they're simply trying to respect marriage for what it ought to be.
What's it to me, Mr. Olbermann? It's about what we stand for as a society. Family, the ultimate point of marriage, being the microcosm of society, must be healthy or society will die; society thus has the right, perhaps even obligation, to define marriage. Ranking gay marriage with interracial marriage is a false analogy; male/female interracial marriage is not immoral precisely because it is male/female. It was once illegal because of racism and not because any objective mind could reasonably call it wrong. A reasonable mind can rightly label gay marriage wrong.
Say what you might about minds at that time thinking interracial marriage was wrong: the fact is the powers that be and the general mentality at the time were wrong. Open minds do change as they realize the folly of indefensible stands. But an open mind on what is right and true is deadly.
Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2008-11-13 9:50:00 AM
Religious fascists? I'm willing to argue that the nature of marriage is a philosophical matter more than a particularly religious one. The argument that only religion defines marriage does not hold water. Is it bigoted to hold a firm position on marriage as marriage? Is it illogical to think that there might actually be a universally valid definition of marriage outside of religion influence?
Of course not. To dismiss those who believe in marriage in the traditional sense as religious bigots is simply absurd.
Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2008-11-13 9:56:38 AM
Support gear for gays and straights....Fight The Power!
http://www.cafepress.com/NoTime2H8
Posted by: Arnie Darringer | 2008-11-13 10:04:36 AM
I loved the intro ...
"I am not gay, and none of my family is gay even the most remote extended far reaches of any one in my family etc ... "
Okay Keith, your's a real ladies man ... wuite th stud there dude but some of your best friends are ...
right?
What is it to me????
Here's what it is to me, since you asked.
I don't like the idea of same sex anything. I don't have a rational reason for it. I am atheist so it's not about religion. Like those who in the Homo community who claim they 'where born that way' I suppose I was born the opposite way. Can my views not be validated? Oh wait ... they just were in California.
I am conservative and therefore have no wish to prevent anyone form seeking happiness in their own way. However, most hetros see homosexuality as perverted and quite unnatural especially the sodomy thing.
I don't know anyone who cares that those folks live their weird lives the way they want to, but most do wish they would forget the annual pervert parades, forget adopting children into that weirdness and don't shit on the vast majority who see marriage as a sacrament and not just a license to own 50% of each other's goods.
Most folks respect a gay right to have civil unions to assure access to the gifts and goodies that come with the legal side of marriage, but how about gays showing the same respect to the traditionalists who feel that gay marriage disrespect the sanctity of their 'normal' marriages. That would be called compromise.
So my question to Keith and the gay world. What does it matter to you if hetros have marriage and gays have civil unions. What really does it matter to you?
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-13 10:09:30 AM
Olbermann, is the only example one needs to see how A Republican named Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, but Liberals like Olbermann hijack African Americans to form the coalition on the left. Note how 70 percent of Black Voters in CA spoke loudest against Gay Marriage but it is those darn Mormons (those horrible white folk again) who need their churches defiled. Chris Mathews and Olbermann get tingles down their legs over a man named Obama, and they are not Married to each other? Hello Down-Low. How anyone lets this guy cover a sporting event is baffling to me, he is the classic example of the chubby boy who had his glasses broken playing dodge ball. He is so bitter.
Posted by: Alaska Joe | 2008-11-13 10:50:15 AM
Elton John has it about right.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm
Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-13 10:54:48 AM
Where are the Republican marching on the streets, being racist toward blacks or demanding that their side should have got what they wanted?
The people have spoken and in a healthy democracy, it's time to move on.
Obama did promise that his candidacy would transcend racism and it has. It's shut up the Jessee Jacksons, Al Sharptons and, to some extent, the Rev. Wrights.
Blacks cannot do anything about the colour of their skins ... it's what they were born with.
Jon Stewart, commenting on the story, said ‘well, it didn't take long for the oppressed to become the oppressor, did it?'
And the tyranny of the 2% minority carries on.
Other than watching the latest James Bond movie, I'm going to boycott Hollywood.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-13 11:03:47 AM
"Keith Olbermann -- the foil to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly" you say? Yes indeed.
Posted by: Fact Check | 13-Nov-08 9:39:37 AM
O'Reilly gets about 4 million viewers a night watching his show on Foxnews. Olbermann get a couple of hundred thousand people watching his. Olbermann is irrelevant.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-13 1:08:00 PM
No one is irrelevant. Including gay men and women who want to marry one another.
What is it with the anti-gay cult that they can't feel validated unless they're depriving someone else of the same rights and privileges they, themselves, have? What is it about them that they feel they can only win if someone else is losing? That they can only feel properly alive if they're allowed to kill the joy in someone else?
Posted by: Chimera | 2008-11-13 3:24:45 PM
No one is irrelevant.
Posted by: Chimera | 13-Nov-08 3:24:45 PM
Keith Olbermann is irrelevant. That's why Murdoch dumped him years ago.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-13 3:43:02 PM
Chimera:
What's wrong with civil unions?
You get all the benefits and it's a construct of the state.
If it's good enough for Elton John, it's good enough for me.
Sounds like a civilized solution. The ‘marriage' thing, as Elton John, pust some people off. Just despises the in-your-face attitude of the loony activists.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Civil union, with all the inherent property and inheritance issues included, could be between any human being and any other human being.
Win-win for all. Everybody goes home happy.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-13 8:48:54 PM
Chimera:
One more thing.
Elton John is gay.
Kelth Olberman is not.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-13 8:53:59 PM
No offense to anybody, but that video is a bunch of deceptive, melodramatic crap. He makes it sound as if Prop 8 involves tearing every gay couple apart, never to see each other again.
Gay people are completely free to love each other, and I for one wish them happiness. If three men and a dog want to live together and love each other, that's fine too... but I wouldn't define it as marriage.
Redefining words to be more politically correct and "inclusive" is the quickest way to strip concepts of their meaning. The word "marriage" should be defined according to its fundamental purpose, which is to help create a stable, healthy environment for children.
Suggesting that the traditional definition of marriage will deprive homosexuals of any chance at happiness (and/or "destroy the embers of love in the world") is just plain idiotic.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-13 9:06:10 PM
Chimera...Think of what the gay movement has done to the noble profession of fudge packer.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-13 9:13:35 PM
Elton John has it right. Indeed, let all couples go through a civil union ceremony. Then those who want the blessing of the church can go to a church that is willing to sanctify their relationship. For those who don't want a formal committment there is always the common law but don't let the lawyers get their hooks in to you.
Posted by: DML | 2008-11-13 10:45:07 PM
More and more of us are WAKING UP, America. No taxation without equality; simple math.
Now the feds will need to repeal DOMA and DADT, grant us FULL equal rights (including marriage), and begin to start
viewing our families - OUR FAMILIES - as the tax-paying contributing members of society we are.....well.....we USED to
be!
Because if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, our very BELOVED are not acknowledged and valued as other families are legally,
whatever we do outside of that home will never be acknowledged and valued legally, such as adopting children,
working without discrimination, or serving openly in the military.
FAMILY FIRST. What is more important than FAMILY?
We owe the IRS absolutely NOTHING until equal. NOTHING. Get it?
This is NOT a test.
This is NOT a debate.
This is NOT a vote.
This is definitely NOT a popularity contest.
This IS justice - GAY TAX PROTEST.
Posted by: John Bisceglia | 2008-11-14 1:08:24 AM
Separate but equal is always separate but never equal.
I hear a few weepy whiners complaining that if same-sex marrriage is allowed it will diminish their own "sacred" marriages.
To which I reply: tough. If you really feel you need to de-value your own marriage, that's your problem. Nobody can make you inferior without your specific permission, and you just gave permission.
Gay men and women have NOT given permission for anyone to make them feel inferior. Marriage they want, and marriage they SHALL HAVE.
Drive on, John Bisceglia; I'm with ya!
Posted by: Chimera | 2008-11-14 2:42:48 AM
Chimera...Gay marriage does not diminish OUR marriage. It diminishes the whole concept of marriage. Find another word.
Drive on John Bisceglia...over a cliff.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-14 9:41:08 AM
John B. wrote: “1. More and more of us are WAKING UP, America. No taxation without equality; simple math.”
1. Funny, isn’t it, how so many firebrand types consider agreeing with them to be “waking up,” while everyone who doesn’t is “asleep at the switch?” Don’t fall off your ego, John; it’s a long way down.
2. First, no existing marriage is dissolved by this legislation. Second, you’re in for a long wait if you expect the Feds to do anything based on something California did NOT do (extend marriage to gay couples).
3. Emotional drivel.
4. You haven’t been denied you’re families. You’ve been denied the use of a single word that doesn’t describe your unions anyway.
5. Actually, you’re the one who doesn’t get it. Because you’re denied the use of a single word doesn’t mean you’re denied tax breaks, infrastructure, schools, police and fire protection, and all the other benefits you derive from the government. So you have no entitlement to withhold all your taxes. You can withhold only the taxes that are equal in value to that one word. Shall we say five cents? Oh hell, let’s splurge and make it a quarter.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-14 10:19:01 AM
Chimera wrote: “1. Separate but equal is always separate but never equal.”
1. That is an argument based on flimsy emotional and sociological theories, not fact.
2. I hear rather more weepy whiners arguing that the world needs to “wake up” and re-engineer itself to accommodate its laughably obnoxious and emotionally immature minority.
3a. To which I reply: Like most liberals, your brain is incapable of logic. You are correct in saying that no one can make you feel inferior without your permission. However, you go on to say first that “you” (presumably meaning those who voted for Prop 8) gave permission (when that permission is not theirs to give, since they are not the parties involved), and then go on to say that gays have not given permission for anyone to feel inferior. You’ve talked yourself into a nice little knot.
3b. Feelings are not relevant to policy. You are not owed an existence free from taking offence, since the decision to take offence is yours, not the “offending” party’s. Grow up—you are so not special.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-14 10:24:56 AM
Dan Savage was very good (and very funny) on this issue recently on "The Colbert Report". He pointed out that while the homophobic Prop 8 vote was supported by a lot of black people, the demographic most strongly in support of it was the elderly. He said:
"Old people are the real villains in the piece, and they're dying, which is some comfort. It's sort of like gay 'Survivor.' We're going to outlive, outlast and outsmart bigots."
It reminds me of a similar remark Max Planck one made: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Forget that there is a clear historical tradition in many cultures going back many centuries of same-sex marriages. Forget that many churches today perform and fully recognize same-sex marriage. Forget that "traditional" marriage once meant people of different races could not marry. Forget all the reasons that opponents of same-sex marriage don't have anything but prejudice on their side. They are dying. Like other bigots before them, they will soon be a smaller and smaller minority to the point where it will be socially unacceptable to spew their hatred. Then they will die.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-14 10:36:27 AM
Just as homosexuality is as old as humanity, so is the hatred of homosexuals. This relationship will never die, fact check. As we speak, a new generation of gay bashers is learning to hate the gay community. Gay people have argued that they have no control over their orientation, and I tend to agree. I also believe that people who are repulsed and disgusted by their actions are also powerless to change their feelings. How else do you explain the centuries of dispute? It's a natural reaction to unnatural behaviour.
This is one issue you can't blame on baby boomers. In fact, now that the boomer generation is dying off, you will likely see a surge in intolerance toward gays.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 11:30:28 AM
What cultures are those, Fact Check? And they had better not be the hunter-gatherer and shamanistic cultures commonly cited by radicals whenever they want to point out how evil and out of touch with Nature postmodern Western culture is, either.
P.S. We actually do have something other than prejudice on our side. It's called the dictionary. What do YOU have, besides your knee-jerk contempt for any Western institution created before 1960?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-14 11:30:54 AM
Fact check
"Forget that there is a clear historical tradition in many cultures going back many centuries of same sex marriage".
Please list them.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-14 11:44:50 AM
Fact Check,
You're right about the demographic trends, as far as I can tell. Surveys suggest there is a culture gap about same-sex marriage, with a clear majority of young people (18-34) in support of it.
I found this survey after a few seconds of searching. There are probably others:
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/faps/
While some have suggested there is a tendency that people become more conservative as they get older, I really wonder if it will extend to this issue in particular.
Obviously, as people grow up, get jobs, and have to pay taxes, they may become concerned with the fiscal side of conservatism. That makes sense. They have an immediate personal stake in tax policy.
The personal stake people have in opposing same-sex marriage seems a little less obvious. Even if social conservatives are correct that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to fewer straight people marrying (a thesis asserted more often than it is defended) this effect will take a long time to become apparent.
Once most of the same-sex marriage opponents die off, the rest of us may be left wondering what the fuss was all about.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-14 12:05:34 PM
Ironically for you Fact Check, you used Planck's quote which well describes the state of the so-called "many churches today perform and fully recognize same-sex marriage". Their members are staying away in droves as the church they knew has become something else entirely but still insists on calling itself by the same name.
Posted by: Mean Hank | 2008-11-14 12:23:46 PM
Once most of the same-sex marriage opponents die off, the rest of us may be left wondering what the fuss was all about.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 14-Nov-08 12:05:34 PM
The only ones making a "fuss" seem to be those wanting to change the system for their special interest. If you guys want to take one in the ass, I have no objection. What does that have to do with marriage?
Your survey of young people is flawed. It's much easier to have an opinion on something you haven't experienced. They should re-canvas the age group 25-34 and see how that turns out.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 12:31:10 PM
Dp,
Well, I don't know if the survey is flawed. It is (and only purports to be) a snapshot. You're right that young people can and do change their minds.
But here's my question: what is it that you think these young people will experience regarding same-sex marriage that will lead them to change their minds?
The trend (according to the survey) is toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage, even within this group. 9 points since 2006. So between 2006 and 2008, we see a significant increase in support for same-sex marriage.
So what are young people going to experience regarding same-sex marriage that is going to reverse this trend?
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-14 12:37:57 PM
Terrence- Just so you understand, I'm not against gay marriage. I just don't agree with trying to steamroller the traditional beliefs of so many people. My experience with marriage has turned me against the entire institution, which I believe is in a real mess already.
Also, I don't hate gays either. Sometimes my opinions come close to getting me in trouble with the rednecks I associate with. I usually stay away from any arguments for fear of being lumped into a certain category. I've always been suspicious of people who protest too loudly.
Did anyone see the similarity between Olbermann's plea, and Jimmy Swaggart's apology?
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 12:54:51 PM
Dp,
Ok, I understand. I wasn't accusing you of anything, honest. But I did wonder if you had anything in mind young people might experience that would lead them to change their minds.
I know one thing that would: the first time a church is forced to perform a gay wedding (or loses its tax exempt status or other benefits for refusing to do so), that'll do it.
Now, I don't think there is much danger of this happening, especially not in the United States. Gay people had better hope it doesn't happen. Even once would be too much.
And I can't STAND Keith Olbermann. What an annoying git! When will planes start landing on that flat, asphalt surface he calls hair, anyway?
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-14 1:58:25 PM
Terrence- What I had in mind that might influence young people's opinion is actually getting married. I believe that once they've entered into such a huge ceremony, they'll value the historical values a bit more. They'll be less likely to allow a special interest group to invite itself into their domain.
Think of all the spinoff groups that have their roots in traditional marriage. Will all these groups have to rewrite the language of all their ceremonies?
And, of course, the Church is the big obstacle. The Catholic Church will never go along with it, and no government could or should be allowed to force them to accept it.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 2:42:16 PM
Terrence,
"You're right about the demographic trends, as far as I can tell. Surveys suggest there is a culture gap about same-sex marriage, with a clear majority of young people (18-34) in support of it.... While some have suggested there is a tendency that people become more conservative as they get older, I really wonder if it will extend to this issue in particular."
I think that homophobia will go the same way as racism. It's not that racism is dead in North America - far from it, but the aparthied laws of the pre-civil rights US south are dead and gone. The acceptability in polite company of expressing racist ideas is dead and gone. The idea that any decent person can object the inter-racial marriage or an inter-racial residential community are dead and gone. Homophobia is dying more slowly, but it is on the way out as well in much the same manner. Fiscal conservatism will not diminish in time, but then again there is nothing truly "conservative" about bigotry, be it racism or homophobia.
dp is wrong. Homophobia is not on the rise nor is it likely to rise in the future. The same-sex marriage debate will, no doubt, raise to the surface some prejudice that was mostly under the radar, but the bigots will increasingly be isolated. And one day I do believe we will be left wondering what the fuss was all about. Much like we wonder what the fuss was about not allowing blacks to drink from the same water fountains.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-14 3:12:00 PM
.....but the bigots will increasingly be isolated.
Posted by: Fact Check | 14-Nov-08 3:12:00 PM
Disagree with gay marriage and you're a bigot. Vote for McCain and you're a racist. Of course only socialist's like fact check are "enlightened".
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-14 3:24:57 PM
Fact Check wrote: "Much like we wonder what the fuss was about not allowing blacks to drink from the same water fountains."
Perhaps the fact that being black, in and of itself, was not considered an abomination. Gays aren't helping themselves with their in-your-face, we'll-tear-it-all down approach, either. If a measure like this couldn't pass in California, good luck trying to pass it via referendum anywhere else. Canada had to push through gay marriage behind closed doors. Just goes to show you that what people say in polls and what they actually vote for are completely different animals.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-14 3:35:19 PM
How can homophobia be on the wain, at the same time religious zeal is on the rise? Sharia law will definitely put a damper on public displays of homosexual affection.
Fact check, I actually wish I were wrong, but it just isn't likely to happen. I'll believe it when dogs quit chasing cats.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 3:40:51 PM
Interracial marriage or desegration of schools did not pass via referendum, Shane. But you don't seem to object to them. If you don't object to them, why object to the courts doing the very same thing with gay marriage? (Both passed "behind closed doors," via "unelected" judges in Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education.)
I'm doing my best to see things from other people's perspectives, but I'm having a hard time motivating an objection to gay "marriage" on grounds other than bigotry. Help me out. Provide me with an argument.
So far I hear something about the "traditional definition" of marriage, and preserving a "tradition," and so on. But you'll need to tell me why, for example, different wedding dress styles, and using different colours for the husband's outfit (blue instead of black, say) don't undermine the tradition, but allowing gays to marry does. You're probably going to say that there is some *fundamental* difference, but I don't see it. You'll also need to inform me why this isn't a plain violation of the Appeal to Tradition *fallacy*. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
The argument about the purpose of marriage being for the sake of a family is also implausible. Even if the original purpose of my shoes is to keep my feet from bleeding, there's nothing morally wrong with me using shoes as flower pots. No one cares, because the original purpose for something is not (independently) normative.
In addition, I don't hear anyone bleating about annulling the marriages of people who decide against having children. Doesn't that violate the original purpose of marriage? Why the selective outrage? (Because there's fewer people who don't have kids? Wrong: 18.4 per cent of married women of child-bearing age had no children in 1997. Meanwhile, only 4 per cent of the U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, and the number only goes up to 10 per cent if you are more loose about what you mean by "gay.")
Finally, I did read this argument as well: "being gay is unnatural"... Uhm, who cares? Heart bypass surgery is "unnatural," but I don't see protesters out front of hospitals demanding that we go back to things being "natural." There is *nothing* normative about "naturalness." For more, consult the Appeal to nature *fallacy* here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
As for the "in your face" antics of some... again, who cares? This is an error you make repeatedly, Shane--the antics of a group says *nothing* about the substance of the debate. You don't demonstrate that a side (rethinking the war on marijuana or rethinking what counts as "marriage") is wrong by demonstrating that some of the proponents are engaged in weird or "bad" antics.
And who cares whether or not gay marriage would pass via a referendum? *Ought* gays be allowed to marry, *regardless* of what some or another majority thinks is the question.
And the answer is an emphatic "yes."
(Caveat: Should churches be forced to marry or recognize gay marriages? The answer is an equally emphatic, "no.")
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-14 4:13:03 PM
First, P.M., I have already mentioned that both the abolition of American slavery and the desegregation of American schools were accomplished in defiance of the law (by the Supreme Court, no less). The Supreme Court upheld the view that separate was equal in 1896, reversing that decision in 1954. Do we assume the latter was correct only because it was more recent, or fits in better with current attitudes? Courts are supposed to confine themselves to the law, but as we've seen, they sometimes don't.
Moreover, it's not about the "traditional" definition of marriage; it's about the definition of marriage, period. A man and a woman, usually but not always one of each. Throughout all advanced cultures and societies throughout history. Are we to change the definition of brother and sister next? What about son and father or daughter and mother? Are boys discriminated against because no one will call them "sister"?
Don't kid yourself--loud and obnoxious groups do more harm than good to their cause, a high percentage of the time, even if the substance of their argument is sound. And it is not sound in this case, because they already have a civil union that provide the same benefits as marriage. All they've been denied is a word. This isn't about civil rights; it's about hurt feelings. Sound policy is based on facts, not feelings. And the fact is that same-sex unions do not meet the definition of marriage, any more than heterosexual unions meet the definition of gay.
P.S. You repeatedly demand, "Who cares?" As this result shows, a lot of people care, even if you do not. Your shrewish scolding is not likely to make them stop, either.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-14 4:35:36 PM
"Even if the original purpose of my shoes is to keep my feet from bleeding, there's nothing morally wrong with me using shoes as flower pots. No one cares, because the original purpose for something is not (independently) normative."
The point is: concepts should be defined according to their *primary* purpose (which in the case of marriage is family stability, and providing children with access to one male and one female caregiver).
A concept like marriage also has plenty of secondary purposes (i.e. mutual support, intimacy, sharing of property, etc.) Obviously, these are relevant to gay couples and should be granted to them, but not by diluting the meaning of the word "marriage."
As for your example with the shoes, obviously there's nothing wrong with you using them for other purposes. But they are defined as shoes *because* it is at least theoretically possible for you to wear them on your feet.
If someone made a ceramic flower pot designed to look exactly like a shoe, but it didn't (and couldn't) serve the purpose of a shoe (by acting as footwear), then strictly speaking, it wouldn't be correct call it a shoe.
On the other hand, if you purchased a new pair of shoes and nobody *ever* wore them, they would still be shoes, simply because they are capable of performing the function of shoes.
Likewise, you are correct in saying that not every marriage will produce children. However, the definition of marriage should not extend to relationships which are, by definition, incapable of producing children.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-14 4:41:41 PM
Dp
I wish I knew where you are getting your ideas. No, check that, I wish not. I can probably figure it out myself.
First of all, no church will ever have to marry anyone it chooses not to marry. This is something called "Separation of Church and State". It is something we have in the U.S. Neither could a church ever lose tax exempt status for refusing to marry anyone. I could walk into a Catholic Church with my boyfriend and they could rightfully tell me that they don't want to marry us. There is nothing legal that forces them to marry us and there will never be.
Secondly, when you use phrases like "take one in the ass" you make me think that you are either a mixed-up adolescent trying to play with the adults here or a product of a very screwed up childhood. In either case your words are disgusting, unintelligent and childish.
While you still hold these imbecile ideas about gays and speak as you do out of ignorance and anger you will move no further. Try saying this "Being Gay is not about the sex". Repeat that 1000 times until you get it. You need a lot more deprogramming but that's a good start.
Posted by: Clarissa | 2008-11-14 4:46:33 PM
Try saying this "Being Gay is not about the sex". Repeat that 1000 times until you get it. You need a lot more deprogramming but that's a good start.
Posted by: Clarissa | 14-Nov-08 4:46:33 PM
And you call me ignorant? That's all it's about. Try repeating this 1000 times. "Gay sex frightens straight people".
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 5:03:40 PM
dp:
My own observation on the ‘gay gene' argument and a question.
Is there such a thing as ‘poke a person with a sharp pencil" gene?
OK, one more on the autonatom defence ... if a human being cannot control the way they act out on an alleged gay gene, what other bodily functions are beyond their control.
Is orientation the only thing that trumps self-control and choice?
Would there be a genetic bluepring that forces people to ingest heroin, for example?
One more example, please.
I suspect it's really a matter of choice and human being acting on their own free will.
Heterosexuals, for example, have never had to need to justify their behaviour in the same way as this bogus ‘gay gene' argument.
I'm guessing it was a gay scientist who came up with that theory.
Hey, gays can suck and f**k any way they like, far as I'm concerned.
I'm sure the natural-born children created as a result of their particular sexual action will take good care of them in their old age.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-14 5:16:47 PM
Jeremy,
Did you ever hear of the case of Maurice v. Judd?
http://tinyurl.com/5reaz9
I have to say, this is one of my favorite blog posts of all time.
1818, New York. State law prohibited trafficking in uninspected fish oil. Maurice, the inspector, fined Judd for buying barrels of uninspected fish oil. Judd said "Hell, no, I'm not paying the fine." Why not? Because he'd bought whale oil, not fish oil.
And everyone knows a whale isn't a fish, right? Not at that time. It was a contested issue. On one side were those who thought whales had to be fish, because (a) the Bible suggests this, and (b) Anyway, the common folk were used to thinking of whales as a kind of fish. That's the way the concept of "fish" was traditionally used.
Incidentally, Judd lost his case. The jury declared that, as a matter of law, whales are fish. The common understanding of the category "fish" included whales, the thinking of scientists to the contrary.
Now, if a concept is defined by the common view of that concept's purpose (I'm not quite sure what this would mean, but..) surely the jury was right to find against Judd.
After all, at the time, the word "fish" denoted animals that live exclusively in the water, with fins and all that kind of thing. Most people didn't understand that there are deeper, anatomical and genetic differences between whales and fish that matter more than their superficial similarities.
But it was still a stupid decision. The New York state legislature recognized this shortly afterwards when it re-wrote the inspection legislation to specifically exempt whale oil.
Even if the common folk at the time used the term "fish" in a way that included whales, they eventually lost out. And those who use the term "marriage" to refer exclusively to male-female parings of a certain form will eventually lose.
Best,
Terrence
(By the way, everyone should read the original blog post. I just summarized some of it, but it is so very good, my summary does it no justice at all.)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-14 5:20:01 PM
The point, to follow up, is that people will realize there are very important "deeper" similarities between committed heterosexual relationships and committed homosexual ones.
For example, the values those relationships bring to the lives of those who are in them (and, I would add, the value they bring to society more generally) are substantially similar. The idea that these relationships are inherently harmful to children brought up within them will also go, as science proves that this idea is wrong.
The fact that one kind of relationship involves people of different genders and the other involves people of the same gender is irrelevant. It doesn't outweigh the similarities, and I think young people, with more exposure to same-sex relationships, are getting it. They are drawing the appropriate conclusion.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-14 5:25:46 PM
Terrence- The original charge was that the oil was uninspected. Somehow, that little detail seems to have been lost in all the nit picking.
SYF- I tend to believe that they have no control over their tendencies, but I won't spend much time arguing the point. I agree that upbringing probable influences the final product. I'd hate to think there's a criminal gene as well, but who knows?
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 5:34:22 PM
"The idea that these relationships are inherently harmful to children brought up within them will also go, as science proves that this idea is wrong."
"They are drawing the appropriate conclusion."
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 14-Nov-08 5:25:46 PM
This is where things go in the wrong direction with this entire issue. You talk about science, then use terms like "appropriate conclusion".
Oh well, we've entered the age of socially accepted science. Again.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-14 5:41:21 PM
Dp,
The oil was uninspected, but it wasn't fish oil. The inspection regime only applied to fish oil.
Also, by appropriate conclusion, I was only speaking about the relationship people usually seem to assume exists between facts (uncovered by science or otherwise) and behavior.
Basically: If x is harmful (esp. to others), this is a reason not to do, bring about, or endorse x.
If x -- say, same-sex relationships -- were proven to be harmful to children, this would be a reason (perhaps) not to endorse such relationships within the law. That's the "appropriate conclusion" I was referring to.
But if same-sex relationships are not harmful in this way, then -- I think -- the "appropriate conclusion" might, MIGHT need to be something different. No?
(There might be other harms the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would produce, but I'm still not sure what those harms are supposed to be. The line I've heard the most is that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would override the incentives straight people now have to marry, and they'd just stop doing so. I find that prediction somewhat unbelievable.)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-14 5:53:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.