We keep hearing from advocates of homosexual marriage that no church will ever be required to perform such ceremonies if they run contrary to church teachings. Supporters of overturning millenia of Western Culture on the matter of marriage insist that they only want to have their relationships recognized by the state and obtain benefits.
I think, though, that recent events in France tell us otherwise.
About two dozen protestors scuffled with priests and security guards at Notre Dame Cathedral Sunday. As stunned worshipers looked on the protestors marched down the aisle to the alter where one, dressed like a priest, performed a mock marriage ceremony for a lesbian couple.As priests and security guards tried to hustle group out of the nave, one priest was knocked to the ground. The demonstrators chanted "Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice."
Monsignor Patrick Jacquin, who received a minor injury, called the protest an outrage.
Most of the protestors were from the group Act Up Paris. A spokesperson for the group said the demonstration was timed to coincide with the first year anniversary of France's first same-sex marriage.
Interrupting worship services. Profaning the sacrament and the sanctuary in the Cathedral. Assaulting the priest.
The demand for acceptance will not stop with the passage of laws recognizing homosexual marriage. The next demand will be for a law requiring that religious organizations perform such marriages -- no doubt on pain of refusing to recognize any marriages performed if the teachings of the church are not jettisoned.
The line has been drawn.
 |
Comments on A Sign Of Things To Come
C'mon. It was done in the name of mockery. The Act-Up organization is famous for shock value -- it was in response to the years of abuses, homophobic messages spewed by its Church on gays.
Hey, payback is bitch, is it?
Cry me a river, please. You're sinking. Your religion is slowly disintegrating and guess what? Jesus will never come by -- after all, he's DEAD.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 7, 2005 03:33 AM ||Sorry -R, but you're WAY off base here.
Churches are private property. What you have here is Criminal Trespass and Battery. These people need to be jailed.
I can *say* whatever I like. That never gives anyone a right to come on to my property and harass me.
Rephrased - if someone tried to invade say...my home...in such a manner...they would be shot...repeatedly.
Who do they think they are? Someone hurts their feelings so they get to knock people down, push their way into a sacred ceremony, and interrupt what they were doing?
Also - WHAT abuses? Do you mean condemning the behavior? THAT is not abuse. THAT is an opinion. Further, the Church is not homophobic. I cannot STAND that term. They believe (wrongly I think) that homosexuality is a sin. That does not mean they somehow fear it - it means they believe it to be a sin. Don't read more into it than that.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 7, 2005 06:35 AM ||I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque? Would it be an international cause celebre, with demands for harsh punishment of those who desecrated a Muslim house of worship and failed to show proper respect to Islam?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 7, 2005 09:51 AM ||Sub, that is YOUR opinion. Let me emphasize this again -- ACT UP is the radical organization founded during the Reagan Years in response to use the shock tactics to force the government/churches to look at their lack of efforts in finding solutions in early 80s.
Today, the ACT UP remains to be the most radical organization of gay spectrum. Their actions, sometimes, are not something that I approved but am I ever surprised with their antics when they crashed through the Cathedral and make the situation a mockery of their faith? NO, NOT AT ALL! In fact, I EXPECTED IT ALL.
Churches, you may argue that it is private, are not probably private in France.
You can *say* whatever you like. Absolutely. You remind me of a videotape I saw where the gay neighbor installed the secret videotape to videotape the harassments they received at the hands of their straight neighbor. AS the gay man was tending the front yard, he was harassed by the straight man with throwing beer cans, objects and at times, the straight man ran across the property and socked the guy down then fled back. They called the cops. Nothing was being done because there was lack of evidence. Even with the guy providing the tape, they said that it is not enough. One word: bullshit. Like you said, if someone do that to me on my property, I'll shoot them but guess what? I'll still go to the jail.
What abuses? Pedophilia. Its repeated arrogance of telling people that being gay is wrong and less than 2nd class citizen (it encouraged people the option to attack gay people as whole). You argued that it is an opinion. But the nutty Church try to make it an authority on their opinion for others to follow. The Church is homophobic, period. The Church will dissipate if people continue to learn the truth that they are nothign but a tool to control the mass of the people.
When I heard that the ACT UP organizers crashed through the Cathedral, I laughed. It is so typical of them. I'm so used to it. You should be.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 7, 2005 09:55 AM ||Absolutely not. Book 'em. Charge 'em with felony counts. Attempted murder. Assault. Let them enjoy prison time.
A church is a sanctuary. And I WILL drag them out if that happened in my church. A church is private property but open to those who seek refuge and learning, but not desecration.
Of course, RWR, "R" won't answer the mosque question. He must think everything in a Christian concept.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 10:13 AM ||I think the key here is, as Ridor mentioned, Act Up is a radicial organization. If you are going to say that Act Up represents all people who think gay people are human, then I fully expect you to say that all Christians are just like Fred Phelps. Well??
Secondly, what do this event have to do with same-sex marriage. Nobody involved as trying to force a church to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony. This particular radical group used a mock same-sex wedding as a form of protest, but nobody even once claimed that the church should be required to perform any marriage ceremony, especially since even Civil Marriage isn't an option for French same-sex couples.
Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 7, 2005 10:15 AM ||You must have been commenting the same time I was mcconnel. Attempt murder? for walking into a church? Assault is a potential charge since a priest was knocked down in the struggle, but attempted murder??
Geezz now THAT'S a precentdent I wouldn't want to see set.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 7, 2005 10:17 AM ||RWR wrote: "I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque?"
Absolutely none. Because they are all dead. Think about it. ;-)
Basically, I'm all for the desceration of holy places -- including the mosques AND Christian churches. It is my personal belief that these are just a building that people tried to make it "sacred".
But again, ACT UP is the radical organization that does not reflect all gays as whole. I enjoy their antics because it is hilarious. It poked fun and mocked at the system that does not work at all.
Telling Africans not to wear condoms is sending them to death -- and that is abuse, subjugator, by withholding the information that could save lives -- for a change, I ain't talk to you, mcconnell.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 7, 2005 10:55 AM ||We weren't there. And we don't know if they planned (or expected) to see some hurtin' while protesting. Murder (or manslaughter) is a potential given the volatility of that group's action, whether intentional or unintentional. But I agree with you dolphin, murder may be a bit too far, however, only time will tell when you have extremist groups who get nuttier every year who infringes and trespasses other people's property.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 10:59 AM ||Ever hear of this group, Protest Warrior? http://www.protestwarrior.com
They respect people's property. Debate with a cool head. They protest in their assigned spots. No resorting to violence. Avoid violence at all costs. And use clever signs to make a point. However, even then Liberals attack them with violence. How ironic.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 11:13 AM ||You don't have to "talk" to me "R". But you just did. Keep quiet on that part for a change. Keep your word. Keep it to an absolute bare minimum. Agree? Shhhhh...
McConnell: Member of ProtestWarrior, own a lot of shirts and a bumper sticker, as well as their (new) DVD.
Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response. As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.
-R - The sex scandals are just that...scandalous and evil. Their response to it has been FAR less than it should be. I totally agree. Now let's talk about abuses against GAYS.
Their abuses against gays are...none? Telling people not to use condoms is not an abuse. It's a tenet of their religion. Telling people that being gay is wrong is also a tenet of their religion. Jews tell people that eating pork is a sin - I am not hurt by this, despite the fact that I consume large quantities thereof. Muslims tell people that consumption of alcohol is a sin, and I am not hurt by that either (though I only drink very rarely).
So - why are you for the descration of something that someone else finds to be sacred? Why do you CARE that someone else finds it to be sacred? They're not hurting you by thinking that a statue, building, tree, salt stain on a wall, or smoking brazier is sacred...what's your problem where you want to make them feel bad over it?
As for me saying whatever I like, so long as I am not being incredibly loud, and am not violating the rights of another (i.e. I'm not throwing things at them like the cretin in your example), I can say whatever I wish. I do not dislike or have a problem with homosexuals myself - I don't even think it's sinful. That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).
It sounds to me as if you believe that the right to exist includes the right to make others appreciate your beliefs, views, and desires. Many people dislike me and don't follow my viewpoints. That does not give me ANY right or excuse to invade their property, shove them aside, and do as I wish on their property.
You have the right to exist as a human being. You have the right to peaceful enjoyment of your home...to a certain degree (you can't tell your neighbor to stop growing a certain kind of flower or something like that because it interferes with your enjoyment (unless it's in your CC&Rs or is illegal).
You have the right to coexist in some way with the partner(s) of your choice.
You do not have the right to marry in the church of your choice unless they are willing to do so.
You do not have the right to have everyone like you and what your choices or desires are.
You do not have the right to tell others what the tenets of their religion are.
You do not have the right to go onto other people's property to protest their belief system.
You do not have the right to damage the property of others because you do not agree with their beliefs.
You're all for the desecration of people's sacred objects or sites?
I am all for the arrest of you or anyone else who does so with any property that is not your own.
Again, in the event that another invades MY property, they can expect to be shot. Thankfully, in Indiana, if someone breaks into your house (or is even TRYING to break into your house), the presumption is that they intend you or your family harm, and you can shoot on sight. I do not suffer people who break into my home or otherwise threaten my family gladly, and will do whatever is necessary to protect them in the event that such is necessary.
Note that such does NOT include a detailed query as to the intent of the person who threatens my family.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 7, 2005 12:39 PM ||Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response.
Ok, not sure what that has to do with anything at all, but thanks for sharing.
As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.
While I disagree with you assessment (and suspect that oyu're not familiar with the methods of Act Up), if that was the ENTIRE point of their protest I don't see how that is representative of government policy forcing churchs to marry couples they'd rather not marry, as RWR suggested. The Catholic Church doesn't marry divorcees, the government has never made them. It's merely scare tatics to suggest that this will be any different, a way of avoiding the issue at hand if you will.
That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. My view on same-sex marriage is, believe it's wrong if you want but don't try to hurt me by denying me legal rights.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 7, 2005 01:34 PM ||Sub,
Yes, PW sells mechandise. It's called "free enterprise." Anything wrong with that? Perhaps the extra $$ for future protests and help cover expenses such as paying for their website. What of it?
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 01:44 PM ||Subjugator, you are overreacting.
It is interesting to note that some considered gay to be an active form of evil. And when the sex scandals within the Church is considered to be "evil" -- it is OK as long as the Church gets to delegate what's wrong and right so that they can say, "It was not my fault. It was the Devil's acts!" Hogwash. The Church is responsible for its behavior, whether if it is evil or not.
They preached for years that gay sex is abhorrent. The Mormon Church encourage the electric shock to turn the gays into straight guys. There are horror stories that the Church went as far as to do things.
Look at Fred Phelps! Focus on the Family! Exodus International! These are typical of Christian's behaviors. Look at Michael Sacavarage (sp?), he used his "tenet of his religion" to bash on gays at the gay pride festivals. That is abuse. To attack people of their choices, trying to scare them with hocus pocus is a form of abuse! It is like telling an abused wife that if she tells the cop, she'll be dead.
It is my belief that not to share the necessary information about the protection, especially in Africa, is a form of abuse. This is to SAVE lives, not to worry about the tenet of one s religion!
Who cares about one's tenet of others?! The point is that there is a pandemic in Africa! Why worry about condoms? You do not believe in it, that is OK but to prevent others from getting it is not OK.
I'm all for the desceration of sacred stuff -- know why? To minimize the hocus pocus. People are obsessed over materialism. People needs to see that burning Vatican to the grounds will not halt the world from turning into the tomorrow. Nuke Jerusalem will not bring the armageddon. IN fact, everything will just roll on. People needs to see that there is more to life than religions. But that is my personal belief.
They do not hurt me but they do offend me when they attempt to decide things for me. For instance, I knew of a born-again Christian who came to me and my brother and told us that they can cure us of our deafness because they are born-again Christians. Whoopee! I politely declined and told them that we are fine being deaf. Guess what they did next? They put their hands on my heads and start to pray. What do I do? I shoved the bitch down and knocked her down. For a minute, she thought she was seeing the devil incarnate!
That is the whole point -- the religious groups claimed that they did nothing wrong but they go around and criticize others, telling them what ot do with their lives. IN the past, they destroyed faiths that rejected Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Ask Natives, ask Irish, ask Pagans, ask Canaanites!
Sometimes they need to feel bad for doing things like that.
Like you, I respect their beliefs, but for them to use the bullhorns trying to spread misinformation, that is crossing the line. So when the ACT UP did this, you could say payback is bitch.
It is not a good excuse but it happens all the time. I could use disability issue to point that I abhor hearing people. I could use religion issue to point that I can't stand religious nuts. I could use the politics to point out that I despise conservatives prick but guess what? They are still there, I already accepted that a long time ago -- but I do not have to respect nor listen to their craps.
I already wrote in my blog a long time ago that the Church reserved the right not to perform the same-sex marriage. I personally will not get caught dead setting my foot in the church property.
Just few days ago, Pope Benedict spoke against the gay marriages and urged the governments to stop it -- this man is trying to make us 2nc class citizen. He is willing to use his religion to pressure governments to succumb to his will. The whole point is that many gays need the marriage license, not to marry, but to get the benefits, protections and rights. We do not care about the weddings that you see on reality-based TV shows!
Who wants to visit Indiana? Certainly not me.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 7, 2005 01:45 PM ||Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.
Tell that to the Supreme Court who has had the inclination to use foreign legal precedent as foundation for some of their opinions!
|| Posted by Hube, June 7, 2005 01:50 PM ||I guess people are for the desecration of gay marriage, too. But I don't like the Mormon church or any overly religious zealots. If they want to pray for you, they can. Just do it privately. :)
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 02:44 PM ||Umm...McConnell?
*I* am a member of PW. *I* own shirts. *I* bought the DVD.
Heck, I'm wearing a PW shirt right now (the one that shows the signing of the Declaration of Independence and says 'Right Wing Extremists' on it).
Furthermore, I'm a capitalist. I love it when people make money from my purchases...that means they're more likely to be there the next time I need something.
I was talking about what a great site it is, not complaining.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 7, 2005 02:51 PM ||Sub,
Ah. Duly noted now that you've explained.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 03:11 PM ||Hehe.. I just saw a site talking about PW. He got kicked out, because he offered a suggestion that they hold a rally at a military recruiting center and those of appropriate age all join up. He posted the suggestion on his site, it was incredibly polite and actually I thought a good idea.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 7, 2005 03:19 PM ||Dolphin: Sorry, I completely misread something you'd said earlier. When you said, 'Attempt murder...for walking into a church?' I thought you were saying that in answer to my statement about someone going into my house. Ignore that and muy apologista.
Re: the ACT UP protest - I'm not entirely familiar with them. I mean, I've heard about some of the stuff they've done from friends of mine who are gay (I don't remember anything specific though), I don't follow their actions.
You and I are dead on in agreement with religion and how it relates to marriage. My position on marriage is that it's none of the government's business and it's between the people and their religious personage(s).
-R: The pedophile priests are practicing as much evil as you say. I know all too well how much havok a pedophile can wreak on the life of a child, and am dealing with the fallout of that right now. Further, the response of the church has been weak at *BEST*. A lot of people have a lot to answer for that. Unfortunately, we agree all too much on how much evil has been spread there.
Also, please make NO mistake...
I do NOT think homosexuality is evil or a sin.
I do NOT think that homosexuality means one is a pedophile (as some mind blowingly stupid people do).
I do NOT think homosexuality is the result of mental illness (once again, as some mind blowingly stupid people do); though I do think that depression can quite naturally result from people being jerks to homosexuals.
The only reason I'd ever be concerned about one of my children being a homosexual is that, as above, people can be jerks to them and that can make life harder.
That associate of yours that tried to heal you against your will was rude and intrusive. I do not support that sort of behavior; that's called 'battery' and when done in a religious context has the same smell as rape to me (though not nearly as strong).
Here's one to throw a few of you through a loop, but I believe in the allownace of plural marriages and find it to be astonishing that it's illegal. I also find it to be astonishing that some people have gone so far as to make same sex marriage specifically illegal. I mean, what do they care about who marries who? THEY don't have to be in the marriage, so they have no reason to care.
The one objection I have to *any* sexual relationship is when people are overt with public displays of affection. I don't mean hand holding or a quick peck, but deep kissing and public touching of private areas. Keep that to private or secluded places please. I don't want my kids to have to either re-live bad memories or have to explain anything to them. They've experienced enough thank you, and now that they're mine (and not the monsters who abused and allowed the abuse), I'm keeping them nice and sheltered until they're older.
That also means that sex education is under MY purview. I don't want them being introduced to anything that's going to throw them for a loop without my wife or me being the one to introduce it to them. Stuff they see on a day-to-day basis won't make them wonder, but stuff they see rarely *will* make them wonder. In other words, I don't care if they see two guys or gals holding hands or giving each other pecks, but I don't want their teachers reading to them about Rainbow Parties (they do not refer to homosexuality, but to group oral sex), same sex households, or other advanced subjects on sexuality without my express consent.
Sorry...got off on a tangent there.
Sub
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 7, 2005 03:30 PM ||Maybe you should turn over your children to my mother who bluntly cut to the chase when I was a kid, she said in ASL: "RT (that's my sign name)! MUST TELL YOU IMPORTANT. YOU NOW TEENAGER. YOU KNOW ALL BOYS HAVE PENISES! ALL GIRLS HAVE VAGINAS! IF YOU PUT IN GIRLS' VAGINAS, CAN GET PREGNANT. YOU CANT DO THAT OR I WILL DISOWN YOU! YOU UNDERSTAND ME??"
That was a blunt and straightforward education but I already knew I liked boys when I was 12. But I do not forget what she said. It cuts to the chase then on my own time, I ask about things related to sex.
Subjugator, I hate to say that but I suspect we are much alike in many ways. I think overtly making out in public can be kept somewhere in the dark. But not in the public eye. But I think it's ok for a guy to hold another guy in the public. I feel that the plural marriages are fine as long as women wanted it as well. I mean, these ones in Utah is not good reflective of plural marriage because they forced the teenagers to pull out of school and wed. It has to be done of their free will. In fact, I knew of gay tri-relationship in Tacoma, Washington -- they are happier. Even worse, one of the partners' mother lived in a senior citizen's group home and she bragged that her son has two partners!
Live and let live, that is the motto -- the religious groups seemed to interfere people's lives at its best when people chose to decide for themselves.
Regarding the ACT UP, I believe the famous act that the ACT UP did to the Catholic Church in New York was throwing red paint on St. Patrick's Cathedral Church in New York which stunned the public at large. Its actions are absurd but at that time, very effective. But today, the ACT UP has become somewhat ineffective.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 7, 2005 04:42 PM ||R-
I guess I am showing my age, folks, but I am old enough to remember when "homosexual rights" meant "stop vice raids on gay bars and bathhouses, and let us in the military." That was only 30 or so years ago.
Later it became "employment non-discrimination".
Then it became "domestic partner & hate crimes legislation".
Then it became "civil unions."
Then it became "marriage."
Next step? Require churches perform homosexual marriage or the government stops recognizing marriages performed by churches that won't -- or declare it a "human rights" issue that overrides religious freedom, which used to be considered a human right.
At least that is what I see, just from watching the trends -- from places like Canada, France, Sweden, and other countries.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 7, 2005 05:11 PM ||RWR, just watch. The ACLU will probably be first to sue a church for not performing a gay marriage. Or has it already happened? Next comes the govt where Liberals will be all too happy to see the violation of separation and church and state by enforcing church to perform gay marriages. I may not be too off here considering the pace.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 7, 2005 05:26 PM ||RWR, GOOD! ABout time the religions are put in the closet ... permanently.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 8, 2005 12:59 AM ||In other words, Ridor, that annoying little First Amendment thing in that irrelevant little Constitution thing needs to be violated and ignored in the name of what you view as the greater good.
Glad that you finally admitted that you don't believe in American values.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 8, 2005 05:25 AM ||Sorry Ridor, but religion should not be in the closet. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we have to stop doing it. In much the same way that you should not have to be in the closet being gay, religion should not be a closeted society either. There is no shame involved in either.
Rather than being non-religious, you seem to be anti-religious...actively opposing it. That sounds suspiciously like bigotry.
Side note: the ACT UP paint splash incident - I don't call that protest, I call that vandalism, and it's a crime. They'd have been thrown in jail were it up to me.
See, protest is when you stand outside somewhere and make your point known. It's not when you destroy someone else's property.
It would seem you and I tend to agree on the subject of marriage. So long as it's voluntary and between adults, it's none of my business.
RWR: I think the busting up of gay bars was wrong so long as none but adults are inside and what happens inside is not visible or audible to the people nearby.
The employment and marriage stuff I would leave to the indivudual religion or business. I've always thought that bigotry was part of the right of expression, even if cretinous.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 8, 2005 06:14 AM ||RWR,
You're right and the march to equality continues. Here's where your slippery slope argument breaks down. All that you have listed have been about establishing equality. None (save perhaps employment non-discrimination, which you don't agree with but it's still a matter of equality since it exists for everyone else) have been about making YOU change at all. To jump from "Gay people want the government to grant them the same rights is grants other citizens" to "churchs will have to change their beliefs" is not only a HUGE leap of logic, but it defies historical precedent and I strongly suspect you don't believe it yourself. The thing is, gay people have gotten married in this country now and the sky hasn't fallen and nobody's heterosexual marriage has broken up over. If the neo-con right has any hope of taking marriage equality away from us they have to shift their fear-tatics from "protecting marriage" to the (equally erroneous) "protecting religion." That's what you're trying to do here I believe.
I have said it many times. I don't WANT to get married in a church that thinks of me as less than human.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 8, 2005 10:12 AM ||RWR....ROFLMAO!! Hadn't a good knee slapper in longgg time.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 8, 2005 10:58 AM ||Dolphin...
Just to be clear, I also think that employers should be able to refuse employment to anyone for any reason they like at any time. If they want to refuse to hire me because I'm bald and/or fat (I look a lot like Elmer Fudd), they can do so in my world. If they want to refuse to hire me because I have splotchy skin (I have vitiligo (sp?)), they can do so in my world.
This is not restricted to any particular group. I figure it's their money to spend as they wish and kinda falls in line with the legal saying that allows pre-emptory dismissals of jurors:
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
You can hire whomever you like, so long as you live up to the contract(s) you sign when so doing.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 8, 2005 01:14 PM ||Sub,
That's fine, while I might disagree, I understand that view, my point was that employment non-discrimination is something that's offered to ALL citizens so offering it to gay people fits in with equal rights not <gopbuzzword> special rights </gopbuzzword>. While I would disagree with taking away employment non-discrimination polcies, the most important thing abotu them is that they are applied (or not) the same to everyone.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 8, 2005 03:15 PM ||/agree
I completely agree with you there Dolphin. If you're going to have a law protecting a set of things (employment, dog walking, shopping, marriage, what have you), then protect it for all rational subsets or not at all.
One of the 'minority' (now a majority I guess) groups that I belong to is fat people. I screamed with rage when a fat woman sued GNC because they refused to (now get this) WIDEN THE AISLES so she could FIT DOWN THEM. She called that a 'reasonable accomidation.' I called it 'not disabled' and said she needs to put down the fried chicken. Mind you, if anyone's got an excuse to be fat, I do (bad thyroid, low blood sugar (*NOT* from being fat), bad knee (work injury), and bad ankles (old skating injuries), not to mention just being flat uncoordinated)...and I know I can lose weight if I put my mind to it.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 8, 2005 03:38 PM ||I'll agree with you, Sub, about the bars and bathhouses. And I even agree with dolphin about the employment issue -- there should be equal laws there, though I disagree with employment discrimination laws that apply to any entity except government.
I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 8, 2005 06:50 PM ||*grin*
OK - I admit, the surprise there made me laugh.
I can't agree with you on the last bit RWR, simply because I think the government should stay out of marriage. It's none of their business who I marry or how I marry them. Marriage is a function of religion - if gays can find a religion to marry them, so be it - it should not have any relevance whatsoever with the government.
Management of property should be through standardized contracts (or non-standard ones), as should medical decisions, custody, etc...for ALL people, hetero and homo alike.
I hate that the government legislates marriage. I know WHY they do it, but I don't have to like it.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 8, 2005 08:56 PM ||I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.
I always find that to be an interesting view that anti-gay individuals bring up whenever they can't back their hatred. First I find it interesting because it's word for word exactly the argument that was used against interacial marraiges, it went like this then: There's no discrimination, a black person can marry any member of the same race, just like a white person can." It wasn't right then and it's not right now. But I suspect such hate-groups and their followers will continue to try the same old tired rhetoric.
Secondly, there is NOT equality. Any woman in this country can marry a man but I can't. Why, ONLY because I'm male. If gender is a legitimate reason to discriminate aginst American citizens, then can I assume you are in support of removing womens sufferage? Can I quote you on that?
|| Posted by dolphin, June 9, 2005 10:41 AM ||No, you may not, as that is not my opinion.
Nor am I anti-gay -- merely pro-marriage.
Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. The racial restrictions illegitimately imposed were not fundamental to the nature of marriage, and were, in fact, contrary to the clear dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same cannot be said of homosexual marriage, which requires a fundamental disruption and reconfiguration of the institution of marriage as generally understood for the last couple of millenia in Western Society.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 9, 2005 11:53 AM ||You are ANTI-MARRIAGE. You may think gay people don't deserve human rights but to claim to be "pro-marriage" is an outright lie. Who is trying to stop marriages from happening? YOU! You are not doing anything to help any marriage. That's a FACT, with the exception of Rick Santorum (and probabyl a few others) even the strongest opponents of marriage equality acknowlege that straight marriages can't be hurt by gay marriages.
Let's be CRYSTAL clear, the only people trying to ban any marriages at all is YOUR SIDE, PERIOD. Believe what you want but DO NOT delude yourself into thinking that seekign to ban marriage is anything less than ANTI-marriage and ANTI-family.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 9, 2005 12:46 PM ||I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.
By your definition, I'll lie to the woman that I'm not gay, I will cheat on her by fucking guys in bathhouses and adult bookstores ... as long as I am able to juggle both worlds in secrecy.
Such a fabulous idea! Not.
Your argument is so retarded.
R-
|| Posted by Me is the Ridor, June 9, 2005 07:41 PM ||Who said anything about lying.
If you decided to marry, I would hope you would be as up front about it as you are about your deafness.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 9, 2005 09:33 PM ||Then your entire argument falls apart RWR.
It wasn't a very good argument to begin with but nobody is going to marry somebody they already know doesn't love them romantically. So now your back to denying marraige rigths just because a person is gay.
This is just one issue that is so plainly black and white that I can't bring myself to understand why there's even been a debate. Eitehr gay people deserve the saem rights as others or we don't. I'd like to think that in America there wouldn't be a question, but that's the America of ideals and until the far right has been knocked from power we will continue to see an America that looks quite different from anythign that could be refered to as the land of the free.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 9, 2005 11:14 PM ||So by your definition, America has never been the land of the free, and has always been ruled by hateful anti-gay right-wingers. After all, homosexual marriage has NEVER been permitted in the US, except under the rulings of a couple of rogue judges. And the American people have never supported homosexual marriage, as witnessed by the fact that EVERY TIME THEY VOTE they reject it.
You are absolutely hysterical.
Oh, and by the way, dolphin, the fact is that the issue is black and white -- marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. That is why I cannot believe that we, as a society, are even having the debate.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, June 9, 2005 11:56 PM ||RWR,
I repeat again, what is it that has given you such a vile and intense hatred for gay people. Were you wronged by a gay person. If so might I suggest you speak to a counselor. Perhaps you can learn to direct your anger at that one person, express it and move on, this hatred is actually bad for your health.
|| Posted by dolphin, June 10, 2005 10:05 AM ||Excuse me, dolphin, but your dime-store psychoanalysis is quite off base.
I don't hate homosexuals.
I believe homosexual activity is sinful and immoral.
Big difference.
So why don't you go take a class in speech or logic and learn how to make an argument without ultimately returning to a baseless ad hominem attack on your opponent.
|| Posted by , June 10, 2005 10:54 AM ||I'm assuming the above comment was made by RWR?
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 10, 2005 02:04 PM ||Dolphin: While I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and immoral, I also don't equate believing so to being a hater of homosexuals.
Typically...or I should maybe say ideally, a person who believes another is engaged in sinful behavior will want to try and help the other and not hate them for it. Generally speaking I wish to help people that I see who are sinning...sometimes I also feel pity.
That said; even if I though homosexuality was a sin, I don't view it as any more of a sin than my pride, or my overeating, or, or, or...you get the idea. I'm a sinner as much as you or anyone else. It's a binary situation - either you are a sinner or you are not. I'd like to help other sinners...but frequently don't because it'll be intrusive and won't help at all.
Anyway - I'm a sinner, you're a sinner...we're all sinners.
...but God loves us all anyway. That's (part) of why He is so much better than us. He sees the beauty in everyone. My blind eyes see the beauty in but a few.
Sub
|| Posted by Subjugator, June 10, 2005 03:00 PM ||Well, Dolphin's not going to answer. Doesn't see intellectual diversity (honesty) for what they are.
|| Posted by mcconnell, June 11, 2005 11:34 AM ||Post a comment