Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Dennis Prager has a column at the Worldnutdaily filled with predictable and ill-conceived outrage at the California gay marriage ruling. He begins by saying: this is big. Really big:
Nothing imaginable - leftward or rightward - would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
Okay, reality check. The ruling from the California Supreme Court was not really about whether gays could get married, it was about whether they could call it marriage. California already has domestic partnership laws that give most of the rights and protections of marriage to gay couples. This case was about whether those partnerships had to be called marriages and the court said yes. The only real change is the label, not the reality.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before.
I love arguments like this. The argument applies to virtually every major case in the history of the court - remember, the court exists for the purpose of overturning legislation passed by the "rest of society." Let's flash back to 1963, when an "arrogant" federal judge "imposed his understanding of what is right and wrong" on the people of Alabama and forced the University of Alabama to admit black students.
Every single element that Prager objects to is present in that case as well. That "arrogant" federal judge assuming that all of the vast history and tradition of theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems maintaining that race-mixing was a bad thing were wrong while he saw things in a moral light never seen before. But he was right, of course, and they were wrong. And even Dennis Prager would not make the same argument there, no matter how valid.
As I've said before, this argument is only used when one disagrees with the outcome. If you think the "will of the people" backed by centuries of tradition is right, then damn those arrogant judges for imposing their tyrannical will. If you think the "will of the people" backed by centuries of tradition is wrong, then praise those judges for doing the right thing. But if you think the decision is wrong then say it's wrong; it's not wrong merely because it goes against the will of the people or longstanding tradition or religious endorsement. This exact same argument was made about slavery, about miscegenation laws, about bans on contraception, and virtually every other major change.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion - not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism - ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side.
Talk about historical revisionism. Of course no one can claim that "Christianity" banned interracial marriage because there is no official body that speaks for "Christianity" (as opposed to various denominations of it), but isn't it interesting that Prager says it doesn't matter how many Christian leaders or denominations took that position. It doesn't?
Surely he would at least admit that wherever Christianity dominated in the West, interracial marriage was banned for centuries. In the US, those laws were enforced in all 13 colonies going back to the late 1600s. The majority of American states had such laws until the late 1940s and a sizable minority had them until 1967, when the court overturned them. In each and every case, they were justified on the basis of religion. The district court judge in the Loving case declared:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Such laws were justified and defended using Biblical stories of Phinehas and the "curse of Ham." Whether those stories were interpreted correctly or not is irrelevant; the point is that these laws were always justified with reference to the Bible and Christianity. And incidentally, it was California that led the way in overturning such laws, which the California Supreme Court did in 1948 in Perez v Sharp. Those damn arrogant judges, thinking they could tell right from wrong better than the people of every state going back three centuries!
And now we get to Prager's analysis of why this is so evil, the horrible effects this ruling will have. And yes, it's amusing:
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming - to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
Wow. That is just staggeringly stupid. Dennis, seriously, do you think young girls in Massachusetts today don't imagine their future wedding to Prince Charming? How does the fact that other girls have the right to marry Princess Charming change what anyone can imagine or dream about? This is all quite silly.
The comparison to race is even more silly. By Prager's "logic" the legalization of interracial marriage should have led to anyone who marries someone of their own race being berated and called a racist for not marrying someone of another race. Anyone know anyone who's been so berated? Me neither. Allowing greater choice for a small subset of people doesn't change a damn thing for the vast majority of people.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity - especially females - can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction - until now, accomplished through marriage.
For crying out loud. Does Prager really believe that because women can now marry women in California, more women are going to become lesbians? How does someone get this deluded?
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Right. We're just *this close* to throwing you in the concentration camps, Dennis. You just keep telling yourself that. I've got news for you, Dennis: gay people don't give a flying fuck who you marry. They don't want you to marry a guy, they want you to marry the person you live, whether male or female. And they want the same right for themselves.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger - if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Right. Just like all those boycotts against bridal magazines that don't show interracial couples on the cover. Oh wait, there are no such boycotts. Ah, why let reality intrude on a perfectly good persecution prediction?
Politics
Comments
It's a shame this man is named Dennis. I disown him from the Dennis club.
He totally misses the point here, which is RELIGIONS DON'T DECIDE PUBLIC POLICY.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 22, 2008 10:26 AM
RELIGIONS DON'T DECIDE PUBLIC POLICY.
Ahh, but they do, don't they? In practical terms, don't they end up doing just that?
Isn't the real issue that they shouldn't be allowed to?
Posted by: Josh | May 22, 2008 10:30 AM
"It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction - until now, accomplished through marriage."
He makes it sound like heterosexuality (especially female) is so tenuous that if we don't enforce it by law, it won't happen. I suppose that justifies denying women's rights, as well.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | May 22, 2008 10:30 AM
So the function of marriage is not merely to force homosexuals to pass and oblige them to have kids (which arguably does make sense in a social-engineering sense), but to actively straighten out people who otherwise would turn gay?
This seems like half projection and half something I don't want to think too hard about the word for.
Posted by: Morgan | May 22, 2008 10:31 AM
I think this part of Prager's idiotic rant is very telling (and hilarious):
Much of humanity - especially females - can enjoy homosexual sex.
"Especially females" you say? Really! I wonder how he's determined this - perhaps through some education video materials? I think Prager has done a real disservice to his readers: Just imagine if you're one of Prager's followers and have been diligently reading his latest post for some godly advice - now you're distracted by the thought of some girl-on-girl action. The shame.
Posted by: BHL | May 22, 2008 10:37 AM
Prager's position would be entirely ridiculous if there were not so many elements of reality in it.
Posted by: Reality Czech | May 22, 2008 10:42 AM
Such laws were justified and defended using Biblical stories of Phinehas and the "curse of Ham." Whether those stories were interpreted correctly or not is irrelevant; the point is that these laws were always justified with reference to the Bible and Christianity.
I disagree. It's entirely relevant. Unlike some other things which are completely defined by what people do, and can be changed accordingly, Christianity is not defined by what people do or say. The fact that people use a certain terminology, means very little.
Would you say that if someone justifies racism by citing some genetics paper it doesn't matter if they are interpreting the paper correctly? That its irrelevant?
One can have "false"/"incorrect" or just plain "wrong" justification.
Posted by: Religious Non-Right | May 22, 2008 10:42 AM
Hot Fundamentalistl girl-on-girl action! I imagine the beehive gets in the way.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 22, 2008 10:44 AM
"When compassion replaced wisdom."
uh... compassion supersedes wisdom in Christian teaching:
Christians aren't supposed to wait for others to agree before they exercise compassion. They are, decidedly, NOT supposed to wait. I certainly feel no need to wait for Praeger or a majority of bigots to approve my beliefs before I show compassion.
I know that judges aren't supposed to make decisions based upon religious teachings, but if Praeger wants to find some religious merit for the decision, he should know that plenty of Christians believe that compassion should replace religious folk wisdom in many areas -- including the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. The problem is, I suspect, that Praeger does not want to know.
Posted by: Dr X | May 22, 2008 10:49 AM
Reality Czech, who are "the Politically Correct"? When you say
Are you referring to teachers being fired from religious colleges for getting a divorce or not accepting the bible as literal?Posted by: Dennis N | May 22, 2008 10:52 AM
"Much of humanity - especially females - can enjoy homosexual sex."
Hey, he forgot to mention happily married totally heterosexual Republicans and gay-bashing ministers in that generalisation.
It doesn't mean they're gay! It's just that homosexual sex is so much better! It's quite natural! But if gays have marriage options, that might lead to the children thinking that they can have healthy loving relationships instead of dirty, dirty sex.
"Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger - if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now."
Ah, apparently there's this unwritten rule that gay people can have acceptable marriage or straight people can have acceptable marriage. You can't, for some reason, allow both groups of people to commit to each other. Isn't that obvious?
Posted by: FireWalk | May 22, 2008 10:54 AM
I think that the "much of humanity" comment says more about Prager himself and his fears than it does about society at large, and not just in the "homobigot-as-closeted-homosexual (or at least bisexual)", but in their worldview that everyone is naturally sinful, and people will choose to sin if given the choice. And, of course, just pick whatever the writer does not like and you have a definition of sin for them.
Posted by: Badger3k | May 22, 2008 11:25 AM
That's got to be the worst Prager column of all time, which is quite some feat. Too much to go through in detail - Ed's covered much of it, but I can't less his opening stand without comment.
"Nothing imaginable - leftward or rightward - would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history:"
Really? Not, say, slavery? Defining an entire class of human beings as non-persons is less radical a change than allowing people who want to form a family to marry each other regardless of gender?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 22, 2008 11:26 AM
I must say I find this line of argument, um, novel. It pretty much gives up on the more usual Argument from Nature, according to which heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is a rare aberration to be, at best, pitied and treated.
And anyways, why would it matter if Prager's absurd scenario came true, and some large fraction of everyone went in for same-sex marriages? Why is it important that society "channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction"? The unstated but obvious answer: because they would stop having kids. News for Dennis: reproduction became decoupled from sex when effective contraception was invented. Lots of straight couples have no children, and many gay couples do. But that's a tabu among the wingnuts, isn't it? Babies are the only thing that makes sex non-sinful.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 22, 2008 11:48 AM
Badger3k: Thanks for pointing out how blatantly bi-leaning this particular statement by Praeger was. It occurs to me that the only kind of folks which the "if we allow gays to marry then more people will choose gay relationships" argument could appeal to are folks with naturally elastic sex drives.
Posted by: Julian | May 22, 2008 11:53 AM
Praeger's muted reference to the findings published in the Kinsey report (that the majority of humans are bisexual to a certain point) points out another flaw in his reasoning. As homosexual activity becomes more socially acceptable, who's to say it will necessarily decrease birth rates? If most people are bi, might they not have periods in their lives where they pursue heterosexual, child-possible relationships, and others where they adopt a homosexual relationship?
More than this, as a more open view of sexuality becomes prevalent, who's to say that a certain level of polyamory, individuals having a heterosexual "marriage couple" as well as homosexual lovers on the side, won't develop?
Posted by: Julian | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM
More than this, as a more open view of sexuality becomes prevalent, who's to say that a certain level of polyamory, individuals having a heterosexual "marriage couple" as well as homosexual lovers on the side, won't develop?
You mean like as appears to be practiced fairly regularly among the current Republican political leadership?
Posted by: Josh | May 22, 2008 12:09 PM
My head hurts from just reading the excerpts of Prager's musings quoted here, so I wonder: in the fuller article, does he ever bother to cite a basis in the California constitution for denying the "marriage" label to gay unions? He is making all kinds of weak religious, political, and moral arguments. Does he bother making a legal argument? If so, is it as patently stupid as the rest of his arguments?
Posted by: Dale | May 22, 2008 12:21 PM
Coming at this from a Christian leader's point-of-view; I have to say I'm conflicted by the whole issue. On a personal level I'm all for equal rights. I think this is a step in the right direction.
Now I need to step on my professional soap box...I find myself deeply fearful of the position I'll be placed in if Indiana ever legalizes gay marriages. (Of course on that day I'll also be worrying about pig feces on my windshield...but that's a different issue). Anyway, here's the "rub" I find myself in. Let's say gay marriage is legalized and Diane and Dorothy decide to come out of the closet in my congregation and get married. I know what my church council would say, "NO, NO, A MILLION TIMES NO!" My congregation is nowhere near being ready to accept gay marriage as a norm. Hell, I've finally gotten the people to understand that sexuality is a complex issue! I have a woman in my congregation whose dad was a former Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor here. (Yeah, my church used to be a part of that "fundie Lutheran" bunch.) She was scared to tell me that her son is gay (she thought I would never welcome him to communion again or shun him in some way); and never was able to share that truth with her own dad before he died. (And the man was forced to leave from this congregation because of a sexual impropriety). If I went ahead and performed the ceremony-it would be the first and last gay marriage in my church. I would come home to find members packing up my stuff and a "For Sale" sign in the front yard. So here's the question: If I or the council say no, would that open up either party to be victim of a lawsuit? I mean the state says they're intitled to a marriage like anyone else; but the church says no.
That is the legitimate fear that many liberal Christian leaders have with changing the wording to "marriage." And until that question of seperation of church and state is answered effectively and honestly (no, that could never happen) it will be difficult to get many Christian leaders fully behind calling a gay union a "marriage."
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 22, 2008 12:25 PM
Rev - Didn't Jesus hang out with ex-pros, tax farmers (standover men essentially), thieves and radidal jews, not accpeted by the mainstream church?
Didn't he say "Let he is without sin cast the first stone"?
Didn't tell a parable about a (despised) Samaritan who beahved more decently than so-called holy types? Wssn't the second most importasnt thing a Christian do, was to "do unto others as you would have them unto you"?
Perhaps you could remind your flock about this guy and what he said.
Not tring to tell you your vocation, just tring to bring your parishioners into seeing the world as you (and Jesus too I suspect) would see it. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 22, 2008 12:35 PM
A closeted perspective?
Posted by: pough | May 22, 2008 12:36 PM
Rev. AJB, this is a complete non-issue. It only deals with legal marriages given out by the government and has nothing to do with private marriages given out by a church.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 22, 2008 12:37 PM
The claim that religion has not prohibited interracial marriage at least in regards to Judaism is false at multiple levels although it does get connected to the entire issue of whether Judaism is a racial/cultural/ethnic/religious identity. The Torah specifically prohibits Jews intermarrying with men from Moab even if they converted. That's a direct ban on interracial marriage, albeit of a specific type.
Prager's choice of religions to list is also interesting in that he doesn't list Hinduism, which makes sense given the caste system that was in play for a long time.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | May 22, 2008 12:41 PM
Religious Non-Right wrote:
Patently false. By definition, any system of beliefs created by people is defined (and altered, amended, or discarded) by what people do or say. Christianity is no different. How else do you explain the existence of different Christian sects? Or non-Christian belief systems?
Posted by: Dan | May 22, 2008 12:44 PM
See how easy that was?
If I walked into a catholic church and said I wanted a shinto ceremony, they would be well within their rights to turn me down. Same reasoning applies.
A civil ceremony is always an option for any marriage. Like Ed says, the only real change this ruling made (in California) was that they can call their 'civil unions' a marriage, legally speaking.
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | May 22, 2008 12:47 PM
Another data point in the "homophobes are in the closet" argument.
Yup, reality can be pretty ridiculous.
The thing is, many over-the-top politically correct lawsuits and protests are just as crazy as the ones Prager talks about.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 22, 2008 12:48 PM
DJ-why do you think they use the shepherding analogy when they talk about what pastors do with their "flock?" I'm working to lead them down a direction they don't want to go down. So the best way to do it is to lovingly nudge them along the way. I'm doing it mostly through education at this point. I make those conversations "safe zones" where any opinion is respected in conversation. Often I have to play "devil's advocate" and take the one side the congregation is not willing to take and say, "This is why people feel this way." This summer we'll be discussing the draft sexuality statement that has been created by my denomination. The congregation will then have an opportunity to share their views/opinions with the crafters of that document. But I've found that each time we talk about the gift of sexuality, I see minds starting to slowly change.
Dennis-I understand that is how the law comes across-in a perfect world. But there are many Christian leaders that are waiting for the other shoe to drop in MA or CA and for a church to be sued for denying a private ceremony. And then to take it a step further, for the courts to rule in favor of the couple. That's the fear.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 22, 2008 12:50 PM
I can see your fear of a lawsuit, but I don't see how that lawsuit could ever win. Atheists and gays don't even want to force churches to perform marriages. I think you'd sooner see lawsuits to force churches to marry couples with divorces in their past. Do those happen?
Posted by: Dennis N | May 22, 2008 12:57 PM
Maybe, but it's never going to happen. The ruling part anyway - you can never say some idiot isn't going to try a lawsuit. But it would be dismissed instantly. Absolutely nothing about equal rights legislation forces churches to marry people they don't want to marry. People do not have a legal right to a church wedding. It forces the government to marry people. Seriously, the church state separation here is absolutely clear, in principle and in practice.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 22, 2008 12:59 PM
One must assume that Dennis Prager has forgotten that there is more than one nation on this planet. Because we already know what would happen if a population of thirty-odd million was given unfettered access to same-sex marriage: A brief boom in the wedding industry, then everyone going "this was a divisive issue worth time on the national news?" Look north Dennis, but don't expect to see any news stories about it any more.
Rev: In areas with religious freedom, it is a general principal that the churches can set the requirements to qualify for their rites. If your state catches up with Canada et.al. you should still be able to say "sorry, but church rules don't allow me to preside over a same-sex wedding." Up here, the only religious officials being forced into things WRT same-sex marriage are military chaplains, who are required to either preform the service or make arrangements to bring in a priest or JP to preform it.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | May 22, 2008 1:04 PM
If a Buddhist wanted to marry in a Catholic Church and were refused, would they have a legal leg to stand on? No. Why would it be any different for homosexuals?
Posted by: Donalbain | May 22, 2008 1:11 PM
As another example, the Catholic Church refuses to perform marriages for divorcees without an annulment and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Even if that couple gets married by a judge, the church does not and need not recognize it. The right to civil marriage doesn't guarantee a right to religious marriage. The law here is well established and very clear.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 22, 2008 1:20 PM
Rev - LOL on sheep*. Wasn't trying to lecture you in any way on the pastoral duties, just trying to suggest possible ways to approach it delicately.
Also as I understand it, a church is a private organisation (hence thier seperation from the state) therefore they can make any rules they want about what goes on it thier house. Just like I could have a "no eating cheese and pickle sandwiches" rule in my house, if I wanted to, and you couldn't sue for infringing your right to eat said food-stuffs. That just how I interpret it. -DJ
*Q:Why do Kiwis herd thier sheep near cliffs?
A:Because they back up harder.
Posted by: DingoJack | May 22, 2008 1:21 PM
Re Rev. AJB
I think that the good reverend is concerned about a nonexistent problem. For instance, the Catholic Church declines to marry couples if one or both of them has been divorced and has not received an annulment from the Church. Nary a lawsuit past or present.
Posted by: SLC | May 22, 2008 1:28 PM
Yeah, that's because all us Lutherans are here ready to perform those weddings for them;-)
Thanks for listening to my concerns. As I said on a personal level I'm all for this.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 22, 2008 1:46 PM
Reality Czech
Prager's position would be entirely ridiculous if there were not so many elements of reality in it.
Really? I'm interested in sources that support your claim of the "many" teaching schools that see themselves as social missionaries and then expelling the students because "they did not agree with the political goals of the institution".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | May 22, 2008 1:59 PM
move that blockquote down a sentence.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 22, 2008 2:02 PM
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Posted by: Taz | May 22, 2008 2:30 PM
Good for you Rev AJB. I'm glad that you see the need to educate your flock a bit, keep up the good work. It's unfortunate (to say the least) that one of your congregation was afraid of being shunned for being gay.
I'm hoping this ruling does increase the number of gay people in this way: The more society accepts gay people, the less of them will commit suicide in their teens. Any public policy that causes such despair in any section of their population is corrupt to the core.
Posted by: BAllanJ | May 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Rev AJB: I very much enjoyed your enlightened comments. I laughed out loud when you mentioned the Missouri Synod. I grew up in the LCMS, my grandfather was a pastor (old-school German Lutheran). We were somewhat indoctrinated to think we were better than those "renegade" ELCA Lutherans ;-)
Anyway, I did want to mention that a pastor we had while I was going through confirmation taught us that sexuality was a gift from God. It was a beautiful and wonderful thing that was meant to be enjoyed. Of course he did go on to say that it should be enjoyed within the bounds of marriage, but I never heard him say that the marriage had to be between a man and a woman. Although it was probably assumed, since this was back in the 80's. I'd like to think that he would be in favor of this whole gay-marriage thing.
Growing up I heard a lot about the concept of Grace and Law. It's nice to see Grace winning out, at least among some Christians.
Posted by: CyberLizard | May 22, 2008 3:38 PM
What endlessly amuses me about Prager (and people who make arguments similar to his) is the sometimes not-so-unspoken assumption that, without the force of social censure backed up by law, more people will just naturally gravitate into homosexual activities and relationships. One must wonder--why? Are gay relations so much more desirable and satisfying that people just can't wait for societal and legal permission to "go gay?" Or are straight relations so hellish that people can't wait to "switch" to escape them?
Don't get me wrong--I appreciate the back-handed compliment, but that whole assumption is just so ass-backwards it's funny--and that they don't see how it's ass-backwards is tragic. People don't "turn gay" when given social and legal permission--they ALWAYS WERE, and it was societal and legal pressure that forced them to PRETEND to be straight.
Posted by: gary l. day | May 22, 2008 4:32 PM
Yeah, I went through confirmation in the '80's also. I'm sure the big implied was that marriage was between a man and a woman. Who ever heard talk of gay marriage even being possible back then? Especially in conservative Indiana. And for you if you went through confirmation in the LC-MS; I can guarantee there was no gay hanky-panky going on in that discussion;-)
Yeah, it's fun being a part of the "renegades;" not that we always get it right. But we try.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 22, 2008 5:36 PM
Dennis N:
I appear to have confused this incident of a social-work student being failed for not hewing to leftist politics with teaching students being failed, but with that and the University of Delaware mandatory indoctrination program you can fill in the blanks.Posted by: Reality Czech | May 22, 2008 6:02 PM
LOL-- ROTFLOL-- when the man says:
Much of humanity - especially females - can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction - until now, accomplished through marriage.
Translation: But, but, if the pretty girls only go with the top guys, and the plain girls go with each other, then guys like me will never get a date. No fair!
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 22, 2008 6:43 PM
Ed:
Talk about historical revisionism. Of course no one can claim that "Christianity" banned interracial marriage because there is no official body that speaks for "Christianity" (as opposed to various denominations of it), but isn't it interesting that Prager says it doesn't matter how many Christian leaders or denominations took that position. It doesn't?
I can assure you that your average Southern Baptist would've completely wet his pants at the very idea of interracial marriage circa, say, 1957*. The same goes for most of the denominations Prager didn't appear to be thinking about, but when has a flapjaw pundit allowed facts to get in the way of a good rant?
(*Creatures like the folks who run Bob Jones University are a bit more contemporary in their inability to crawl out of their collective cave, of course.)
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 22, 2008 7:19 PM
Reality Czech - You wrote "Worse, aspiring teachers have been expelled from their degree programs". When challenged you wrote "I appear to have confused this incident of a social-work student being failed for not hewing to leftist politics with teaching students being failed". The article you linked to says "Felkner is now retaking the course from a different professor" - implying he wasn't flunked out of his program, but failed one course. However Felkner himself writes in the comments of the article "I found this site and wanted to make some comments. First I was not failed from the class, just the last 2 assignments that dealt with the policy issues." If the article is accurate I'm on Felkner's side, but it doesn't add an ounce of credibility to Prager's diatribe.
Posted by: Taz | May 22, 2008 7:20 PM
Reality Czech, Taz above me wrote a rebuttal to your first link, i'll write about your second one. Did you live on campus when you went to college? I did for four years, first in dorms and then in on campus apartments. I was the president of my school's Residence Hall Association, and one of my roommates went on to be a Resident Assistant (RA). That article you posted is about the stupidest piece of shit I could have come across claiming liberal indoctrination. The Head Residents and RA's (that was the bureaucracy at my school anyway) as part of their jobs were supposed to come up with programs for their residents to do, it could include an informational workshop, a fun get-together to bring the students together...whatever. And I can sure a hell guarantee that they would not have gotten their jobs if they DIDN'T conform to the values listed in your link of "forced indoctrination" including anti-homophobia, anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc...all of those politically correct things that are so hard for politically incorrect nonliberals to live a good life with. They are responsible for the safety of many different kinds of people in those dorms. Saying it's politically correct to promote tolerance of diversity in a program that is entirely about different people living together for the first time is not radical.
And also, read the pdf of the program that your precious blogger is vilifying. It explicitly says "participation in all activities is entirely optional", as all of those programs are. Not a very good tactic if you want to indoctrinate, is it?
One of the commenters on the site claims that liberal policies promote the politically correct version of discrimination...the one that teaches hate of males, whites, heterosexuals, and religious people. Give me a break. You're actually agreeing with people who would say that because gays are getting married, heteros are being hated on. I'm amazed.
Posted by: paul | May 22, 2008 8:35 PM
The only thing I have yet to figure out it this: Is Prager channeling Hugh Hewitt most of the time, or is it the other way around? Both are pompous, bloated windbags with bad bowl haircuts and the sort of righteous, blaring ignorance that makes you want to make a peace sign, angle your hand horizontally, and jam the extended middle and index fingers into either your own eyes or the radio speakers, the latter in the futile hope of shutting up the voice on the other end not just in your car but for everyone, everywhere.
The deacons of media ignorance in this country would have been declared insane for the shit they spew in a bygone era, and I like to think this feeling will roll around once again sometime.
Posted by: kemibe | May 22, 2008 10:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Budweiser pull ads featuring same-sex couples holding hands after a shitstorm from fundies? I'm not even sure if that's the right company, but I know something like that happened.
Posted by: Skwee | May 22, 2008 10:30 PM
I thought Budweiser was forced to pull their ads for a completely different reason--that the ads were homophobic.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 22, 2008 10:59 PM
=LOL= Read all about it here!
Just shows to go ya...... there's nothing like a little Good Clean Christian Girl-on-Girl Voyeurism Action! (Toys optional.)
Posted by: themadlolscientist | May 23, 2008 12:18 AM
"It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction - until now, accomplished through marriage."
Yeah marriage worked pretty good for that until now.
"Especially females" you say? Really! I wonder how he's determined this - perhaps through some education video materials?
Yah, uuhhhh, I think we all know why he's saying "especially females". Thanks!
Posted by: 386sx | May 23, 2008 8:15 AM
uh... compassion supersedes wisdom in Christian teaching:
Yeah like when Jesus throws everybody into eternal damnation. Okey dokey.
Posted by: 386sx | May 23, 2008 8:30 AM
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
So you think love never fails, ever. And you think people can prophesy. And you think people can speak in tongues. And you think knowledge is a much lower priority than faith hope and love. And you think love is "perfect" but knowledge isn't.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
So what about "faith" like a child, "hope" like a child, and "love" like a child. I dunno who you're quoting but they ain't making any sense dude.
Posted by: 386sx | May 23, 2008 8:51 AM
He forgot other major changes in marriage in history. First of all, the bible he quotes and loves is rife with polygamy. Since Biblical times, this is no longer societally or legally acceptable. Go ask the FDLS folks about it.
Also, women were considered to be property of their husbands after marriage. Rape was legal within the context of marriage. Marriages were often arranged. To pretend that marriage as an institution has not changed other than this one legal decision is absurd.
Posted by: Hilary | May 23, 2008 9:06 AM
uh... compassion supersedes wisdom in Christian teaching:
"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.
How about that Christian teaching. Do we listen to that one, or do we just listen to the ones you pick out for us. You know, the ones that don't make any bleepin sense. At least we can make perfect sense out of the mountain one! Too bad it don't work though! Even though it's "the truth."
Posted by: 386sx | May 23, 2008 9:23 AM
Thanks taz and paul, I was away for the night and I didn't wanna waste my time on his crap. You did an excellent job shutting him down.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 23, 2008 9:54 AM
I guess things have changed a lot since I left religion in '97!
I also grew up LCMS and was confirmed in the '70's. The "fundie" lable kind of shocked me because I attended the parochial jr. high at my church and that's where I first learned about evolution and the scientific method!
Posted by: twincats | May 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Prager was quoted as saying:
...contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality.
Mr. Prager appears to be talking about two different things. Or, to put a silly spin on his phrase...
...contrary to the biology know-nothings who believe that adult height is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that adult height is more of a continuum that ranges from 3' 6" to 7'10".
Both true statements, and neither one invalidates the other. The difference between my silly twist and his original phrase is, we know people can't make themselves shorter or taller just by force of will. I can't make any such claim about sexuality. (I have my opinion, but my opinion won't buy me a gumball.)
Posted by: Peter Eng | May 24, 2008 1:09 PM
Some reasons why I think gay marriage is bad for America - and from a gay person no less:
http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_9312682
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 1:31 AM
Well, at least you've finally become a little honest. This article's entire premise is "My religion says that marriage means this, so if you say otherwise I'm now being persecuted." I'm not gonna bother with much criticism since it doesn't require much. Your religious freedom that deems me as not equal is not valid. You have the right to believe this, but you do not have the right to discriminate against me. Your article cites a teacher who wants to teach marriage as between a man and a woman (for one thing where in the curriculum would THAT fucking little tidbit come in)...well in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages, this wouldn't be a fact, so teaching lies would be grounds for dismissal. It's like a teacher wanting to teach creationism, they have the legitimate right to believe whatever they want in their pretty little heads, but that wouldn't be teaching facts, yet of course people like you are trying to keep the laws on your side on this little bit of religious freedom too. Thanks for the true colors dude, throwing it in because it was written by a god-soaked delusional queer willing to throw himself and others like him under the bus for his religion was a pretty good touch though.
Posted by: paul | May 27, 2008 1:45 AM
I will amend my above statement a bit. I do know plenty of gays who agree with the last paragraph of your dear little article there. The high rate of homeless gay teens who've been kicked to the curb by their fundy parents. The fact that gays are being murdered in other countries by the truckloads. The fact that a healthy heterosexual man is a just a healthy man, but as a healthy gay man I'm "HIV negative". But these all stem from the fact that many, many people still see us as abominations and sinners against god, not worthy of respect or equal treatment. Blacks weren't seen as equal until the laws began to make it mandatory that at least according to the government, in every way they were. Now only idiots admit to being racists. Marriage equality is one of the small steps in the progress toward eliminating the stigma associated with homosexuality, which mostly stems from religious persecution, and I see it as a big one.
Posted by: paul | May 27, 2008 1:58 AM
>> Your religious freedom that deems me as not equal is not valid. >>
Equal? Gay relationships are equal to straight ones? LOL. When a gay couple can naturally figure out how to have children together, THEN I will consider your relationships equal.
I think you show YOUR true colors by apparently having no issue with people actually being thrown in jail if they don't agree with you. Tell me, is America a better, freer nation under such circumstances? I don't think so. That's why I believe the whole pro-gay thing is nothing but a sick cancer rotting our nation from the core. You people honestly don't give a rat's ass about anybody else.
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:19 AM
Oh, and some more interesting stuff for the liars who always say that homosexuality is perfectly healthy. Tell me, why then does the FDA not want the blood of gay men?
http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:23 AM
mroberts:
Projection, projection, projection. You show your true colors by obviously regarding with such disdain anyone whose lifestyle differs from what you regard as normative. You are becoming increasingly unhinged with each successive topic Ed posts regarding homosexuality. Do you really think what you're advocating (i.e. relationships based strictly on procreation) will make America a freer place to live, or do you only consider freedom important for those who share your ultraconservative "values?" Your ideology stems from Puritanism, plain and simple. You increasingly reveal yourself to be small-minded and ignorant.
Oh, and regarding the link you provided: there is nothing whatsoever in that FAQ that points to homosexuality being an "unhealthy" lifestyle if the sexual activity practiced is of a protected nature. I'm sure you wish for gays to be as unhealthy as possible so you can point and laugh in their faces, but as my dad always says, wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one adds up faster.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 27, 2008 2:32 AM
Sadie, so you think it is appropriate for people who disagree with homosexuality to be thrown in jail? Yes or no on that.
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:37 AM
>> Oh, and regarding the link you provided: there is nothing whatsoever in that FAQ that points to homosexuality being an "unhealthy" lifestyle if the sexual activity practiced is of a protected nature. >>
Oh, and when is it going to begin being practiced in a "protected nature"? You have a date for that? Seems to me that you have had a few decades already to prove how monogamous and safe gays really are.
Besides, the issue was whether or not gays are healthy NOW, not at some future date. Seems to me that you implicitly acknowledged my point that homosexuality is NOT healthy, despite the lies of the activists.
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:42 AM
No, I don't. Throwing people like you in jail will only make you think you're martyrs for your misguided cause. The best way to deal with people like you is to demonstrate to the world why you're wrong and ultimately make the world a freer, more just and equal place--kind of like what we're doing here on this forum. Baby steps.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 27, 2008 2:44 AM
>> Right. We're just *this close* to throwing you in the concentration camps, Dennis. You just keep telling yourself that. >>
Oh please, Ed. More lies from the gay activist crowd. Gay activists ARE pushing for legal penalties for those that oppose them. I posted this above:
http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_9312682
So I should not at be worried at all here Ed?
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:48 AM
Tell me, mroberts, why aren't you bitching about heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex? Because I know a lot of them--far more than homosexuals who have sex without condoms. Here's a news flash for you--ANY sex that is unprotected is potentially unsafe (gay or hetero). So, no, I was not in any way "acknowledging" your absurd premise that homosexual intercourse is, by default, unhealthy.
I think that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, should practice safe sex at all times. Do you have a date in mind for when heteroes will also be practicing safe sex? No? I'm willing to bet that it never even occurred to you. This is what convinces me that your argument about the "unhealthiness" of homosexuality is all smoke and mirrors, and your real issue is a personal feeling that homosexuality is "icky." Grow up, schmuck. At least quit whining.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 27, 2008 2:49 AM
Are you referring to gaybashers being thrown in jail? Otherwise you lost me. Please tell me how some poor persecuted christian has been thrown in jail for believing gays are sinners and their lifestyle isn't equal. If someone discriminates against a gay, then they are breaking the law, and will be punished accordingly, and I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that jail time is not typical of those kinds of situations.
So to sum up, according to you, gays aren't equal and relationships are all about having kids. This has been noted and demonstrably refuted, but I love how condescending you sound, your god's proud of you. Second, we're a cancer. You have Sally Kern over for dinner often? You're in good company. The term pro-gay shouldn't even exist. The sentiment of "pro-gay" only exists because of the heavy "anti-gay" sentiment that this world ferments in.
The fact that the FDA doesn't want gay blood has nothing to do with science, it has to do with hysteria. Studies show that we are definitely not the only "high-risk" group that could donate blood, yet we are the only one that is discriminated against simply on the basis of who we have sex with, regardless if we have safe sex. My blood is no more contaminated than yours, buddy. That is until they find an infection that makes you mentally deficient, then you'd be at the top of any screening list.
Somehow I can never let you have the last word unchallenged. Consider this the last time that'll happen. You're not worth it bigot. My being gay doesn't affect you one bit, and shouldn't. But you do have to be held accountable for the actions that YOU decide to take because gays exist.
Posted by: paul | May 27, 2008 2:50 AM
>> No, I don't. Throwing people like you in jail will only make you think you're martyrs for your misguided cause. The best way to deal with people like you is to demonstrate to the world why you're wrong >>
Wow, that's nice. I just proved two common assertions I hear a lot from the gay crowd - that homosexuality is perfectly healthy and they don't want to use legal penalties to enforce their agenda - false and you are saying you are going to demonstrate that I am wrong? Oh, and to demonstrate a third assertion wrong - that homosexuality is equivalent and equal to heterosexuality - I would like to point out that gay couples cannot reproduce naturally with each other whereas straight couples can. Considering that the former cannot accomplish what the latter can, how can you consider the two equivalent and equal?
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:54 AM
>> The fact that the FDA doesn't want gay blood has nothing to do with science, it has to do with hysteria. Studies show that we are definitely not the only "high-risk" group that could donate blood, yet we are the only one that is discriminated against simply on the basis of who we have sex with, regardless if we have safe sex. My blood is no more contaminated than yours, buddy. That is until they find an infection that makes you mentally deficient, then you'd be at the top of any screening list. >>
Wow, the lying never ends with you people. The FDA made their decision based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and somehow in your little fantasy world is it because they want to simply discriminate against gay people. There is nothing more stupid than to put idiotic political correctness over the health of the general population.
Again, the lying NEVER ENDS with the gay crowd.
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 2:58 AM
>> Tell me, mroberts, why aren't you bitching about heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex? >>
I never said that wasn't wrong. But I WAS pointing out that the FDA obviously has reasons for thinking that homosexuals have a significantly higher risk of carrying disease than heteros. Care to not change the subject and actually acknowledge the point? Is the FDA wrong or are they right?
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 3:02 AM
Sexually promiscuous males were one of the first vectors for HIV. Nobody can deny that. Closet gays have engaged in risky behavior due to many factors: they had to hide their relations or face criminal penalties, they had to hide their relations or face social penalties. Some gays just didn't give a shit because their lives weren't worth living anyway as they were, so they did whatever felt good. Some still do that to this day.
When you donate blood, a sreener asks you many questions, and all of the "scientific evidence" says that the questions that would weed you out as being at risk of infection would weed out gays who did the same things that would put you in that category. Just because a man has sex with a man, does not mean that he is at higher risk.
The FDA is wrong. Scientists at the FDA know this, and we are actually close to getting that blatantly discriminatory rule thrown out. It already has been in other countries, and the people aren't being contaminated by icky queer blood. The FDA is wrong. What are you going to say in return? The FDA is science, and science says you're wrong!!!! Just try thinking a little bit.
Posted by: paul | May 27, 2008 3:05 AM
>> Just because a man has sex with a man, does not mean that he is at higher risk. >>
Really? From the FDA website:
"Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
Now the FDA actually came to this conclusion through science. I would like you to post the science that says otherwise if you please. Or does science not matter in this case? You say it is wrong and the public health consequences be damned? Is that what you think?
>> Just try thinking a little bit. >>
WOW, LOL. I am actually presenting evidence to back up my position and I am the one not thinking??
Posted by: mroberts | May 27, 2008 3:09 AM
Did you even read what I wrote? Or were you waiting for me to make an argument so that you could post some statistics and say "AHA!!"? I don't care at all how prevalent it is. Should low income urban minorities be on the list too? They have higher HIV rates than the rest of the population. Hell, 1 in 4 african-american teens now has a sexually transmitted disease. Should they be screened out completely? No. The same questions that would weed out a black teenage girl as a risk would weed out a promiscuous gay who has unsafe sex. BEING GAY ALONE IS NOT A FACTOR.
Posted by: paul | May 27, 2008 3:15 AM
mrreoberts you really are an ass.
First you claim that gay marriages hurt marriage and increase divorce rates, then you claim that the gay community is planning to throw people in jail, then you say that being gay increases the rate of HIV/AIDS infections. When others produce evidence that clearly contradict and demolish your gut feeling, you slink away until the next thread of homosexuality and bring out all the same bogus arguments.
a) Since 2004 in Massachusetts the rate of marriage went up and divorce went down SIGNIFICANTLY, as I demonstrated.
b) There is no evidence that gays want to throw anyone in jail, all they want is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Yep the same as you or me. That's it.
c) HIV/AIDS deaths in the USA during 2004 (the latest year I could find information on) was around 13064, in Australia in 2004 the death rate was 90. Even allowing for the greater population, the US has over 8 times the death rate (per number of deaths) due to AIDS. Does this mean there are more gays in the US than Australia? NO. It means that Australians got the message early: "IF YOUR GOING TO HAVE SEX, ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM, ALWAYS." Unprotected sex is main vector for spreading AIDS (and other sexually transmitted diseases), the gender of your partner is not. In fact rates of sexually transmitted diseases seem to be correlated to religiousity.
You think being gay is icky and wrong, but you can't say WHY you think this. Have a gut feeling by all means, but don't prentend it is an arguement. Go away and eximine your attitudes, formulate an actual argument, then come back, and stop wasting everyone's time. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 27, 2008 4:15 AM
BTW mrroberts, you never get around to showing any evidence that gays are more promiscuous than hetrosexuals. You just sprout this gem as if wishing it were so, makes it so. I've got news for you, no matter how much you want to stay in the closet, your (Freadian) slip is showing. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 27, 2008 6:19 AM
Things like promiscuity, the ability to give blood, and the ability to reproduce have nothing to do with who gets to marry who. If those were relevant points, sluts, AIDS victims, and infertile people couldn't get married. I guess they explain why mroberts hates gays (and obviously the above mentioned groups), but they don't count for grounds to deny marriage to gay people.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 27, 2008 10:20 AM
I don't, just as I don't think it is appropriate for people who disagree with Judaism, or with being black, should be thrown in jail just for believing those things. However, when, for example, a teacher tells a class that blacks and Jews are less than human, or when someone beats up a Jewish kid, or when a store denies access to a black person, then yes, the law should apply. It is no different in the case of homosexuality -- you can believe whatever you like, but you don't get to treat people differently, at least not in public domains.
Posted by: Tulse | May 27, 2008 11:49 AM
Wow, the lying never ends with you people. The FDA made their decision based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
Again, the lying NEVER ENDS with the gay crowd.
Posted by: mroberts
That's rich. You'll cite that scientific evidence exists if you think it supports your argument, but you seem to ignore that point (that it exists) completely if the evidence contradicts your argument.
Posted by: Josh | May 27, 2008 1:03 PM
Mroberts, there is plenty of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that refutes your claims (here's a hint: start checking out studies reported and composed by the APA) . Plenty of it has been offered to you, but you dismiss it with a wave of the hand because it conflicts with your prejudices. The only person lying around here is you, and what's worse, you seem to be lying to yourself more than to anyone else.
Personally, I'm done with you. You have yet to offer a reasoned argument for anything on this blog. All you offer are soundbites and emotionally-charged, yet devoid-of-substance missives. In other words, it would be easier to reason with a four-year-old child than with you. The cognitive dissonance NEVER ENDS with you and your ilk. Have a great life.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 27, 2008 1:29 PM