Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've reported over the last few weeks about Douglas Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar who has endorsed Barack Obama. Kmiec is a guy I've always respected as a thoughtful scholar whose views should be taken seriously, but this op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle may change my mind. This ridiculous screed against same-sex marriage is every bit as unhinged as anything you'll see from Matt Barber or Peter LaBarbera.
In the op-ed, he is encouraging people to vote for the California referendum that would prohibit same-sex marriage and overturn the recent Supreme Court ruling in that state. His reasoning is nothing short of stunning in its absurdity:
Voting to overturn the court's ruling should not be misunderstood. Gay and lesbian individuals are within the humanity acknowledged to be created equal and worthy of respect in the Declaration of Independence, but that responsible reaffirmation of equality of citizenship does not deprive the community of making a necessary and reasoned distinction for its own survival.
The italics are mine. I just wanted to highlight that phrase because only the looniest of the wingnuts tries to argue that same-sex marriage threatens the survival of society. And sadly, Kmiec has joined them. Let me give an accurate paraphrase of his position: "Of course gays have equal citizenship in this country and we must respect their rights, but if we let them get married the entire country will be destroyed." That's about as unhinged as it gets. But he actually gets worse when he tries to provide an argument supporting this conclusion.
Beyond correcting the court's disregard of the separation of powers, insisting upon preserving the link between marriage and procreation: 1) promotes the orderly continuation of the species;
Really? It does? How, exactly? Gay marriage doesn't create any more gay people, so whether we have gay marriage or not the same number of people will be inclined to procreate (including many gays who choose to have children). Does he seriously think that if gays are allowed to get married, all the straight people are going to jump on the bandwagon and stop having kids? That's the only way this argument makes any sense, but only an idiot would believe that.
2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing);
Again, how does prohibiting same-sex marriage avoid having children raised by a single gender? There are hundreds of thousands of children in this country bring raised by gay parents right now, as there always have been and always will be. The only way same-sex marriage affects this is on the question of whether those parents will have the same legal and financial protections that straight parents have.
and 3) takes respectful account of the difficulties of accommodating religious freedom that arise subsequent to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage.
What's so difficult about this? No church should ever be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. Do you know a single person, even the most extreme of gay rights advocates, who thinks they should? I don't. If you took a poll on this the numbers would easily come back with over 95% of Americans agreeing that no church should be forced to take part in a marriage. The free exercise clause already covers this and it has been extended and protected by the legislature (with RFRA, RLUIPA and many other laws) and the courts. The notion that if same-sex marriage is legalized it will force churches to violate their beliefs by taking part in them is simply absurd.
The proponents of same-sex marriage insist that inventing gay and lesbian marriage harms no one, but the above concerns suggest otherwise. Moreover, it overlooks the national and global decline in fertility, which threatens the economies of Europe and contributes to the weakness of our own.
Again, this only makes sense if one believes that gay marriage will actually turn people from straight to gay and vastly increase the number of gay people, or increase the number of people, gay or straight, who choose not to have children. Frankly, I think the real concern of the anti-gay crowd is the opposite. It's not that same-sex marriage will lead to fewer children, it's that allowing gay marriage may lead more gays and lesbians to feel comfortable having children, either naturally, through artificial insemination of some sort, or through adoption. And that is what they really object to - they don't think gays should be parents (or exist, for that matter). This is not only a red herring, it's the exact opposite of the real argument they wish they could make.
To say, as its advocates do, that the availability of same-sex marriage is not the principal cause of this decline in terms of absolute numbers is a fair point, but giving state approval to non-procreative marriage cannot be denied as a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children.
Whoa. Non-procreative marriage? You mean like the paraplegic who was just denied the right to marry in the Catholic church (Kmiec's church) in Italy because he is infertile? Remember, there are lots of forms of non-procreative marriages. There are some who are naturally infertile (made that way by God, ironically) and some who simply choose not to have children.
If Kmiec really thinks that the road to hell begins with state recognition of non-procreative marriages, what exactly would he advocate to prevent such recognition? If the root of the problem is non-procreative marriages themselves, as he claims, then it's not enough to prevent gay marriage (which,after all, can be and often are procreative); you must also forbid recognition of any marriage where one or both people involved are infertile, and you must forbid recognition of any marriage where the couple does not pledge to have children.
By stating the problem this broadly - "giving state approval to non-procreative marriage cannot be denied as a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children" - Kmiec shows the absurdity of his own position. Surely he would not support the Italian bishop who refused to allow an infertile paraplegic to get married? If he's consistent, he would not only have to support that bishop, he would have to support a law banning state recognition to anyone who is infertile and to anyone who chooses not to have children.
But wait - it actually gets worse. The last passage is simply breathtaking:
Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature - a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth - claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.In a depopulating world, the claim that there is a universal right to marry regardless of gender becomes a frightening ally of a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children. People should reject this claim by returning traditional marriage to its rightful place.
Absolutely stunning, isn't it? I tend to share his uneasiness with the possibility of genetically engineering one's children. I think the notion is morally troubling for a number of reasons, some of which he hints at here. But what on earth does that have to do with gay marriage, or with gays at all? The vast majority of those taking advantage of "asexual reproduction" are straight people, not gays. And they're doing so precisely because they want to be procreative when nature has made them non-procreative. If anything, it is Kmiec and his fellow travelers, who are so obsessed with the notion that everyone should have children, who are relentlessly pushing people to do anything it takes to reproduce. It is that obsession with having kids that drives people to take advantage of artificial or technological means of reproduction. To blame that on gay marriage is well beyond inane.
Politics
Comments
Ed writes:
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children currently being raised by a single parent, which by definition is also single-gender rearing.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 18, 2008 9:46 AM
accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth
"simulating"? So, when a lesbian gives birth, she's only in "simulated" labor?
Posted by: Boo | June 18, 2008 9:47 AM
He also seems to be math-impaired, if he's describing the world as "depopulating". Or is it just that the only part of the world that counts is the European-descended part?
Posted by: Cathy W | June 18, 2008 9:56 AM
So I guess because my wife and I can't have children, we should not be married?
Posted by: FastLane | June 18, 2008 10:05 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 18, 2008 10:17 AM
Gay people reproduce asexually? That would be interesting to watch. Do they bud naturally, or do you have to take cuttings?
Posted by: Donalbain | June 18, 2008 10:18 AM
Isn't he undermining his own argument against gay marriage (because such marriages are childless) by bringing in the argument that gay marriage will cause more gays to attempt to "simulating natural child birth"? Wouldn't that be the morally correct thing for them to do to validate their marriage?
Of course, crazy is as crazy says...
BTW- my wife and I aren't going to have children, does that mean our (hetero) marriage is (or should be) invalid?
cheers-
Eric
Posted by: Eric Riley | June 18, 2008 10:29 AM
Complete tangent to the actual point of Kmiec's article/essay/insane blathering, but he talks about declining population growth as if it's the worst, most horrible thing that could possibly happen to the world. Yes, it's causing economic difficulties in Europe, primarily because just about every economy in the world is based on the assumption of unlimited growth. No population growth = limited economic growth = perceived economic weakness. But realistically, the whole planet is going to have to transition to a different growth model at some point, based off a steady population. The planet can only support so many people and it'd be a hell of a lot easier on us if we could all halt our population growth ourselves before it's halted for us when we reach the planet's carrying capacity and everyone gets to deal with the extreme versions of the food, energy, and resource shortages that we're just now starting to feel. So, mostly, his entire premise that discouraging procreation is bad is just so much religiously motivated bull.
Posted by: Kevin S | June 18, 2008 10:41 AM
Joking aside, IS there a thought process behind this? I've heard this line of argument before, often from intelligent people, and I can' figure it out. Does this gentleman believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that homosexuals will eventually decide to try reproductive heterosexual marriage if they aren't allowed to have homosexual marriage? Does he feel that only by keeping a stigma on homosexual unions can we keep heterosexuals from running out to marry someone of the same gender?
Or is this a case of a person simply not thinking things through?
Posted by: VorJack | June 18, 2008 10:42 AM
The thought process is that marriage is for children and only for children produced "naturally". Anything outside of that definition is a sham - a false marriage. That's the only logical way to explain their thinking. Of course - they would deny it. Of course - most of them don't have a firm ground in reality either....
Posted by: yoshi | June 18, 2008 11:13 AM
I think it's all a smoke screen, even to the author. His real fear is of homosexuals themselves. Letting them marry helps legitimize homosexuality, which might encourage more of them to come out. Worse, letting them marry will encourage more of them to have/adopt children and raise them in openly homosexual households. That might make the children homosexual.
I think that possibility frightens and abhors him, but he can't admit it, even to himself, since he's convinced he's so egalitarian. Therefore, he's compelled to invent supposedly rational reasons to oppose homosexual marriage. He probably finds them compelling because he has to, in order to continue denying his true bigotry.
Of course, I may be off base here. But I can't see how a reasonably rational person could actually offer such arguments unless there were powerful irrational motives.
Posted by: qetzal | June 18, 2008 11:13 AM
That's funny. I don't remember signing any agreements to have children when I got my marriage license in California. Is there a requirement that we weren't made aware of?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 18, 2008 11:15 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 18, 2008 11:17 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 18, 2008 11:23 AM
"2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing);"
You let him off way too easy on this one... I'd like to hear exactly what he thinks parents recognize as important distinctive contributions that can only be supplied by a male or a female (beyond actual conception, birthing or natural breastfeeding). Can only mothers properly bathe an infant? Can only fathers properly discipline one? Is it an unknown truth that only a male can teach you how to properly tie your shoes? Or a female teach you to make a sand-castle? What are these gender specific distinctions?
I think that his statistic isn't actually about genders, but about how the couples interviewed split their household labour. When there's only two people who do work in the relationship it's easy to accidentally conflate "Bob takes out the trash for us" to "men take out the trash". And if the survey was put out there with the intention of getting a misleading statistic... well the questions may not be the most honest or easy to answer in a non-gendered way to begin with.
Posted by: kodiak | June 18, 2008 11:27 AM
"2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing);"
This is already the case in numerous situations. Mr Kmiec seems to forget all the single parents (single by choice, divorced or widowed) that are doing a terrific job with their children.
Posted by: Alex the canuck | June 18, 2008 11:32 AM
I guess we shall have to outlaw sex outside of marriage too, since
almost 40% of newborns are born to unwed mothers.
Posted by: Mike | June 18, 2008 11:44 AM
Is this guy fucking nuts? Does he truly believe that the world at large is depopulating? It truly blows my mind that some conservatives (or some people generally) actually think that we need more people on the planet than we already have.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 11:44 AM
Appended to previous post: Or, conversely, is he only talking about the "white" world, which for him is all that matters?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 11:45 AM
...a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children.
Yeah, it's so horrible, so terrible, that the next generation of children will actually be healthier, live longer, have less chance of long-term disabilities, and so forth.
Pure hysteria. This is Leon Kass's logic in a poorly-cut suit.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | June 18, 2008 12:08 PM
I was raised by my mother and my grandmother, no father in the picture. Would he have a problem with that or is it OK because the women who raised me didn't have a sexual relationship with one another? Others here have already brought up the single parent issue. Does he truly think anyone raised in that sort of environment received an inferior upbringing? Does he also advocate for outlawing divorce if the couple in question already has children? If one parent dies should the surviving parent be forced to remarry as long as the new spouse is of the opposite gender? How far is he willing to go with this premise?
Posted by: peaches | June 18, 2008 12:15 PM
Oh noes! This is flagrant Catholic-bashing! It's anti-Christian bigotry (tm)! Such reactions absolutely prove Saint Kmiec's point that civilization itself is endangered by permissiveness to sin!
Call Bill Donohue! Call the Christian Anti-Defamation League! Call the Creator's Rights Party!
Won't somebody please think of the chillllldrennn?!?
(Sorry for all the bang-points, but Sadie M beat me to what I really wanted to say...)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 18, 2008 12:35 PM
Absolutely true. It was a terrible blow to my own marriage when my 79-year-old widowed father was allowed to marry a woman too old to bear children.
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 18, 2008 12:41 PM
OK, and how disorderly does he expect the alternative to be?
What does "orderly" even mean, in this context?
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | June 18, 2008 1:12 PM
I'm with Kevin S, except that IMHO, there are already about 100 times too many people on the planet. Maintaining the current population is not an option in the long run.
We could survive sustainably with a decent standard of living if there were 500 million of us, but if there were only 50 million, people could do pretty much whatever they wanted, and not have to worry about environmental consequences (barring extreme acts, of course).
Posted by: BaldApe | June 18, 2008 1:28 PM
Pretty much YES to everything BaldApe just wrote, especially [m]aintaining the current population is not an option in the long run. This is really just not open for discussion. Nature simply doesn't give a fuck.
Posted by: Josh | June 18, 2008 1:38 PM
"2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing);"
The problem with that statement is that no one else recognizes those distinctive contributions. I can understand why Kmiec doesn't want to refer to the growing pile of psychological studies -- they'd blow that statement out of the water.
And, as Kodiak pointed out, just what are these distinctive contributions?
On the whole, that's one of the more nonsensical assertions is a thoroughly nonsensical essay.
Posted by: Hunter | June 18, 2008 3:07 PM
Anyone who thinks that the continuation of a species is "orderly" doesn't understand biological evolution. Natural selection is loaded with contingency and chance, and populations are in constant flux due to changing environmental pressures. The closest thing I can come up with to "the orderly continuation of the species" is artificial selection in domesticated animals. But I seriously doubt this kind of breeding would be a good idea for humans (the whole eugenics thing didn't work out very well, ya know).
Posted by: Wes | June 18, 2008 3:11 PM
>> What's so difficult about this? No church should ever be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. Do you know a single person, even the most extreme of gay rights advocates, who thinks they should? I don't. . . The notion that if same-sex marriage is legalized it will force churches to violate their beliefs by taking part in them is simply absurd. >>
This is the biggest load of BS ever. It is the same garbage every time: "don't worry poor little bigotted Christian homophobes. If you let us have our way, we promise we won't force your churches to violate their religious beliefs." It's like a promise from a used car salesman. Christians ALREADY have been forced to comply with the demands of gays or be penalized under the law. A church in New Jersey was sued successfully when it refused to let a lesbian couple get married in it's facility. A photographer in New Mexico was fined $6600 when they refused based on their religious beliefs to photo a gay committment ceremony. A doctor in CA was sued when he refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian because of his religious beliefs. Instead of finding another doctor, she decided she had to stick it to him and sue him. Focus on the Family in CO is hiring security guards for its restrooms because of a new gender-neutral bathrooms laws that it is being forced to comply with. The Boy Scouts have been battling against gay activists for years already. The idea that gays aren't going to make churches meet their demands is a LIE. If gay marriage ends up being in this nation to stay (and I am going to do everything I can do to help make sure that does not happen), we will have hate-crimes laws that will make it ILLEGAL merely to criticize homosexuality. How do I know this? Look at Canada. People are being prosecuted for simply expressing opposition to homosexuality. Is this the vision of our future in the gay paradise all the nutcase lefties are trying to create in this nation? The endless LIES and disregard for the rights of others from the gay movement is absolutely breathtaking. Call it crazy, but I think our nation REALLY is in jeopardy when such a small minority that is so absolutely narcissistic can have so much control and so little regard for anybody else. Beyond just the absurdity of it, this whole gay marriage thing is going to be a mess.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 3:53 PM
Sorry Ed, I don't care what else this guy has written, he will now forever carry the label of crazed wingnut. His homophobia may be a product of upbringing and societal pressure, and theoretical rather than personal, but it doesn't make it any more sane. I wonder if he could even look a homosexual in the eye knowing that they're going to lead to the fall of human civilization.
Posted by: paul | June 18, 2008 3:57 PM
He only writes about homosexuals. You won't see him show up any where else. At least, I never have. He has a serious vendetta against gay people.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 18, 2008 4:03 PM
Thanks for the inevitable screed mroberts. I'll try to be brief.
In NJ, it wasn't a church that was being forced to perform a wedding, it was forced to allow the rental of a beachfront pavillion that it owns, and rents out to the public for many events that have nothing to do with religion. A church can't own a bookstore and then refuse service to niggers. Enough said.
The photographer is a business owner who gives service to the public. Just as a store cannot discriminate, neither can she if she wishes to keep her license. The stupid git.
The doctor thought it was a great idea to treat the lesbian with all of the prefertilization drugs and accomodations that were required, getting paid for it the whole time, then decided at the last moment that it wasn't moral for him to implant. He should have his license revoked.
Focus on the Family is a bigoted group which is hiring security because they want to make it appear as if there is a danger. You're a fool to use that as an example.
The only problem with the Boy Scouts is that they recieve federal funding. If they didn't have their hands out and instead funded themselves, they could be as idiotic and bigoted as they wanted.
Churches will never be forced to marry same sex couples. Many churches already do, and the ones that wish to remain in the Stone Age may choose to do so.
The militant homosexuals wanting to oppress you is a fantasy. Seek help for paranoid delusions.
Posted by: paul | June 18, 2008 4:16 PM
Paul, your post proves my point. Your anti-religion bigotry is shining through bright and clear. You guys really don't care even the slightest for the beliefs of others. Again, there is no more absolutely narcissistic group than those pushing gay marriage.
>> The militant homosexuals wanting to oppress you is a fantasy. >>
As usual, you are lying through your teeth.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 4:27 PM
paul doesn't come off as anti-religion. He only said he's opposed to churches that wish to stay in the stone age. Some beliefs are wrong. If you believe the Earth is flat, you are wrong and your belief is dumb. Similarly, if you believe homosexuality is morally wrong, you are wrong and your belief is dumb.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 18, 2008 4:32 PM
Yes, you can see how bigoted those facts were.
mroberts, the principle is very simple -- if it is a public institution, either because it provides services to the general public or takes taxpayers' money, then it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. No one is forcing any religious group to marry people (just as no one is forcing the Catholic Church to marry divorcees, or those who are excommunicated).
Posted by: Tulse | June 18, 2008 4:36 PM
mroberts said:
Paul countered every single ridiculous point you made, and that's all you can come up with to say? Jesus Christ, please just go away. Go enroll in a logic class, ideally-- but really, anywhere but here.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 4:39 PM
mroberts wrote:
You're misstating the facts. The New Jersey situation was not a church, it was a park that is owned by a religious group and is otherwise made available to the public for all sorts of events. And it was not successful, the case is still going on. There will be disputes over cases like this at the margin, disputes over the meaning of "public accommodation." But what I said was that no church would be forced to host a same-sex marriage and that statement was true. The ministerial exception absolutely applies there, it has decades of precedent behind it, and there is no constituency on the bench that would like to change that, not among conservatives or liberals. The disputes over things at the margins - pharmacies refusing to dispense birth control, for instance - already exist and this only adds one more issue to the mix. Also bear in mind that legislatures can fix these problems easily, either through passage of RFRA-type legislation or by outright declaring that no individual or group can be forced to participate in any such ceremony; that would eliminate even those disputes. And I would be in favor of such legislation and would support it, as would nearly every single supporter of same-sex marriage that I know. I can't even name a single individual or organization that advocates same-sex marriage that thinks churches should be forced to perform them. Not a single one.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 18, 2008 4:42 PM
From the Dictionary of the Religious Right:
Bigot, n. (BIH - guht)
1. A person who works or speaks against Christian bigotry
2. A person who supports the rights of a group which Christians deem second class citizens
3. A person who speaks of Christians or Christianity without showing proper deference and respect for Christians' superiority over all other Americans.
Posted by: Wes | June 18, 2008 4:49 PM
>> Also bear in mind that legislatures can fix these problems easily, either through passage of RFRA-type legislation or by outright declaring that no individual or group can be forced to participate in any such ceremony; >>
I hardly put much faith in legislators to fix this, especially ones that approve of gay marriage. Hate crimes legislation will inevitably follow gay marriage. In fact, I believe liberals in Congress already managed to push it through, Bush just vetoed it. Gays are more than happy to push their "values" on others. Catholic Charities left the state of Massachussetts rather than be forced to comply with demands to adopt children to gay couples. Sorry guys, say what you want, but there is NO ROOM for religious tolerance in the gay worldview. I foresee plenty of lawsuits demanding that churches perform gay weddings or face discrimination charges.
No country can remain free that does not enshrine religious freedom. It is obvious that gays have NO PROBLEM sacrificing religious freedom on the altar of homosexuality.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 5:00 PM
GOod greif. My church just last year refused to marry a hetero couple in our building because a) they did not belong to our congregation, nor did any of their relatives (which is used for the occasional exception if there are real grounds, like a very ill parent or some such), b) they were not members of our faith in any respect, c) they did not want to allow the minister to use any religious texts at any point in the process, and d) they did not consent to the mandatory marriage councelling before the wedding.
They wanted a picturesque little country church near their grandfather's cottage to get married in. They also did not take kindly to being told "no" in this case (but realized they didn't have any real recourse, since them's the breaks for everyone who gets married in our church, so there was no discrimination).
That was the standard enactment of a standard policy for us. I understand that the Catholic church has similar policies against marrying divorcees which they have never been made to change, despite divorce being commonly recognized.
No one is making churches marry folk they don't want to now... they aren't going to in the future... it's all a scare tactic that only those who don't think it through are buying.
Posted by: kodiak | June 18, 2008 5:00 PM
" Sorry guys, say what you want, but there is NO ROOM for religious tolerance in the gay worldview."
Do you not believe that there are any Gay *and* religious folk? I'm as baffled by this apparent belief as I am with those who believe that there are no Christians who understand and accept as science the theory of evolution.
Posted by: kodiak | June 18, 2008 5:05 PM
They were providing a public service. They are welcome to either comply with the law or leave, but if they are going to provide a public service they are not allowed to discriminate.
Posted by: Tulse | June 18, 2008 5:09 PM
mroberts wrote:
Which would be which legislatures, exactly? Legislatures have passed dozens of RFRA laws. Not a single state legislature has voted for gay marriage (3 have voted for civil unions, none for gay marriage). And again, support for gay marriage does not mean support for forcing churches to participate; I am all for gay marriage and entirely against forcing churches to participate, and so is every single gay marriage advocate I have ever read.
Hate crimes laws predated gay marriage by a long time. They are entirely separate issues. And hate crime laws are not the same thing as hate speech laws. The problem is that you just want to lump everything you disagree with together and call it the "gay agenda." But virtually every gay person I know is opposed to hate speech codes AND opposed to forcing churches to perform gay marriages and some of them are opposed to hate crime laws too.
False. Catholic Charities got public funding to perform adoptions and the state cut that off. Public funding changes everything. And as I wrote at the time, if Catholic Charities had gone to court and asked for a RFRA-type exemption from the law, they almost certainly would have gotten one. Again, you want to vastly oversimplify and distort the reality of these situations. It's not honest.
Jesus Christ, you fucking idiot, there is not "gay worldview." One can be gay and believe in virtually any "worldview." Gays can be everything from communists to Democrats to Republicans to libertarians (and I know gay people who are all of those things). There is no "gay worldview" any more than there is a "straight worldview."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Yeah right, Kmiec isn't fooling anybody. It's all about being "fruitful and multiplying" and "Adam and Steve" and all that other Bible myth craopla. All the extra verbiage is but mere fluffery and feathers. Thanks!
Posted by: 386sx | June 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Gays are more than happy to push their "values" on others.
What in tarnation is a 'gay value?' And what, conversely, is a 'heterosexual value?'
No country can remain free that does not enshrine religious freedom.
I read about that somewhere....the First Amen...Amen-something...Amendment! That's it! Read it sometime.
Posted by: Tyler | June 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Mroberts has constructed a slippery slope of truly epic proportions-- if gays are allowed to marriage, nobody will have freedom of speech anymore! Nobody will be allowed to practice their religion in peace! Man, that thing must be 150 feet tall and covered in Crisco. It's a formulation of the classic "Gay marriage will ruin civilization" argument, but with a rather novel and even more ridiculous angle-- I don't think I've ever heard somebody actually claim that allowing gays to marry will cause the 1st Amendment to evaporate.
I guess that when you're accustomed to thinking that things such as the freedom of expression only exist for you and people who think like you, it becomes much easier to imagine that everyone else thinks the same way. Maybe impossible to imagine otherwise.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 5:35 PM
>> Mroberts has constructed a slippery slope of truly epic proportions-- if gays are allowed to marriage, nobody will have freedom of speech anymore! Nobody will be allowed to practice their religion in peace! Man, that thing must be 150 feet tall and covered in Crisco. >>
Gretchen, you obviously must have your stuck head in a hole somewhere. How can you accuse me of constructing a slippery slope when ALL THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING? Are you brain dead? In Canada, gays can get married and anybody can get prosecuted for SIMPLY CRITICIZING it. Who pushes hate speech laws? GAYS. It is simple logic, but apparently you still don't get it. This is already starting to happen here in America and gays are already pushing for hate crime and hate speech laws.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 5:45 PM
>> Jesus Christ, you fucking idiot, there is not "gay worldview." One can be gay and believe in virtually any "worldview." >>
Wow Ed, you're a real shining example of tolerance there. You use the central figure of my religion as a form of profanity, yet you claim that religious people have nothing to fear from people that think like you (meaning agreeing with the gay political agenda) when it comes to their religious freedom. When you actually show respect for my religious beliefs, I will believe that you actually care about my right to freedom of conscience. What a bastard you can be. Now that I said that, I'm sure I will be cast as the intolerant bad guy.
When I said worldview, I was referring to the politics of the gay movement. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>> Hate crimes laws predated gay marriage by a long time. They are entirely separate issues. And hate crime laws are not the same thing as hate speech laws. The problem is that you just want to lump everything you disagree with together and call it the "gay agenda." >>
Uh, its gays that are pushing for hate speech laws, which are typically preceded by hate crime laws. Let's not forget that Barney Frank was the one who pushed for a federal hate crimes law. It is VERY legit to lump it all together because it is a matter of progression. The greater the legitimacy of homosexuality, the stronger the basis to legislate against anything that might be perceived as discrimination against homosexuality, even religious belief.
>> But virtually every gay person I know is opposed to hate speech codes AND opposed to forcing churches to perform gay marriages and some of them are opposed to hate crime laws too. >>
So your friends aren't the ones bringing the lawsuits, big deal. It doesn't mean the lawsuits aren't happening.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 5:56 PM
Mroberts,
Can you explain to me why legalizing gay marriage would the catalyst for all of these terrible things you describe? Is there something in particular about granting gays the same rights that all of the rest of us enjoy that drives countries into a state of fascism? Because I'm not seeing it. Should we prevent Muslims from having the right to marry since some countries (Canada, England) prosecute people for criticizing Islam? Maybe you should think hard about that question, because it's exactly equivalent to what you're arguing...speaking of freedom of religion.
Really? The entire gay community is pushing for hate speech laws, and no one else? There are no people pushing for laws against criticizing those who are black, Christian, Muslim (cough), or Jewish? And every single gay person out there is opposed to the freedom of speech?
You criticize my grasp of logic, but your grasp of reality seems to be pretty much non-existent. You're arguing against giving millions of people civil rights because because some people, both inside and outside of that group, think that criticizing it should be illegal. That's just absurd-- there's no better word for it.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 6:01 PM
Obviously please ignore one "because" in that last post.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 6:03 PM
For some reason, mroberts continuously fails to realize that gays are not the only ones who advocate gay rights. Is it really that hard to grasp that heterosexuals such as myself could be such staunch advocates for equality?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 6:19 PM
And Ed has written at length about such laws. California is not Canada. Why do you constantly bring this up? Let me ask you a single question, mroberts, and a simple "yes" or "no" will do (in other words, refrain from your silly tu quoque rants for once): are you aware that there is a difference between criticism of anti-gay marriage rhetoric and the silencing of anti-gay marriage rhetoric? The former I support wholeheartedly; the latter I do not, as I believe in the First Amendment.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 6:24 PM
Using "Jesus Christ" as a profanity may be offensive to you, mroberts, but it is hardly an aggressive or hostile act against you. And why do you keep bringing up the example of Canada? Ed criticizes Canadian law on this all the time. But Canada is not the US, has no enshrined "free speech" amendment the way the US does. So while "hate speech" may be illegal in Canada and some European countries, it isn't here, and it won't be. Just the way denying the holocaust is perfectly legal here, despite long-standing precedent against it in Europe and Canada. Stop playing Chicken Little about teh evil gayz, already!
Posted by: Adrienne | June 18, 2008 6:25 PM
Kodiak said:
Haven't been listening to PZ lately? It's all compartmentalization, we Christians are too deluded to actually believe in evolution. It's a wonder that we can walk and chew gum simultaneously. ;-)
mrroberts: Seeing as this is a debate about California, what does Canada have to do with it? As for your other examples, yes there are always going to be cases around the fringes of any law. Keeps us lawyers employed, don'chaknow. But means nothing.
Kurt
Posted by: kehrsam | June 18, 2008 6:28 PM
"When you actually show respect for my religious beliefs, I will believe that you actually care about my right to freedom of conscience."
Mroberts, tolerating someone's beliefs is not the same as respecting them. As for myself, I do not respect Christian religious beliefs at all. I would like to see as many people as possible shed them, and I work to deconvert as many thinking Christians as I can...by argument and logic, not by force. But as the saying goes, I still would die to defend your right to freely hold your religious beliefs, and to practice them as you see fit, providing your practice of them does not trample anyone else's rights.
So yes, Ed is tolerant. Whether he respects your beliefs on gay people is irrelevant to that.
And by the way, I know plenty of deeply religious gay people, even Christians. So straights certainly have not cornered the market on piety or belief.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 18, 2008 6:30 PM
>> For some reason, mroberts continuously fails to realize that gays are not the only ones who advocate gay rights. Is it really that hard to grasp that heterosexuals such as myself could be such staunch advocates for equality? >>
Say what ? Where did I ever say that that gays were the only ones pushing for gay rights? What a stupid statement. I've been arguing with people on this blog who are STRAIGHT and support gay rights for weeks about this issue. Sadie, there are many times where you really make no sense.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:33 PM
>> Using "Jesus Christ" as a profanity may be offensive to you, mroberts, but it is hardly an aggressive or hostile act against you. >>
IN YOUR OPINION. If I DID consider it an aggressive or hostile act, would it change your mind? What if I found it intimidating? Would that be a legitimate basis for me to sue you?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:37 PM
At this point I suppose I can take that as a compliment. In any case, you seem awfully defensive about your anti-gay bigotry, which suggests that you want it both ways. "Sure I hate gays, but I'm still a nice guy!" Give it up, dude. You're not doing your side any favors here, you're only reinforcing stereotypes about the average anti-gay marriage opponent.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 6:42 PM
>> I still would die to defend your right to freely hold your religious beliefs, and to practice them as you see fit, providing your practice of them does not trample anyone else's rights.
>>
Well, that really is the crux of the issue isn't it. I see nothing in your post but contradictions. You say you would "die" for my freedom of conscience, yet you leave yourself an out in the statement above. Tell me, does disagreeing and criticizing homosexuality and actively working to stop gay marriage fall into the category of trampling someone else's rights?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:42 PM
>> "Sure I hate gays, but I'm still a nice guy!" >>
LOL, that is just more evidence of how twisted up your "logic" is. Disagreement automatically equates to hate. You give yourself way more credit than you deserve Sadie.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:44 PM
mrroberts said:
The same First Amendment that protects my right to worship Jesus also protects others who attempt to mock that religion. As a Baptist whose beliefs were persecuted for several hundred years during the colonial period, I'm ok with that. Besides, these are not fighting words, nor do they constitute a threat. If you want to overreact to insults which are wholly gratuitous to you, join a Madrassa.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 18, 2008 6:49 PM
So what exactly is it about homosexuality that is dangerous to see as legitimate, dumbass? Luckily, we don't have to wait for our rights to be handed to us by people like you. I think you've proven enough what you think of gays, and any way to keep them from getting uppity and thinking they're the equal to straight xians like yourself is high on your priority list. Good luck doing "all you can" to see the marriage banning amendment pass in California. You're going to lose to sanity.
Posted by: paul | June 18, 2008 6:50 PM
So how many gay people do you personally know, mroberts?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 6:50 PM
>> So how many gay people do you personally know, mroberts? >>
LOL, you trying to prove I'm a big bad gay hater? You are so shallow and clueless Sadie. It really is pathetic. I've had gay friends throughout my adult life. I knew where they stood on issues and they knew where I stood and didn't demonize me as a bigot or homophobe for it. Obviously they have achieved a much higher level of civility than many people on this blog, including you. Equating disagreement with hate is just stupid, not to mention entirely illogical. Demonizing as a form of "argument" is even more stupid.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:57 PM
>> The same First Amendment that protects my right to worship Jesus also protects others who attempt to mock that religion. As a Baptist whose beliefs were persecuted for several hundred years during the colonial period, I'm ok with that. Besides, these are not fighting words, nor do they constitute a threat. If you want to overreact to insults which are wholly gratuitous to you, join a Madrassa.
>>
You are a Christian kehrsam?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:59 PM
>> mrroberts said:
IN YOUR OPINION. If I DID consider it an aggressive or hostile act, would it change your mind? What if I found it intimidating? Would that be a legitimate basis for me to sue you?
The same First Amendment that protects my right to worship Jesus also protects others who attempt to mock that religion. As a Baptist whose beliefs were persecuted for several hundred years during the colonial period, I'm ok with that. Besides, these are not fighting words, nor do they constitute a threat. If you want to overreact to insults which are wholly gratuitous to you, join a Madrassa.
>>
For the record, I wasn't threatening, only asking the question of whether there should be a basis for me to sue for words like that. There was a reason I was asking and I am curious to get the answer.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:01 PM
Disagreeing and criticizing - no. Actively working to stop gay marriage - yes.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 7:01 PM
OK mroberts. You win! You're right! Teh Gay are taking this country down! I thought we could hide behind our simple request for equal rights, but you were so smart, you saw right through that deception (which, in hindsight , was ridiculous. What were we thinking?). But it's too late now! We've infiltrated every branch of government. We're putting gay generating compounds in the water supply to make your children gay (I suspect you've felt some effect yourself). Soon teh whole world will be gay! Mwah-ha-ha!
Posted by: uncle noel | June 18, 2008 7:03 PM
>> Tell me, does disagreeing and criticizing homosexuality and actively working to stop gay marriage fall into the category of trampling someone else's rights?
Disagreeing and criticizing - no. Actively working to stop gay marriage - yes.
>>
That's what I thought. So, based on that, should there be legal penalties if I choose to try to stop gay marriage?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:03 PM
mrroberts,
I'm still waiting for an example of a "gay value" as opposed to a "heterosexual value." What is the difference?
Don't worry- I wont wait long for an answer. You don't have one.
Posted by: Tyler | June 18, 2008 7:03 PM
Sorry mrroberts, I was using "threatening" in its legal definition, and thus applying it to your hypothetical, not to you personally. Sorry if I did not make that clear. Yes, I am a Southern Baptist.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 18, 2008 7:06 PM
>> Sorry mrroberts, I was using "threatening" in its legal definition, and thus applying it to your hypothetical, not to you personally. Sorry if I did not make that clear. Yes, I am a Southern Baptist. >>
No worries, I was just making sure what I said was taken the way I intended it.
Now, I'm curious, how do you reconcile support of gay marriage with your Christianity?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:17 PM
Were racist bigots legally penalized for trying to stop integration (not counting those who resorted to violence to do so, of course - although most of them got away with it, too)?
If you didn't have the force of law behind you to enforce your bigotry, then all you could do would be to disagree and criticize. That would be penalty enough.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 7:25 PM
I don't know about Sadie, but I'm wondering where you got such a distorted view of gays if you actually know some.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 7:28 PM
>> I don't know about Sadie, but I'm wondering where you got such a distorted view of gays if you actually know some.
>>
Seraph, I think we were discussing public policy, not some person's perceptions of another person. I honestly have no clue what that comment has anything to do with the issue of gay marriage, hate crimes - all the stuff I have been arguing about.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:33 PM
I don't know about Kehrsam, but I spoke to a Catholic priest once who pointed out that the Bible included many disparate and not necessarily harmonious parts: poetry, laws, the oral history of the Hebrew people written down some hundreds of years after the fact, the history of the early days of the Jesus movement written down some years after the fact by people who were trying to win converts. What he said was that everything you read from the Bible must be considered in the context of the overall message of salvation. With that in mind, a few short passages in Leviticus - stuck in there amongst the dietary laws, menstrual laws, punishments for witches, clothing laws, and ceremonial instructions - are pretty insignificant compared to Jesus's commands to judge as you would be judged and not make a public spectacle of your faith.
Now, Kehrsam is a Southern Baptist and probably doesn't want spiritual advice from a Catholic priest, and I'm not sure what denomination you belong to, but here is a simple fact: unless you're keeping absolutely kosher, in a way that not even the most orthodox of Jews do today, you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are important to you. Give that, you should maybe ask yourself why those few passages in Leviticus are so very central to your understanding of Christianity that you can't imagine how someone could ignore them and still call themselves a Christian.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 7:44 PM
I don't need any proof, man (your dodging the question helps you none). In your own words, LOL!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 7:44 PM
mrroberts asked:
Glad you asked.
1. Marriage is primarily a civil institution, based upon the many benefits conferred on married individuals. This has nothing to do with my religion. I am quite certain that there will be no Same-Sex weddings at my church during my lifetime, nor female pastors for that matter.
2. As a civil institution, the state has no particular interest in giving any one group preference over others. Opposite sex marriage has been the policy preference, and there is a rational basis for this, in that clearly two-parent households tend to be much better off than single-parent ones. So I don't think there is an argument that SSM must be allowed as a Federal Constitutional issue. That being said, the argument for raising children in two-parent homes works equally well for homosexuals and policy preferences can change. This is why on these threads I argue that it is always better for the legislature to make the change, not the judiciary.
3. As a purely religious matter, the animosity to homosexuals shown by many Christians baffles me. We are all sinners, and my sin as a single heterosexual when I look lustily at a woman is the exact same sin as a gay man looking at a man: We are treating the other person as an object for our pleasure, rather than a human being beloved of God.
Further, I am currently part of Bible study group that was expressly set up to minister to one young man in our congregation who was recently released from prison. He did some pretty terrible things; nonetheless, he is a good kid and worth redeeming. So are all. (and no, before anyone takes that out of context, I am not calling homosexuality as sin, unless my heterosexuality be also a sin: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Besides, as a lawyer, I see the injunctions in Leviticus et al. as being clearly part of the ritual, not moral law, and hence were abolished (Acts 10).
Posted by: kehrsam | June 18, 2008 7:50 PM
>> With that in mind, a few short passages in Leviticus - stuck in there amongst the dietary laws, menstrual laws, punishments for witches, clothing laws, and ceremonial instructions - are pretty insignificant compared to Jesus's commands to judge as you would be judged and not make a public spectacle of your faith. >>
Classic. Yeah, all we American Christians are to obey all those Jewish civil and ceremonial laws even though we are not Jews living in ancient Israel.
>> Give that, you should maybe ask yourself why those few passages in Leviticus are so very central to your understanding of Christianity that you can't imagine how someone could ignore them and still call themselves a Christian. >>
LOL. That's the point. Those passages are NOT central to an understanding of Christianity. They are Jewish civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, I know it is hard to believe, but Christians also are not required to observe the Passover, the Feast of Booths, or make sacrifices at the temple. As for the prohibitions on homosexuality - those appear in the New Testament as well in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Considering that he is an authority on the Christian faith (to say the least), it is safe to assume that proper Christian doctrine includes a prohibition on homosexual conduct.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:52 PM
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 8:00 PM
Actually, no, given that he also says that it is better for men and women to abstain forever and not marry than to lust. Lust, I'm afraid, is pretty much part of a heterosexual realtionship.
Sorry, but you're just picking and choosing like what you're accusing others of doing.
Posted by: gwangung | June 18, 2008 8:04 PM
Mroberts, do you have an answer yet for why we shouldn't prevent Muslims from marrying, if the mere fact that some people consider criticizing a group to be a crime is sufficient reason to prevent members of that group from having the right to marry each other?
It's not the fault of anyone here that your gay friends are (at least) one of the following: spineless, misinformed, or misrepresented.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 8:09 PM
Well, you seem to have this terrible fear of what gays might do if they're not kept safely in their place as second-class citizens:
I just wanted to know where that fear was coming from, if you did in fact know some actual gay people.
If it's because of hate speech laws in Canada and Europe - which aren't just about gays, btw - several posters have already explained why the situation is different here.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 8:10 PM
kehrsam, I appreciate your comments. I see your point on marriage being a civil institution, but I do believe that government has an interest in promoting marriage as one man and one woman because that is what is best for children. What is best for children certainly is best for society because children are the future of society. That is a side point; I'm more interested at the moment in your doctrinal comments.
First, the prohibition on homosexuality in the OT IS in the context of ceremonial law that is voided for Christians (as I just posted a minute ago to somebody else), but I think it is evident of God's thinking on homosexuality. The condemnations of homosexuality in the NT further confirm to me God's thinking about homosexuality, as well as his original design for the family and the illustration of marriage in the analogy of Jesus and the Church. Based on that, I think it is safe to say that homosexuality is sinful. Based on that, let me address what you said, as follows:
>> As a purely religious matter, the animosity to homosexuals shown by many Christians baffles me. We are all sinners, and my sin as a single heterosexual when I look lustily at a woman is the exact same sin as a gay man looking at a man: We are treating the other person as an object for our pleasure, rather than a human being beloved of God.
Further, I am currently part of Bible study group that was expressly set up to minister to one young man in our congregation who was recently released from prison. He did some pretty terrible things; nonetheless, he is a good kid and worth redeeming. So are all. (and no, before anyone takes that out of context, I am not calling homosexuality as sin, unless my heterosexuality be also a sin: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." >>
The core issue I have is that people equate loving acceptance of gay people - just like the loving acceptance of the former prisoner - in the church with condoning their behavior. Yes, you loved the prisoner, but you did not condone his actions. Likewise, Christians are to love gays, but not condone their actions. This is true for anybody. Christians are to love me, even though I have done things in my life that are less than admirable. Love the sinner, hate the sin. The difference between the prisoner and a gay person is that the sin of the latter is being CONDONED. It is one thing to love and accept the sinner with the recognition that we are all sinners, it is another thing entirely to love and accept the sinner and CONDONE and promote his sin as NOT being sin.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 8:10 PM
gwangung and seraph: Yes, the Bible was written over the better part of a thousand years, and being the product of men, there are bound to be contradictions. We do the best we can, adopting an hermeneutic that makes sense to us. Hence the concept of the "Priesthood of the believer," for every one of us adopts a different point of view, and that which troubles mrroberts is scarcely an issue for me. So be it. We are all seeking truth.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 18, 2008 8:14 PM
>> It's not the fault of anyone here that your gay friends are (at least) one of the following: spineless, misinformed, or misrepresented. >>
Gretchen, you are getting to the point of being so annoying that it is not worth even talking to you. Post after post makes no sense, and then you make a conclusion about something that you CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW A THING ABOUT: who my friends are and what they are like. The issue is not that my friends might be one of the three things you listed, but that the world you have pictured in your narrowminded head - that I am a big bad gay hater who has no clue in the world about gays because I have never had a gay friend - does not conform to reality. Well, you are wrong on both points. Not only have I had gay friends over the years, but they are not anything like what you think they are or should be.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 8:18 PM
>> "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18. >>
Seraph, that does not disprove my point. Jesus DID fulfill the law by being the ultimate sacrifice for sin. He did not void the law, he COMPLETED the requirement of the law by paying the ultimate penalty demanded by it: the payment for sin by death.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 8:22 PM
Don't you? The problem with bigotry is often that the bigot believes he/she doesn't know anyone like that. It's seriously undermined when you have to look your friend in the fact and say "No, I'm going to work my butt off to make sure you and your partner don't get equal rights. Say, want to have a burger?"
Posted by: mandrake | June 18, 2008 8:23 PM
Again, no more than my sins as a straight man are being condoned. The North Carolina Southern Baptist Convention expelled several congregations recently for having openly gay members. I have yet to hear of a congregation expelled for a heterosexual couple shacking up. If it be sin, it is the same sin.
Second, Paul's most famous comment against homosexuality (Romans 1) isn't about homosexuality. Rather, it about the evidence of sin. If I were to enage in homosexual relations, then that would clearly be a sin, because I'm not homosexual It says nothing whatsoever about congenital homosexuals. It appears we must agree to disagree, my friend.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 18, 2008 8:23 PM
beg pardon. "look your friend in the eye."
Posted by: mandrake | June 18, 2008 8:25 PM
You're right mroberts. Your religion says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore you have to consider it wrong and cannot condone your behavior. Your religion is wrong, and you do not have the right to make public policy follow the tenants of your faith. Believe what you want, but my actions WILL be condoned by my government.
And to repeat yet again, studies prove that children are not worse off in homosexual households, the fact that you hold to this astounds me.
Posted by: paul | June 18, 2008 8:30 PM
Mroberts said:
Hmm, I sense a tad bit of projection there. Maybe you should stop blaming other people for the fact that you can't comprehend what they're saying, and consider the possibility that they're not the ones with the problem. Nobody has been using particularly esoteric language, and our points have been straightforward. Additionally, you don't bother to point out exactly what about someone's post you don't understand, but simply declare the whole thing nonsensical. Not a good way to promote understanding.
As you just got finished saying, I don't have the slightest idea whether you actually have any gay friends, or what they are like. Nor do I particularly care. I know black people with racist friends, and women who date sexist men. The "I have black/gay/female/transsexual/wiccan/whatever friends" card is one of the oldest ones out there, and it continues to mean what it has always meant-- nothing.
All right, Mroberts, here's your assignment:
1) Demonstrate that children of homosexual parents turn out, all things being equal, worse in some way than the children of heterosexual parents.
2) Demonstrate why any of us should give the tiniest shit what any part of the Bible says about homosexuality when considering the right to gay marriage.
3) Try not to jump from one justification to a radically different one when attempting to formulate a semi-coherent argument to oppose gay marriage. It just makes the bigotry glow like a shining beacon.
4) Provide a real answer for my question regarding Muslims and their right to marry. Try to be in the slightest way consistent. Attempt to formulate a reasonable argument for your positions without relying on talking points, the Bible, or whatever you've most recently pulled out of your ass.
I know the last one is actually many assignments at once, but then I don't actually expect you to fulfill any of these requests. Your motto seems to be "Rationality: Why start now?"
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 8:31 PM
*cannot condone my behavior*
Posted by: paul | June 18, 2008 8:32 PM
Luke 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Do you condone those sins?
And yet the Heaven and the Earth have not yet passed away. Sophistry aside, that means that not one jot nor tittle of the law has passed away either.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 8:35 PM
Exactly my point, Kehrsam. It's not me who's saying that you can't be a Christian because you support gay rights.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 8:37 PM
mroberts wrote:
I'm sorry but you're being a fucking idiot, and this response only contains more fucking idiocy. Tolerance doesn't have a damn thing to do with "respecting" your beliefs. I've got a long track record of supporting the rights of Christians, so you've got no case at all to make that you have anything to fear from me. I am an outspoken critic of those hate speech laws in Canada that you keep referring to. I am an outspoken critic of hate speech codes and have called for a legal assault to end them on college campuses. I am a staunch advocate of religious liberty in all cases, enough so that even the Alliance Defense Fund has praised my support for the rights of Christians (even while disagreeing with my support for separation of church and state). But your legal right to say something and my willingness to fight for that legal right has absolutely nothing to do with me respecting your beliefs because I don't respect your beliefs any more than I respect a Hindu's belief in the caste system or a Muslim's belief in getting 72 virgins if they die for Allah. Those beliefs are fucking stupid. There is no inconsistency at all between advocating legal tolerance for the expression of those beliefs and still condemning them as fucking stupid. And your beliefs are fucking stupid. I'm sure it disturbs you to hear that, but I don't care; it has the great virtue of being true.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 18, 2008 8:41 PM
Ed,
you know you're just playing into his hands, here. He's probably wriggling with joy at the stimulation of his persecution complex.
Posted by: mandrake | June 18, 2008 8:52 PM
ok, that was a low blow for which I apologize.
Sorry.
Posted by: mandrake | June 18, 2008 9:04 PM
Here's the key: Is that view evidence-based or simply your intuition taking up more than its fair share of your decision making process? What evidence do you have that gay marriage would harm children? There's a rich world of studies out there on adopted children, children of single parents, children of same-sex parents, and just about every other combination you can think of. How are you interpreting the data to reach your conclusions? As far as I can see, there's no way to get there without reading unwarranted conclusions into the data.
My intuition says gay marriage is strange. I haven't seen it around, so my brain hiccups when I see a married gay couple. The reasoning parts of my brain are at odds with that, given the data at hand. I can find no objective evidence of harm. The gay couples I know seem to be every bit as connected as my wife and I are. These things tell me that I need to override my intuition and get used to it. The intuition will shut up in a few years once it's the norm and the sky hasn't fallen.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 18, 2008 9:12 PM
Mroberts wrote:
Disagreeing and criticizing? No. Working openly through legal channels (petitions and elections) to stop gay marriage? No. These things may make you a douchebag and a sad human being, but they are legal and I fully defend your right to do them. When you stop trying to physically stop gay people from pursuing their rights, then yes, that gets into "trampling" territory. Hope that helps.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 18, 2008 9:31 PM
Oh, by the way, mroberts, as other posters here have pointed out, calling your beliefs irrational and stupid and refusing to respect them are not hostile acts. They are protected in the US by the same laws that protect your right to speak out against gay marriage. You may perceive them as hostile, but legally you're outta luck if you try to stop me from telling you you are a douchebag with stupid and harmful beliefs. All clear now?
Posted by: Adrienne | June 18, 2008 9:34 PM
Oh crappy darn. Two posts ago when I wrote: When you stop trying to physically stop gay people from pursuing their rights, then yes, that gets into "trampling" territory", I typoed. Shoulda been, "When you start trying to physically....."
Posted by: Adrienne | June 18, 2008 9:37 PM
Just a quick correction to something Ed said way above -- I believe that the California legislature has actually voted *twice* for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. In both instances, the legislation was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, his stated rationale being that the issue was still under consideration by the state supreme court, by whose decision he would abide. To his credit, he has kept his word and stated that he respects the court's ruling and opposes any effort to amend the state constitution.
Posted by: Rob Lll | June 18, 2008 9:54 PM
I think it's a testament to Ed's tolerance that he allows mroberts to post here. Many other bloggers (*cough* uncommon dissent *cough*) would have long ago banned a person who insulted them so often.
Mroberts, you seem to interpret every criticism of your beliefs as "intolerant", and yet you frequently come to this site to insult and degrade everyone who disagrees with you. You attack not just the ideas, but also the people who hold them. So is it only "intolerance" when the beliefs being criticized are your own, but your totally uncalled for personal attacks against people who oppose your ideas are perfectly acceptable? Or do you just not consider hypocrisy to be a moral fault?
Posted by: Wes | June 18, 2008 10:16 PM
^Correction to my above comment: "Uncommon Descent" is the blog. Uncommon Dissent is Dembski's idiotic book.
Posted by: Wes | June 18, 2008 10:18 PM
I'm so sad I missed the bulk of this thread. mroberts needs to shut up until he comes up with a secular reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples. The parenting one was debunked above and multiple times before to him. So do you have another, mroberts?
I'll also 132nd that, Jesus Christ, mroberts is a douchebag.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 18, 2008 10:36 PM
So tell me, mroberts, do you know any gay people personally?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 10:37 PM
It's all because of the gays!
Posted by: Geoff | June 18, 2008 11:22 PM
"When you actually show respect for my religious beliefs, I will believe that you actually care about my freedom of conscience."
What moronic logic. A person doesn't have to agree or respect someone's religious beliefs to respect their freedom of conscience when it comes to those beliefs.
Posted by: daniel rotter | June 19, 2008 3:22 AM
Up here in Canada, those evil liberals legalized gay marriage a while back and I gotta say its fucking CHAOS. naked men chasing eachother through the traffic jams, sexual assault is rampant at our schools and a church burns down almost every night! We should have listened to wise men of the 'bigoted' Religious Right, and then we wouldn't be in this mess.
[/sarcasm]
As far as hate speech laws go, I didn't actually know they were laws (as an engineer, I know frighteningly little about law) I always thought that it was just a ridiculous precedent. I've mostly only seen people get shouted down for being bigoted assholes, but not actually prosecuted by law, so it appears enforcement is lax. Churches here certainly aren't being forced to marry anyone, and it seems that one can only get in trouble for extreme bigotry, expressed loudly and publicly. so basicry, mroberts is chock full of bullshit.
Posted by: nanoAl | June 19, 2008 3:35 AM
I'm pretty sure free speech is included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it;d be kind of odd if it wasn't.
Posted by: nanoAl | June 19, 2008 3:37 AM
Seraph, that does not disprove my point. Jesus DID fulfill the law by being the ultimate sacrifice for sin. He did not void the law, he COMPLETED the requirement of the law by paying the ultimate penalty demanded by it: the payment for sin by death.
What would Jesus be worried about a bunch of lame stuff like that for? "Penalty", "sacrifice", "void", "fulfill". What a bunch of petty lame-o-ness.
Posted by: 386sx | June 19, 2008 3:39 AM
I have never heard a single argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry the person they love that stands up to my own two pronged test.
1) Is it based on fact?
2) If followed logically, would it still allow an atheist or a Hindu to get married?
Obviously, the answers I want are 1) Yes 2) No.
So, prong one kills such ideas as "Gay marriage makes straights stop getting married!" "We will all be forced to be gay or attend gay weddings!" or "It will harm the kids"
As for prong two, if the argument is that gays shouldnt marry because God doesnt like homosexuality, then he equally (more?) dislikes Hindus, since they violate number one on his Big List Of Rules. If by allowing gay marriage we are encouraging a sin, then we are surely encouraging a sin by allowing Hindu temples to carry out their rituals.
Posted by: Donalbain | June 19, 2008 5:01 AM
I've often brought that last one up myself, Donalbain. How the fuck is it any more of an offence to god to see two god-fearing Christian homosexuals get married in a church than, say, my wife and I getting married at the local town hall because we have nothing but total hostility towards the religious intrusion into marriage?
Are two people who hold god in utter contempt and find the accompanying fairytales and pantomime to be childish and ridiculous somehow more favourable a couple in the eyes of god than two deeply religious men who happen to fancy other men? Their sins are surely pretty trivial compared to ours - I mean, we may not even be able to have kids (we are both white and middle class though, which seems to count for a lot in god's eyes these days).
And of course, this leads to the obvious point: of course we couldn't, nor would we want to, get married in a church, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE FUCKING CHURCH. It's about what the government does and doesn't have the right to make illegal and the views of religious institutions are irrelevant. If two gay people want to get married then the church has no more right to be involved in their decision than they did when my wife and I got married. Unless it is happening in your church, it is none of your fucking business.
And I don't want hate speech laws preventing criticism of atheists either, so you can stick that red herring up your arse too.
Posted by: Matthew | June 19, 2008 7:06 AM
Here is the crux of mroberts' argument, I believe. What he's really upset about is that we are not paying appropriate reverence to his point of view. All of this talk about us (or "the gays") wanting to "silence" him is really just code for "you guys are not granting me the validity of my viewpoint!" Well, no we're not. For the ten gazillionth time, we may tolerate his right to vocalize his idiotic bigotry, but I do not tolerate that bigotry itself, nor do I respect it in the least. I also do not respect mroberts' religious beliefs themselves. I wonder if he is capable of seeing the difference, but I honestly don't care too much.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 19, 2008 9:05 AM
Hate crimes legislation will inevitably follow gay marriage.
Just like polygamy and child-rape inevitably followed gay marriage out in Texas?
Gays are more than happy to push their "values" on others.
Which "values," specifically? And by what specific means are gays "pushing" them on others? Do you have any pattern of specific incidents to back any of this up, or just wild incoherent ravings?
Oh, and you still haven't answered my invitation to point us to all those truly nice people who you claim oppose gay marriage. Put up or shut up.
I've had gay friends throughout my adult life. I knew where they stood on issues and they knew where I stood and didn't demonize me as a bigot or homophobe for it. Obviously they have achieved a much higher level of civility than many people on this blog, including you.
This is the second time, at least, that I've heard this sort of defensive protest from someone who has just got through wildly accusing gays of all sorts of hatefulness and depravity, without backing up one bit of it. And quite frankly, I'm not impressed. Either you're making the whole story up; or you're the kind of person who spews hateful nonsense from the safety of teh Intarweb, but instantly changes his tune when dealing with people face-to-face; or you know full well gays are decent and respectable people just like the rest of us, but you're letting your outdated (and poorly understood) religious beliefs force you to pretend not to see that decency.
(Besides, if gays are as hateful and intolerant as you say they are, then why do you choose to hang with even one of them?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 19, 2008 9:17 AM
Another problem with Kmiec's reasoning about marriage and procreation is his ignorance of the science of procreation, in particular, a small but growing body of research in the area of human same-sex procreation (see www.samesexprocreation.com). The goal of these scientists is to produce either female sperms (of interest to lesbians) or male eggs (of interest to gay men), with some predictions this will be clinically practical within ten to twenty years. It then makes same-sex couples completely equal in terms of the nature of marriage, making the case for same-sex marriage the same as the case for interracial marriage. So if you insist on relying on the archaic procreation argument for marriage, at least learn the science.
Posted by: Greg Aharonian | June 20, 2008 11:35 AM
Ok I'm confused, where will these male eggs implant?
Anyway I'm sure these "men of god" (read pious hypocrites) will jump up and down say "it's un-natural" before going off to eat thier genetically modified burgers, complete with inbreed beef, pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones.
Only one word for these faux Christians - asshats. DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 20, 2008 11:43 AM
...before going off to eat thier genetically modified burgers...
Do you think that we maybe should point out to them that the corn they eat has been so significantly genetically modified (through breeding) that it bares almost no resemblance to the original plant? Nahhh...
Posted by: Josh | June 20, 2008 11:56 AM
Yeah why not. What the hell to they about biology anyway? They probably think babies come from the cabbage patch ;D - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 20, 2008 12:01 PM
Dearborn
Posted by: kehrsam | June 20, 2008 12:06 PM
Kehrsam - but doesn't really, really hurt to hn egg implanted in your Dearborn? I rather have a prostrate exam. :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 20, 2008 12:11 PM
My understanding of Kmiec is that he has been conditioned to believe what he believes about gay marriage and child bearing. It seems to me that deeply ingrained conditioned beliefs have been there for so long by the time one is an adult it is almost impossible to personally deconstruct why you believe they are true, which makes it difficult to provide a rationale to others. Perhaps this is why his arguement seems so illogical.
If right wing christian moralists really wish to promote faithfulness in sexual relationships, and wish people to associate sexual relationships with procreation, it would seemn more consistent to advocate marriage and commitment to both homosexual and heterosexual couples and support anyone who wishes to have children, especially people who are commited enough to go through what must be an emotional ordeal in order to have those children.
Doesn't it seem strange that they seem to be trying to force people into hidden uncommited sex?
As a christian myself, I care about people whoever they are and would rather get to know individuals than condemn whole swathes of humanity who are probably more moral than myself.
Posted by: missisfi | July 17, 2008 6:10 AM
missisfi your first paragraph I think makes a good case for Professor Dawkins' case about religious indoctrination being child abuse.
Posted by: mc2 | July 17, 2008 9:11 PM
"As a christian myself, I care about people whoever they are and would rather get to know individuals than condemn whole swathes of humanity who are probably more moral than myself."
Well, that makes you one of the good ones and I will stand by you and help you understand and help others in any way I can. But what are you going to do about all your christian brethren you don't feel that way? Also, just out of curiousity, what basis are you using for all those strangers being more moral than yourself?
Posted by: jba | July 18, 2008 12:20 AM