Debating with activist-minded people is nearly impossible. With them, disagreeing with their cause is the same as hating those whom they claim to defend. Take Stanford University’s Anscombe Society’s scheduled conference called “Communicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Media“. The event has been called hate speech and discrimination camouflaged in communication and the group’s request for funding has been denied by the student government for this reason.
According to the minutes from the meeting, opponents of the group had this to say:
“An event such as this would be a negative event, in schools that have negative events there is a statistically significant increase in suicide.”
“ … makes homosexuals on campus feel less than equal to others.”
“ … this event is to help people better convey hateful messages … the conference is to help better articulate their views, but it’s not better articulating, rather camoflaging discrimination and hateful messages …”
” … public schools cannot deny student group funding based on viewpoint, but enforcing viewpoint neutral policy that denies funding for hate speech is an entirely different ballgame. Even if Stanford was a public university, it would be perfectly legal to deny funding to events that make LGBT community feel unwelcome. It would be the same for Stanford to hold a conference on why heterosexuality is abhorrent, and to strip the right away from heterosexuals, and it’s equally unacceptable to host a conference to strip homosexuals of their rights.”
” … there is a lot of feeling espousing the view that marriage is between man and woman is, at the least discriminatory, at worst hate speech.”
“This event is small and exclusive, this doesnt make us feel in community welcome, we don’t feel included.”
This tactic is common among the activist-minded person regardless of the issue. Anyone who disagrees with you hates you and your ilk. It’s a cheap rhetorically vapid trick to try to win an argument. Rather than offer reasons why your position is correct and others are wrong, they instead try to discredit and shut down their opponents before the discussion can be had with insults and name-calling.
Ever notice how those who demand tolerance so loud and so often are some of the last people to be tolerant? Bullies in the name of tolerance are bullies just the same.
(H/T: Culture Grind)
Sifting Reality 
If somebody tried to rent out a college campus to give a talk about how marriage should be limited by race to preserve racial purity, we would call it ridiculous and wouldn’t allow it on campus. A lot of people view the people who say that marriage should be limited by gender the same way. You don’t have to agree with that comparison but for a lot of us on the pro-equality side, that’s how it comes off.
just calling it the “pro-equality side” poisons the entire argument. It’s a propagandic way to parse your position.
Marriage is inherently a sexual relationship. As such race does not define or interfere with the sexualness of the relationship. The gender of the participants does. It’s not a legitimate comparison, especially since race and sexual desire are not even close to being on par with one another.
bryce,
I’m tired of this argument. It’s ridiculous because race doesn’t change the definition of marriage. Am I equally bigoted for opposing polygamy? Yet another relationship which alters the definition of marriage.
John,
They can’t win any other way. Their arguments are weak, so they have to discredit the other side before anyone listens to them.
.
I’m pretty confident to say the reason for growing support for same sex marriage is that the “pro-equality” side has parsed the debate as “either you support it, or you’re Fred Phelps” No one wants to be labeled a hateful bigot, so people just give in.
You havent changed their mind, you’ve just changed what they’ll say in public or to a pollster.
I hope you don’t use the term Pro-Life than, otherwise that’d be pretty hypocritical to criticize me for using “Pro-Equality”. (Doesn’t matter if you truly believe you do stand for life, I truly believe I stand for equality. Both bias the debate).
It’s a decent comparison because people used the arguments that race DID interfere with sexual relationships and used religious arguments to back it up. Sex was a tool not only to pro-create but to pass on lineages, and to mix races was to poison the lineage. We look at that now as ridiculous, but the Pro-Gay-Marriage Side (better?), look at your arguments as just as ridiculous. Sexuality does not have to equal pro creation. It has traditionally been the understanding, but so was the mixing of the races traditionally the understanding. We as a society are evolving to a point where sexual relationships are not defined by procreation. And if they aren’t defined by procreation, than marriage, an inherently sexual relationship, cannot be denied from couples who cannot procreate naturally. That’s the new understanding of sexual relationships, and those who cling to the old one are seen as just as backwards as those who cling to the lineage argument.
There’s nothing hypocritical about the term prolife. In the abortion debate you’re either pro-letting the baby have its life, or youre pro-kill the baby in the womb.
I’m ok with anti-abortion.
segregated marriages were instituted because of how people viewed blacks and other minorities. People dont oppose same sex marriage because of the reasons your side says we do. It’s a fabrication, it’s propaganda, and most gay activists know it.
Segregated marriage were instituted using the biblical argument that God created different races for a reason and didn’t want lineages to mix.
Sexual relationships were defined by procreation ability and the ability to pass on pure lineages.
Nowadays, we’ve removed the lineage part of that definition and everything was fine.
We’ve also seen a rapidly growing trend to remove the procreation part as well, and everybody on the pro-equality side, (yes, we’re for equality. Just as you are for life), views sexual relationships to be defined by nothing other than consensual sex.
Those who are stuck on the old definition are viewed the same way those who were stuck on the old definition of lineage were. Backwards and outdated. Just explaining why you’re viewed the way you’re viewed.
(It doesn’t help that the people on your side who get the most media coverage are the “God hates fags” people, pastors who call for us to get stoned, and senators who say that we’re the greatest threat to the nation)
No, segregated marriages were instituted under the guise of a biblical prohibition, but was in fact because racists in power weren’t going to allow black animals to marry innocent white women and make a bunch of half-breeds.
You know this, and other activists know this, and you know most people know this which is why you equate the two, to make people not want to associate themselves with antebellum slave owning racists.
bryce,
“Segregated marriage” was never the definition of marriage. For the last 4,500 years, marriage has always been a union between one man and one woman. Now you want that changed. If so, why can’t we change it for polygamists and incestuous couples? Why should we change it for homosexuals but not others?
I think Fred Phelps and his entire entourage are a bunch of assholes, and they are not on “my side.” But guess who’s on your side? The same “Pride” people you defended for dressing “scandalously.” All Phelps does is picket funerals. Your people walk down public streets naked while making sexually provocative gestures in front of children.
It doesn’t help my side that the media and activists give WBC so much coverage. I cant help that activists and the media paint all Christians who oppose same sex marriage as the WBC. But that’s not my problem, that’s the media and activists who paint a knowingly false picture of who Christians actually are. Like I said, its propaganda.
brycelancaster are you a naturlaist in your philosophy? If so do you believe in Evolution? If so that as well how do you reconcile homosexuality with naturalism? I am not trying to be difficult I really want to understand how homosexuality fits into survival of the fittest for homo sapiens.
Avoiding the mixing of lineages WAS the definition of marriage in America since it’s beginning. In America, segregated marriage was the definition of marriage. We’ve removed that part of the definition and marriage still thrived. Removing procreation will have the same effect as removing the lineage part… none at all.
The view of marriage in 1930: Procreation, ability to have consensual sex, and Don’t mix lineages
The view of marriage in 2000: Procreation, Ability to have Consensual Sex
The view of marriage by a majority of Americans in 2014: Ability to have Consensual Sex
Those who cling to outdated beliefs are typically seen as prejudiced, hence why anti-equality opponents are treated so roughly nowadays.
And as for polygamy and incest, those are two entirely unrelated matters. If you want to start a separate topic on it, go ahead. (I have a big problem with the FLDS church, which is where polygamy mainly stems from. And incestual relationships have very high chances of producing painful birth defects for children)
Homosexuality would spell disaster for humans if it was prevalent in the majority. But 4% of the population not naturally producing is simply an evolutionary hiccup that occurs with every generation. We see animals do it all the time. If 4% of the population of an animal species chose not to procreate with each generation, it wouldn’t concern most evolutionary scientists.
You are absolutely correct, Bryce. IF someone was arguing that straight people should abandon their natural orientation (either by choice or by force) and we ALL should be gay, then the argument, “But gay folk can’t reproduce and would spell the end of humanity” would make some sense. But given that the percentage of folk with a homosexual orientation is a small minority, and given that we are in danger of overpopulation, not underpopulation, this argument doesn’t really get us anywhere.
Terrance…
“Segregated marriage” was never the definition of marriage. For the last 4,500 years, marriage has always been a union between one man and one woman. Now you want that changed.
Facts:
1. Marriage was legally defined as specifically NOT being an option for mixed races in our nation (and probably others) for many years. Legal definition does not equal moral.
2. Marriage has been “defined” in many different ways in many different cultures throughout the millenia. Marriage in cultures ancient and modern – including biblical cultures – included the notion of polgamy. That is, it was NOT defined as “one man/one woman.”
Also, it has been defined to include (in ancient cultures as well as in the Bible) the forced marriage of women to men not of their choosing (which we define as rape, today, not marriage).
3. In reality, we alter definitions of various ideals/practices over the years. There is nothing inherently wrong in changing/adapting definitions, as long as it’s from a less ideal understanding to a more ideal understanding. IF we chose in the US to alter the definition of marriage to include forced marriages (again, what we now call rape), that would be a morally repugnant changing of the definition. On the other hand, adapting the ideal to include the mutually loving, respectful, committed and healthy option for gay and lesbians to marry is a positive change of the definition.
~Dan
John, I would say that if the question is, “Is it hateful to say, ‘I don’t believe two gay folk should be allowed to get married…” yes, that is. The idea of telling grown, self-determining adults what they can and can’t (within the realm of behavior that causes no harm to others) do is demeaning and oppressive – an assault on human rights and religious liberty.
If the question is, “Is it hateful to say, ‘I disagree with the notion of gay folk marrying… I don’t think, in my opinion, that it is healthy for them…'” I would say no, that is not hateful. If that is the extent of the commentary.
But one thing we have to keep in mind is context. We are just now moving out of millenia of outright oppression and demonization, torture, death and beatings of people with a homosexual orientation. For most of history in most places, gay people have been horribly abused simply for their orientation. That is a historic reality and an overwhelming one.
Given that, you should be able to understand that, now that the tide has started to change, there is tremendous push-back against anything that would suggest a return to those days of horror and gross immorality (in the oppression of gay folk).
That is another way that gay rights is similar to civil rights for African Americans. You can’t just “turn off” hundreds or thousands of years of oppression of a group overnight and say, “Okay, it’s all good, just forget all that history.” You just can’t. Misbehavior has consequences and one of those is the natural right to be very suspicious of all that smacks of the horrors from previous generations.
So, in the same way that colleges would rightly say, “NO! We’re not going to allow a group advocating an end to ‘mixed race’ marriages, even if they’re ‘respectful…’ and ‘polite,” colleges would rightly turn away the same for those who would do the same about marriages between gay folk.
History and oppression has consequences. The “anti-marriage rights” crowd has got to expect some level of hostility and suspicion, after so many years of oppression.
Seems to me.
~Dan
No, it wasn’t.
No, it wasn’t. Those prohibitions were not in place at the advent of Western marriage and were the product of racism, not reason.
No, they aren’t. These other relationships are no more a perversion of traditional marriage than same-sex marriage.
That isn’t always true. But let’s say the couple was sterilized. Or, let’s say it was two males, brothers, gay brothers. Would it be okay with you?
Dan,
You’re wrong. Read my reply to bryce.
Bryce,
You keep using the term “pro equality”, can you unpack what exactly you mean by that?
For example, there was a billboard during our local marriage vote which touted “marriage equality for all”, is this what you mean by “pro equality”?
When I say I’m pro-equality, it should be pretty obvious what I mean. I support the rights of gays to get married to each other on the equal level that straight people do.
I love how you, Terrance, don’t want to admit that segregated marriage wasn’t a definition of marriage in America. They were about as racist as you are homophobic. Meaning, they didn’t think of themselves as racist, just as much as you don’t think of yourself as oppressing gay people. (And when I use the term homophobia, I don’t mean the literal interpretation. I mean the practice of oppressing people due to sexual orientation)
Look at ALL the arguments against integreated marriage used on the legal field in the 50’s and 60’s. Very, very few mentioned black people being inferior to whites. All mentioned the fact that marriage was traditionally kept between members of the same race and that God didn’t want races mixing. Very similar arguments to the one you guys are using. That’s why your side is equated with hatred, because the arguments are VERY similar. You can try to distance yourselves as much as you want by saying, “They were just a bunch of racists”, but the reality is that people rightly peg you as using old prejudices to keep in place unjust laws. It’s not propaganda, it’s what people really think. And you only have yourselves to blame for using the exact same arguments, just in a different context.
Excellent points, Bryce.
I think part of the problem comes in how you’re framing things, John. Is it okay with us if you “defend traditional marriage…”? Well that sounds nice enough… sure! I support you defending marriage.
BUT, when it comes to a responsible, rational, young adult coming to you and saying, “I would like to marry my partner, with all the responsibilities and benefits that comes with that marriage. Are you going to deny me this?” or saying to a gay or lesbian young couple – hard-working, loving, responsible, decent folk, “No, you can’t adopt a child because I think your relationship is immoral, in my tradition…” you’ve moved from “Defending marriage” to “defending oppression of a group based on NOT on their individual behavior, but on prejudice against a group.”
I fully support you “defending marriage.” I/we do not support you “defending bigotry.”
~Dan
It wasn’t. America passed anti-miscegenation laws; they did not change the definition of one man, one woman. And if what you say is true, bryce, that segregated marriage was the definition, then why would they pass special laws? Why would they need to, bryce? Have you considered that?
Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were not federal; they were individual state laws. And at first, they prohibited interracial marriage on the basis of class, not race. It wasn’t legal, for example, to marry a black slave or indentured servant.
These laws were never part of the definition of marriage, which has always been one man, one woman.
You’re an ignoramus, bryce. And do you think I care that you called me a homophobe? Seriously, given your rather jubilant support of child-murder, I’d have to say I’m rather comfortable being labeled a homophobe by comparison.
Seriously, read a book.
Terrance, re:””You’re dead wrong…” if you are speaking about the facts of marriage – that marriage was legally defined in the past to include polygamy, that marriage in the past was legally defined as to not allow for “mixed race marriages,” I am not mistaken. Facts are facts.
Marriage WAS legally defined in at least some states so as to not allow a black man and white woman to marry. Early in our history, marriage was defined so as to allow polygamy. Laws had to change in order to re-define marriage. And rightly so.
Here’s a timeline of the history of marriage in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_civil_marriage_in_the_United_States
Facts are facts.
~Dan
Given the facts, then, I repeat my conclusion:
In reality, we alter definitions of various ideals/practices over the years. There is nothing inherently wrong in changing/adapting definitions, as long as it’s from a less ideal understanding to a more ideal understanding. IF we chose in the US to alter the definition of marriage to include forced marriages (again, what we now call rape), that would be a morally repugnant changing of the definition. On the other hand, adapting the ideal to include the mutually loving, respectful, committed and healthy option for gay and lesbians to marry is a positive change of the definition.
~Dan
“When I say I’m pro-equality, it should be pretty obvious what I mean.”
If it was obvious I wouldn’t have asked for the clarification.
” I support the rights of gays to get married to each other on the equal level that straight people do.”
So it would be accurate to say that your position is not actually “pro equality”, correct? It would perhaps be more correct that you support a “limited equality”, correct?
No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t “legally defined” as anything. It was only AFTER the passage of special laws that marriage between whites and blacks became illegal. And at first, these laws didn’t even go that far. They only prohibited interracial marriage based on class, not race.
Exactly. In “SOME” states it was illegal. It wasn’t a federal law and the federal government DID IN FACT recognize interracial marriages.
Even defenders of same-sex marriage admit it. Read this article by a law professor at Bentley University. She writes, Prior to the passage of DOMA in 1996, any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states – as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967. [1]
Like I said, the definition was never changed.
Indeed.
Don’t put words in my mouth Craig. I support equality when it’s rational. I don’t support equality for pedophiles and rapists, but I do support equality when nothing negative comes from it. Be up front about what you’re asking me to say, don’t try to lead me into something.
And Terrance, the timeline of where and when the definitions of interracial marriage changed are irrelevant. (Thanks for calling me a child murderer by the way, not that I’ve ever gotten or aided in an abortion. I’m sure it must infuriate you that 1 out of every 5 pregnancies end in abortion. I would hate to be someone who opposed that, life must be hard being so angry). People held the viewpoint that biblically, marriages were meant to preserve lineages. They made the exact same arguments that you make today and that’s why you’re seen as the sad, pathetic man you are. It’s not propaganda, it’s how we really view you. I can honestly say with fullest sincerity that I view you as an angry bigot filled with hate. That’s not propaganda trying to disprove your arguments, that’s a rational conclusion after hearing those things you call arguments. Again, I sure hope your children don’t end up gay.
Interesting related question: I believe Marshall has already “outed himself” as willing to reject his children if they turn out to be gay and refuse to consider it a sin. How about the rest of you: If your children or other loved ones are gay and consider themselves Christians who simply disagree with you on your opinion on this matter, will you tell them to leave your house and never return? Will you support your church should they decide to banish/excommunicate these loved ones? Will you consider them “not Christian” and “not welcome” for the sin of disagreeing with your opinion on this matter?
I pray not. There’s too little grace and too much pain in the world already.
~Dan
Bryce,
I haven’t put words in your mouth , I’ve asked you to clarify the terminology you’ve been using.
I’m not sure why the gay community and their users think they’re being treated unequally, a gay man can marry any woman he wants just like a straight man, a lesbian can marry any man she wants just like a straight woman. There you go – equality maintained for over 4,500 years.
Doug…. “A black man can marry any black woman. A white man can marry any white woman”.
Inherently unequal. Educate yourself. A gay man cannot marry a straight woman and be as equally happy as a straight man marrying a straight woman.
And Craig, I did clarify. You’re the one who suggested I meant “limited equality”.
These are the sort of glib, nonsensical and outright immoral responses that cause people to associate your “side” with the Westboro Baptist types – it’s a difference in degree of how much you’re willing to demonize and oppress, but not a difference in the actual oppressing.
And Craig, when we deny people the option of harming others (ie, not allowing pedophiles to abuse children or people to rape others), we’re not “limiting equality.” No one has the “right” to harm others. We are advocating equality.
The more apt comparison is: Gay folk don’t have the right to harm others, nor do straight folk. It’s equality, not limiting equality.
That is also the sort of comparison (gay folk to those who cause the worst sort of harm) that gets you all tied to the oppressors. I’m quite sure you all may not see it – I didn’t see it when I made these sorts of comments years ago – but these are oppressive, harmful expressions that we simply won’t abide any more, any more than we would abide those who’d advocate an end to “mixed race marriages…”
You don’t believe in two guys marrying? Don’t do it. But as long as no one is harming others, you don’t get to tell others who they can and can’t marry – that is a stripping away of human rights.
~Dan
Dan, here’s what I expect they’ll say. They love and accept gay people just as much as anybody else. They have “gay friends” and “gay family members” which they treat with respect. But if their children were gay, they’d expect their little boys and girls to never have any romantic relationships in life. I don’t know what kind of monster would wish that fate on their own child, but they do it in the name of “love”.
I legitimately feel sorry that it happens.
Me, too. Especially since I was in that camp at one point in my life and held those views which, to me now, seem so obviously harmful and immoral. I can’t say I’m sorry enough to all I harmed with my words and opinions.
~Dan
Agree with me, Dan and Bryce, or it means you hate conservatives and want us to die. People who dont think like me are monsters.
The definition of interracial marriage never changed. It’s always been a man and woman of different races. Similarly, the definition of marriage never changed. It’s always been a man and woman, period. Anti-miscegenation laws were not legally binding throughout the United States, and in fact represented a perversion of the definition as heinous as same-sex marriage itself.
No problem.
I haven’t made that argument at all, you ignorant child.
I couldn’t care less how you view me. You’re nothing but a pathetic homosexual so uncomfortable with yourself that you feel the need to parade about the web demanding everyone accept you and your perversions. Well, good luck with that.
What the hell are you even talking about? Are you asking me if I would accept my child if he or she was gay? Of course I would. But I wouldn’t change my opinion of marriage. I have stated many times that homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to enter legal contracts with their significant others that would protect and benefit them. But such a contract cannot be called marriage because it’s not a marriage. Marriage means one thing.
First off, it’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. It’s in plain language in the Bible. Second, I wouldn’t support the Church doing such a thing because it’d be hypocritical. Are they going to excommunicate the drunks? The money changers? No? Then why excommunicated the homosexuals? No sin is worse than another, and I’ve said THAT repeatedly as well.
So I don’t care if you idiots refer to me as a homophobe because the fact is that I’ve been rather supportive of homosexuals on this blog. I just don’t think the definition of marriage or biblical facts should be changed to suit them.
Oh, now it’s monstrous to believe in celibacy? You people are absolutely unbelievable. Are you even reading the shit you’re typing?
John…
Agree with me, Dan and Bryce, or it means you hate conservatives and want us to die.
This, of course, is a bad analogy. I have repeatedly said, “IF you don’t agree with me, then DON’T agree with me! By all means, you can say, ‘I disagree with that opinion…'” So, clearly I am not saying you have to agree with me, since I repeatedly say just the opposite.
No, what I’m saying is that, while you are free to disagree, you are not free to advocate enforcing your views on others especially when those views are harmful and immoral.
Don’t believe in dudes marrying? Don’t marry a dude! But leave other adults alone and respect their religious liberty and human rights to decide for themselves who they want to marry.
On that point, I and my “side” are quite consistent. We have not demanded the first heterosexual has to abandon their natural relations. We are just expecting/demanding the same rights we’re extending your way to be extended our way.
Equal rights. Religious liberty. You are free to disagree with these great ideals, but you are not free to enforce your disagreement on others.
~Dan
Dan
Dont believe in owning assault weapons amd nukes? Dont own them.
Terrance…
Second, I wouldn’t support the Church doing such a thing because it’d be hypocritical. Are they going to excommunicate the drunks? The money changers? No? Then why excommunicated the homosexuals? No sin is worse than another, and I’ve said THAT repeatedly as well.
I have not said you haven’t. I was just asking the question because I’m pretty sure at least Marshall Art has said he would his loved ones if they disagreed with his opinion on the point and refused to “repent” of that which they don’t agree is a sin. So, you’d make more headway in reaching out to others with your opinions if you would simultaneously denounce the Marshalls of the world when they advocate this sort of hypocrisy.
(And Marshall, correct me if I’ve misunderstood you: I believe you said you WOULD support kicking your family members out of church if they disagreed with you and your church’s opinion on this point… correct me if I’m wrong.)
~Dan
Bryce,
if you pay close attention to what I wrote earlier, you’ll not a funny shaped punctuation mark at the end of each sentence. That’s called a question mark,it what we use when we want to indicate that we’re asking a question as opposed to making a statement.
“So it would be accurate to say that your position is not actually “pro equality”, correct? It would perhaps be more correct that you support a “limited equality”, correct?”
Now, you seem to be saying that you want ti limit equality to extend to only to homosexuals. fair enough. But, it seems to follow that if you want to limit equality, then it would be reasonable to define your position as pro limited equality, not “pro equality”. I’m not sure why you are so wary of confirming your position.
“You don’t believe in two guys marrying? Don’t do it.”
Speaking of “glib, nonsensical” responses.
Again, John, the line is at harm. Most rational adults recognize the great potential for harm if everyone had nukes, therefore, we reasonably support regulations banning nuclear weapons.
(And let me just say that that was probably the most inane point I’ve ever had to make – “Do I oppose freely accessible nuclear weapons??? OF COURSE, everyone who isn’t insane opposes that. And most who ARE insane would, as well.)
As to guns, I do not support outright gun bans. I do support regulating dangerous tools like automobiles, TNT and firearms. Nothing inconsistent about that.
And why is that? Because the line being drawn is harm. We can reasonably regulate, restrict that which can reasonably be expected to cause harm.
You can disagree with where I draw the lines, but you can’t say there is anything inconsistent with my reasoning.
~Dan
Dan,
I’m not Marshal Art and I can’t speak for him. But I’d like to hear from Marshal before I denounce the man based on your interpretation of his words.
Craig…
I’m not sure why you are so wary of confirming your position.
I’ve answered why, at least for me and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bryce would agree.
Craig…
“You don’t believe in two guys marrying? Don’t do it.”
Speaking of “glib, nonsensical” responses.
This is the core point behind religious liberty, Craig. You are free as a rational citizen to decide for yourself what is good and right and what God wants you to do. And I am as well.
If I support a behavior, I am free to do it, as long as it causes no harm to others.
If you support a behavior, you are free to do it as long as it causes no harm to others.
But you don’t get to decide for others which non-harmful behaviors they should or can do.
Religious liberty, fellas, it’s a great thing. For all of us.
Glib? It’s the very foundation of a free society.
~Dan
“… the line is at harm. Most rational adults recognize the great potential for harm…”
So, is the line ACTUAL harm or POTENTIAL harm?
Sorry Dan, I missed your answer where you explained why you are afraid to confirm your position. Having said that, I didn’t ask you.
“But you don’t get to decide for others which non-harmful behaviors they should or can do.”
Fortunately for all of us I’ve never attempted to decide what behaviors others can engage in. I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that if people choose to consensually engage in a particular behavior (harmful or not) in the privacy of their own home, I really don’t care what they do.
So, maybe it would be better if you didn’t put words in my mouth.
Just to be clear, are you saying that you would oppose people engaging in ANY behavior that is either actually or potentially harmful?
I’m diving in without too much looking at the smoldering carnage of the previous comments.
Dan and pro-marriage equality folks, do you think the Stanford marriage defenders were hateful as the opposition group stated? What single reason most compels you to this conclusion?
Reasonably potentially harmful.
As no doubt you do.
We regulate who can drive automobiles because of the reasonable potential for harm. We don’t allow five year olds to drive cars. Now, it might happen that a five year old could drive a car for a while without causing harm. Nonetheless, we regulate against it because of the reasonable potential for harm.
We regulate dynamite usage because of the reasonable potential for harm. It might happen that many people could use it without causing harm, but the reasonable potential is there, therefore we regulate. And rightly so.
We’ve had this sort of conversation before. There is a balance that we, the people, have established between needfulness of the tool/item/behavior on the one hand and the reasonable potential for harm on the other.
There is reasonable potential for some harm with a misused hammer, but at the same time, a hammer is a very common and needful tool for society to function and at the same time, the potential for harm is relatively low. Therefore, we have ZERO regulations on hammer usage (beyond the general regulation against intentional harm to another).
Since you almost certainly agree with me on this – that we the people can and should put limitations on some behaviors/tools – I’m not sure what your point would be here.
~Dan
My point is that your sentence is inherently contradictory. The line is either at actual harm or potential harm, I don’t see how it can be both.
In terms of agreeing with you< i have been fairly consistent in asserting that inanimate objects pose very little harm, either actual or potential, therefore to regulate inanimate objects that actually pose almost zero harm by themselves, is unnecessary.
What is necessary is to regulate the uses of the inanimate objects as well as those who use them. For example (an extreme Dan type example) , I'd suggest that a committed firm pacifist with a nuclear weapon poses almost zero harm, therefore I see no reason to regulate either the inanimate object or the owner.
Personally, I find the term harm, as used in this type of discussion, to be a very elastic and imprecise term. Once the modifier potential is included, it becomes even more imprecise. It also has the potential to get into prior restraint violations and to restrain certain people to a degree that is unnecessary.
“We regulate who can drive automobiles because of the reasonable potential for harm. We don’t allow five year olds to drive cars.”
This is an excellent example of exactly my point. We regulate “…WHO can drive automobiles…”. (emphasis added). In no way does the issuance of drivers licenses regulate the automobile, it clearly regulates the driver.
Thank You for making my point.
How did that make your point Craig? We don’t let five year olds drive because there’s a reasonable conclusion that it would harm society. We don’t let people own nukes because there’s a reasonable conclusion that it would harm society
What reasonable conclusion of harm do you draw from letting two guys to get married? The definition of marriage being changed? What harm does that do? Would it invalidate your marriage?
And Terrance, I think it’s monstrous that you believe that your child would be better of never being with anybody romantically because they would want to be with a man or woman. This is why gays make “weak willed” decisions to commit suicide, they have shitty parents who believe they should repress their sexual identities. That’s why I’ve continued to pray that your kids don’t end up gay.
Bryce
Do you also find it monstrous that I expect my daughters to be celibate until marriage to a man. But thats on them. I can force them, just like no one is forcing you. But that there will be an eternal consequence doesnt evaporate because you find the idea monstrous.
Allowing interracial marriage changed the definition of marriage for many areas in the United States. FACT. You can say, “That wasn’t the REAL definition” all you want, but it’s backpedaling. It’s your sad attempts to distance yourself from the same arguments.
What was the result of changing the definition of marriage in that case? nothing. What’s been the result of changing the definition of marriage in any US state that already has? Nothing negative. Straight marriages haven’t been changed, they’re just as valid, and everybody has continued on with their lives.
Until you have proof that allowing gays to get married somehow harms society, you deserve to be seen as bigoted by the majority of Americans. (Even your own children eventually, as with the growing changes in America viewpoints, it’s a matter of time before people such as Terrance are seen as the southerners were in the 60’s. I can only hope your children will write it off as simply being cultural).
Bryce,
How about you re read what i actually said and see if you can’ figure it out on your own, I suspect that you’re intelligent enough to figure this out without me having to explain it.
Perhaps you’d care to respond to my questions/comments directed to you as a way of hopefully moving things forward.
No, it didn’t, and I already proved you wrong. Interracial marriage wasn’t prohibited until the passage of anti-miscegenation laws, and they were only passed in certain States and WERE NOT legally binding throughout the United States. I’ve already proven that the Federal Government recognized interracial marriages long before 1967.
Second, why would it be necessary to pass special laws if the definition of marriage automatically excluded interracial couples?
What? What’s that you say? It wouldn’t be necessary? You’re just an uneducated buffoon with no real argument? Oh, okay then.
And of course you’ve yet to explain in what possible way our arguments the same.
That’s because the definition wasn’t changed. Anti-miscegenation laws represented a corruption, a perversion of the definition as heinous as what you’re advocating.
Been explained.
The majority of Americans have more sense than you.
No. I raise my children the right way. I don’t raise them to succumb to pathetic arguments from self-loathing fruitcakes like you.
Terrance,
I’m more than happy to articulate my position on the question of my likely reaction to my child “coming out”.
Son: “Dad. I have something to tell you. I’m a fag.”
Me: “Son, don’t you know that’s hurtful to homosexuals?”
Son: “But I’m a homosexual.”
Me: “So, you’re insulting yourself?”
Son: “Forget that. I’m just saying I’m as queer as a three-dollar bill. Do you hate me now?”
Me: “No. Why do you think I would hate you?”
Son: “Because I’m a fairy.”
Me: “Would you stop using those words, please, and be serious!”
Son: “I am being serious. Why are you hung up on what words I use?”
Me: “Because Dan and Bryce are watching and Dan tells me those words are hateful and harmful to homosexuals.”
Son: “No, only to the whiny, wimpy homosexuals. But the point is, are you going to kick me out of the house?”
Me: “Why would I? Are you planning on engaging in homosexual behavior under my roof?”
Son: “I’ve got no immediate plans, but…”
Me: “But what? You think I would approve of blatant sinful activity perpetuated in my home?”
Son: “I don’t think it is sinful.”
Me: “I know you’ve read your Bible. How could you think it isn’t?”
Son: “Because the Bible speaks of specific cases, like rape and oppressive behavior, not committed, loving, monogamous fa..uh.. homosexual relationships.”
Me: “Where’d you get THAT pile of nonsense?”
Son: “From Dan Trabue’s blog, and I can’t come up with a real argument. But wouldn’t you want me to be happy?”
Me: “Well, you won’t be happy listening to nincompoops like Dan. But more importantly, of course I’d like to see you live a happy life. Just not at the expense of your salvation. Pleasing God is far more important than pleasing ourselves.”
Son: “What if I fall in love with a guy anyway and decide to marry him?”
Me: “FIrst, I’d puke. Then, after toweling off, I’d ask you never to bring him around as if he’s your wife or girlfriend. I’d prefer not to know that he’s your…whatever. Make like he’s just a guy from your bowling team, or something. Remember that this is my house and I try to live my life in a manner pleasing to God. Tolerating sinful behavior does not accomplish that goal. And I love you too much to sit back and watch you wallow in it without so much as a word of correction.”
Son: “What if you were told you couldn’t be with Ma?”
Me; “Did you get that crap from Dan, too? What makes you think I don’t struggle with my own temptations? You know that babe down the street?”
Son: “The one that looks like Pamela Anderson?”
Me: “Yeah. Need I say more? You might never be able to eliminate your temptations. But God will not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability to resist. Did Dan ever mention that truth in his blog?”
Son: “No.”
Me: “There ya go. I’m always here for you, just as God is. You can trust us both because we both love you. How much do you love us? Ix-nay. Here comes you sister.”
Daughter: “Hi, Dad. Got a minute?”
Me: “Why? Are you a dyke?”
Daughter: “How’d ya know?”
Me: “SHIT!”
As regards churches, no church worth its salt would stand for unrepentant sinners proudly attending as if they are living Godly lives while still rebelliously sinning. I’m sure that both my little one act play, and this bit about righteous churches is more of an accurate description of what happened to all those many homosexual friends of Dan and Bryce that now cry about being mistreated by friends and family for being homosexuals. More than likely, even if neither were handled in the most gracious manner, family and churches explained their position in similar ways. But the homosexual insisted they were not required to repent as they foolishly and wrongly believe they are not sinning by attempting to live out a homosexual lifestyle, regardless of the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture.
Ok, thats it. Marshall wins for today. You can all go home now.
Marshal,
It sounds reasonable to me. Regarding Churches, I’m all for excommunicating unrepentant homosexuals so long as they excommunicate ALL unrepentant sinners.. But simply excommunicating homosexuals for its own sake is not something I support. Is that reasonable to you?
John,
Yeah. It was pretty good. LOL.
Here’s a definition from Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
MAR’RIAGE, n. [L. mas, maris. ] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract.
This was from before the Civil War. No mention of race as a criteria. The outlawing of interracial marriages is not the redefining of marriage. Marriage was always one man and one woman. And polygamous marriages are NOT anything other than one man/one woman marriages, with the man marrying again and again without divorcing the previous wives, or without the previous wives having the courtesy of dying first. The wives are not married to each other. Each is married to the one man. In any case, race or numbers, always man/woman. Never man/man or woman/woman. The definition remained unchanged.
More importantly than definition, is why the state is involved in the first place. There is no argument that provides a compelling reason why the state should regard homosexual unions in the same manner that it regards heterosexual unions. None. They are not the same. It is not bigoted to state this fact as it is a fact. What has happened is that the homosexual lobby, its activists and enablers, demand the rest of us provide a reason why they should be dealt with as are heterosexual unions. But that isn’t necessary given that it is plain why they don’t qualify for state licensing. What needs to be done is for the homosexual to provide an argument that compels the state to regard them in kind. They have yet to do this. “Equality” is a bullshit argument, since being heterosexual was never required for marriage. The restrictions have always been the same for everyone: You can’t marry someone who’s already married, you can’t marry if YOU are already married, you can’t marry someone who closely related, you can’t marry someone under the legal age required by your state, and you can’t marry someone of the same gender. These restrictions applied to everyone equally. There is no compelling reason to alter any of these restrictions.
Finally, for now, I remind one again about a recent article of another mormon homosexual who is happily married to a woman, enjoys having sex with her, lovers her and is only attracted to men and no other woman. This guy understands God’s will for human sexuality and abides it despite his own preferences. That’s called “a real man”.
Marshall, “real men” don’t need to overcompensate. Don’t be a jerk.
After only reading a relatively few words from young Bryce, I can already tell that it would take 20 Marshalls to equal one Bryce. So don’t talk about what it takes to be a “real man,” you only embarrass yourself.
~Dan
Terrance,
Yeah. I do find that reasonable and meant to include that point in my comment before boredom overwhelmed me. The prime example of the notion is 1 Corr 5, wherein Paul does not seem to mention talking it over with the sinner. And he’s referring to “…anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral…With such a man do not even eat.” Sounds like firmly standing for God’s Will, to me. Now, I do believe that there are passages where Paul speaks of taking aside a sinner and trying to correct him in love and patience. But that only goes so far.
Dan,
So, Marshal has clearly explained his position and I do not find it objectionable. I do, however, think you should be ashamed of yourself for casting aspersions on the man without a full understanding of his position on this matter. It’s no way for a Christian to behave, my brother. ;-)
Indeed, people should not cast mindless aspersions.
I grow quite tired of this effete and weak business of saying “real men…” do this or that. That is about the weakest excuse for a man and it is just pathetic.
If you want to go down that road, then learn this: Real men know an inner strength not found in mere conformity to the ways of the world or kowtowing to the demand of bullies. Read the Bible, it’s all in there.
Or just use your head and a bit of common decency.
That faux-male posturing just makes me retch.
~Dan
Marshall…
As regards churches, no church worth its salt would stand for unrepentant sinners proudly attending as if they are living Godly lives while still rebelliously sinning.
That is, Marshall would support his church KICKING HIS KIDS out of church and not letting them attend. He would treat his children’s love life as something that makes him retch. His children’s dear, cherished partners would not be welcome in his home. To THAT, John says that Marshall “wins…”
I just have to ask: Wins what? The biggest creep alive award?
Of course, with Terrance and his “fruitcake” name-calling and John and his praise of all this behavior, you all are just acting like the biggest Pharisees around and it is disgusting.
Bryce, pay no mind to the opinions of fools and the deluded. But then, I don’t need to tell you that, I can see you’re much stronger than all three of these asses combined.
Lord have mercy on your souls.
~Dan
Thank you Dan. :) Your words of encouragement remind me that there are good religious people out there still. If it wasn’t for people like you, I would be as hateful towards religion as some religious people are towards me. (And yes, calling me a “pathetic fruit” is pretty hateful. But I’ve said mean things too, and I feel bad for them).
It’s hard to forgive them, but I forgive all of them. if I’m ever down where you live, I’ll certainly keep your church in mind. Hopefully throughout time, they can see through the ignorance and come to the realization that gay relationships do no more harm to society than straight relationships do. And if they don’t harm the society God created for us, I don’t see how he would have a problem with that. Armed with that absolute knowledge, I truly believe that God’s true intentions will prevail, just as they did through the women’s suffrage movement. Just as they did through the civil rights movements of the 50’s and 60’s. And just as they are doing rapidly now.
John, Terrance, Craig, Marshal, I forgive all of you. You don’t realize, any of you, how offensive your words can be. Saying that I don’t have an equal capacity to be as holy in my relationships as you do takes me back to a very, VERY dark place that most every homosexual has been in. You don’t realize how harmless gay relationships are too society, and I can only assume it’s because of conditioning from cultures. And I can’t blame you for that.
Just know, Terrance, that next time you call somebody a Pathetic Fruit, God is watching you. And I’m pretty sure he won’t be happy about that. I’m sorry for any names I might have called you, it was wrong of me.
Dan, thank you. Really, your words have helped a lot. :) I thought a lot better of these people when I first started commenting, I even was looking at possibly asking about different denominations, but I see now that they’re judgement is clouded. Again, I’m bookmarking that link to your church.
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid…
Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops…
Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
~Jesus
Oh, I see. So bryce has a couple of weak-willed friends who were bullied into suicide and therefore his name calling is justified. I have my own child taken away from me because of abortion and I’m a Pharisee?
It’s okay for homosexuals to get angry and stand up for “human rights,” but it’s not okay for pro-lifers? Such an opinion – which I’m sure you’ll try to justify with sophistry – is hypocritical, and a Christian shouldn’t be that way. THAT is in the Bible as well.
I said you’re “pathetic” because you: (1) issue ad hominem attacks to discredit people; (2) dismiss reasonable arguments; (3) ignore facts. And I referred to you as a “fruitCAKE” because I think you’re insane. “Fruitcake” doesn’t always mean “homosexual,” and that isn’t the way I intended it. If I wanted to insult you for your sexual proclivities I would have said “fag,” “fairy,” “queer,” “peter puffer,” “pillow biter,” or something along those lines. But I don’t do that because I have no problem with homosexuals and don’t feel the need to insult them because of their orientation.
And this is untrue.
Oh, yes, and the typical tactic of comparing one’s “plight” to the four centuries of suffering that African-Americans – who didn’t have the luxury of staying in the closet – dealt with.
I’m even more disgusted with you, bryce. You demean African-Americans when you make such silly comparisons.
Neither do you.
Your relationships are not equal. You are; your relationships are not.
I called you a pathetic fruitCAKE. Get it right and stop lying.
“Marshall, “real men” don’t need to overcompensate.”
For what, exactly Dan, do you think I’m compensating? Bring it. The one to whom I referred was a real man was not me, but one who put aside his own desires in order to please God. Please explain how this is problematic for you.
“Real men know an inner strength not found in mere conformity to the ways of the world…”
So naturally, Dan, this excludes you as you have conformed to the ways of the world in your heresies regarding God’s teachings on human sexuality. Worse, you demonize those who stand firmly for God’s clearly revealed Will on the subject and dare to pontificate on what constitutes a real man. I give a guy props and you crap on the man. You’ve claimed to have read the Bible and to have studied it prayerfully, yet you continue to pretend what I say is not in there. Some day, you’ll have to really explain where I’ve gone wrong. Decency your ass.
“That is, Marshall would support his church KICKING HIS KIDS out of church and not letting them attend.”
Did you miss the part where I cited Scripture in support of this unfortunate possibility? Did you miss the part where Christ said, “Some will say to me ‘Lord, Lord’, and I will say ‘I don’t know you’.” Did you miss the part where Christ set down the priority list by suggesting “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”? Just what do you mean, exactly, by “prayerful study”, you pharisaical hypocrite?
And what a complete asshole to imply that I would be happy being firm with my unrepentant kids? That it wouldn’t be difficult for me to remember to whom my ultimate allegiance should be in the face of my own children’s difficulties. I am not of the world as you are, Dan, who can so easily dismiss the Will of God in order to draw praise from lost people like Bryce. You do him no favors, serpent. You have no inner strength. You’re a fraud and a poor excuse for a Christian.
Bryce,
I can handle not being forgiven for a crime I didn’t commit. If you are offended, it is by the truth, as the bulk of the homosexual lobby is. It is not for me to pretend the truth is a lie simply because he who doesn’t like the truth is offended by it. Dan can live with seeing you live a lie. I’d prefer you come to Christ in the manner HE expects, not how you think He should expect. This is your eternity you’re talking about and if you want to believe that which isn’t true, as it seems you do, then I’m quite sorry for you.
And here is, literally, the God’s honest truth: you cannot be holy in any relationship that is based upon behavior God has clearly described as an abomination, no matter how many Dan Trabues tell you otherwise. This is no different than a hetero engaged in a non-marital relationship. It cannot be holy.
Now, if you need a church that will tell you what you want to hear, Dan’s is the place for you. If you want a church that will teach you about salvation and what living a Christian life looks like, keep looking. You’ll get a lot of “kumbaya” at Dan’s church. That’s cheap and easy to find most anywhere. But real meat is elsewhere. Good luck in your search.
“Saying that I don’t have an equal capacity to be as holy in my relationships…”
Unfortunately for you no one has actually said this, so you’re good.
Bryce,
Due to a particular commenter believing you have been treated poorly, I wish to address you directly.
It is true. You have been treated poorly by a couple of people. One has treated you poorly out of concern for your poor understanding of the Christian faith, the other treats you poorly by encouraging you in your poor understanding. To me, the latter is more dangerous for you, even if you cannot see it yourself. While we can benefit by responding in a more loving and Christian manner, there are those who use that against us. It is similar to those who bash Christians, but wouldn’t dare bash muslims as publicly. That is to say, we traditional Christians are treated with the same disregard by other less traditional Christians as if those less traditional Christians were Christian bashing atheists. It’s the cross we bear.
Anyway, I’m interested in you. Do not be mistaken by how I respond to Dan. I’ve been dealing with his nonsense for quite a few years. It’s past old, but I intend to persevere until he finally comes clean and responds to my request that he fills holes in his weak-sauce positions…particularly as concerns homosexuality and the Christian faith.
But as for how I deal with homosexuals directly, it depends on the homosexual. There is one that used to show up at Dan’s blog who is a complete asshole. He, too, fails to justify his alleged Scriptural support for his chosen lifestyle. Yet, though he has never taken me up on it, he remains welcome at my blog. The extent to which I engage in snark and cheap shots is based on the person with whom I am debating. I’ve looked over the last six or seven threads here at John’s blog looking for a comment of mine where I have called you any nasty names. I haven’t found one. And while my little script above contains a few words that, I’m told, are highly offensive, I would hope you’re not all that sensitive. I could be wrong. In reviewing these posts looking to see if I’ve been guilty of name calling toward you, I noticed something I missed regarding you considering suicide. I truly hope you never do so again, but if such thoughts still torment you, seek help. That isn’t normal, either.
And here’s the thing: saying “that isn’t normal, either” was purposeful, but not malicious. Though you might find it offensive, you cannot choose to engage on such a highly charged topic if you’re going to fold over every little thing. And yes, they are indeed little things. Call me anything you like. I don’t give a flying rat’s ass. I’d prefer you explain why you think the label is appropriate, but if you don’t, I really won’t shed a tear and lose a moment’s sleep over it. We were all raised with this little poem:
Sticks and stones
May break my bones,
But words will never hurt me.
Now that we’re all adults (of various ages), we get all weepy because someone said the word “faggot” or “pharisee” or “bigot” or “poopy-head”. Boo-freakin’-hoo. People like Dan see such as the perfect diversion from the important aspects of the issue. He postures himself as above it, but attacks in other ways, such as insinuating the worst about our motives and “how we sound”.
Are you such that we must walk on eggshells? I’m a Christian, but I’m not Christ. MY “orientation” is that I’m a wise-ass son-of-a-bitch with a truly dark side. That’s how God made ME, if you want to play that game. But I know what is right and wrong and I will not compromise for anyone. I will not sugar coat the truth. Do you need sugar coating?
If you don’t believe I speak the truth, if you believe the truth is different than what I present, feel free to try and make your point. But I will call a spade a spade and if that’s too much for you, then maybe this is indeed the wrong place for you. Of course this isn’t my blog and I’ve absolutely no authority here whatsoever. But if you don’t like how someone addresses a comment or response, you’re not required to deal with them.
But I think you’d benefit wading through whatever you might think is “offensive” and stick around. I don’t attack people, unless they’re like Dan who has spent years being deceitful. What you will find is that we can support our positions well and argue against the positions of people like Dan equally well. The question is are you objective enough to determine that to be true and honest enough to admit it to yourself even if it has implications you might not want to hear?
This has been a bit of a ramble, but as you’re relatively new here on one of the blogs I visit, I’d like to continue engaging. Just remember that the truth isn’t always what feels the best to us, and often doesn’t feel good at all. That’s not the point of truth.
You have been treated poorly, bryce. I admit it. And, shucks, I’ll even accept the lion’s share of blame. I won’t equivocate as Dan is likely to do because it’s inutile, bootless even. It serves no purpose but to preserve enmity toward one another.
Of course, I wish Dan would realize his own censurable behavior and apologize accordingly. You see, I doubt the escalation would have been as severe had Dan thought better of comparing us to Fred Phelp’s and his entourage of lunatics. Such vulgarity not only inflamed an already heated discussion, but encouraged you to be just as irrational.
And why had our discussion become so heated? Can you remember? I can. You didn’t like my tone in an abortion reply I made and so referred to me as a “hate-filled extremist.” I still don’t understand that one. Seriously, defending life is “extremism”? I don’t think so.
Now, I freely admit that I become awfully abrasive when discussing the issue of abortion. In fact, it says so right in the About section of this website. It is by far the most important issue to me and I don’t take kindly to pure sophistry – which, believe it or not, is precisely the pro-choice position. It is inherently indefensible, whether you realize it or not.
Nevertheless, as a Christian, I should try harder to keep a lid on the anger. I recommend you do the same during same-sex marriage discussions. It is not sensible to refer to us as homophobes for defending traditional marriage, or, for that matter, proper hermeneutics. It simply is a sin to engage in homosexual activity – notwithstanding the arguments pushed by Dan and “Queen James’” websites.
Regardless, I apologize for the ornery role I played in this discussion, and certainly I’ll try to moderate my comments.