GayFlag

On Being Gay: Fighting the False “Hate” Dichotomy


 

I’m not.

Gay, I mean. I’m not gay.  Nor do I have a personal opinion on your gayness.  Or half gayness. Or exploratory gayness. Or lack of gayness altogether. It’s a lifestyle choice–to not spend time dwelling upon who may or may not be operating at varying levels of gay.

But this piece isn’t about being gay, or straight. If you are a TrueCon© purist in the mood for a brawl over the virtueless life of the American homosexual, the door is right behind you.  If you’re one of those allegedly virtueless American homos looking for a forum to air your grievances about the hateful wingnuts who want to patrol your bedroom at night, please go away. I don’t want to go anywhere near your bedroom. EVER.

We’re in an election year, and with every election year comes the birth and rebirth of those issues that make those of us who remain engaged in politics 24/7–and don’t just surface mid-primary to parrot talking points they read in The Weekly Standard–want to light ourselves on fire in the middle of a busy intersection. As of now, LGBT equality and abortion are neck and neck for the Most Obnoxious Issue and Advocates trophies. For now, though, let’s deal with LGBT equality. It’ll be fun. Or something.

Equality is one of those things that everybody loves to fight about, but nobody wants to define. The meaning has become elusive; for progressives, what once stood for equal opportunity now stands for equal results. This is our first problem–a difference in expectations. Most conservatives, myself included, look at equality as having an equal chance at success. Efforts by the government to “fix” things lead to skewed results, and eventual societal dependance on bureaucratic interference.

Not so with the Left. For liberals, lacking “programs” bent on “achieving equality” is akin to throwing every woman and minority under the bus. They reject the concept of equal opportunity, and instead focus on the importance of equal results–even if their solutions absolutely destroy the very need for equal opportunity.

Which brings me to the point. Equality.

As far as LGBT issues are concerned, we’ve gotten to the point where “equality” doesn’t even matter any more. We’ve gotten past equality, and moved on to… something else. There’s really no word for it. I’d hate to allege that liberals are using that demographic as pawns in a sick political game of “Screw the Other Party,” but that’s really what it comes down to. If it weren’t for that we wouldn’t have seen the stunning evolution of a little thing called “hate.”

Or, “H8,” if you’ve got tape over your mouth.

Hate is another one of those concepts that people love to scream about, but never really take the time to define.

Well, except for this conservative. This conservative is sick of the Left’s cheap perversion of what it means to “hate.” Their definition is an insult to truly hateful people everywhere. “Hatred” does not equate to disagreement. “Hatred” is not analogous to “dislike.” Hatred goes far beyond the superficial. It is the opposite of love. To love someone is to want the best for them; to hate someone is to want the worst–for them to be damned or cursed, or to die.*

What a horrible thing, to hate. To wish someone would die. This is something you’d normally associate with the KKK or Nazi Germany.  Not conservatives.  And yet, every day I’m inundated with accusations of hatred and intolerance– sometimes from my own friends and colleagues. It’s exhausting, to have such a horrible thing projected onto thoughts I’ve yet to think, and word’s I’ve yet to speak. Exhausting, but manageable, because I know myself better than the loons that think they know me. What really gets me is when those freedom fighters on the Right foist a hateful motivation on loving, honest, and compassionate conservatives and Christians.

Recently, the law school I attend co-sponsored a panel entitled, “IS HATE A MICHIGAN VALUE?” It addressed several pieces of legislation that were, at the time, making their way through the Michigan legislature. These pieces of legislation had the potential to make a substantial impact on the gay community, and if there’s demand, I’ll address this legislation at another time.  In preparation for this event, the school issued a press release, and promoted the student-run event on the front page of the main website. (Interestingly enough, the Federalist Society was denied any sort of promotion or website privileges when it hosted conservative Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman. I’m sure it was just a coincidence, right?  The marketing department has yet to respond to my inquiries into the matter.) I have information suggesting, but that I have not confirmed, that the student groups who sponsored the event were instructed to not bring a balanced viewpoint to the panel. But that’s beside the point–we all knew what it was, I was just the only one brave enough to start asking questions. The point is, for two weeks, it was in my face: “Is HATE a Michigan value? Is it a Michigan REPUBLICAN value? HATE IS YOUR VALUE. HATE HATE HATE. I am a victim of your HATRED. HATE HATE HATE.” It was enough to drive me insane. I wasn’t able to attend the event due to class, but that’s immaterial; what is material is the fact that in the days leading up to the event, both Facebook and Twitter were inundated with discussion about the “hatred” exemplified by Michigan legislators in proposing this “hateful” legislation that was just so full of “hate” and meanness and “hate” and more “hate.”

In those few days, I may have lost friends, because I refused to let it go.  What gives my colleagues the right to publicly accuse me of hate? I had no recourse. What makes this garbage so difficult to counter is the simple fact that progressives–especially progressives and even moderates my age–have lost sight of what it means to hate. They have no understanding of the difference between hate and disagreement. This is mostly due to the fact that for most of our natural born lives, college and professional school-aged people have been trained to believe that our feelings and self-esteem are the most important things in the world. In fact, they are other-worldly– the world revolves around our right to be understood and coddled and made to feel like we are special and important and right. Therefore, when someone disagrees with our lifestyle–our gayness, or our partying habits, or our sex life–it’s not just disagreement, it’s a grudge against us as a person.

This, of course, is bull crap. It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad; sad because, for the most part, they believe it. They really do believe that Christians are inherently hateful because doctrine teaches that homosexuality is a sin– like we can’t help but be all nasty and judgey whenever we sense there’s a gay about. They really do believe that Rick Santorum is a hateful man because he is a Christian. They really do believe that ideological disagreement amounts to, and I quote, “not giving a f*** about [gay people].”

I’m over it. Truly over it. Why? Because I do ”give a f***” about gay people. So do conservatives, so do Christians, and so does Rick Santorum. If I stopped caring–actually stopped caring–about every person who embraced as part of their lifestyle something I disagreed with, I wouldn’t care about anyone. Anyone. Ever. I’d be… Dostoyevsky. Or someone else equally depressing. The point is, if progressives actually applied their own logic to the world at large, they’d end up with a world full of people who don’t care about anyone, because there’s not a person in the world whose views are 100% in lockstep with those of even one other person. Foundations differ. Motivations differ.

If we’re dealing with a world where it comes down to either “HATE” or “complete agreement and acceptance,” it’ll be hate coming out on top every single time.

That’s not good enough for me. I’m better than that argument. I’m above the intellectual dishonesty of it, especially when the people accusing me of being “hateful” are the ones who think it’s productive to threaten and intimidate people who use the power of free speech in an attempt to preserve their own traditions. Because that’s what it comes down to. If you took a survey of 100 conservatives right now, I’d bet that 99 of them couldn’t care less what you do in your own bedroom. I know I don’t. There could be swings and blowup dolls involved, and I wouldn’t even blink. It’s your sex life. What they’re worried about is the preservation of a tradition (or sacrament or ordinance, depending on their affiliation) that “society” has no business messing with. The sacrament of marriage does not belong to society; it belongs to the church. It is a gift from God, separate from whatever the State requires before a couple is deemed “married.” Understand? Not yours to change. Not yours to co-opt. Not yours to define. Wanting to protect this beautiful, sacred thing is not hate–it’s remaining true to the very definition of what that beautiful, sacred thing is.

So there it is.

Most gay people I know think that I’m a nut for loving Jesus and thinking that having my husband’s babies is the sexiest thing I’ll ever do. That’s fine; I’m not going to accuse them of “hate” because of how they feel about it, because it’s not hate–it’s a lack of understanding.

Ironic, considering how huge of a push there is for straight society to automatically understand and acquiesce to anything the activist LGBT demands of us.

But that’s the key, isn’t it?  Understanding. The most effective way I’ve found of defeating the “HATE” narrative is to explain the “why”: “Why don’t you support my marriage?” “Why don’t you support my lifestyle?” “Why don’t you approve of pumping pre-pubescent kids full of hormones?“  Tell them why–and don’t just give them a “because the BIBLE” argument and move on, because that gets you nowhere. If there’s one thing a non-Christian doesn’t understand or accept, it’s what the Bible says. Explain the motivation. Explain the doctrine. Do whatever you have to do to deconstruct the idea that hatred motivates the traditional mindset. It may not change minds en masse, but it might help a friend or coworker understand where you’re coming from. It’s worked for me–it can work for you, and you don’t have to compromise a thing to do it.

And for all you gay rights activists out there–roll with the understanding thing. If you want to change conservative minds, you might want to start with not screaming obscenities and assaulting innocent people with handfuls of glitter.

Just a thought.

Amy Miller :: Michigan State University College of Law :: East Lansing, Michigan :: @Amyvrwc

Follow TheCollegeConservative on Twitter :: Like TheCollegeConservative on Facebook 

*Thanks to my friend J for this explanation

Cross-posted at THATamymiller.com

Related News

181 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Ben
    Jul 26, 2013 - 09:41 PM

    The second you bring in Jesus to a political piece is the second you lose credibility.

    Think of it this way: I’m Jewish. I don’t eat bread for a week every year during Passover, because that is what my religion tells me to do. Would I vote and politically support a policy that would require ALL Americans to not eat bread during that week? No, because that would be really stupid.

    Reply
    • DV
      Jan 31, 2014 - 07:21 AM

      The problem as I see it is that Christians and/or conservatives aren’t “bring[ing] Jesus into political pieces.” I’m not sure what you mean by that, but let’s assume you mean political forums of some kind. Recently I’ve heard beaucoup caterwauling and wailing from the lefties about bringing Jesus into political discussions, but in no instance I can recall have I seen Christians and/or conservatives doing that.The only cases I know of are in those Christian or conservative venues or forums. What would one expect there? With all due respect to you, Ben, the political left has gone berserk in recent months. All I’m hearing from every quarter is the shrill whine of paranoid lefties alleging a tidal wave of thought crimes on the part of goosestepping “right wingers.”Stop with the divisive straw man arguments, the arrogant monopolizing of defining all terms of the political game, and the Alinsky tactics. Enough already!

      Reply
  2. George
    Oct 04, 2012 - 06:39 PM

    I don’t mean to sound dismissive or elitist, but I think that you should look up the logical fallacy of this line, “If we’re dealing with a world where it comes down to either “HATE” or “complete agreement and acceptance,” it’ll be hate coming out on top every single time.”

    That’s a false dichotomy.

    Also, in my opinion, the debate isn’t at all over hate (as you point out) or even rights. It’s about personhood. I didn’t realize that until I took a class with a great majority of homosexuals in it. As a Christian who’s grown up in the deep south I had no idea of the complexities of the issue. I admire you for writing about your beliefs, but I do wish that you would do it with a little bit more openness in mind. Maybe not to be convinced, but at least to listen.

    I don’t think the “homo-mob” is trying to conquer the world anymore than I believe the Republicans are. I just think that we are all people and we deserve to be listened to.

    Reply
    • George
      Oct 04, 2012 - 06:43 PM

      Which is kind of funny considering that’s the name of the piece.

      Reply
    • DV
      Jan 31, 2014 - 07:47 AM

      I wouldn’t refer to the current state of homosexual activism as the “homo-mob,” but I can and do refer to them as homo-fascists. I also wouldn’t say that the homo-fascists are trying to “conquer the world.” I wouldn’t say that because I have no idea what it means. I see the homo-fascists as currently attempting to abolish the institution of marriage, by the deconstruction of language. Marriage between persons of the same sex never existed in what, 3500 years? Yet the gay-left wants the courts to legislate SSM over-night. This is because they have convinced a great number of unthinking Americans that gays and lesbians are perpetual victims and that heterosexuals (especially white men) are the perpetual torturers of all sexual minorities (read:LGBTNYOFACE)in this nation. Oh yes, I have evidence that SSM is the attempt to eliminate the institution of marriage: her name is Masha Gessen, and you can find her, a lesbian activist on YouTube. She’ll fill you in on all the details that you won’t hear from conservatives. And Gessen, is by no means the only gay,lesbian, or left-leaning critic of SSM. So you think SSM is a good thing? You think it’s only those old, bigoted conservatives and narrow-minded Christians who oppose this madness? Think again, or rather, stop group-think and identity politics. We conservatives have very good reasons why we think SSM will be a disaster for this country and for the world. Those reasons are not even close to being all religious objections.

      Reply
  3. VJ
    Sep 27, 2012 - 06:00 PM

    What a silly cognitive line this article attempts to draw.

    “I don’t HATE you! But I have no problem voting for legislation that openly impinges on your rights, your quality of life , your ability to marry another age-appropriate consenting person, and your ability to adopt abandoned children. Why? Because JUST DON’T CARE you.” Wow, what an improvement!

    Why is bigotry based on lack of empathy rather than outright hatred THAT much more excusable? As a right of center voter that legitimately has no problem with gay marriage, this article is just another creative exercise in dissonance. You can’t find a legitimate reason to explain your beliefs, so you stick with, “Eh, but at least it’s not hate!”

    How very unconvincing.

    Reply
    • VJ
      Sep 27, 2012 - 06:06 PM

      ***Because I just don’t care about you.

      Typo.

      Reply
      • AM
        May 06, 2013 - 06:24 PM

        Your comment is a classic example of the problem. You call her a bigot because she does not agree with you. This itself is a judgmental and hateful comment. Why should we accept your peculiar definition of bigotry. Appears to me that you are showing bigotry yourself. This is just Alinksy politics in action. If you do not have a rational argument for your position, you isolate and marginalize your opponents by demonizing them with vicious character assassination. The progressive left as made this tactic into an art form. There are, in fact, many cogent, rational arguments against the normalization of homosexuality. My observation is that most of the pro-gay advocates have no interest in discussion or dialogue.

      • DV
        Jan 31, 2014 - 07:53 AM

        Sorry, but I don’t find your claim to be a “right of center” voter very convincing.

  4. snowisfun
    Jul 31, 2012 - 10:58 PM

    Homo/lesbian sexual behaviors while legal in U.S. is comparable to drug junkyism. They should try to find cure for homsexuality because world is a better place without homosexual activities. They should abolish sex change maimings and make it a crime to do sex changes.

    With hate crimes, Matthew Wayne Shepard should be called Methew Wayne Shepard a drunkard junky who mixed Ecstasy pills with antidepressants. Other news is that Methew Wayne Shepard was described by friends as moody obnoxious and self-centered-he chose Univ. of Wyoming out of all colleges he could get into but then he put down the college & Laramie. Methew Wayne Shepard in August 1998 falsely accused a Cody bartender of sex abuse after Methew Shepard had committed misdemeanor assault&battery on Cody bartender who reacted by decking him. MW Shepard’s excuse was that he was drunk & had PTSD & that once story was disproven by medical tests he ‘dropped the charge’ when it’s police who do so.Yes, his killing is another topic but Matthew or METHEW Wayne Shepard being a crime victim didn’t change who he was. Methew Wayne Shepard mistreated others such as his August 1998 false accusation & in the end he was mistreated by being killed by 2 men. Sometimes bad people kill other bad people & Matthew or Methew Wayne Shepard was a bad person.

    Reply
    • Erik Brewer
      May 02, 2013 - 07:03 AM

      Thank you for this information. I had never heard it before. I had only heard of Matthew the saint who was martyred for the simple crime of being homosexual. I wish I would have had this info a long time ago.

      Reply
      • Caitlin
        May 07, 2013 - 04:14 PM

        See, my problem with your argument “snowisfun” is that you are taking people with liberal social views and demonizing them, much like “AM” described the left doing to conservatives. You may have your personal views on homosexuality and gender reassignment, but by generalizing all people with opposing views as “drug junkies,” you are not only belittling the valid opinions/beliefs of other people, you are removing yourself from a position of rationalism.

        You are allowed to think that homosexuality is wrong for political, social, religious and/or personal reasons. But because homosexuality is not a medical condition as defined by the American Medical Association, seeking a “cure” for homosexuality only portrays your position as one of hostility.

        And furthermore, demonizing the victim of an extremely brutal murder is wholeheartedly uncalled for in your argumentation. Focusing on his criminal record makes you seem like you are trying to justify it through his actions. The wish for and/or justification of somebody’s torture and death is inherently hateful.

        Mistreatment is the accurate word for what Matthew Shephard did when he falsely accused the bartender of sexual abuse.

        Mistreatment is not accurate to describe what happened to him. At 21, he was tied to a fence, beaten, and pistol whipped until his face was unrecognizable and he had sustained brain stem damage, and then left to die. Is it unfair to group those two things together.

        Last point, calling him METHew is not humorous and it is extremely morbid to mock somebody who was tortured to death.

  5. clownlucky
    Jun 28, 2012 - 03:24 PM

    Mrs. Miller, I, too, am growing tired of people using the word hate to argue a point. It’s always, hate this and hate that. You’re absolutely right about the part where you say that hate is something people love to scream about but don’t take the time to define. It’s so childishly stupid it’s sickening.

    Reply
  6. Ben A
    May 24, 2012 - 08:30 PM

    While I agree with the point you make about the “H8″ campaign, and can understand you feeling as if you are unfairly stereotyped as being hateful for being conservative, I feel you misunderstand a major point on the issue.

    You said that “conservatives, myself included, look at equality as having an equal chance at success. Efforts by the government to “fix” things lead to skewed results, and eventual societal dependance on bureaucratic interference” Two statements which I agree with. The problem though, is that legislation such as Prop 8 or Amendment 1 in N.C. is putting LGBT people in a position that is considered unequal by your own definition. If they’re given the tools to be equal that includes the right to get married, as far as the government is concerned.

    Now if a church or religious institution wants to say that they cannot get married in the eyes of that church, then that is completely within their rights also. That, by the conservative definition you posted, would be considered equal. The government has provided everyone the chance to be equal, but not tried to “fix” things by forcing churches to do something that they don’t believe in. Gay people and straight people can have the same health benefits when married, and the same legal rights, but maybe not achieve the same things as far as a church is concerned. And if people want to say that a church is out of touch for not allowing gay people to get married, that is their right every bit as much as it’s the churches right to not allow them the sacrament of marriage.

    The only other people I’m going to make, defending Rick Santorum, a guy who has made his career by twisting words to mean something that vilify people who disagree with him, is a poor decision in an article that is telling people not to twist the word hate, and do exactly what Santorum used, and was often championed by far right conservatives for doing. Just a thought.

    Reply
    • AM
      May 06, 2013 - 06:48 PM

      No, the issue here is not equality. The issue is the definition of what marriage IS. Groups like HRC do not want marriage equality, they want to change the very essence and meaning of what marriage is. The question is whether or not marriage has an essence, or if it is simply a social construction, defined by humans. At the base of this difference is a set of contrary basic world view assumptions; assumptions about the nature of what reality is.

      For the past 4,000 years, (all of recorded history) it has been held that marriage has an essence, consisting of the union of two persons of opposite genders. Many cultures have tolerated and even promoted same-sex relationships, but it did not occur to them to define such relations as marriage, since marriage is by definition a male-female relation. This has been the position of cultures, religious or not, and it reflects a fundamental reality of nature. Marriage only exists in nature, and therefore in society, where there is the joining of man and woman.

      On this view, marriage is as fixed a law of nature as the law of gravity. The government, therefore, can no more legislate it into something else than it can repeal gravity. Passing a law repealing gravity might look good on paper, but it won’t stop you from dying if you take a leap off the top of the Washington monument. Declaring two men or two women to be married no more makes them married than declaring a porcupine to be kitten makes it soft and cuddly.

      Given that marriage is a fixed reality, then gay people have the same right to marry as non-gay people. There is no law prohibiting that they do so. They are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no question of equality involved.

      What is involved is the attempt by the left to force upon the rest of us a peculiar definition of truth and reality, steeped in post-modern assumptions that there is no fixed reality about anything, that all knowledge and belief is purely a social construction and that, therefore, such things as marriage are pliable and can be morphed into their opposites at any time. However, they then quite inconsistently and irrationally think that they have the right to cram their redefined view of reality down the throats of the rest of us. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. If there is no fixed truth, and all knowledge is a social construction, then there is no rational reason whatsoever why we ought to accept your version of reality. Your view implies there is no final reality anyway, beyond what we create in our own minds. That being the case, my reality, that homosexuality is a harmful perversion, is just as valid as yours. The social constructionist view absolutely destroys the objective validity of ALL scientific claims, and yet is on the supposed basis of science that the APA makes its moral pronouncements about the normality of being gay. But in a universe devoid of fixed truths, there is no such thing as “normal”.

      Let’s stop pretending that this is about equality. It is about power; the power of a small minority to rewrite the moral foundations of our civilization. In so doing this minority is quite willing to trample on the rights and freedoms of anyone who gets in its way.

      Reply
      • psiEnergos
        Jul 10, 2013 - 03:25 AM

        Well said, AM.

      • Kenneth K.
        Jul 18, 2013 - 05:38 PM

        AM,

        Ah, that medieval marriage custom would to be brought back, wherein The Lord Of the Manor got to taste the fruits first of the would be bride.

        Now, that custom, which by the way was supported by The Pope is truly, a sacred and holy marriage to be.

        My point?

        Simple, marriage customs, marriages etc has changed over the centuries. Including the thousand wives of merry old King Saul and his seven hundred whores. Or was it 700 wives and 1,000 whores.

        Oh well….

    • Kenneth K.
      Jul 18, 2013 - 05:31 PM

      Ben A, your post is very well put.

      There should always be a separation of Church and State. IMHO, that means that there should be “Church Marriages” and “State Marriages”. The difference being that only under “State Marriages” will a “State Married” couple be eligible for legal State Benefits, whereas with a “Church Marriage”, a “Church Married ONLY” couple would not qualify for any State benefits.

      The State (in the USA) has no right to force any religious organization to perform marriages against the will of that religion’s beliefs.

      So called marriage laws have to be careful not to infringe upon the rights of individuals or upon the rights of “religious organizations”.

      Religious organization should always have the right to say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to performing a marriage. But, a Civil Servant authorized to perform marriages has no right to refuse to marry anyone be that marriage against that civil servants religion – as a STATE employee, he/she can not refuse.

      Marriage laws that abridge the separation of Church and State (hopefully) would be struck down by the S.C..

      That, is the opinion of a 70 year old conservative gay man.

      Reply
  7. Toreka
    May 19, 2012 - 11:11 AM

    Loved the post. It encouraged me to take some time and think/reflect on my own beliefs, which was a blessing and a gift. :)

    As I was growing up, my parents were violently abusive to me and used their religion as a justification for their acts. Later, I accidentally wandered into a demonstration full of the “god hates fags” sort of people as well. I don’t think it was actually Westboro, it was a local extremist group. I’ll never forget the hatred I saw in their eyes, though.

    Anyway, to make my point: I didn’t decide that religious people were capable of hate – they brought it up first, using that exact word too.

    I know they were just extremists, but it was scary, and as I read about the Spanish Inquisition and other historical events, I honestly wondered if religion just inevitably caused human beings to eventually hate each other. I thought religion was supposed to purify/pacify people, so I was horrified to see some people’s aggressiveness actually amplified by their beliefs.

    Eventually, I got over my fears and developed a deep and meaningful relationship with God. It’s the best descision I’ve ever made. But — it took me a long time to go down that path, because I was genuinely afraid. I worried that if I didn’t have the same opinions as everyone else, I really would be hurt. I’m not gay or anything like that, just a random person who was scared by what I saw just the same.

    Maybe some gay people share a past like mine? Maybe they looked at the way religions work in the world and wondered if they genuinely have something to be scared about? If so, I feel sad for them and wish I could help guide them to healthy friends who would allay their fears.

    Reply
  8. Trace
    Apr 27, 2012 - 05:43 AM

    Wow. You’re definitely radical and quite wordy. This piece was quite long for its purpose. Then again, most of that was irrelevant bias. Every is entitled to their opinion, but it’s not OK to imply universal truth or facts based upon your own judgement.

    “Most gay people I know think that I’m a nut for loving Jesus and thinking that having my husband’s babies is the sexiest thing I’ll ever do. That’s fine; I’m not going to accuse them of “hate” because of how they feel about it, because it’s not hate–it’s a lack of understanding.”

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This is some ridiculous shit.

    I respect your intellect and passion, but you seem socially aloof about some things.

    Reply
    • AM
      May 06, 2013 - 06:57 PM

      “Every is entitled to their opinion, but it’s not OK to imply universal truth or facts based upon your own judgement.”

      Interesting. You have just implies a universal truth, based on your own judgment, namely that it is not OK to make such a judgment. Do you mean it is never OK? Is it TRUE that it is never ok? IS it ALWAYS never ok? Do you see the irrationality of your relativism? If your statement is correct, then you have no right to declare that no one should imply a universal truth. Your statement is self-contradictory. Therefore, it is not worthy of any serious consideration.

      Then, of course, you go on to contradict your self by asserting that the writer’s statement of faith is “some ridiculous s**t”. Really? And why is it ok for YOU to imply this universal fact based on YOUR judgment? You just told us that this kind of statement is not OK. Or do you mean it is only not OK for someone who disagrees with you?

      Reply
  9. TG
    Apr 23, 2012 - 04:02 PM

    Now, why is homosexuality all of a sudden a thing? Why hasn’t there been widespread same-sex relationships before? Well, it’s a result of our economic progress. The idea that all of a sudden, about a hundred years ago, people started having feelings toward people of the same gender is ridiculous. There have always been people with sexual desires for the same sex. But economic reality, more than religious or societal values, prevented them from living out a homosexual lifestyle as we know it today. For most of the last 1500 years, the family has been at the center of economics. Even the word economics comes from the Greek work οικονομος which means “thing of the household”. This was the reality. People needed to have a lot of children in order to put them to work, especially when most people lived on farms. More kids meant more money, which meant the only economically feasible social situation for most people was to be in a heterosexual marriage that produced lots of children. That was the norm in the Western World for a long time. Among the upper classes, marriage was not so much a ‘sacred institution’ as most Christians would have you believe it has always been, but a political tool. And our history is literally flooded with high-born men who slept with other men marrying women strictly for the family’s political or business purposes; not because they were in love. Then the modern world happened, and prosperity began to be spread around much more liberally and equitably. This, for the first time in world history, allowed people to be economically self-sufficient, to be able to provide for themselves without the need for a large family to bring in enough money to survive. This allowed people to begin exploring the idea of living in a relationship with a person of the same sex as something viable, which it never had before. Now, not until this started happening did churches have a problem with homosexuality. There is even a professor at Yale who has discovered in church archives across Europe rites to marry people of the same sex that date back to the middle ages. The notion that homosexuality is a sin and un-Christian is one that is less than a hundred years old. It is wrong, and has no basis in scriptural or historical reality. Christians want to be relevant. They should be. Christianity contains some of the most important values if we are to one day have a truly just society. But don’t get caught up in things that aren’t issues.

    Reply
  10. TG
    Apr 23, 2012 - 03:52 PM

    Let’s try this one on for size. Your position is hateful and bigoted. Not because you are hateful or bigoted, I believe you are a sincere Christian living out your values and you genuinely believe what your saying. That’s fine, I think faith is one of the most important of human values. But the thinking that has brought parts of the Christian faith to deciding that homosexuality is a sin is entirely flawed. For one, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Not one single time. Jesus condemned a lot of things, people intolerant of other people being one of the biggest. But he never condemned homosexuality. Which is not to say he was ignorant of it. First, since Jesus is God, he knows everything that goes on. Second, and less a matter of faith, Jerusalem at the time of Christ was dominated by Greek cultural trends and under Roman rule. Both Greece and Rome were cultures were same-sex relations (though I will say not homosexuality as we’re defining it now, just the act. Homosexuality as a social construct is something unique to our time – which I’ll get to in a second)were normal and accepted, and in the upper classes homosexuality was even expected. Achilles, Alexander, Socrates, Augustus, Hadrian, all manner of prominent Greeks and Romans slept with men. Now, given that homosexuality was a part of the larger culture surrounding Jerusalem, if Jesus had a problem with it, he would have said something. Let’s look at who does say something? Leviticus. OK, I’ll give you this one. But in the same passages, Leviticus says I should kill someone who works on the Sabbath, that touching the skin of a dead pig is an abomination and all manner of other things we’d find ridiculous today. All we can surmise is that this represented the best wisdom of it’s time, but it’s not acceptable by any modern standard. So why are we picking on gay people? Sodom and Gommorah? A conveniently perfect example. God didn’t destroy them because they were full of gay people, he destroyed them because they were full of arrogance, apathy toward the poor and ‘detestable things’. All things the culture-warrior Christians today are guilty of, as opposed to the ones who spend their time feeding the homeless and visiting prisons and taking care of the sick. Then we have the tricky issues of St. Paul. Romans 1 is generally taken as a blanked prohibition of homosexuality. Any real reading of it would tell you that it’s not and that the modern conception of homosexuality in which two men or two women are in a faithful relationship to one another is no the same thing as a man cheating on his wife with another man. Also, Paul, who never once actually met Jesus, was in favor of slavery, so his moral authority is questionable at best. His letters were included in the Bible by a very close vote three hundred years after they were written at Nicea. My point? The Christian faith is about love. Genuine love. An all-accepting love. Not a love that veils some other agenda, but and confident love that recognizes that only person who can save you is Christ. You can’t save anyone else, especially by condemning their lifestyle. There is nothing about modern homosexuality that is incompatible with pure Christian doctrine. We should be encouraging homosexuals to become people of faith, to raise children with faith and to work with all of us toward a better and more just world. The real question is, how many more gay people does God need to create before the rest of the world understands that he wants them here?

    Reply
    • Kenneth K.
      Jul 18, 2013 - 06:09 PM

      TG;

      Good post.

      I might add, in response to your comment “Jesus never once mentioned Homosexuality”…

      That is true.

      About Sodom, He simply said said “The sin of Sodom was inhospitality”

      Also note that when the Roman Centurion asked Jesus to cure his young male companion (teen-ager) who was his lover Jesus cured the young man, but said nothing about the homosexual relation of the two.

      Saint Paul in the Book of Roman’s referred to pederasty and not to pedophiles or homosexuals.

      Yes many famous men of history were homosexual or at least bi-sexual

      As for Leviticus, you must remember who the book of Leviticus was written for.

      It was not written for the masses but rather for the Priests of the Temple. In it admonishments against the Priests having male, male sex with the congregation as well as male, female sex with the congregation.

      The question is why? There was two reasons. The first reason was to get rid of temple prostitution such as was practiced in the Baal temples.

      The second reason is far, far, far more important. It was to prevent the priests from raping members of the congregation. It prevented the priest from ‘selling’ God’s Love via sexual favors.

      Then there is the love affair of Naomi and Ruth, as well as Jonathan and David within the love triangle of Saul, David and Saul’s son Jonathan. None of these people were condemned by God for their sexual liaisons. Saul’s Love of David was never consummated; but, David and Jonathan… Oh yea.

      In the Book of Samuel you can read about this love triangle and the tragic results that happened. To wit: and David and Jonathan lay naked together in the field and David’s member became great. The words ‘David’s member’ was removed from the greek and replaced in the KJV with ‘David became’ and has been translated as such ever since.

      Reply
  11. djcjb
    Apr 08, 2012 - 02:31 PM

    Amy
    I thought you expressed you veiw quit well and agree with most points understand I am not educated to say the least and not that much into politics
    however I am a Christ follower and adhear to the moral values of the bible
    and I think that is what it really comes down to the founding fathers understood these issues and made provision for them as they fought to establish this grat country of ours we all (demacrat and republican black ,white hispanic all the humanrace every created man woman and child knows right from wrong )and if we allow the boundrys to get to far stretched we will surly fall as sodam and gomora I respect the people on the front line of defending our God given rights but also know it a spiritual war and will only get worse before it gets better so glad to of read allof thisit has been very enlighting indeed God bless and keepup the good fiht (just sayin )

    Reply
    • djcjb
      Apr 08, 2012 - 02:37 PM

      I must p.s. my comment I try to adhear to bibelical princables I fall far short of any I have been down the road and back and have many years of deveiat behavior to compare my life with as of today by Gods grace and mercy I see the light and am able to share my experiance with others

      Reply
  12. Alli
    Mar 22, 2012 - 12:26 AM

    I find it frightful how little most Christians (yourself included) actually know about the bible. Most ancient language experts agree that the original text of the bible failed to include any reference to homosexuality at all. Modern translations? Now that’s another story. Please do some actual research into the matter. Don’t get into Leviticus, because by those standards in quite sure your lifestyle choices wouldn’t hold up either. I agree with you on one point- civil unions for all, religious ceremonies for some. I have no issue with your respectful opinions or your desire to maintain the Christian stronghold on the term marriage. It’s just semantics, but of it helps you sleep at night, so be it. However, I always wonder how strong someone’s marriage really is when they are obsessed with that one term….

    Reply
    • djcjb
      Apr 08, 2012 - 02:41 PM

      I would love to see some comentary on these experts
      consider sodom and gamora for example

      Reply
    • AM
      May 06, 2013 - 07:05 PM

      Actually, Alli, you are sadly misinformed. Your statement about ancient language experts is patently false. I speak as a professor of theology who is familiar with these texts, languages, and the relevant research. If you want to see what a serious engagement with the biblical text, by first rate scholars of the relevant languages reveals, then I suggest the work of Dr. Michael Brown, an expert in the ancient Hebrew Bible, and Dr. Robert Gagnon, an expert in the Greek Bible. Rest assured, the Bible in the original languages certainly and unequivocally condemns homosexuality. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible says, is another question, but what it says is not in serious dispute by anyone who does not have an ideological axe to grind.

      Reply
      • Kenneth K.
        Jul 18, 2013 - 06:18 PM

        pederasty…. not homosexuality and homosexuality never once mentioned in Leviticus.

        I bet you also believe that the commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Kill”…. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong..

        The original Hebrew was “Thou Shalt Not Murder” and was mistranslated on the margin of the Dead Sea Scroll when the scroll was translated into the Septuagint.

        There have been many, many, many mistranslations and interpretations of Holy Writ over the centuries. This includes mistranslation and interpretations about sex.

  13. religious non christian
    Mar 15, 2012 - 05:13 AM

    this is something that has bugged me, people say that marriage is the domain of the church, and that by allowing same sex marriage the government is violating the religious freedom of Christians. what about the other religions? i’m a Buddhist and my religion is perfectly ok with same sex couples, how is allowing my religion to marry two gay people infringing on the religious rights of Christians? and isn’t forcing my religion to accept the definition of marriage from Christianity violating the religious rights of Buddhists?

    Reply
  14. Brock
    Mar 14, 2012 - 02:11 PM

    If there’s one thing a non-Christian doesn’t understand or accept, it’s what the Bible says.
    Wrong. Atheists, agnostics, and jews understand just fine. If they don’t accept the christian bible, that’s (in general, per the Pew Forum) not due to ignorance. Think about that before you make such a claim next time.

    If you took a survey of 100 conservatives right now, I’d bet that 99 of them couldn’t care less what you do in your own bedroom.
    Oh please do run that survey, I think you need to understand firsthand just how wrong you are. You can’t project a libertarian view onto e.g. southern baptists; both are “conservative” by virtue of their economic views, but can be complete opposites on a social issue like this. And libertarians are probably a much smaller group than evangelicals.

    I’m above the intellectual dishonesty of [diluting the word "hate"], especially when the people accusing me of being “hateful” are the ones who think it’s productive to threaten and intimidate people who use the power of free speech in an attempt to preserve their own traditions.
    Step 1: Complain about bad generalizations used against you (“conservatives hate gays”). Step 2: Generalize your opponents as vandals and violent bullies. Yeah, good work there.

    Reply
  15. Rob
    Mar 02, 2012 - 11:31 PM

    Hate crime legislation is unconstitutional, it contradicts and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. It purports to treat certain classes of people as “special” compared to other peoples, and it dispenses special protection to a class of people when alleged “harmful” statements or physical assaults by other people(s) occurred and without knowing any real motivation behind that. Hate crime legislation may be used against certain peoples for ideological biases or prejudicial intents because one class of people are offended or “harmed” by such alleged statements, opinions, or assaults. Hate crime legislation must be abolished and gays/lesbians learn to grow some backbones and maturity to handle critical disagreements and difference of opinions from others regarding homosexual lifestyle, otherwise they would be perpetually known as a whining class of entitled babies screaming “hate!” at others. If not, then our society would be unfortunately mirrored to that of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.

    Reply
    • Really?
      Mar 14, 2012 - 06:30 AM

      Yeah, just because you’re getting beat up every day and have (on average as a demographic) the highest suicide rate, like, just walk it off. Don’t make a big deal. The point of hate crime legislation is to make it a federal crime, and to increase the its ability as a deterrent. Hate crime legislation was originally put into place so that people who murdered black Americans and were not prosecuted by the state could still be arrested and tried. Honestly what is the problem with this? What on earth does this have to do with Animal Farm?

      Reply
    • Kenneth K.
      Jul 18, 2013 - 06:27 PM

      Rob,

      I agree Rob, therefore I want our representatives to repeal all laws that give special legal benefits, legal consideration etc. to Heterosexual couples but not to gay couples. All couples should be legally treated the same.

      No special laws for special groups. Yes?

      Reply
  16. Conservative And Proud
    Mar 02, 2012 - 10:31 PM

    One of the best articles I’ve ever read on the subject. Thank you for making things so clear. I wish every liberal AND conservative would read this.

    Reply
  17. CrypticCon
    Feb 28, 2012 - 08:19 PM

    Excellent article Amy! I have always been a full supporter of civil unions, and believe they should be equal to all the benefits of a traditional marriage without co-opting the term. However, I think the time for civil unions have come and gone, and we are faced with the reality of gay marriage. At this point, I have to say let them have it, as long as churches who disagree aren’t required to perform a same sex ceremony. And yes…it is the most obnoxious issue of the day.

    You are spot on in your analysis of the twisting of the definition of hate by progressives. It is a tactic used in hopes of keeping opposing views silent, and one used in relation to other topics. My hope is we can start to frame the conservative philosophy in reason and logic, as you have done in the article, and not get caught up in the emotional side of things which is where the progressives would have us argue from.

    Reply
    • sapphire
      Apr 29, 2012 - 02:21 AM

      ROMANS 1: 26-27

      Reply
  18. Jared Cowan
    Feb 28, 2012 - 03:28 AM

    Legitimacy of your partnership would exist in calling it marriage far more than calling it anything else, since the term is not only religious in its implications. The secular and civil rights you’re given by the arrangement should associate with that term, not with some alternative generated as a form of marital segregation. You don’t need the church to call your relationship and commitment to your partner, even without sexual intimacy, a marriage when the state can do it without infringing or stepping into the realm of religion

    I’ve never heard of the terms androphile and gynephile by association. It actually sounds like a fairly practical way to talk about sexual orientation. I disagree that there’s automatically some strict or agreed upon culture or lifestyle that comes with being gay. Attending a gay pride parade has many forms of participation, not just the stereotypes associated with it. Homosexuality doesn’t seem to explicitly refer to a male, since you can be a homosexual female. But I could understand the specificity of using andro and gyne prefixes.

    Reply
  19. Sean L.
    Feb 25, 2012 - 11:49 PM

    If I could interject? First off, I would like to identify myself as a conservative, Republican, Catholic young man who also happens to be an “androphile.” I use this term in place of “gay” because gay has cultural and lifestyle connotations, in addition to sexual attraction, while I only have same-sex attraction. I tow the Church line on gay sex: no sex, but a non-sexual relationship is acceptable. Just so everybody understands where I’m coming from.

    Has anybody stopped to consider the fact that marriage is considered by many people to be a religious institution? Why then does the government hand out marriage licenses then? Government having a hand in religion? If we were really going for “Separation of Church and State,” why don’t we let voters decide what kinds of couples they want to be given legal rights (visitation, taxes, etc.), call these contracts “civil unions,” and let individual faiths decided which civil unions they assign spiritual significance to?

    Maybe I’m being naive, but wasn’t political compromise something this country was founded on? One side gets a bit of what they want, and the other side gets a bit of what they want?

    Ultimately, I stand by the Church’s position on this subject, which is currently divided: some bishops support absolutely zero gay rights, some support the idea of civil unions. If I find a partner, legal convenience would be nice, but I don’t see the need for an institution to give my relationship legitimacy.

    Feel free to disagree “hate.” I would just like to here your reasoning.

    Reply
    • Sean L.
      Feb 25, 2012 - 11:50 PM

      That second-to last sentence should read, “Feel free to disagree, I won’t consider it ‘hate.’”

      Reply
      • Justin Wing
        Mar 01, 2012 - 01:30 AM

        Sean, some churches actually marry gay couples. The people who want to create a different term for gay couples, because of the religious meaning of “marriage,” are also saying the government should give preference to one church over another.

        Yes, government shouldn’t be involved at all, but it is. Since it is involved, it shoudln’t discriminate.

      • Jared Cowan
        Mar 01, 2012 - 09:16 AM

        Problem is, there isn’t just a religious meaning of marriage, so even if there are churches marrying gay couples, it doesn’t legitimize them. The marriage license does, from what I understand. The church ceremony is a formality at best and represents something that may already be legal anyway, but is sanctified by religious practices and rituals.

  20. Antoine Doinel
    Feb 25, 2012 - 09:12 PM

    Discussions on sexuality on the interwebz tend to descend into shameless name calling, so I think most of you can be commended for not falling into that trap.

    It does interest me that people are discussing how one’s sexuality is entirely a personal matter, and as such LGBT groups should shut up about equality. I find this particularly peculiar considering the ways in which sexuality (namely heterosexual) is omnipresent in society (one needs only to look at adverts, museums, mainstream cinema and television shows.) This has been labelled ‘hetero-normativity’ by certain queer theorists, and despite its rather clunky sound, is a useful way to understand how society is sexualised in a particular manner. It is quite obvious to me that sexuality is not restricted to the bedroom, and any argument to the contrary is disingenuous at best.

    Also, I think it behooves us to recognise the multifarious nature of sexuality. The concept of a gay/straight dialectic hasn’t been accepted for quite some time, and as such we need to understand the ways in which we exist on the spectrum. If we can do this, perhaps we will stop seeing these debates within an ‘us’ v ‘them’ dichotomy.

    Also, as a final point, I would like to advise all of you to read Foucault’s the history of sexuality. Despite his obvious failings as a historian, his understanding of discursive changes towards (homo)sexuality would offer all of you an interesting insight.

    Reply
  21. Sean B.
    Feb 25, 2012 - 08:59 PM

    Amy,

    This is so well-written, and spot on. Thank you for writing this…it’s the best read I’ll have all day.

    Reply
  22. Brad Ervin
    Feb 25, 2012 - 07:06 PM

    I haven’ read all the comments so forgive my possible trespass but one thought explodes from Ms. Miller’s excellent editorial. It is that hate, as a public value, is way more important to the Left than the Right. And one more thing; As a Christian, your sin is not my responsibility. (Which is also nicely conservative.)

    You see, to the Right, in a Right leaning society, hate is an individual response and is only institutionalized in a collectivist aberration of the Right leaning society. To the Left, which envisions a collectivist society, hate is a virus rapidly spread. (I’m leaving aside the whole possibility that the Left is using the homosexual community as a hammer & chisel on the foundations of a society they seek to destroy)

    In the original Colonies hatred (outside of the chains of slavery, an institution which was not Conservative in any fashion) was virtually irrelevant. Only with the imposition of the leviathan State has hate become publicly important. Does it matter to me what my neighbour thinks of me? Only as his voice has the power to affect public policy against me and in a Right leaning society his ability to interfere with my life is sorely limited. But in a Left leaning society the ability of my neighbours to affect my life is a designed in feature. As in when the kind of health insurance I buy, the kind of car I drive, the kind of light bulb I buy are decisions guided by public policy amenable to my neighbour’s objections that my decisions are affecting him. Never mind whether I am able to own a gun!

    In a Right leaning society rights are derived from our Creator and given to individuals. In a Left leaning society rights are derived from the State and given to the masses.

    In a Right leaning society what I think of your personal life is impossibly irrelevant, even in the aggregate of the larger society, as I/we have almost no impact on your life. It was said of the 1900′s British that an Englishman and his government could exist their whole lives in complete ignorance of each other. Oh, to live in such a time.

    As a Christian my responsibility is to inform you of the saving graces of Jesus Christ and to pray for your salvation. Forcing you to conform to a moral standard you object to does not help you or me.

    As a conservative I don’t care what you do with your life. In fact, I really don’t want to know. In fact, whatever happened to the vaunted “privacy?” As in yours and mine?

    If you are a homosexual could you please not tell me? When you do I expect you want me to expound upon your choice; you won’t like what I say and I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but your pronouncement feels like an attack upon my values. I have a right to my values, just as you do yours. If you want to debate by all means go ahead and “open the ball.(*)” Just don’t call me names for disagreeing with you and I won’t call you names for the choices you’ve made.

    If we can agree that everyone has a right to live a life they choose and that no one has a right to withhold you from your choices perhaps we can agree to renew our commitment to a society where the masses have no impact on the individuals; where the State has no right to dictate personal behaviour; where individuals and their State can exist in complete ignorance of each other.

    * “Open the ball” is an archaic phrase referring to “ball” as in large dance and opening as in beginning the said dance. No other connotations are implied nor meant.

    Reply
    • tinwoman
      Mar 03, 2012 - 07:37 PM

      You gotta be kidding me. Heard Rush Limbaugh lately?

      Hate is the M.O. of the right wing.

      Reply
    • Conservative And Proud
      Mar 05, 2012 - 07:19 PM

      Very well said.

      Reply
      • Conservative And Proud
        Mar 05, 2012 - 07:20 PM

        I was responding to Brad and not tinwoman, BTW. I do not believe hate is the M.O. of the right wing but there are elements of hate within it, JUST as there are elements of hate in the left wing. The sooner you accep this, the sooner your blood pressure will go down. It did for me.

  23. george
    Feb 25, 2012 - 05:41 AM

    I have no problem being called a hater of sodomy. Like all sin it is a destructive and debasing practice to those engaged in it and a reproach to the nation that condones it. I don’t hate anyone. But I hate what they engage in because of its’ destructive nature. The real hatred it engenders is the self hatred of those who engage in it. We would be convicted by our own conscience even if the whole world applauds us in it because our creator has instilled within us a knowledge of his divine law. Sin enslaves. All sin enslaves. But we can be set free. Jesus said..”Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

    Reply
    • Really?
      Mar 14, 2012 - 06:34 AM

      You do realize that sodomy includes blowjobs. Are you really taking an anti-blowjob stance. That’s political suicide man. You also understand that women have anuses as well. It’s not only gay men who have anal sex bro.

      Reply
      • Unknown Hero
        Mar 14, 2012 - 05:20 PM

        WIN!

      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 02:19 AM

        WOMEN feel they have to give men anal because of PORN and think they have to do it to ‘keep him’. Women could and do get the same diseses homosexual men get. we are the SAME there…banana in TAILPIPE..you wouldnt treat a car like that.

  24. Shane
    Feb 25, 2012 - 04:53 AM

    Thanks Amy – great to see an honest rebuttal to the sweeping sexual relativism American culture is enduring right now.

    I’m no law student – I’m a construction foreman in Southern California. All day long I deal with people of every color and political persuasion, let me tell you what I hear. No one gives a shit about what you do in your bedroom. Or who you’re doing it to. Or what orifice you find compelling, or what parade you’re marching in this weekend. But we do know that society has a compelling interest in supporting heterosexual marriage because that’s where children come from. We need children – look at Europe, it’s dying out because men and women aren’t willing to make the commitment. Normalizing “alternative lifestyles” (gay, single parent, etc) only results in sterile, dysfunctional communities. Civil unions – fine with us. Marriage? It’s an institution you don’t strengthen or respect by diluting it to mean any two mammals that can find the wet spot. Government has a duty to define marriage, just as we as voters have a right to tell government how to define it.

    Two of my long time friends who are gay debate this with me all the time. We never get beyond the point about the right to get married because the admit they never plan on doing it, the issue is about society respecting their lifestyle as just another choice adults/kids have. Nobody wants gay kids killing themselves because they can’t get married. I get it. But a healthy society needs strong families where both genders are role models in a child’s life. that doesn’t guarantee a perfect child, nothing does, but it respects the influences both genders have to offer a child who will need that kind of depth as he/she one day walks this world.

    The only thing I find advantageous about gay guys is that if they’re great looking, it’s less competition for me. I appreciate that – when I was young I was wishing every Brad Pitt cutting in front of me at the bar was a gay guy. But then where would we be in twenty years? Where are we now?

    Reply
    • Justin Wing
      Feb 25, 2012 - 09:49 AM

      We don’t have a population problem in the United States, nor do they in Europe. It is a slippery slope argument. Gay people are not going to produce children regardless, because they are gay. They are not going to have heterosexual experiences just like you aren’t going to have homosexual experiences. I don’t have sex with other men because I am not sexually attracted to them. I could not force myself to do so. Gay people feel the exact same way about the opposite sex. They can’t force themselves to have intercourse with someone they are repulsed by.

      Reply
    • Jared Cowan
      Feb 25, 2012 - 02:57 PM

      Marriage is not where children come from, technically and strictly speaking. They come from heterosexual intercourse, which doesn’t require that love be part of the equation. Love is what makes a family and what makes a marriage, not whether you can naturally have children or want to adopt children and have a family environment and raise them in it, gay or straight, or even a single parent home.

      Procreation is an incidental part of marriage, not nearly as necessary as the more obvious requirement of fidelity and commitment to your spouse. Procreation is more related to the family, which does not require marriage or even blood ties to be cohesive when you think about it in a broader sense.

      Reply
      • Shane
        Feb 25, 2012 - 04:52 PM

        Check the demographics in Europe and the US – birthrates are collapsing (how can you not know this, it’s been talked about for a decade?) and turning the focus on population is a neat trick but inbound immigration is not what I’m talking about.

        But you’re right that marriage is not where children come from – our friends on the left have done a great job creating a nation where children are born out of wedlock to an increasing degree – 70% in the African American community, 50% for Hispanics, 30% for whites. It’s bad for the children, it’s bad for the parents, and it’s certainly bad for society. It’s no cause for celebration that “Procreation is an incidental part of marriage”, or that promises of fidelity and commitment aren’t worth getting married over. Sexual liberation and it’s effects on our society have created a place where libertine values triumph and narcissism rules. To argue that marriage means nothing any more is a pyrrhic victory. To say the only way to save it is to gut the institution of its purpose or redefine it so that it means all things to all people – we have that kind of arrangement, it’s called a civil union.

      • Justin Wing
        Feb 25, 2012 - 09:37 PM

        Do you not understand that birthrates are not affected by gay marriage? Gay people do not have heterosexual intercourse, therefore they do not have children. If they did, they would not be gay. It doesn’t matter whether they get married or not, they don’t have children. Maybe this is just too complex of an idea for such a simple mind to take in.

        There are many factors that go into decreasing birth rates.
        1. Legalized abortion.
        2. A bad economy. Many people can’t afford children.
        3. The increase in post-secondary education. A large number of people are spending their most fertile years in college. This leads to a shorter time period for having children, so people are having less.
        4. The women’s rights movement. Women are now more focused on having a career rather than just being mothers.

        To blame low brithrates on gays is ludicrous. It is simply a cop out to discriminate against people who you do not like, because your religion tells you not to.

      • Sean L.
        Feb 26, 2012 - 01:28 PM

        That view that gays “can’t” have straight sex is frankly wrong. I’ll point to two liberal works that support homosexuality that refute that sentiment.

        The first is the 1994 film “The Sum of Us,” which stars Russell Crowe as a gay Australian man living with his father. In the course of the film, Crowe’s character casually remarks that he has had sex with several female coworkers to see if he was missing anything. However, at the end of the day, he decided to keep having sex with men.

        The second work was an episode of House which focused on a gay couple who, if I remember correctly, considered themselves straight until they had a drunken fling, and decided to become a couple. One of the men decided he wanted to be straight again, underwent aversion therapy, and wound up in the hospital after having a seizure at his wedding. The episode concluded with a corny “love conquers all” end in which the man realized that the therapy could not overcome his feelings for his ex-boyfriend, and they restarted their relationship.

        The above works have an undeniable pro-gay bent, and they both state that it is perfectly possible for a gay man to have sex with a woman. I would assume that the reverse is also true. All in all, you can do anything you want to. And don’t you dare accuse me of hate: I’m a conservative man who’s only attracted to men, I’ve had plenty of time to come to terms with myself.

        Shane was pointing out that if you treat straight and gay relationships as being equal (which their inherently aren’t), people will start to view them as equally acceptable alternatives. And for the reasons that I gave above, I am not offended by his logic and argument at all. It’s just another illustration of how life isn’t fair. Get over it.

      • Justin Wing
        Mar 01, 2012 - 01:26 AM

        Sean: Gay people cannot choose to have sex with women. In order for a man to perform intercourse, he must become arroused. Gay people are not arroused by women.

        If you claim to be gay, but can have sex with women, then you are arroused by women. That would mean you are bisexual, and choose to be with men. Bisexual people can choose to have sex with either gender. Homosexual people cannot.

      • Tom
        Feb 27, 2012 - 09:15 AM

        Birthrates are collapsing? Are you for real? According to the United Nations Population Fund the population of Europe will remain roughly the same fifty years from now. Your definition of “collapsing” is the fact that Europe isn’t growing like China or India.

        God forbid the idea that the world isn’t over populating fast enough. It’s amazing how utterly irrational the Religious Right is. They actually seem to think that the world is RUNNING OUT of people.

      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 02:15 AM

        What is also happening,is that SOME men even young men are becomming impotent because of porn and masterbation on line. Porn in the worst. Married men not being able to have normal sexual relations with their wives normally; that is also an issue as much as the gay issue…what i am seeing with college aged young people is that young men dont even have their arms around their girlfriends shoulders anymore. I live around a college area. When women start fighting over some guy, it’s pitiful..or else, it’s just the economy

      • tinwoman
        Mar 03, 2012 - 07:36 PM

        The world doesn’t need more people. If Europe needs young workers, there are millions of people on the borders literally dying for a job.

        This argument is specious. It implies that only white people are important.

      • Carson Callaway
        Feb 25, 2012 - 07:52 PM

        That’s the huge problem underlying the breakdown of the family as an institution in America. The importance of families are undermined and we look at history and think marriage and family never played a vital role in the preservation of society. I guess our arrogance is exemplified by this naive perspective.

  25. James
    Feb 25, 2012 - 04:40 AM

    Liberals’ use the word “hate” in the same way as children and adolescents use it, and it illustrates perfectly the infantile nature of the left.

    Teenagers ascribe hate as a motive to their parents whenever their whims are denied. You won’t let me stay out late? Why do you hate me? I can’t borrow the car? Why do you hate me? I can’t have the same sneakers my friends have? Why do you hate me? They aren’t yet intellectually sophisticated enough to conceive of any other motive.

    Many of us become more sophisticated as we get older, and we begin to understand why our parents wouldn’t let us do everything we wanted. It wasn’t out of hatred. Hate is a term which means something entirely different. But liberals don’t grow up. They ascribe hatred as a motive to anyone who so much as disagrees with them. When you hear liberals talking about hate, it’s their inner teen talking. It never leaves them.

    Reply
    • tinwoman
      Mar 03, 2012 - 07:34 PM

      Conservatives are not the parents of gay people and liberal people, and should not be telling them what to do—that’s the difference, Einstein.

      My God.

      Reply
  26. Will
    Feb 25, 2012 - 03:52 AM

    A few random thoughts, all but one serious:

    1. I think people on all sides should agree that spelling “hate” as “H8″ is stupid. So, too, is referencing “Adam and Steve” instead of “Adam and Eve”.

    2. More seriously, this is a very fine post. I only wish you took the time to think through, develop, and introduce *new* terminology to counter the “hate” meme. “Understanding” is ok, but doesn’t get us too far.

    The reality is this: You post is reasoned, measured, and….long. We live in a soundbite culture. What makes “hate” and “bigot” so potent, in part, is their brevity. You can wield each like a club; they are efficient, easy to throw about.

    Indeed, that’s the point of your post — the too-facile use of an unfair and indiscriminate set of terms. But what, for example, should someone say when such terms are shamelessly used? It’s not enough to say “read this long post on a site you’d likely never go to anyway”. It’s not enough to gainsay the one wielding the term (e.g. saying, for example, “It’s not hate; it’s understanding” or some such response).

    Without simply perpetuating the name-calling, conservatives must *label* such rhetorical abuses from the Left in a clear and effective way. Hopefully, young thinkers such as yourself will take up that task.

    3. I think it might be helpful to point out the ways homosexuals have *benefited* from a Christian culture. The obvious comparison is to point to how they fare in Islamic ones. But since the obvious retort would be a call for more secularism, it’s worth noting how the *absence* of religion — particularly Christianity — would be a real danger to those identifying as homosexuals. One only need to think of the godless, totalitarian regimes of the 20th century as examples.

    But also….

    4. It’s only a matter of time until people, steeped in secularism and atheism, start to raise the question of *why* we think it good to tolerate the minority, the outsider, and the person whose behavior we might find objectionable.

    In a wholly Darwinian world governed by the survival of the fittest, why should we care for the lesser among us? (Social contract theory only gets you so far, after all. The Nazis [Godwin's Law alert!] had a social contract that worked…for THEM.)

    But, what’s more,

    5. “Why should we — in light of evolutionary theory alone — not think of homosexuality itself as an aberration?” an unflinching atheist or secularist might well ask. If all organisms seek to pass along their genes, why would nature *orient* someone to his/her own extinction? Wouldn’t that only be a genetic defect, in this worldview?

    And, while we’re thinking in terms of evolution,

    6. Aren’t feelings of repulsion towards homosexuality *an orientation* wrought by evolutionary forces, a way of directing our impulses towards the continuation of the species? In short: Isn’t evolution more likely to *orient* us towards what is now blithely labeled “homophobia” than towards homosexuality itself?

    It seems likely that in a fully atheistic/secular world (one run without the assumptions and constraints of religion) homosexuals might fare quite worse off over time. For from a purely evolutionary perspective, the idea that homosexuality is an orientation seems significantly compromised; homophobia seems considerably more ‘natural’; and tolerance seems like it might be a matter of convenience but not something that we actually *have* to practice in a brutal world where “survival of the fittest” is the name of the game.

    7. The post was about gay marriage and the language we use with each other. But one of the dangers of that language is that it seeks to diminish Christian and advance wholly secular or atheist ways of thinking about homosexuality. There are real dangers in doing that since no one even examines — but rather simply gainsays — the sorts of concerns enumerated above.

    Reply
    • Jared Cowan
      Feb 25, 2012 - 03:16 PM

      1) Christianity is not strictly what benefited homosexuals in Christian majority countries so much as the humanism that preceded it historically in part and also grew in Christian thought through both Catholic and Protestant veins. The recognition of a homosexual as a person with inalienable rights, either through theological natural law or philosophical natural law, protected them much more in terms of people not wanting to violate their innate conscience, whether they believe it due to religion or philosophy.

      2)Secularists who question the value of tolerance would shoot themselves in the foot, especially if they had previously advocated that same sentiment in terms of Christians tolerating them as a minority. No world could be argued as entirely Darwinian, especially in the Social Darwinist sense, because this assumes a naturalistic fallacy; we cannot and should not apply ethical principles derived solely from the occurrence of something in nature and judging it as good because of its context.

      We care for the lesser among us on the basis that we all, in a basic sense, start out as lesser beings, infants, and are dependent on others, so the virtue of generosity has not only a natural basis in our biological development, but also in terms of psychology, since it benefits us to have a support structure of some sort, does it not?

      3)Aberrations of nature are those which are self destructive, not self defeating. Homosexuals can, in light of modern technology, spread their genes, which admittedly still brings up the issue of the natural state of homosexuals and their inability to breed. But I believe there was a study in Italy that suggested families who had male members who were gay saw an increase in fertility amongst the female members. There could be an indirect evolutionary benefit to the combination of genes that dispose at least males to be gay. Female gays could have a similar effect on male members of the family in making more virile, but I’ll admit this is purely hypothetical.

      4)You’re stretching the notion of fear to justify what is a phobia on its face. Any concerns we have about the future are not what constitutes a phobia in the psychological sense. We perceive an immediate danger and threat from what we have a phobia about and it creates that irrational fear of it. Homosexuals are not any threat that we can justify through evidence, unlike say murderers or thieves or the like. Therefore, we would never call fear of murderers or thieves a phobia, but it could manifest as paranoia if it’s hypervigilant, but that’s another topic entirely.

      In a secular world, the nature of orientation wouldn’t need to have any sort of moral judgment upon it, since there wouldn’t be an understanding that sex was a sacred practice, since we’re talking a world without religion. Therefore, any arguments would have to fall on compelling evidence or likelihood of some threat, which would be easier, but not ideal, to discern since we wouldn’t have the overly moralizing tendency that seems to exist when making judgments about sexual ethics from a religious perspective.

      5)Christianity seems to only recognize homosexuality as a “abomination” or otherwise hateful and condemnatory language in reference to it. Why should we accept such a narrowed or partial perspective when the approach it has commonly engenders hatred, phobia and other irrational reactions to something that, while uncommon, is not a threat on the level of pandemic diseases or such, since homosexuality is not contagious.

      The concerns Christians bring up in terms of legalizing gay marriage are unjustified and unfounded by the evidence we have. Churches are not going to be forced to sanctify marriages if they’re between gay people, so there isn’t really any persecution of them. If anything, this exclusivist idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman will slowly go away, because it only benefits those who seem to be extremely insecure about marriage’s state in the country at the moment and want to find a scapegoat. Well, look no further than no fault divorce laws to see even a remotely likely correlation and causation of marriage’s slow spiral into ambiguity and almost commonplace nature, since people get married and then we just shrug it off when they get divorced. Gay people are not going to make this worse unless every married couple thinks their marriage only matters if only their kind of coupling is allowed, which is beyond insecure, it’s insane.

      Reply
      • Carson Callaway
        Feb 25, 2012 - 07:49 PM

        Your ignorance is abysmal.

      • AM
        May 06, 2013 - 07:22 PM

        The legal concern is being obscured here by an erroneous understanding of religious freedom and the intent of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment reflected the understanding of religious liberty at the time, which was to protect said liberty from interference from the state, primarily by prohibiting the establishment of a state church. Only the intellectually obtuse or dishonest can fail to see that the founders had no intention of proscribing the freedom to practice one’s religion in any are of life, including how one runs one’s business, family and children’s education. The modern secularist, prohibited from the force eradication of all religion by that pesky 1st amendment, seeks to redefine it in such a way as to understand freedom of religion as merely freedom of worship (to use Barak Obama’s statement of the 1st Amendment). Hence, if religion cannot be eliminated outright, it can at least be confined to within the walls of the churches, where hopefully, it won’t have any actual influence on society. However, while freedom of worship is a concern, what we are worried about as Christians is the protection or ALL of our religious freedom and rights. That includes the right to conduct my professional life and business in such a way as to not violate the moral precepts of my religious beliefs to which my conscience is committed. On a practical level, this means that if I own a bakery, the 1st Amendment guarantees my right to not engage in business that supports, condones, or implies approval of that which my religion teaches is morally wrong. So until those in the pro-gay lobby are willing to make such guarantees, that religious freedom extends to ALL of our activities, not just what goes on in the church, then we will not take seriously that your respect anyone’s rights but your own. Forcing someone to violate their religious conviction is just as much persecution when it happens outside the church as when it happens in the church. We will never relent.

  27. Tom
    Feb 25, 2012 - 03:50 AM

    Oh, I would like to apologize, I didn’t mean what I said. You just have a disagreement with gays.

    Gay people believe that they should have the right to pass on their inheritance to their partner, to visit their partner in the hospital when they fall ill, to serve in the armed forces openly, to receive the same health benefits as straight couples when they work for the public sector, to teach in public schools or to adopt children.

    And, well, you know, you think that’s all nonsense and that they don’t have any legal rights as couples, and that heterosexuals should retain financial privileges over them.

    And when people like Rick Santorum compare them to pedophiles? Totally not hateful. When cretins like Tony Perkins make up statistics and claim that 80% of homosexual are child molesters? Totally not hateful. No, that’s an honest mistake. He isn’t making that up to stir up hatred against gays. He just imagined the number.

    You’re the victim, though. You’re the victim. Those mean gays are trying to take away your rights and make you feel bad for the fact that you vote for people who constantly FUCK THEM OVER.

    Reply
    • tinwoman
      Mar 03, 2012 - 07:33 PM

      Best comment of the thread. I notice she had no reply.

      Reply
    • Unknown Hero
      Mar 14, 2012 - 05:16 PM

      Great reply!

      Reply
  28. Tom
    Feb 25, 2012 - 03:43 AM

    Amy, your article is complete bullshit. You’re such a miserable child. Stop pretending like you’re the victim. The state legislature just passed a law that takes away domestic partner benefits to same sex couples in the state, which directly affects their health insurance, wills, etc…

    Stop pretending like this isn’t based on hate. Then what the fuck is it based on? You say you don’t give a shit about what gays do in the bedroom, and yet the first thing that Republicans do, with massive unemployment in Michigan, is to pass a law taking away spousal benefits for gay and lesbian workers?

    Now maybe if they applied that equally to heterosexuals, then you could just claim that they’re just trying to save money, but they didn’t. The law was created to give equal benefits. Because they deserve equal benefits.

    This isn’t even about marriage. Conservatives claim they just don’t like the word “marriage” being attach to gay relationships, and then they pull this shit.

    So fuck off already with this juvenile “I’m the victim” mentality. Gays aren’t passing laws to fuck you over by making your tuition more expensive or restricting your rights to pass on your wealth to your boyfriend when you die, or your hospital visitation rights to your boyfriend, etc…

    And yes, Rick Santorum has personally compared gays, on a moral level, to people who molest children. So yeah, he’s a scumbag.

    Reply
    • Carson Callaway
      Feb 25, 2012 - 07:47 PM

      You use such great diction. Your vocabulary is splendid and very mature. I see your intelligence through your vulgar profanities.

      Reply
      • tinwoman
        Mar 03, 2012 - 07:31 PM

        The frustration is appropriate. Telling us we’re supposed to calm down and quiet down (which was the point of the article) is to take away our voice, to silence. We have a right to speak, to shout, to be upset, to be furious about discrimination.

        I wonder how an article would fly telling all Jewish people to just get over that Holocaust thing and stop being so upset about it–I mean, we must’nt be impolite and hurt anyone’s feelings–can’t have that, now can we?

      • clownlucky
        Apr 09, 2012 - 07:08 PM

        I’ll be glad when this feelings nonsense implodes.

      • Carson Callaway
        May 10, 2012 - 09:16 AM

        You should be ashamed invoking the holocaust in a debate about gay marriage. That is absurd. The death of 6-7 million people is not comparable to the state not condoning gay marriage.

      • clownlucky
        Apr 09, 2012 - 07:07 PM

        I was about to say the same thing.

    • sapphire
      Apr 29, 2012 - 02:07 AM

      MAN i wish your GENERATION had a cleaner MOUTH!! use euphemisms for the f and s*bombs…but what do I know, we’re the ones who created this mess, you guys fell into the foulness, dont type or sing bad words!

      Reply
  29. Mike
    Feb 25, 2012 - 03:17 AM

    I hate,,,the word – hate.

    Reply
  30. Jim Treacher
    Feb 25, 2012 - 03:03 AM

    It’s an adolescent’s definition of hate: “You won’t give me what I want, even though I want it. Why do you hate me?”

    Reply
    • tinwoman
      Mar 03, 2012 - 07:28 PM

      You’re oversimplfying to a tragic degree here.

      Reply
  31. Amy Miller
    Feb 24, 2012 - 04:06 PM

    Also, one more comment about gay bowel syndrome, pedophilia, or anything of the kind, and I ask the editors to start making liberal use of the “delete” button. That’s not the purpose of this article.

    Reply
  32. joe
    Feb 24, 2012 - 03:56 PM

    Please talk also about communists. I’m not an american and from europe /east-europe.

    I don’t like why the examples for “evil” and “hate” are just Nazis or KKK. What is with KGB, NKWD, Stasi (in East Germany), the Gulags, the massmurder to Russian and then all east cultures? What is with Mao and so on? The dictatorship in east europa was until 1992. That is not so far away! And in China there is still some Terror.

    It is important that the “conservatives” (I am not conservatives, and the conservatives are not conservative. They are “normal”!) open this field. Because there are everywhere Marxist and Stalin fans. Just thin about. For an eas-european beeing an Stalin oder Lenin Fan is the same as someone who is Gobbels and Hitler fan. And noone is talking about this horror.

    It is really hurting, because it’s like “ah this was some history and something gone wrong but nothing horrible”. But it was horrible and noone is talking about the truth.. Start saying that Marx was an Mad guy, that Lenin was an Mass-Murder (they killed everyone! They just killed the whole “middle-class”. Thats why there were no Industry anymore..

    Please start to talk about it, may god bless you for beeing honest.

    regards,

    somone from europe

    Reply
  33. An Atheist
    Feb 24, 2012 - 07:08 AM

    How exactly does marriage belong to the church? By making this argument, you are saying that agnostics or atheists can not get married, as marriage should be defined by the church, and therefore these people would not be allowed to get married because they do not believe in God. This is an extremely biased and naive way of thinking. Isn’t that a hate value?
    And what church would exactly define what marriage is? Christian? Jewish? Hindu? Muslim? Who is it to say that one church should define what marriage is? What about for religions that don’t even have a centralized “church”?
    Marriage includes with it many advantages, including tax breaks, a strictly governmental function. Should married people no longer receive tax breaks then? This is what your argument is now stating. Marriage also invites people to participate in a number of governmental functions. Should these now be disallowed, as marriage is strictly then a power of the church as you so define it?
    The freedom to marry has been defined as a fundamental right (See Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail.) It has been included under the “liberty” provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. By making your argument that it is strictly a function of the church, you take away values and decisions that have guided court precedent for years. Perhaps you should make this argument in your Constitutional Law class and see what others have to say about your view.

    Reply
    • Carson Callaway
      Feb 24, 2012 - 07:27 AM

      Cute name. I imagine you are completely objective.

      Reply
      • Kyle
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:08 PM

        Nobody is objective. Christians are defending an institution they feel is sacred, atheists disagree on its sanctity.

      • Carson Callaway
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:16 PM

        One cam still be objective and unbiased. Maybe you can’t, but most can.

    • Carson Callaway
      Feb 24, 2012 - 07:40 AM

      Well, the same benefits would be given to all just under the name of civil unions. That way there would be no discrimination against anyone based on their sexual orientation. What gives the government the right to intrude in religious ceremonies? Also, churches should be allowed to deny marriage to people. It is a religious ceremony. The government would grant civil unions to everybody. What is unfair is the government taking a religious tradition and manipulating it to produce political correctness. However, I don’t know anything, I’m just an ignorant conservative.I guess I’m just stupid or blind because I don’t see the right to marriage in the constitution. I thought that separation of church and state forbids this kind of intrusion. Nevertheless, I assume my ignorance is abysmal.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 09:18 AM

        As many people could observe, that’s basically separate but equal. You discriminate based on a mistaken presumption that because it is commonly a religious ceremony, that marriage is exclusively in the sphere of religion, which it isn’t. Marriage does not automatically entail the religious significance many associate with it regardless.

        Civil union is trying to sanitize out the importance and weight that the word marriage has in general society. Civil unions are a cheap compromise and undermine what two people in love are trying to say to people, that they want to be married to one another and have the significance of that term as well as the gravitas it inspires.

        Is that unfair? Not if they’re not forcing a church to officiate it.

      • Carson Callaway
        Feb 24, 2012 - 04:28 PM

        It’s not separate but equal if the church is only granting civil unions. That means everyone would have the same rights and same title.

      • Carson Callaway
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:13 PM

        I meant to say state instead of church. My mistake.

      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:25 PM

        Except it would be discriminatory by nature, since marriage is not solely the property of the church as I’ve already argued multiple times. If the state is already granting marriages, clearly there is a precedent set that marriage is a secular term as much as religious.

        The distinction lies between who officiates it, and thankfully, the state legalizes it, not the church.

    • Carson Callaway
      Feb 24, 2012 - 07:47 AM

      You are also aware that the court can overturn precedent? But, you are the constitutional scholar. I’m very happy people of such great intellect can inform me of these things I would otherwise never know. Thank God for brilliant people like yourself.

      Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 04:04 PM

      I *did* make this argument in my Con Law class, and my professor said it was a good one. I never said that the State institutions are illegitimate, I just said that marriage–in its traditional sense–is a function of the church. I didn’t really comment on what the state should do.

      The two are separate–which is not a biased and naive way of thinking. It’s the truth. The state can’t touch what the church can do, and the church can’t touch what the state sets up on a civil level for couples it acknowledges as “married”.

      Reply
      • Kyle
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:06 PM

        Well, sort of. There are a lot of different forms of marriage. Are we talking about marriage in the historical sense, or marriage in the Christian religious sense? (When you say that marriage belongs to the church)

      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:46 PM

        The fact that we can distinguish marriage in the historical sense of managing property, etc, and marriage in the religious sense of a sanctified bond between two people, most commonly a man and a woman, is grounds enough to say that the government should not prevent the church from believing that and refusing to serve gay couples as it sees fit and the church should not interfere in the government declaring that state amendments that are discriminatory against gay people in granting marriage rights and titles are unconstitutional. Is this not fair to both parties?

    • tinwoman
      Mar 03, 2012 - 07:26 PM

      True. Excellent comment.

      People like the author are disengenous. We should never take their words at face value.

      Reply
  34. Carson Callaway
    Feb 24, 2012 - 03:52 AM

    First of all, this debate does not involve what people choose to do in their bedrooms. No conservative is claiming that we should pass laws condemning homosexual acts. The lbgt movement seeks to bring this issue out of the bedroom and into the public forum. To equate gay marriage with the decision to perform homosexual acts in the bedroom is absurd. One is private, the other public. The definition of marriage is, and always has been, a legal contract between a man and a woman. This was not solely the Christian view, it was also the view of all civilizations throughout history. Yes, some societies embraced homosexuality, but never did they advocate or allow the marriage of two people of the same sex. Second, marriage is a religious ceremony. It should be protected by the separation of church and state. The state has no right defining, nor changing the definition of marriage. Marriage should be left up to the church to decide. If certain denominations decide to conduct gay marriages, they should be allowed to do so. However, the government should stay out of marriage completely and only grant civil unions to any persons wishing to engage in a partnership.Moreover, the silly argument that marriage between two people affects no one else has no substance. It is hogwash. By granting marriage to homosexuals, the very definition of marriage is undermined. It is clearly an interference of church and state when the government imposes on religion it’s definition of marriage.

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:49 AM

      Basically my point. The state/society has no right to define what belongs to the church.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 09:13 AM

        Problem is, it doesn’t entirely belong to the church and you’ve admitted that yourself in other posts. The religious aspect of marriage is not being absolutely denied. It’s simply being put alongside a secular allowance towards same sex couples.

        This doesn’t force you to accept them or officiate them or sanctify them. Just accept it and try your hardest to fight against it in a similar way that you’d fight against legalized abortion, which I would hope doesn’t include underhanded tactics based on trying to make abortion more affordable, as another writer put it on this site

      • tinwoman
        Mar 03, 2012 - 07:25 PM

        I wonder why you wrote the article at all, you seem almost desperate to distance yourself from the logical conclusions anyone would draw from your stance.

  35. Justin
    Feb 23, 2012 - 10:05 PM

    To play the victim here, is sickening, yet typical of your kind. If you can’t decide on what to eat tonight, why should you have any input on the type of relationship another human being has with a fellow human being? Is it because of the conservative and church teachings you were brainwashed with from a young age, I believe so. I’m not gay, but I do try to stand up for the little man or men and women in this case, when they are being pushed around. The word abomination means abnormal, in the bible when they refer to homosexuality as an abomination, they are not denouncing homosexuality, your interpretation of the words and phrase may be different, but 2,000 years ago abomination meant out of the norm…. not that it didn’t happen and shouldn’t happen at all…. but infact that it did happen, just not as often as heterosexuality.

    Now go cry on some of your church buddies shoulders… You know the ones, the ones who go to bible and verse study with you… Everytime I see a group of you clowns in the library or Barnes and Noble, it’s 4 or 5 toolish guys, and 1 abnormally hott girl… I wonder why that is? False morality anyone?

    Reply
    • Carson Callaway
      Feb 24, 2012 - 03:57 AM

      You are a really angry person. How noble of you to mock others who share different beliefs. I suppose it would be too much to ask of you to have a civil attitude.

      Reply
    • Robert Thomas
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:23 AM

      Justin, you are incorrect on your use of the word “abomination” in the Bible. In Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abominationH8441.” (I’ve included Strong’s number for abomination, which explain what each word meant in the original Hebrew so you can also look it up).

      According to Strong’s, “abomination” meant “Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: – abominable (custom, thing), abomination.”

      This was repeated in Leviticus 20:13, the word “abominable” is the same in Strong’s. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abominationH8441: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” I don’t think God meant “out of the norm” with these verses. He was pretty clear how He feels about it.

      Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:46 AM

      “…your kind”? What kind would that be? The thinking kind?

      Reply
      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 02:03 AM

        Maybe we’re at the New Testament ROMANS 1:26,27. they were actually entrenched with homosexuality, and this passage talks about the last days. hmmmm

  36. Jared Cowan
    Feb 23, 2012 - 09:48 PM

    Ironic that China and Japan both accepted homosexuality and they’re both standing fine. No one’s saying homosexuality has to be accepted on a moral level, but only on a legal level. Admittedly China and Japan are still discriminatory against homosexuality, but one could argue this is due at least in part to strong Western influences and pressures. There are some protections against discrimination in China and Japan that don’t exist nearly as much in America, yet there is still hesitance to accept same sex marriage, though I think this might be again an issue of international relations. Societal attitudes towards homosexuality are ambivalent in Japan and China, though there is always the Confucian argument against exclusive homosexuality on the grounds that many Christians ironically use: family requires procreation, exclusive homosexuality prevents this, therefore if you are to be homosexual, you must be bisexual in your behavior. Homosexuality has an interesting state overall in the east, to put it simply.

    And you’ve presented no evidence concerning places such as Sweden or Norway as to whether they’re going downhill. And don’t bring up the European Union, since by my analysis, barely a 5th of the EU has legislated gay marriage, which doesn’t include the UK at the moment, though there is seeming evidence it might change its position, along with a few other member states.

    Reply
  37. Justin Wing
    Feb 23, 2012 - 09:41 PM

    This is one of the worst articles I have ever read on this site, and I read almost every one.

    You talk about marriage being a religious issue, but you fail to acknowledge that there are churches that provide marriages for gay couples. Why is it ok for you to have freedom of religion, but not everyone else? A federal ammendment to define marriage, would be an interference in the freedom of religion. A gay couple getting married has an effect on 2 people, the 2 people getting married. It doesn’t affect you, so stay out of their business. If they belong to a church, that is willing to marry them, then the federal government should recognize that, and they should receive the same benefits that a heterosexual couple would. To define marriage as between a man and a woman, you are providing federal benefits to people who are born heterosexual, but not to those who are born homosexual. That is not right.

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 04:27 AM

      I just took a screenshot of this comment, because the first line is a huge compliment coming from a person like you :-D

      I didn’t even get in to 1) government involvement, or 2) religions who choose to marry gays, so don’t put words in my mouth.

      Reply
      • Justin Wing
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:09 AM

        I’ll admit, I quit reading your article as soon as you made the ignorant statement that being gay is a “lifestyle choice.” That alone made your article worthless. I just assumed the rest was the normal social conservative nonsense that is going to win Obama another term as president.

        Disagreeing with people being gay is no different than disagreeing with people being black or white. You try to justify your bigotry with religion, but that doesn’t make it not bigotry.

      • Amy Miller
        Feb 24, 2012 - 03:57 PM

        “It’s a lifestyle choice–to not spend time dwelling upon who may or may not be operating at varying levels of gay.”

        That?

        The lifestyle choice is me not giving a crap who is or is not gay, Justin. So, calm the hell down and read the rest of my article before you decide to put words in my mouth again.

      • Justin Wing
        Feb 25, 2012 - 01:41 AM

        “If I stopped caring–actually stopped caring–about every person who embraced as part of their lifestyle something I disagreed with, I wouldn’t care about anyone.”

        You are inferring that it is a lifestyle choice right there.

      • Amy Miller
        Feb 24, 2012 - 03:58 PM

        Also, your first comment is my new Facebook banner pic…so thanks for that :-D Inaugural image for the “Wall of Hate”…congratulations!

      • tinwoman
        Mar 03, 2012 - 07:23 PM

        Amy, you’re playing the victim now. Petty, and not pretty. And nobody’s impressed.

        Just go have your husband’s babies since you think that’s the most important thing you can ever do. Stop scolding the rest of us.

      • Matthew Mason
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:31 PM

        You are just being the perfect stereotype. Exactly what I have been talking about elsewhere.

        Thanks.

      • Carson Callaway
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:23 PM

        Yes, liberals like you love stereotyping people. If people don’t fit in the box you place them you cry foul. Just like liberals think all minorities should vote democrat and when they learn that there are conservative minorities they are appalled. They love to label people. So thank you for fitting that liberal stereotype.

      • Justin Wing
        Feb 25, 2012 - 01:49 AM

        Carson – Don’t act like conservatives don’t label people as much as liberals do.

        Matthew – Your comments have all been ignorant. The only reason you believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong, is because mythological text tells you that it is. Like I said, bigotry in the name of religion, is still bigotry.

        Amy, Cason, Matthew – I wish gay children on all of you. Therefore you can witness the struggles a gay child goes through, trying to be different than the way he is born. I had to witness it personally with my brother. He does not choose the way he is. If he could, he would be straight. Unfortunately, he was born different. Luckily, he doesn’t have a sibling like one of you three.

      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 02:00 AM

        There is NOTHING WRONG with giving your husband babies. It’s a heck of a lot better than giving VARIOUS BOYFRIENDS babies

      • clownlucky
        Apr 09, 2012 - 07:04 PM

        Leave it to a liberal to bring race into an argument…ho-hum.

    • Thomas
      Mar 20, 2012 - 11:37 AM

      Liberal Fascism 101: hate, attack, blame, lie, deny

      “Amy, Cason, Matthew – I wish gay children on all of you.”

      Yes because to Liberal children should have sex. Liberals endorsing Pedophiles. Ernst Roehm would be proud!

      Reply
  38. Jake
    Feb 23, 2012 - 09:19 PM

    A good start, but you haven’t thought this through far enough. You say that “to hate someone is to want the worst–for them to be damned or cursed, or to die.” You may not wish those things on gay people–I believe you when you say you don’t–but if you deny them the right to get married, then you do want to make their lives more difficult–to cause them hardships that you and your husband do not face. You may be able to absolve yourself of “hate,” but you have to own up to something. That’s at least “intolerance.”

    “If you took a survey of 100 conservatives right now, I’d bet that 99 of them couldn’t care less what you do in your own bedroom.” Then why do so many of them want to make life harder for people based on what they do in their own bedroom?

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:30 AM

      It’s not what goes on in the bedroom that causes the scandal…it’s the fact that a great many people want the church to endorse it.

      I’m not denying gay people anything they’re entitled to, because what the church does is completely separate from what the State does. Ask me what I think about what the State should be doing, Jake.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 09:08 AM

        Who the heck is saying the church should be forced to accept gay marriage and officiate it? Source?

      • Amy Miller
        Feb 24, 2012 - 03:55 PM

        “The chruch” as in the Christian community.

        There’s a small majority of activists who have tried to punch holes in the veil between church and state, but it’s not a huge problem (yet?)

      • Kyle
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:12 PM

        Which Christian community? The use of the word Christian implies a false continuity of beliefs between the various churches.

      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:23 PM

        The Christian community has hardly been forced to accept gay marriage in terms of sanctifying it. The veil between church and state always has holes by virtue of many people incorrectly insisting that morality and justice must come from religious sentiments. But as long as there is also a compelling secular argument, religion influencing political decisions is not necessarily damaging.

    • Thomas
      Mar 20, 2012 - 11:34 AM

      Liberal Fascism 101: hate, attack, blame, lie, deny

      “Then why do so many of them want to make life harder for people based on what they do in their own bedroom?”

      You have to deny the fact that Liberals have made the open public their bedroom in order to believe that worthless slogan you’re repeating. OWS loses their protesting permit in Madison, WI due to “Public Masturbation.” They’re Liberals. They were endorsed by Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and every Hollyweird Liberal out there. You don’t get to make your private life public then act shocked when people object. More importantly, you don’t get to use the government to FORCE those views on children, parents, or Churches and then claim it’s “only in the bedroom.”

      Keep it in the Bedroom and then you can make that statement. Until then you’re either indoctrinated to the point of delusion or you’re lying.

      Reply
      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 01:58 AM

        In the BIBLE, practicing homosexuality is wrong in BOTH OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS..sometimes orientation could be changed. For one, ive seen homosexuals being ‘formed’/ they would hang around mothers and other women and not be with men at around age 8. When they need to hang around the community of MEN led by the dad. I think what is happening, is that sexuality, which used to be private among married couples is spilling into younger and younger ages and the people who were prone to homosexual behavior got the ‘short end of the stick’ so to speak.

  39. Kyle
    Feb 23, 2012 - 08:08 PM

    It really sucks to have people make unilateral statements about what you think and feel, doesn’t it? Maybe you could take this experience of people being irrational and emotional to accuse you of something you may or may not actually feel and try applying it to these “homos”. Speaking as a bisexual man, I find it a little laughable that you’ll cry the victim, when at the very least you have most of the identifiers that I can pick out from this article reaffirmed by the nation. Conservatives, though they might not be dominant in academia, are pretty dominant where there is a lot of money. You can marry. You get tax benefits for being married (that’s the real problem here). Almost every single one of our elected officials is a self identified christian. When you complain about your speech being shut down, do you realize that what you’re really complaining about is that people talk back? It’s my view that conservatives are now crying victim because they have historically been the loudest and now that their opposition is getting to be louder then them in some areas they are uncomfortable.

    It’s a little strange that you complain of being lumped into a category as a “hateful conservative” and then go on to unilaterally define the left and progressives and gay rights activists. Seems a little unfair, no? (Also, it’s a false statement to say that non-Christians and non-believers don’t understand the Bible. I was raised in the Christian faith and have purposely surrounded myself with some of the most devout people I know to make sure that I know precisely what various Christians believe.)

    To Winghunter:
    This is the kind of stuff that gets more rational conservatives a bad name and puts people on their guard when talking to a self identified conservative. Many people automatically assume they’ll be talking to you. To go point by point:

    -conservative estimates put the number of gay or bisexual people at 5%, LGBT funded surveys put the number at around 16%
    -Lesbians don’t have many male partners… that’s part of the definition. As for bisexual women, it’s false that they have more partners.They actually have fewer partners on average.
    -It’s not that surprising that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people (transgender people actually have the highest rates btw), as when you’re called an abomination by a very large section of society. When schools deny your existence like in Minnesota and people want you to go to therapy for loving. Yeah, that can cause suicides.
    -That is false. Look it up from a medical source. Gay bowel syndrome a scare tactic. It doesn’t even deserve a long response.
    -Drug and alcohol abuse for the same reason as suicide.
    -The last two are kind of the same point and false. Athenian and Spartan society both embraced homosexuality on their rise to victory against the Persians. Post-Christianity it’s difficult to find cultures that accept gayness, but that’s because of Christianity’s teaching on the matter.

    So, think before you speak (or write).

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:43 AM

      I don’t give a crap if people talk back to me. They’re even allowed to disagree with me. But I’ll be damned if I let them call me hateful and impugn my integrity without fighting back. You’re really going to attempt to discredit my argument by identifying me as a member of “the majority?” That’s the best you’ve got?

      Reply
      • Kyle
        Feb 24, 2012 - 06:49 PM

        Hey, I’m just pointing out an inconsistency in the argument. I was simply suggesting that perhaps this discrimination you talk about might help you to empathize with a group of people that also are constantly told that they’re wrong and disgusting. You know that the law has no place in legislating morality. To discredit the argument, I would have focused on how you focus on the term hate and ignore intolerance. I personally don’t accuse Christians of being hateful because I genuinely believe that they want what’s best for people (besides the exceptions you’ll find within any group). I simply think that some Christians are intolerant of things that they find morally wrong. It’ll only be a matter of time before the church’s stance on gays and lesbians changes though. I mean, the evidence is right here, in the very fact you can express your opinions. On strict biblical morality, you wouldn’t be allowed to express your opinions. (You didn’t respond to my points about about the comparative rights of conservatives and LGBT individuals, or that you were speaking in unilateral generalizations that aren’t any more accurate than the ones made about conservatives.)

        P.S. What do you think of how the marriage issue was settled in New York? I’d say that it essentially models the ideal situation.

    • Matthew Mason
      Feb 24, 2012 - 07:02 AM

      Kyle,

      This is the problem the majority is having:

      We have a group of people engaging in sexual behavior that is both morally and biologically wrong. Now, I do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. As long as they keep it there. But that is not what is happening. Instead, we have this group of people creating a world around this behavior, and then intentionally inserting it in every part of life and society without leaving anything sacred (including our children). But then we are told by these same people we are going to accept it. Not, we want you to. You are going to.

      Those who oppose in any way are treated as if there is something wrong with them. They are called hateful, bigots, homophobes and worse. But they also become targets of harassment and violence if things were going on IRL.

      I wonder if you realize your post does nothing to help your “cause.”

      Reply
      • Kyle
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:01 PM

        Matthew,

        I don’t know if you realize that our causes might be exactly the same. I just want to live without people telling me what I can and can’t do, or what I have to believe. The same way I’d never impose on you to give up your Christian faith that I think can be harmful, I would expect that you won’t force me to believe what you do. As for this idea that LGBT activists are attempting to insert lessons on gayness into schools and teach it to young children, that’s not true. I have a lot of contact with activists and advocates at college, and the only part of school they’d like to change is making sex education more inclusive. The same way that learning about contraception doesn’t force catholics to use it, learning about LGBT health won’t force kids to be gay. And if they think it’s wrong, they just don’t do it. If Church teachings and parental guidance can’t stop your child from “turning gay” chances are they just were…

        You can probably tell by my tone that I don’t condone acts of violence against conservatives. It’s not hard to imagine where that frustration comes from, when gays, lesbians. bisexuals and transgender people have been murdered, beaten, and arrested for centuries. Not saying it’s more justified, but you can probably understand where that comes from. (Like the black panthers)

      • Matthew Mason
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:26 PM

        I just want to live without people telling me what I can and can’t do,

        FINALLY! Someone has the nerve to admit it!

        Sorry, Charlie, but people already are: Your parents. The government. The police. Even those labels on aspirin bottles.

        Do you know what we are left with when we decide for ourselves what we will and will not do?

        Anarchy.

        Unless that is what you want, get used to being told what to do.

      • Kyle
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:15 PM

        Ok, you know that’s not what I mean. I mean that I just want to be able to exercise my liberty so long as they don’t hurt the liberties of someone else. The same as you, unless you consciously wish to impose on the freedoms of others.

        Also, by your logic you have no logical reason to object to the alleged forcing of LGBT issues into schools.

        So maybe instead of picking out a sentence I didn’t fully elaborate on for the sake of brevity that could be misconstrued to be difficult, you could focus on all of the points I made in my comment? I’m trying to figure out how you think, and being quite polite about it. I know I’m a pervert, but perhaps you could extend me the courtesy you would any moral human? Thanks :-)

      • Bill King
        Apr 08, 2012 - 12:42 AM

        Matthew- This is the problem with “Now, I do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home” 1st Military there is a party at the officers club the officers bring there wife’s or husbands are you saying a gay service member should not bring there same sex partner / Or in civilian life a office Christmas party should gay couples not be allowed to bring there partner or our these events only open to hetrosexuals

      • thisisbullshit
        Jul 06, 2012 - 10:36 PM

        …………………..yeah because the big bad homosexual has his bigass boot on the good straight boys necks all over history.

        oh wait.
        christ I hope YOU realize your post does nothing to help your cause either, infact it hinders it being so biased.

        “As long as they keep it there. But that is not what is happening. Instead, we have this group of people creating a world around this behavior, and then intentionally inserting it in every part of life and society without leaving anything sacred (including our children).”

        That is from your own post, and its hilarious to me how you do not see the irony in your position of gay rights.

        people call you a bigot because you are a fucking bigot.

    • Thomas
      Mar 20, 2012 - 11:21 AM

      Liberal Fascism 101: hate, attack, blame, lie, deny

      “It really sucks to have people make unilateral statements about what you think and feel, doesn’t it?”
      Which is why you relish in your hatred? You enjoy hating people, attacking people and being a hypocrite. In short, you’re a typical, run-of-the-mill Liberal. If you didn’t feel hatred you wouldn’t feel anything at all.

      “It’s a little strange that you complain of being lumped into a category as a “hateful conservative” and then go on to unilaterally define the left and progressives and gay rights activists.”

      Why are you here again? Oh that’s right – lie and deny. You ARE a gay activist. That’s precisely why you’re here. That’s precisely why you’re posting. And because you’re a Liberal that’s precisely why you’re lying and denying.

      “Conservatives, though they might not be dominant in academia, are pretty dominant where there is a lot of money.”
      This is where you’re so indoctrinated you’re BEYOND stupid. You’re so indoctrinated your programming takes over and you can’t help but repeat every lie you’ve ever been told.

      Fact – Bill Gates is a Liberal. Warren Buffet is a Liberal. Steve Jobs was a Liberal. Hollywood Celebrities – Liberal, Liberal, Liberal.

      Fact – Seven of the Top Ten Richest members of Congress are Liberals.

      I would feel sad for you but I don’t. You’re supposed to be an adult. You came here posturing knowledge you clearly don’t have. Like many indoctrinated Useful Idiots you don’t know anything except the utterly meaningless bumper-sticker slogans you blathered on about in your post. You’re too old to have excuses and too ignorant to be snarky.

      One last comment here’s a bit of your ignorance:
      “The last two are kind of the same point and false. Athenian and Spartan society both embraced homosexuality on their rise to victory against the Persians.”

      You’ve never read an original document in your entire life on this subject. Not even close. Like so many Useful Idiots you’ve been spoon fed textbooks and Wiki-factoids. This is why you can identify a Leftist by how many bumper-stickers they have on their car. Textbooks are neat little slogans that the “active student” gobbles up and feels they’ve learned something. You’d have to be some kind of moron to believe this is the same as reading and studying 1st hand.

      Men in Sparta were required to marry women at age 30. Men were required to father children. That was Spartan Law.

      Think for once in your life. Just once. It’s really not too much to ask. Or just STFU and quit posturing knowledge you don’t have.

      Reply
      • JezabelleDisreali
        Apr 02, 2012 - 08:50 PM

        Thomas,

        While Spartan men were required to marry, and father children, there are original documents describing the tips, techniques, and methods Spartan women employed to convince their husbands that they were men long enough to reach ejaculation (or at leas down play the fact they were women enough to get the same results). Spartans also had a different definition of homosexuality. If you were “catching” then you were the gay one in the pair, and the other was still considered to be straight and manly. Due to this, the records of who was homosexual are very skewed.

        As a rebuttal to your point that Hollywood, Warrenn Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates as liberal; there are several conservative CEO’s and celebrities. The Koch brothers, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Martina McBride, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, The Rock, Kenny Chesney, Tom Selleck, Larry the Cable Guy. If you are so concerned about the seven richest people in Congress, then you should consider that is ONLY 7. 54% of the current Congress is Protestant/Evangelical. Only 4 members are openly gay. There are more self-described conservatives than there are liberals. When broken down like this, 7 is a very small number out of, (what are we at now, 500 something? feel free to check me on that).

        Calling us “Useful Idiots” is really quite rude, and not conductive to being part of a good and enlightening conversation. Telling us that we hate, that we unilaterally make assumptions, that we are stupid and indoctrinated, is the very thing this article (as I interpretted it) is against.

        So to quote you, “STFU and quit posturing knowledge you don’t have”.

  40. Jared Cowan
    Feb 23, 2012 - 07:51 PM

    The right to marriage is considered implicit in the Constitution, I never claimed it was explicit, such as the right to religious exercise or freedom of speech, both of which are not absolutes, but have prescribed limitations by jurisprudence. But marriage, similar to other implied rights we take for granted, is considered a right under the right to privacy in a combination of the 5th amendment and 9th amendment.

    But the argument still stands on two issues: 1)Should the federal government intervene and declare that marriage discrimination against gay people is unconstitutional and thus states cannot enact laws doing so on the same grounds as they did with state bans on interracial marriage? 2) If the government removes itself from the marriage issue, how are we to get any sense of overarching structure in terms of marriage laws as relates to benefits, etc?

    It seems as if the government necessarily has to be involved in this, at least in the sense of preventing discriminatory practices that deny the rights of marriage or the title in order to disparage a minority of people.

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:37 AM

      I don’t think anyone would really argue against getting the government out of marriage. It would make things easier, at least on a superficial level. But there’s so much attached to the state-recognized union, though: tax benefits, different provisions governing property transfer, rights to visit in the hospital and make decisions for an injured spouse, etc.

      If the government “got out of marriage,” there wouldn’t necessarily be any sort of right to file marriage discrimination claims, because then the union would rest entirely in the church. It would be…bizarre, actually. I might like it. The point is, the two are separate, which I think is great, because it would be possible for us to confer civil rights without touching religious marriage.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 09:00 AM

        Actually, there’s a strong argument for keeping the government in marriage within reason. It’s not just a religious practice, it never has been. It is secular, societal and civil in nature, so it is not the scope of simply religion to declare what it is. The government is not going to infringe upon religious exercise in terms of churches choosing not to marry gays or promote that sacred marriage, distinct from civil marriage, is between a man and a woman. But civil marriage is distinct from sacred marriage in that it is not necessarily done or even officiated by a religious official.

        I would hate the very idea that we have to officiate marriage through a religious institution. I view all religion with skepticism, especially organized forms, which border on political parties in terms of the squabbles they have.

        If you agree that we can grant civil rights without touching religious marriage, then there is only the issue of religious people protesting against the government declaring that gay marriages are valid and equal to opposite sex marriages and are valid under the state as a whole. They’re not forcing you to officiate them or even accept them as moral, but merely tolerate their existence and fight against it in defense of a fairly antiquated and myopic perspective.

      • Anonymouse
        Apr 23, 2012 - 04:17 AM

        “I don’t think anyone would really argue against getting the government out of marriage.”

        You’re joking, right? One of the major platforms of conservatism is to legislate the definition of marriage in order to keeping marriage in control of government.

        Keeping government out of marriage entirely, for instance, by eliminating marriage in favor of ‘civil unions’, is actually a fairly fringe belief promoted by a small percentage of people (including a small percentage of gay people — most gay people simply want to call their union a marriage in the same way that straight people do).

    • Matthew Mason
      Feb 24, 2012 - 06:35 AM

      “The right to marriage is considered implicit in the Constitution….”

      Which means you have never read it.

      If you really wish to know where marriage is addressed, it is right here:

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      The Tenth Amendment. Mostly forgotten and ignored by those on the left, it gives states the right to define and regulate marriage as they see fit.

      Sorry about that, Chief.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:56 AM

        Griswold was where we get the interpretation that marriage is considered an extension of the right to privacy, I know that much.

        Even if I granted your claim, there is still a flaw in that the state is not the same as the church, therefore the state cannot favor one religious perspective on marriage over another in determining what is marriage and what isn’t. That’s explicitly prohibited in the first amendment.

      • Matthew Mason
        Feb 24, 2012 - 07:14 PM

        1) Griswold is a SCOTUS decision. It’s not in the Constitution.

        2) And once again you show you have never actually read the Constitution. What you are leaning towards, “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. Not whole or in part. Not explicit or implied.

        The First Amendment, which you refer to, doesn’t say it either. This is what it actually says, verbatim, with emphasis added to the relevant point:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        Now, people who actually hate religion, especially Christianity, like to tell everyone how the placement of a cross on government-owned property, for example, is an “endorsement of religion.” But as you can see, the Constitution prohibits the establishment, or creation, of a religion. Which means Congress is free to endorse any religion it pleases. Further, the largest religions, Christianity, Islam and Catholicism, were around for hundreds of years before the Constitution was ever written. So the idea Congress could create them is patently absurd.

        The second part of the clause is self-explanatory.

        Before you cite SCOTUS, you need to reminded (or informed) that they were the ones that created the church/state separation myth. Their decision came not from the Constitution but from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1808, 21 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified. And it is worth mentioning that during the Constitutional Convention Jefferson was in Paris.

        Thus endeth the lesson.

      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:18 PM

        SCOTUS sets precedent for interpretation of the Constitution, so that claim is moot in terms of me saying that it was in the Constitution, which I didn’t say.

        You take the first amendment’s establishment clause far too simplistically and at face value. Establishment of a religion does not have to be so strictly interpreted as to only involve actual establishment of a state religion. Showing partiality to any religion is not conducive to a fair and just government representing a diverse population that don’t all share the same religious beliefs or have any religious beliefs at all. Just because it is not explicit does not mean it is not a good principle in terms of what the SCOTUS has interpreted to be what is in line with the intent of the establishment clause’s prohibition against state religion establishment.

        I don’t want the government to show favor to any religion or irreligion and that gives us both equal representation by a neutral state that does not give special treatment to your faith and denigrate my lack of faith. It is one thing to have a privately funded cross on the side of the road, but the government has no place showing partiality to any religion or lack thereof, plain and simple. Perhaps your theocratic sentiments just can’t grasp that.

        It isn’t just Jefferson they use in such a justification. There was a sentiment of sorts from religious officials before the Constitution was even considered, such as Roger Williams from Rhode Island, a preacher who advocated there be a hedge of separation between church and state, to paraphrase slightly. This is not just a political argument, but one based on an understanding of the roles of the church and the government respectively by those who are subservient to both in their own ways.

        I have no need to cite SCOTUS, and even if I did, I’d be a bit more detailed so as to counter your ridiculous simplifications of what you think my arguments would be.

        And btw, the free exercise clause, like the establishment clause, both have self imposed limitations because of the relation they have to each other. The free exercise clause is limited by not only the establishment clause in that people cannot advocate government favor of their religion in exercising their religion, e.g. preachers talking political from the pulpit, but the Supreme Court has also noted that free exercise is not an absolute right.

        There are obvious limits that religion is not always willing to recognize, such as if their religious practice is breaking secular law. Polygamy, for instance, being illegal, means that Mormons who practice it are not protected necessarily by the first amendment’s free exercise clause according to Reynolds v. Washington which has a basic limit on practice, even if they cannot in any sense limit beliefs themselves. You can believe such discriminatory things like marriage only being between a man and a woman, but legislating it becomes a matter not only of the first amendment, but the 14th as well. There is, of course, the argument of compelling interest of the state, but this is only if it unduly restricts religious practice, not religious beliefs.

        Seems as if every argument is either selectively ignoring SCOTUS precedent to advance a theocratic or Christofascist agenda or you genuinely don’t understand the nuances that exist in church/state jurisprudence that even I admit are fairly complex with cases setting varied precedents unless you observe context and the rulings themselves in detail.

  41. digkv
    Feb 23, 2012 - 06:01 PM

    A very well written argument but of course I am a bit inclined to point something out. You say that marriage is a value that belongs to the church, so why is the government defining it? If marriage belongs to the church, as say something like baptism does, why does the federal government give tax breaks to heterosexual married couples? Why do state governments create laws for marriages? Why is the US Congress trying to create a “defense of marriage act” that legally defines what marriage is? Why does the government not do this with baptism? with anointing of the sick? Reconciliation? First Communion?
    Why? It’s because marriage stop becoming a religious term when the state decided they could define it. The federal government recognizes only heterosexual marriage, it doesn’t even recognize homosexual civil unions, is that not discrimination? If it’s a religious issue why is the government even involved? Before the Civil Rights movement it was illegal for interracial couples to get married: is this what God would have wanted of marriage? The federal and state government took away any “sanctity” of marriage a long time ago when it thought it could define it: it no longer became an issue of God when they actively pick and choose who is allowed to get married. If you want to completely take back the term of marriage to the church then by all means do it. However, that would mean that the federal government would need to actively declare that they are unrecognizing every marriage in the US: that they will remove all laws they created defining what marriage is, removing any tax breaks that married couples get. Only then can they give the term of marriage back to the churches to define. The federal government has no say who the church can baptize, who they can excommunicate, give last rites to because those are church values never taken over by the federal government. Once the government gives their legal terms of marriage back to the church then you can start talking about how marriage is a religious right.

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:06 AM

      Like I said in the article, society cannot co-opt what is ultimately a religious union. I didn’t say a word about what the government should or should not do, and I didn’t say a word about how I feel about equality on a civil level via State law.

      My point is that they are different. Marriage is not society’s to define. Civil unions for all…now that would be something, wouldn’t it?

      Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:47 AM

      Also, thank you for the compliment.

      Reply
  42. ParatrooperJJ
    Feb 23, 2012 - 02:13 PM

    Jared – There’s no right to get married….

    Reply
    • sapphire
      Apr 29, 2012 - 01:48 AM

      The point is TOO MANY people who have children together 30 and under are NOT MARRIED 53%? come on! Most of the problem may be with the young ladies being ok with sex without commitment. We are the ones who ‘hold the bag’ guys just have about 10-40 minutes to be a father. With us, it’s 40 WEEKS- OTOH please dont abort, having the baby is better than the alternative

      Reply
  43. me
    Feb 23, 2012 - 12:27 PM

    I won’t call you hateful, but I will say that both sides are hurtful to eachother. And I try to read material from across the board to get an unbiased understanding of politics, but it’s difficult to read the hurtful messages. “the Left’s cheap perversion”. What am I perverting exactly? I’m also hurt by the fact that apparently only Democrats are in this sick game of “Screw the Other Party”. Are you trying to help the other party? I understand some of your sentiments exactly, I feel that I cannot post a simple facebook message about my feelings without getting attacked from more conservative friends. So why don’t we stop attacking eachother? The human race has come much further from working together instead of fighting. There aren’t really 2 parties, there are about 300 million different viewpoints in America, so I’m glad you get to express yours. If only we could get all of the political candidates to stop lying for votes and fighting amongst themselves.

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 04:32 AM

      The left manipulates and perverts the meaning of “hate.” Disagree with their viewpoint? HATE! Think a particular lifestyle choice is the wrong choice? HATE! It’s appalling. Hate transcends that…but you’d know the point I was trying to make if you’d actually read my article.

      Reply
      • Nick
        Mar 03, 2012 - 03:30 AM

        Why do you insist on calling it a lifestyle choice? Is straight a lifestyle choice? Low-carbs is a lifestyle, gay is a life. The only choice involved is acting on one’s orientation.

      • Thomas
        Mar 20, 2012 - 10:59 AM

        Because it is a choice. It’s a behavior. All of a sudden Anne Heche is no longer gay. Oops! Missed that one. Oprah didn’t wake up one morning and she’s no longer black.

        Apparently your brain has rotted from NewSpeak (Political Correctness) so simple ideas like words are completely beyond you. When you can change your behavior you have a choice. It then BECOMES a choice. When you devote your life around it you have a lifestyle. Those two combined become a lifestyle choice.

        FYI Nick
        2+2 =/= 5

  44. Winghunter
    Feb 23, 2012 - 06:36 AM

    Sexual deviant behavior is inherently wrong. To question that fact is simply insane and I treat it in the same manner as I would with any idiot who plays with explosives because you get the exact same results – suicide. And I won’t be near either when they become a Darwin’s Nominee.

    8 Homosexuals are less than 1% of the population.

    * This 1% has appx. 80% of the nation’s AIDs and 64% of the syphilis. ( AIDS was not the original name for the disease. It was called GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) before the medical community was threatened and intimidated into changing the label from the rightful dishonor of the deviant behavior that spread it.)

    * Lesbians on average have 4 times the number of male partners and are twice as likely to have an STD as hetero women.

    * Homos and lesbians have the highest suicide rates in the nation.

    * Many Homos suffer from ‘gay’ bowel syndrome – just the act of what they do causes numerous physical problems.

    * Sexual deviants have a much higher alcohol and drug abuse rates.

    * Every nation in the history of the world that has allowed homosexuality to infect their society has fallen within two generations.

    * No nation of civilization has allowed or embraced homosexuality on the way to the top, it is always on the way to the bottom and near their destruction that homosexuality becomes allowed and common.

    Reply
    • Justin
      Feb 23, 2012 - 10:26 PM

      Typical nut job. gay bowel syndrome… are you fucking serious. As a straight white non Christian person, this is the type of shit that really sends me over the edge… you people, are sick in the head. I know how we can prove if gay bowel syndrome exists, and what physical conditions it may cause, I can put my size 13 shoe up your ass.

      Reply
      • Matthew Mason
        Feb 24, 2012 - 06:20 AM

        Sit down and shut up, Justin. Threatening someone who doesn’t agree with homosexuality or the homosexual agenda shows a lack of class or intelligence, for that matter.

      • thisisbullshit
        Jul 06, 2012 - 10:28 PM

        how is denying someone a right not a threat?

        You claim to be threatened while clearly threatening others…. moron.

      • Thomas
        Mar 20, 2012 - 10:52 AM

        Liberal Fascism 101: hate, attack, blame, lie, deny

      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 01:40 AM

        It used to be called GRID until the early 80s; I remember the late 70s when the bathouses were open some homosexuals would get sick in them and, GRID started to increase…BTW i’m over 50 and know what im talking about. I’m glad they changed it to AIDS. Homosexuals arent the only ones who get it today, but AYDS used to be an appetite suppressant in the mid 60s

      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 01:43 AM

        BTW you kids need to ‘wash your mouth out with soap” a person could get their point across without using the f*bomb…what is really sad, young ‘ladies’ are cussing worse than sailors in WW2

    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 03:09 AM

      If you’re going to accuse people of being sexual deviants, you should probably cite to those statistics, Winghunter.

      Please remember you’re talking about people, here. Watch your mouth.

      Reply
      • NC Yippie
        May 01, 2012 - 12:20 AM

        People often tend to think the facts they ‘know’ or ‘believe’ are the only truths out there. Someone hands them a statistic and then they recite it for the next ten years before discovering that it was taken from a discredited study or made up out of thin air.

        The right also uses hate/bigotry in a similar manner. Anyone who disagrees with Christian doctrine or having laws based upon Christian customs or beliefs is called anti-Christian. If you mention the high number of sexual abuse cases in churches you are anti-Christian or anti-religion.

        People are people, left, right, gay, straight, whatever. As soon as you start saying ‘the left does this’ or ‘the right does that’ you are simply confirming you like to stereotype too. Always keep in mind one thing: you don’t know everything & some of what you do know may be incorrect. One love………

  45. Jared Cowan
    Feb 23, 2012 - 06:32 AM

    I certainly don’t accuse everyone of hate, that is definitely excessive and emotion-ridden rhetoric. At most, you’re being unfairly discriminatory, beyond the simply discrimination of, say, whether you’re a vegetarian or omnivore, for instance. Gay people feel slighted when you are denying them a right that has been declared so by the Supreme Court implicitly under the right to privacy, marriage, because of a trait they insist, and evidence suggests in part, they cannot actively or passively change. It’d be like insulting people based on race, though the comparison is admittedly flawed for a one-to-one relationship, but the value of the gay identity is similar to the black identity or ethnic identities, such as being culturally but not religiously Jewish.

    I understand the arguments, I’d honestly hear them more often if I engaged my own immediate family members on either side. I’m the black sheep for a number of reasons, not the most obvious one being that I’d sooner not be in church at all, except that my mind draws me by academic curiosity to observe something I acknowledge as a concept, but don’t accept as reality. But the arguments hinge on tradition instead of the law, which is not nearly as partial as tradition is. The law considers factors beyond what was expected of people and looks at the fairness and equality of applying a law in reality.

    And I certainly would not advocate throwing handfuls of glitter at you, since it’s both unnecessary and messy. We can get along in terms of being civil to each other even if one side wins and the other side feels cheated. But if gay marriage becomes a federal declaration, then churches have hardly lost entirely. There will still be plenty of opportunity to advocate straight marriage and just turn away and ignore the gay marriages done by some churches and the state. Is that acceptable as a possibility?

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 05:23 AM

      I’m not sure what I can say to a person whose only draw to the church is academic curiosity. It’s not an insult–it’s just me being honest. There is a separation between marriage in the church, and the law governing the State institution. I never said what the State does should be identical to what the church does, all I said is that what is the church’s should remain the church’s, and doesn’t deserve the censure of “society.”

      I’m glad you think assaulting me with glitter is unnecessary, at any rate.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 09:53 AM

        I’ve never been assaulted with glitter on that level. At most, my friend covered in glitter hugs me and I get glitter on me, but that’s fairly different, lol

        Marriage is not the church’s as I’ve already said and argued. You yourself admit there is a comparative existence between the religious officiation and sanctity and the legal benefits and civil association of the contract of marriage within the secular context that we all reference it to even if we were married in a church with recognition of the sacred parts of it.

        Marriage is not sacred to me, but it is a value I still hold as a secular person who does not see things in terms of sacred and profane, but secular with varying approaches to it, some of which are religious. I might disagree with them, but evidently it still fascinates me on the basis that people argue these things with a variety of methods, such as art and literature for two examples.

        The church can continue to call marriage a sacrament when it officiates it, but not in every context of every marriage in the entire country, because a decent amount of marriages are not done in a church and thus have no pertinence to the religious aspect associated with it, as the vows do not necessarily reference religion anyway, from what I understand

      • Anonymouse
        Apr 23, 2012 - 04:06 AM

        “I’m not sure what I can say to a person whose only draw to the church is academic curiosity.”

        I’d be curious as to what you’d say to a person whose only draw to the church is blind faith in a mythical, infallible divinity and the authority which has ordained itself to carry out its interpretation of that divinity’s commandments?

    • Matthew Mason
      Feb 24, 2012 - 06:26 AM

      Okay, Jared, a couple basic and easy to understand facts:

      1) There is no evidence to suggest homosexuals are born. In fact, the American Psychological Association, the same organization that published the pro-pedophilia Rind study, admitted they could not find a “g-y gene.”

      2) To compare skin color to sexual behavior is the fastest way to destroy your own credibility as one does not, can not, and will not EVER have to do with the other.

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 09:49 AM

        1) I never said there was a gay gene. If there is anything that biologically predisposes people, it is a combination of genes, not a single one. You’re putting words in my mouth, a disingenuous and underhanded tactic to discredit me.

        2) What would you compare it to if not something that is essentially unchangeable for people that are exclusively homosexual from the start and understand the difference between involuntar and voluntary arousal? You cannot change it and if you do, you were evidently not gay to begin with, but bisexual. There’s a reason it’s called orientation and not preference in psychology: orientation is, for all intents and purposes, fixed, preference is very much a variable and diverse manifestation in humans. You call it incredulous, I call it willful ignorance of the facts concerning sexual orientation and its similarity to race in its nature, even if not in its explicit manifestation as race is, though even that is a bit more simple than, “You look black”

      • Matthew Mason
        Feb 24, 2012 - 06:48 PM

        I do not have to do anything you can do all by yourself. Continuing to pound the “g-ys are born that way” poppycock in spite of the fact science doesn’t agree with you is one way. Comparing behavior to skin color, which is one of the most asinine and illogical things anyone could say, especially when it is done to justify something else just as illogical, is another.

      • Jared Cowan
        Feb 24, 2012 - 08:02 PM

        I didn’t claim it was absolutely irrevocable, but the evidence shows that changing sexual orientation tends to lead to negative psychological repercussions. If you have evidence to contradict that, by all means bring it up. But as I said before, any ex gays were never exclusively homosexual to begin with, they were bisexual.

        I didn’t compare sexual behavior to skin color, I compared sexual orientation and arousal thereof to skin color, neither of which is just willed away. If you are attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, chemistry and biology are going to react accordingly.

      • sapphire
        Apr 29, 2012 - 01:36 AM

        I’ve heard of ‘ex gays’ even though its hard to change your sexual orientation back to what you were born with, it’s possible. theyre is a website called exodusintl.com or org? that works with homosexuals. Comparing race with sexual orientation is an insult to the race itself. Also, when they use terms like women and minorities, they are forgetting about minority homosexuals and women and its an insult to both. because the term (women) means white women only and gays without ‘race’ means white homosexual males only…thats my view of it..liberals are the most ‘racist’ even though they try not to be…..OTOH, if you have a son who is ‘VERY ARTISTIC’ with many artforms, get him around groups of men when younger so he bonds with them–

    • clownlucky
      Apr 17, 2012 - 06:28 PM

      And they think freedom of speech only applies to the left.

      Reply
  46. Thomas Deisigner
    Feb 23, 2012 - 06:20 AM

    Great Article. It goes same with the word “bigot”, which is being used in the exact same way.

    Reply
    • Amy Miller
      Feb 24, 2012 - 03:08 AM

      Thanks, Thomas :) I suppose we’re all bigots together.

      Reply
      • clownlucky
        Apr 09, 2012 - 07:01 PM

        The word bigot and racist are as old and dusty as the race card…not to mention terribly tiresome.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autiello: Will True Christianity Please Stand Up? | THE POLITICIZER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter