October 06, 2003: President Bush issued a proclamation declaring October 12-18 Marriage Protection Week. Christian conservatives organizing the week feel marriage is being threatened by equal marriage rights for the lgbt community. Organizers vow to mobilize 25 million conservatives to vote in the 2004 elections.
Christian groups involved with the week include Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association and Concerned Women for America (CWA).
"'Gay' marriage is not the wave of the future but the end of society as we know it," Sandy Rios, president of CWA said at an Oct. 2 press conference. Citing the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning sodomy laws, Dr. James Dobson, a Christian conservative radio host, warned that gay marriage will destroy America. "We cannot, we will not allow that to happen," Dobson said.
Interestingly enough, the president's support for the event comes days after RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie called the lgbt community 'intolerant bigots' in the Washington Times. Gillespie warned that the 2004 Republican Party platform will contain harsh discriminatory language seeking to deny equal rights to the lgbt community.
In stark contrast to President Bush's "compassionate conservatism," DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe described President Bush as engaged in a "desperate move to attract the right-wing base of his party."
Well hooray.
They had to choose Oct. 12, since it's the day after National Coming Out Day. They might as well call it "National Going Back Week".
It's good to know who the real enemy is. You know, those of us who want to bring about 'the end of society as we know it'. How can we look at statements like that and sense anything but the most ignorant fear? As if allowing equal rights to homosexuals would 'destroy America'. I can see it now: people will just stop paying taxes. Everyone will get married to everyone else. No one will go to their jobs. All sense of moral responsibility will be lost. Even cats and dogs will be sleeping together... total Chaos!
*sigh*
I love it when President Bush tries to appeal to his base. It always gives me such a great sense of American community. United we stand. Divided we fall.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Compasionatte Conservative--We only hate because we care.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As opposed to "My hate is better than yours."
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
The job of the Feds is to defend private property rights, not to decide who can marry who. This whole issue is just insane.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: How can we look at statements like that and sense anything but the most ignorant fear?
I think you would be surprised at how much of America looks at statements like that as informed, not ignorant fear.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:'the end of society as we know it'
Isn't ushering the end of society as we currently know it the entire point of activism for a cause? Any cause? Because something needs to change?
You mean you don't want change? Like things exactly as they are? If you want change, you're calling for an end to something to make way for something else. That's not an ignorant statement. You may disagree that the status quo is desirable, but not that the status quo is what you're trying to change.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I hate how Bush bends over backwards for these conservative christian groups. Whatever happened to by the people, for the people? I mean, "all the people" is sort of inferred, isn't it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Compasionatte Conservative--We only hate because we care.
Hahahaha.
I know it's not true, but it is funny spin. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
katharina, I doubt she used "end of society as we know it" as an appeal to the status quo as much as it was "gay marriage will destroy everything good about society".
To think otherwise would be to take her out of context, I believe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"'Gay' marriage is not the wave of the future but the end of society as we know it,"
Caleb, there wasn't any other context given.
It would undoubtedly be a change. And the change is something some people consider good and some people don't. "Wave of the future" connotates good change. "End of society as we know it" connotates a bad change. You don't agree that it will be a bad change.
That's okay to disagree with that statment, but saying the statement is ignorant is denying there will be any change at all. That isn't true.
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
Isn't it customary, when quoting something, to provide a link to a source? Or is it assumed to be obvious that the source is hostile to the Bush administration, and likely to slant quotes to provoke an emotional reaction? Somehow I'm a bit skeptical that a national politicial self-described his party platform as "harsh discriminatory language."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Good point. What's the source, Caleb?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"end of society as we know it" as far as I've EVER heard it used means destruction of the entire society... not one change in the way a society functions.
" think you would be surprised at how much of America looks at statements like that as informed, not ignorant fear."
Which is exactly why most LGBT folks see it as ignorant fear.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't find the source. I tried googling for phrases, but google doesn't recognize this. *still looking*
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Hmm. Well perhaps I should reword, then.
She's not saying that gay rights will change society. She's saying that gay rights will RUIN society. That is what I call ignorant fear.
Since "end of society as we know it" is about the same as saying "it'll destroy everything that's good in the world"--even if that is their opinion--how can it not be interpreted as ignorant fear, seeing as how the "destruction of America" (Dobson's words) that they feel so THREATENED by (admittedly, "threatened" is used by the author of the text, but they wouldn't be organizing if they didn't feel it was a threat, would they?) has absolutely no basis in reality?
Saying "I like the status quo" is a far cry from "it's the end of society as we know it!", don't you think?
I guess it's possible to interepret "end of society as we know it" the way you'd like it to be read. But then you could also say that when Columbus found the Americas it was the "end of society as they knew it". You could also say that when sliced bread was invented it was the "end of society as they knew it". I'm sure that's exactly the way she meant it.
Or do you not think that the motives for their actions are based on the idea that equality for homosexuals would be the ruin of society?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Caleb, this an old argument, and I can't believe you and I are discussing it again, although in a way it is kind of nice. It's almost familiar. I think the rules of engagement have gotten mutually nicer, so that's good. I swear, though, no belittling. No implying stupidity. Nothing personal, and nothing snide. Agreed?
You see it as equality of a people issue. The people who oppose it see it as an issue of tacit approval of a sin. Those are not the same thing.
Do I think that everyone who opposes it will consider it to be the ruin of society? No, not at all. Do you think that passing it means flowers will bloom in empty corners and the streets will be paved with gold? That's the converse extreme reaction.
Do you have a link? Is there more context at the link? I mean a link for the original article.
[ October 08, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I got the original text from a Howard Dean Blog, and I don't remember where just now. Of course it's biased in its opinions, but the data and the quotes there I believe to be factual. I've found it several other places on the web, as well.
Like this line that I just found from the White House Statement concerning the official proclamation: "By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home."
Which is, of course, a DIRECT appeal to people's fears, by extension suggesting that gay people, of course, are AGAINST children growing up in safe homes.
Kinda like when Bush appealled to his base by campaigning at Bob Jones university. Where, by the way, Bush campaigners were giving surveys that included the question:
"If you found out that John McCain had fathered an illigitimate black child, would be less likely to vote for him?"
Which is grand since John McCain and his wife adopted a dark skinned child. See Photograph at the bottom of John's page.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
You know, I would take cultural conservative arguments much more seriously if they weren't couched in such hysterical, hyperbolic terms. This mouth-foaming (on both sides of the spectrum -- I also can't take seriously those liberals who go into paroxysms at the mention of organized religion) spewing discourse, this couching of everything in terms of battle and trying to 'get' the other side is what's going to change society for the worse (and already has). Everybody wants to talks rights (or denial of rights), but nobody is willing to make concessions or sacrifices. And why should they? The other side has shown that the instant someone shows a willingness to compromise, they'll swoop in and take as much territory and resources (both abstract and real) as they can.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:but the data and the quotes there I believe to be factual.
Caleb, you KNOW about spin. You know context is everything. I mean, what would you think if all news came from Rush Limbaugh? Offering an article as an unbiased news source something that came from campaign literature is hardly fair. I mean, if it was just the data and facts you needed, you can rewrite it as a post. If you quote the article, then context for the article is important (speaking of context).
Anyway, do I think Bush is appealing to his base? Absolutely. That's what successful politicians do. The people on which he relies consider this issue to be important to them. ALL politicians do that. In fact, when they don't do it, it is seen as a betrayal. You don't think the DNC chair was doing the same thing? I HATE politics.
Posted by Possum (Member # 2549) on :
I found two quotes, the first by Caleb, the second by katherina, which I have long subscribed to. I think the polarization has has occured around what these two statements represent.
I also agree that we seem to be losing the ability to compromise.
quote:I think you would be surprised at how much of America looks at statements like that as informed, not ignorant fear.
quote:You see it as equality of a people issue. The people who oppose it see it as an issue of tacit approval of a sin. Those are not the same thing.
edited to spell katherina correctly...
[ October 08, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Possum ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
oh Possum... try one more time. Posted by Possum (Member # 2549) on :
Dang! I should be an English teacher??
Katharina
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or just call her kat. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Yes, Possum, and that first quote wasn't mine, either. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all by the numbers of people who blindly accept the idea the "society as we know it" would simply crumble if homosexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals.
Kat, you're right. I do know about spin. What specific part of my opening post did you find to be "spin"? Is anything there untrue? Is anything there grossly unfair to any of the parties involved?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
And Kat, I also agree not to be personal or snide.
I don't agree, however, that this is an "old" argument, in the sense that it has no current value. I hope you don't forget how many people are living as second-class citizens under the law at this very moment. They certainly don't see the issue as "old".
Is anybody willing to bet me that, if the Presidential race comes down to Dean vs. Bush, that President Bush WON'T be saying that Dean hates and/or wants to destroy the American family?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Ha. Whatever Bush says, he's on a sinking ship. I don't think there's any way he's getting reelected. I'm certainly not voting for him, and you can quote me on that. (Just excited because I CAN vote...)
I'll say this about this whole thing is that if I weren't already disgusted and disillusioned with Bush, this would definitely push me over the edge. That's sick! For some reason it puts me in mind... of starting a war on Veteran's day. Completely in bad taste.
Yuck. Sickened.
(Edit because I lied, that's not all I'll say about it)
[ October 08, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm surprised no on has commented on what to me was most troubling: the first sentance of the post.
quote: President Bush issued a proclamation declaring October 12-18 Marriage Protection Week
The President is using executive power power to pander to his power base, and in a unsubtle and in-your-face manner. "National Going Back in Week." Haha.
I know Martin Luther King Day has been highly politicized by some Americans, can anybody think of another example of a President establishing a day or week in such a blatantly divisive way?
[edit: I guess people have been commenting on the broader issues. Sorry if I came across as a know-it-all]
[ October 09, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Zalmoxis, ironically enough, I'd think the people from whom the hysterical rhetoric is really coming are not themselves hysterical, and probably are actually trying to win such support as they can find. "X is a sin according to the Bible" just doesn't cut it with a lot of people any more, which is why these are called social issues rather than moral ones.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Took me a while to figure out what 'lgbt' was. I kept reading 'I G B T.'
"What is that?" I ask myself. "A name? A Russian name? A Xhosan name? Who is this Mr. Igbt? Why does the RNC not like him?"
Than I realized that the I was a lower case L. And things cleared right up.
And there is a lesson there, if you'd learn it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not to use lower-case "Ls" on message boards?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, Tom.
You're such a wit.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When I read Scott's post, I interposed a "t" in front of the the "w". Floored me, that did.
Caleb, your post wasn't spin. The article was. It's from campaign literature, and it was presented in the tradition of presenting supposedly factual rather than editorial news stories.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
?
So anything from a campaign is categorically false???
Again:
What specific part of [the campaign article] did you find to be "spin"? Is anything there untrue? Is anything there grossly unfair to any of the parties involved? If you can't answer those questions specifically then you should stop asserting that the source renders the data inconsequential.
That I heard about this on a campaign website doesn't seem to have any bearing on President Bush's reprehensible behaviour.
That I DIDN'T hear about it from non-campaign or non-Lgbt sources seems to be indicative of a spin factor of wholly different kind, for that matter.
[ October 09, 2003, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Gillespie warned that the 2004 Republican Party platform will contain harsh discriminatory language seeking to deny equal rights
Caleb, you don't think that's spin?
quote:Interestingly enough
Condescending language intended to highlight an unflattering irony. Spin.
quote:In stark contrast to President Bush's "compassionate conservatism,"
The motto is in quotes. Spin spin spin.
quote:In stark contrast to President Bush's "compassionate conservatism," DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe described President Bush as engaged in a "desperate move to attract the right-wing base of his party."
This is just a nonsensical sentence, structurally. The opening line sets up a contrast, but the punchline is another attack. "In contrast to Party A's social policy, Party B says Party A is desperate (which implies weakness)." That's spin!
People do it all the time - it isn't surprising. I'm sure you are going to find equally biased stuff on the Pro-Bush sites. Is that campaign rhetoric equally true?
[ October 09, 2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
My question is, How much attention do people actually pay to declared "weeks" and "days" if they haven't been around for hundreds of years and don't actually get a day off? I mean other than Mother's Day, Father's Day (which are both sundays) and Secretaries day (which is practical if you want to keep your secretaries happy).
So you can call it Marriage week or what have you, but the only people that will care will be the special interest groups that the week panders to.
To prove my point, did you know or care that today is Leif Ericsson Day by Presidental Declaration and act of Congress?
quote: Though many still regard Christopher Columbus as the discoverer of the New World, Eiriksson's right to this title received the stamp of official approval in the USA when in 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson, backed by a unanimous Congress, proclaimed October 9th "Leif Ericson Day" in commemoration of the first arrival of a European on North American soil.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We do celebrate Talk Like a Pirate Day.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ummm, kat?
Your first example is referring to the RNC chairman talking about his own organization!
I suppose "warn" could be changed to "stated", but does that really change the content of the sentence?
I won't defend the second statement, but third one can also be seen as a direct quote, since CC was never an official motto, just a term used by GWB repeatedly because it eased the minds of some centrists afraid that GWB was in the pocket of certain Christian Fundamentalist groups.
All I can say is "Sheesh." And I'll expect some sort of response that I see things only my way, which may be true, but is distracting of my point. After all I've seen others, of all ideologies, including you, kat, equivocating statements by people who have the same/similar ideologies.
But with right-wingers it somehow is assumed to be common sense. How that happened, I can only assume that people value the status quo inherently more than a possible betterment, because generally people will find a way to abstract a negative emotional feeling into a possible negative consequence, whereas the current situation simply is.
People resist change, in their environment, in themselves.
-Bok
PS- As for Robespierre who said (??) that government is for private property protection and similar concepts, what do you think government legalization of marriage will do? It certainly can't tell the church's who to recognize in their rites. No, it will extend certain tangible property/personal rights to monogamous gay couples that exist for heterosexuals. It will also require a likely additional entry in dictionaries for marriage... Not unlike "gay" started with one, and now has ostensibly three, definitions.
(Yes, yes, there are possible societal repurcussions, but they seem just as hypothetical as any sort of left-wing pie-in-the-sky hypothetical.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Your first example is referring to the RNC chairman talking about his own organization!
I suppose "warn" could be changed to "stated", but does that really change the content of the sentence?
You think this: <<the 2004 Republican Party platform will contain harsh discriminatory language seeking to deny equal rights>> is a quote?
That you think it is means the spin worked.
"Look - these are horrible things and he's claiming them!" "Did he actually put it that way?" "No, but that's what he really meant." (See Caleb's speculation on context earlier in this thread for an example.)
[ October 09, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: As for Robespierre who said (??) that government is for private property protection and similar concepts, what do you think government legalization of marriage will do? It certainly can't tell the church's who to recognize in their rites. No, it will extend certain tangible property/personal rights to monogamous gay couples that exist for heterosexuals.
Marriage should not be a government concern in any sense. No benefits for those who marry, no restrictions on who can marry, and no penalties for those who are not married.
I have no desire for the government to decide what anyone can or cannot do, so long as it does not effect the private property rights of others.
Marriage should be strictly a private citizens concern. If someone wishes to be wed in a church, go right ahead. If someone wants to be married in a casino by some oddball, go right ahead. Just don't expect any special rights.
[ October 09, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Kat, you've shown how the piece is written from an anti-Bush perspective. You have not shown how the piece is, in any way, untrue or grossly unfair to President Bush.
Yes, the author casts judgment on the RNC. Yes, the author feels President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" should be in quotes because they see that conservatism as anything but compassionate. That is, in fact, the entire point of the piece.
You are saying, in essence, that because the author is writing his opinions, we can't believe anything they are saying.
[ October 09, 2003, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm just asking that things presented and claimed as axiomatic facts actually at least try to be from news source instead of campaign literature.
You're right, though, that my little side show here sidesteps the central issue. I don't think that in a discussion between you and me of the central issue, I have anything new to add.
Carry on.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Wait... did you mean that you don't have anything to add to the central discussion, or did you mean that didn't have anything to add to this discussion with me?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Door number one?
I just mean that past experience has established that this is not a topic the two of us can discuss and still remain friendly-like and/or unhurt, and since this is your thread, and I like you, I'll bow out.
I feel fine discussing parlimentary rules, but not the central issue.
[ October 09, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: I just mean that past experience has established that this is not a topic the two of us can discuss and still remain friendly-like and/or unhurt, and since this is your thread, and I like you, I'll bow out.
Don't you say that every time one of these threads comes up?
quote: I feel fine discussing parlimentary rules, but not the central issue.
That's petty and childish. Argue, don't argue, it really doesn't matter. But your 14 posts, in this thread alone, are not about parliamentary issues. Reading your posts carefully, I acknowledge that you don't actually say anything offensive, and yet, all I can read from them is subtle, back-handed snideness, cloaked in the wide-eyed innocence of "I'm just asking a question." So, it is my opinion that if you want to say something, say it. Otherwise, next time one of these threads comes up, just stay out of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, I'm a lot of things, but subtle is not one of them. No, I won't.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I notice you are also a bit loose with the truth.
I didn't think you would, but I thought I'd let you know how I felt about it. It annoys me to see you in these threads sniping, deleting, saying that you should stay out and then continuing to post. And to add the posts about only feeling comfortable with "parliamentary issues" is, frankly, at this point and time, laughable. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean or not post?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, that was offensive.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Consider me shocked that you think so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you? Shocked?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Not in the least.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Though I am a bit curious about which part in particular you found offensive.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The liar part.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kayla every time Kat does this you then blast her for it. While I know that Kat always says she isn't going to discuss it any more is pettilly calling her on it every time for it any better?
I am disappointed all around that people who are otherwise adults and members of this community that I greatly admire exhibit this childish lack of self control over what they allow their fingers to type.
If you aren't going to say anything more on a subject, don't make grand declarations that are meaningless every time you go back on your word. JUST STOP TYPING.
Actions speak louder than words. It's that simple.
AJ
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Maybe the problem is that, like the Bushies, Katharina also sees homosexual people as a threat to society.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Crap. I know, it's petty. Is this better?
I won't discuss it with Caleb because the last time it made him cry, and I don't want to do that again. Also, I don't think anything I said would be given a fair hearing, considering the above unsupported, speculative, pejorative post.
And so I can't say anything, because if I stop typing, then I get asked why, and if I say why, that's attacked, and maybe the whole thing is designed to get me to stop posting in opposition to the republishing of campaign propoganda. That's not going to happen.
I mean, my reasons given this time were in answer to a question. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask!
[ October 09, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And Kayla sees Kat as a threat to society.
When in reality they are both good people and society would be much better off if there were more people like either of them out there.
AJ
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Personally, I've always thought the term "Compassionate Conservative" to be an oxymoron.
Can someone explain to me how the 'Compassionate' part fits in with most of the Conservative agenda?
Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
Okay, question. who knew, before reading this thread that the 11th was national coming out day? My guess is not many. Do you really think that it was GW own idea? I sure as heck don't. Someone heard about it and decided it would be a great spin, further confirming his pervious positions and statements. Someone "pitched" this to him just like a movie, and just like a fat cat he decided to back it. Only instead of putting money into a fictitious movie he's using his power to pander and put on a different kind of show. I think the importance of a day like this is to lend strength to people who are living in the closet, scared and unhappy. If you know that other people might be taking the same risk you are it somehow makes it a little easier you just feel more empowered. You might not call your mom and tell her your gay, but you might wear a rainbow pin you've never taken outside before you might rip all your Madonna posters off the wall and put up Leo. The point is you came closer to living a life that is more true to your real feelings. Hiding never helped anyone be happy.
just my 2 cents but I think it's worth saying.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I didn't call you a liar, I said you were loose with the truth. For someone so hung up on "parlimentary rules" I'm surprised you don't realize there is a difference. However, since you don't like the "unsupported, speculative, pejorative post" here is the support.
quote:I won't discuss it with Caleb
Yet, there were 12 posts prior to you posting that you had nothing to add and 13 before saying you were only discussing "parlimentary rules" which was, in fact, not completely true, in and of itself.
quote:I won't discuss it with Caleb
And yet, you do. Every time.
quote:And Kayla sees Kat as a threat to society.
I don't see kat as a threat. For a long time, I found her to be annoying, but not worth the trouble of arguing with. But, not long ago, someone convinced me that my opinion of her was wrong and that I should give her another chance. I did. I'm done.
[ October 09, 2003, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really? Somebody likes me enough to convince someone else to give me a chance? That's so cool!
[ October 09, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Can someone explain to me how the 'Compassionate' part fits in with most of the Conservative agenda?
It does not fit into the agenda. Nor should it. As I have been harping on before, the government has no business being compassionate. It need only concern itself with protecting personal property rights. Once it becomes involved in social issues, it becomes wrong.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What is the purpose of forgiveness?
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Here is the official proclamation for those interested in the original thread topic:
Marriage Protection Week, 2003 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.
To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.
We are also working to make sure that the Federal Government does not penalize marriage. My tax relief package eliminated the marriage penalty. And as part of the welfare reform package I have proposed, we will do away with the rules that have made it more difficult for married couples to move out of poverty.
We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect.
During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week of October 12 through October 18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, you misinterpreted (sp) me. It also looks like I may have misinterpretted you.
I realize it was the author of the article that was describing some statement that Gillespie said. To me, your response seemed to imply that Gillespie was an outsider making a prediction. Therefore I was showing that Gillespie was the RNC chairman, so that it wasn't so much a prediction as a statement of intention. I did concede that the author could have phrased it more neutrally, with "stated" vs. "warned", but "stated" would likely be less correct, since while Gillespie pulls a lot of weight in the RNC, he can't guarantee that the new planks be in there. So "warned" may actually be better. I am assuming in all this that you don't actually believe Gillespie could never have said anything like this during the interview. And I could certainly believe that Gillespie could in fact "warn", much like I believe that the head of the Sierra Club could warn that wind power generators off the coast could spell the end to entire ecosystems. Regardless of correctness of what either is saying, the tone would not be uncommon.
Of course, we weren't there to hear the tone and context of what the author is paraphrasing. So let's just draw the usual party lines.
Or rather, you can persevere in the belief that I am being obtuse, or just am not smart enough to cut through "obvious spin". Heck, if spin were obvious, a lot less than 70% of US citizens would believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 (evidence about other possible connections to al-qaeda [EDIT: notwithstanding]).
-Bok
[ October 09, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bok,
I meant the part that I quoted was spin. I'm sure he said something, and warned might even be the best way to describe it, but I doubt he said "We are including harsh discrinatory language to block equal rights for people you care about."
Umm....
Kayla, do you know what he actually said, or show me how to find out?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I fail to see how the above quoted text is in any way propoganda. Opinionated, yes. But then most of the time you want to say a President's position is wrong or hypocritical, it's going to take some opinions, isn't it?
For that matter, I'm not even certain that I got this off of Dean's websites. I think I was linked to the story through Dean's website, and the story itself was printed on some lgbt website. I just found it poignant and followed up with a copy/paste to Hatrack.
Naturally one would be a fool to get all of their news from political campaigns. But it's a bit reactionary to assume that every bit of info you could get from a campaign--one you do not support, of course--would be "propaganda".
Tabithecat makes a good point to suggest that perhaps President Bush was unaware that the day followed National Coming Out day. Maybe he wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that, absent of any real evidence that homosexuals are about to destroy civilization, President Bush has signed his name (and the name of the highest office in the free world) to a bigoted and oppressive philosophy that has no place in a government that exists primarily to protect people's rights, not to prevent them.
And, in said absence of evidence, reason, or logic, it becomes patently obvious that President Bush would do this only to appeal to his base. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense because at the moment President Bush's base is the only demographic that approves of him anymore.
Personally, I hope that the incumbent's campaign DOES focus on this important human rights issue. I already know the jist of what they'll say, of course (appealing to people's fears, accusing us of trying to destroy American families, arguing that children can't have safe homes if gay people can get married, all that jazz) but I can't wait to see what would happen if an intelligent candidate were right there to respond with the truth. It's about time America started addressing it's civil rights abuses in the public eye.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
It need only concern itself with protecting personal property rights.
Robespierre:
The federal government has the following mandate: Form a more perfect union Establish justice Insure domestic tranquility Provide for the common defense Promote the general welfare Secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity.
Just some stuff over and above concerns about personal property rights.
[ October 09, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Umm, nothing was ever said about discriminatory language about people "you care about." That's you reading into it. That's your bias, not the author's spin.
And really, you couldn't see him saying something close to that? After all plenty of state republican party platforms have very harsh language about gays.
And all this after an article in Time about the RUC and growing grassroots from gay Republicans.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"harsh, discriminatory language"
okay, just
"harsh" - that's a pejorative term. That's literally a spin. I'm sure there's a counterpoint - how about "brave and stalwart." Depending on who's interpreting it, I'm sure some of the reporters paraphrased it as the second.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Perhaps, but outside of 3rd party evidence, I think it is awfully hasty to pull out the spin card. However, I think it IS a good reason to go looking for an actual quote.
quote: "There is a lot of energy out there, a lot of concern about gay marriage," Mr. Gillespie said. "So it wouldn't surprise me if it were addressed in some form or fashion in the platform."
...
The plank being considered for the Republican national platform, Mr. Gillespie said, would be in the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution. The language would define marriage as a monogamous, heterosexual union, and would forbid states from legalizing homosexual "marriages."
Now, this is from the Washington Times. I think this also contains spin, because of the quotation marks. Other than that, it seems fairly straighforward - a direct recap of what was said without the paraphrasing language.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's lots of other stuff in there, mostly about some name-calling and the results of a poll of Americans about whether or not they would support such a platform, but that's all about proposed plank. The paraphrase was an interpretation. I believe it was a heart-felt interpretation, but that doesn't make it the axiomatic one.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Well said, Sweet William.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Gah, the very name "Marriage PROTECTION Week" smacks of fear and ignorance. As if marriage itself was on the verge of being destroyed, and at the hands of 20 million people who, after all, WANT TO GET MARRIED.
Grr.
Where is this *threat* we're being sold by the Church?
It's simple! If the Government doesn't rule in The One And Only Christian Way, there's a danger that the rest of society, understanding that homosexuals really AREN'T trying to destroy morality and civilization (I certainly feel like a terrorist when I contemplate how God made me ), might actually find the practice to be acceptable, and then Christian parents everywhere would have to work even harder to protect their children from society's views.
Maybe they're all just lazy and want the Government to raise their kids as Christians for them?
I know, I know, tone it down. I'm not being fair. I've clumped all Christians together and I'm not being fair.
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH THAT, I SPECIFICALLY AM REFERRING TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO PROTECT MARRIAGE FROM THE GREAT EVIL THAT IS HOMOSEXUAL EQUALITY.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
[Tangent]
I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed by any of this, and while there's value in continuing discussion on the topic, I think the major outcome will be hurt feelings. Therefore, I'd rather not continue reading this thread.
So if anyone leaves Hatrack over this, can you please either announce it in another thread (perhaps this one), or tell me via e-mail? I really want to keep up on this stuff, but I don't think it's worth the pain involved in seeing my friends arguing fruitlessly (sorry -- there honestly was no pun intended when I typed that, but now that I've seen it my evil side requires me to leave it in). Note -- I am not saying the topic is unimportant -- far from it. I just don't think that effective discourse between people who already disagree is likely to occur, based on past history with the topic. I'd love to be proven wrong.
--Pop
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Then, Caleb, do please address those people directly rather than paint all Christians.
Some aren't against you. Some have stood on your side of the argument even in light that it may cause a split within their own denomination.
Those are people willing to suffer on your behalf. Why slap them also when you take a swing at others?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Pop -
Here's my question for you, though you say you won't read the thread anymore.
What if a member of the discussion is hurt every single day by the beliefs of an entire segment of society that demonizes them to be unacceptable? Truly, that's what their view is all about. Gay relationships are not acceptable and cannot be conceived of as anything short of perversion. What if a member of the discussion is the constant subject of that smear campaign? And what if the President of the United States of America, whom that person VOTED FOR, came out (also no pun intended, but evil dictates it must remain) in support of that smear campaign?
When feelings are hurt in the absence of discussion, what possible incentive could there be toward silence?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
ARRRRRRG, SOPWITH!
quote:PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH THAT, I SPECIFICALLY AM REFERRING TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO PROTECT MARRIAGE FROM THE GREAT EVIL THAT IS HOMOSEXUAL EQUALITY.
HOW ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE ME ADDRESS THIS GROUP?????
Sheesh. I have never gone so far out of my way to prevent the idea that I was lumping all Christians together in one group and then immediately after be accused of doing that very thing.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
President Bush Proclaims "Marriage is a sacred institution."
The Republicans are considering putting a plank in their platform demanding a constitutional amendment that says "Marriage is a monogomous, heterosexual union."
If my church defines Marriage as "The union between two loving people, regardless of Race, Sex, or Religion" would that mean marriages performed at my church would be illegal?
Could they arrest the minister?
Could we take the proposed constitutional amendment to court for being Unconstitutional? After all, it is limiting my religious freedom. It is stealing the ability of gay couples to have a "Sacred" event in their lives. You may disagree that such an event could be sacred, considering what you consider to be the sin, but you have no power to push your views on what is Sacred and what is Profane on others.
Gambling is considered a sin by many religions. We have wedding chapels in casinos. No one is suggesting that they must shut down for the blasphemy and damage they do to marriage.
Dancing is considered a sin by some conservative churches. Yet most of us have dancing at our weddings.
The eating of pork is a sin to some religions, such as many Jewish and Muslim churches. Yet I have been to wedding receptions where the salad has bacon across the top and the buffet line has sauges or other pork products. I have never made it to a Kosher reception.
Marriage is a sacred institution. I agree. It needs to stay in the churches where it belongs, and out of the greasy hands of politicians.
Families are very important, and the roles of parents are crucial to the development of chirldren.
However, having two mothers or two fathers is no worse for society than having one mother and a father who leaves town, or is in jail, or is stuck in Iraq. It is much better than having two parents who beat you, or abuse you, or don't care about you. It is better than having a mentally disturbed mother who stays at home because the father has no health insurance that would allow her to be institutionalized.
There are a lot of ways to save the sacred institution of marriage and family. Stopping two people who love each other from loving each other isn't one of them. Wasting money, time, and energy trying to convince gay people that they can change who they love if they just try hard enough, and if not they should live in shame as sinners is not one of them. Writing into law that if you don't love a member of the oppisitte sex, you are less worthy of your citizenship is not one of them.
I shouldn't get riled. All this commotion is about the most conservative parts of the Christian faith reacting to the changes that Christ began. Love your neighbors, accept your neighbors, know them for people. Instead they want "That Ol Time Religion" of brimstone, sin, and punishment.
They are afraid of the changes coming to their church, and want to use the Government to stop it. I hope they open up their hearts and their minds or they will be eventually heaped in a pile with the racial bigots and the woman bashers.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, here is the Log Cabin Republican response, with more details on what the plank would be:
Now is a gay republican group more or less biased?
Also, some of Gillespie's responses are silly to me. I'm sorry, you can't redefine the word "accept" and say you accept gays while systematically trying to bar them from certain tangible benefits (and penalties) that others get, simply by virtue of being attracted to the same sex. With marriage laws, are we trying to incentivize (sp) the use[EDIT: <-- I meant more "practice", than "use". That makes it flow better too ] of the missionary position, or monogamy? I'd hope that most of us would presume the latter.
Now, Gillespie's remarks on acts in the privacy of their own home would be spot on, if we didn't already have tangible benefits on the law books for committed heterosexual monogamous couples. The cat is out of the bag, as it were.
Although, he is right, it is "tolerance", by any definition of the word. However, it is limited tolerance, and certainly isn't toleration of the entire lifestyle... Or does Gillespie think that gays just want to "do it", and have no other sorts of affections or deeper emotions toward partners?
Just because the government allows it, doesn't mean you have to think it is right. Consider booze, tobacco use, etc. Unless, of course, you are just starting with the gay marriage issue, and then going on to the others.
At least that would be consistent.
-Bok
[ October 09, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The best way to protect marriage--BRING HOME THE MISSING PARENTS FIGHTING AND DYING IN IRAQ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really, Dan? That's the best solution?
Personally, I'd say we require at least as much training for a marriage license as we do for driver's license.
To swing it slightly off-topic, I heard the most fascinating piece on Italian marriage laws on NPR. The proposed laws to protect marriage meant that a man could not, in his will or in his life, "disown" his family. Kind of like child support, only tougher. For instance, if he has children with one wife and leaves to marry another, the first wife and children are entitled to all the benefits he may lavish on the second. That includes college tuition, interests in family businesses, and the estate after the guy died. In other words, any second family he started would only have access to half of what he made financially. Divorce is still totally legal and you can leave your family, but you can't do it with impunity. Isn't that interesting? Do you think that would strengthen or marriage or weaken it?
I'm not sure what I think about that. While I deeply, deeply like the idea of "there's no way to forget your family once you've created it," it would require a great deal of change. I mean, in making marriage stronger to reasonable guys who go mid-life crazy, it also makes marriage stronger to complete idiots that are better forgotten. So, still thinking.
I definitely like the marriage ed classes idea, though. What do you think?
[ October 09, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I don't know if we should bring home all of our soldiers at this point in time, but I will agree that the present situation in Iraq is about a thousand times more threatening to the institution of marriage than I am.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay..
what about only allowing single people with no dependents into the military? As much as I'd love to disband the military, I don't think that's a good idea right now. Since being a soldier means that you have to go and fight when they ask you to, does this mean that anyone who has a child should no longer be a soldier?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OK, its not the best idea. It is the most obvious and best thing that President Bush is capable of doing within the one week he has set aside for marriage.
Marriage classes are fine. I took one before I got married. However, if they become mandatory (not likely. Nevada alone would never go for it) there becomes the question of who is in charge of defining class curriculum? That could easilly lead to the Government controlling who and how we marry.
Disowning Children and the property rights of children are a quagmire. Saying that you could not disown a child even after remarrying brings up a ton of issues that only the lawyers will enjoy.
However, my wife was seriously hurt when her step father passed away. She was 14 or so at the time. His family came in and claimed most of his possessions and money, leaving her mother (whom the family didn't like) heavilly in debt. My wife's original father remarried. Although we get along well, his wife has made it plane that all their money is going to her kids from a previous marriage. His kids will get nothing. Its mean and petty, but you know what? We live with it.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
There are a lot of people who can only make a living in the military because they cannot afford an education to get a better job. So no, I don't think that's a good idea. It does seem a bit off topic, though. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yes, Caleb, I understood what you were saying in all caps. But that's a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
Please, if you'll quit portraying it as all Christians are this way, I won't start promoting the idea that all gay men are like the Village People.
We're all individuals.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A friend of mine in the military says the greatest secret in the military is the female soldiers ability to get out of unwanted duty. They sleep around and get pregnant.
I doubt that this is a truly overwhelming phenomenon.
I also am being a bit silly with the demand to bring troops home. I believe we need to keep them there until Iraq is ready to police itself. However, sending men and women away from their families for years at a time is much more destabilizing to a family than having Uncle Joe and Uncle Mike married, IMHO.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, we're talking about the things that really threaten marriage, and y'all seemed pretty sold on the Iraq idea, so I was trying to figure out how that would work.
Dan, I've heard lots of stories like your wife's family's. Right - it would be a legal quagmire and headache. Lots of laws are before the kinks are worked out. Do you think it would strengthen marriage as an institution - in other words, there's no way out, you can't forget anyone?
The marriage classes - the government decides curriculum concerning sensitive issues for everything from sex for 10 year olds to the Sociology of Religion in the University. If making a nation-wide curriculum is too hard, we could leave up to the states.
[ October 09, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There are states that give discounts on marriage licenses to couples who complete a certain number of hours of pre-marital counseling.
I think it would be a good start if all couples put as much time, thought, and energy into preparing for their marriage as they do preparing for their wedding. But that’s just me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's actually the problem with heated rhetoric. "No, I didn't mean that part." Okay, what part did you mean? None of it? All of it? How am I supposed to know which parts are real and which you're just goofing around with?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There already exist a number of states that offer incentives for pre-marital classes and/or counseling. Hmm, this list doesn't seem to have been updated lately, but it gives you some idea of the types of laws some states have instituted.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Sopwith, I'm not going to put a disclaimer on every single sentence that references Christians. The fact is that the ONLY people trying to "protect" marriage from us gay terrorists are Christians, and they are doing it because of their beliefs.
I have said more than a few times: I recognize that you can't count Christians in one big lump sum. And I have said more than a few times that I am not addressing those Christians who do not seek to oppress their fellow human beings. I said it very clearly at the end of my post because I'm so USED to being accused of it that I knew it was coming.
You accuse me of duplicity where there is none.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, your term isn't working. It is profoundly offending even those who would otherwise be sympathetic. I suggest finding another term. PAHMs?
[ October 09, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, sex ed curriculum are almost universally chosen on a local (town/city) basis... And, despite the fact that some in the right trumpet it as an affront to home-taught values, it is also almost universally (I'm sure there are a few idiotic cases) optional. You CAN pull your kid out.
And of course, one can always pick a school that has a sociology department that is amenable to your beliefs.
-Bok
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I don't have a "term" for those I disagree with, anyway.
Profoundly offensive??
I'm sorry if I use the word Church when I see only Christians attacking me with their smear campaign. I feel sorry for those Christians that don't take part in it, because they're getting a bad name from it, but I refuse to stop blaming "the Church" for something that is, ultimately, entirely its fault.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Caleb, there are members of other religions who are also against gay marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, it is innaccurate and offensive. If you keep hearing from all sides that it isn't working and you are hurting people when you say it, and then continue to say it anyway, you are seriously undercutting your own plea for understanding and charity. Are you trying to actually change some minds and speak to people here, or are you just shouting to the wind and enjoying the sound of your own voice?
Bok, I don't know what to say. I can't say anything you'd agree with, even when it's something that sounds like a great idea. Your objections are "it's too hard." I don't know what you're playing, but we're obviously not in the same conversation. Okeydokey.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd like to second what dkw said.
I didn't mind the Bush Proclamation, it just didn't go deep enough into the issues.
quote:To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages.
He did touch on the virtues of a two parent household, though I do believe that many times staying together for the kids just gives the kids a better, more intimate view of a failing marriage.
I'd like to open up a topic about preserving marriage for the sake of preserving the idea of a stable committed union. For some reason, I keep thinking of the importance of Santa Claus as an example of a stranger giving presents. A stable marriage, outside of procreation and child-rearing, seems to carry with it a positive personal and political value, I think that Scopatz would agree and probably have a little more insight than I've offered.
Moose
quote: I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed by any of this, and while there's value in continuing discussion on the topic, I think the major outcome will be hurt feelings. Therefore, I'd rather not continue reading this thread.
Even with all of the equivocations and qualifications in the second paragraph, this is the reason why public discourse is not what it could be, eventually leading to a lower standard of living for nearly every single person on the planet. And I don't think that is a hyperbole. I don't know how we have come to live in a democracy where people can ignore their duty to talk and think about something that matters. And Yes, I do think the tendency of discourse to shy away from religion and politics and the name of manners and hurt feelings has led to incredibly ignorant and vastly more hurtful policies.
If you run away from discourse, and by posting what you posted, encourage others to do the same, you attack one of the few fundamental processes that make living well at all possible.
[ October 12, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, think of it, if nothing else, as a Socratic imploring. What I was trying to say was that your flippant-sounding "the govt. already does it" line is at least partially wrong, and that there may be unintended consequences as a result. In other words, if you design the marriage class system based on how sex ed usually works, you'll theoretically get wild and nto equivalent systems, and if you therefore try to bring it to a state or national level, you can no longer use sex ed as any sort of analogy.
Not that marriage classes are necesssarily a bad idea, mind you. Just that your reasons aren't decent reasons, and could be used by less scrupulous folk to convince decent people to agree to something that wasn't intended.
See, I'm willing to concede that there are good arguments for multiple sides (I infuriarated my pacifistic girlfriend on many occassions telling her that I thought her reasons for not wanting to go to war seemed untenable to me... Yet, I also wasn't against the war.), but first I want to hear them. But if you never want to concede, then I'll respect that.
-Bok
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
There are also folks with no religious persuasion who are against gay marriage.
Narrow-mindedness, like pretension, doesn't hold to purely one group of folks.
Perhaps instead of branding it as "Christians" perhaps simply stating "For" and "Against" would be more accurate.
I've said before and will say it again, my Christian upbringing says it would be a sin for me to stand in the path of my brother or sister's life goals and happiness. We all have our individual paths and I am far from wise enough to pass judgement on anything but the most blantant of things. And even then, I'm stuck with the limited perceptions of a mortal being.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bok: If you never want to concede, I'll respect that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fine, semantically tear me apart. It seemed to me that you at least implied that since the government does interject a curriculum on occassion, that it would be okay in the case of marriage classes/licenses.
Hmmm, I take back my statement claiming not to be obtuse. I'm beginning to think that I must be.
What you see as being contrary is me willing to compromise. I just need more than a quick off the cuff idea.
-Bok
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
There are other religions against gay marriage.
There are a few people against gay marriage that don't have any religion. I'm taking your word on this because I've never met one (David Bowles may be one of these, but I don't believe he's ever given a cement for or against position on the subject).
But then none of those people are getting President Bush to proclaim that their view of marriage is being threatened by me, nor are they lobbying Congress to create a Defense of Marriage Act.
Sopwith, it's important to address the REASONS people are against homosexual equality, not just the fact that they are against it.
Katharina, you may think I speak only to hear my own voice, but you are wrong. I speak so that YOU can hear my voice. So that YOU and "all those people who seek to deny my equality" (DO I REALLY HAVE TO WRITE IT OUT EVERY TIME? SHOULD I JUST KEEP IT CONSTANTLY ON MY CLIPBOARD?) can know that I am a real person and I demand to be treated like a real person. I pay my taxes. I vote. I'm a fine upstanding citizen of the United States of America.
You have no right to tell me who I can or cannot marry. That's my voice. If it offends you that I blame your faith for the absurdity of your claims about homosexuals, so be it.
quote:If you keep hearing from all sides that it isn't working and you are hurting people when you say it, and then continue to say it anyway, you are seriously undercutting your own plea for understanding and charity.
What exactly is this "it" that I've been saying?
I can only say this so many times.
Not all Christians are bad. Not all Christian views are bad.
But the overwhelming majority of people attacking the homosexual community with their propaganda of fear are doing so because they are Christians and they believe it is their duty to do so.
That is the truth. Sugarcoat it if you will.
I am not doing this for "charity", Kat. I don't need you to be my best friend. And for the record, I don't 'keep hearing from all sides' that I'm offending them. I have a multitude of supportive emails from Hatrackers that simply do not wish to get involved in these conversations because they know to what offensive lengths the Christian right is willing to go to continue arguing a perspective that they are required to argue by their leaders and their Bible.
There's nothing offensive about laying the blame for America's current state of inequality at the feet of the philosophies that are the predominant cause of that state.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Interestingly enough, the president's support for the event comes days after RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie called the lgbt community 'intolerant bigots' in the Washington Times.
Ummm, Am I the only one that doesn't really get this statement? I'm sorta confused.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
<swings legs over the side and bails out, ripcord in hand>
Geronimo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Narrow-mindedness, like pretension, doesn't hold to purely one group of folks.
I give up, Sopwith. Can you find even one example of me saying that narrow-mindedness is limited to Christians alone?
"like pretension"
And out of curiosity, do you feel that personal attacks are somehow more acceptable than blaming Church philosophy for American homosexual oppression?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Attacking someone's religion is a personal attack.
quote:If you keep hearing from all sides that it isn't working and you are hurting people when you say it, and then continue to say it anyway, you are seriously undercutting your own plea for understanding and charity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is this "it" that I've been saying?
The "Christians are my enemy" part.
You then follow it with "Of course I don't mean the Christians that AREN'T my enemy, so when I say Christians, I don't mean you, even if you are Christian, unless you aren't Christian and oppose gay marriage, in which case I do mean you, even though you aren't actually a Christ follower."
It's like deciding to call all Canadians French, whether or not they come from Quebec, and even though many French don't live in Canada.
Seriously, if you keep fighting this particular battle - to lump all your enemies into one easy sobriquet, despite its lack of accuracy - maybe it's because you're wrong about it?
[ October 10, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm all for a National Marriage Strengthening Week or a National Spouse and Parent Personal Responsibility Week, but, I don't know, the dates and the characterization as a Marriage Defense Week really makes me think that it's supposed to be National Fag Hating Week.
I freely admit that many non-Christians are prejudiced and hateful towards LGBT's and that many Christians are not. However, just like the Inquisition was a Christian problem or the oppression of women was/is a Christian problem or the support of slavery was a Christian problem or the persecution of the Jews was/is a Christian problem, the prejudice and persecution of LGBTs is a Christian problem. It is bound into the implicit structure and the explicit history and culture of the Christian religion and scientific studies have consistently shown that Christians as a group and church-going Christians also show higher levels of prejudice than the average population. To pretend that it merely a individual problem that many many Christians' have is and the very least wrong-headed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You do know that framing in terms of an attack on religion is not persuasive. It means you are asking people to choose between your cause and their religion, and if they don't give up their religion, they are monsters.
Since they don't believe their religion makes them monsters, it means you're lying. This is really, really not persuasive.
Or is that the point? Is the gay movement a cloak for an attack on Christianity? There's a lot of evidence for it. Is that really the tack you want to continue in?
[ October 10, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: It is bound into the implicit structure and the explicit history and culture of the Christian religion and scientific studies have consistently shown that Christians as a group and church-going Christians also show higher levels of prejudice than the average population.
It all kinda depends on how these studious scientists define prejudice, no? For example, if I take the stance that anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin is a prejudiced bigot then chances are that I will label everyone who says homosexuality is a sin as a bigot.
Also, what does "average population" mean in this context? Isn't the "average population" made up of a whole lotta Christians?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The platform this thread was set up to decry was supported in a poll by 58% of Americans, an easy, comfortable majority.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
So is it safe to assume that you don't think Christianity is the primary cause of prejudice against homosexuals in the legal sector?
"Is the gay movement a cloak for an attack on Christianity?"
*shakes head*
Katharina, which is more wrong: blaming Christianity in a general sense for the oppression of homosexuals, or calling me a liar to my face?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, you have freely admitted to being a bigot against Christians. You registered the name of Jesus of Nazareth and used it so offensively that all deity usernames were banned. You have been requested by a Christian to stop including her in your list of enemies, and you have returned that if she is Christian, she IS your enemy. There's a lot of evidence for it.
Do I believe it? No. I think you're passionate and it's easier to hit a rumbling elephant than a horde of gnats, so you'd rather lump everyone into the elephant.
---
Does this mean you're going to rip into Kayla for saying I was lying earlier?
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
It's so easy for people who are not Christians to get this idea that we all hate everyone that doesn't measure up to our standard of "sinlessness". If I think homosexuality is a sin, then I MUST be a homophobic bigot. Did it ever occur to you that maybe some Christians kinda wish that the Bible didn't say it's a sin? It's really hard to look at people that you care about and tell them: Sorry, as much as you want it, you can't be allowed to do this thing that would make you happy.
My feelings don't always agree with my commands. But, like a good soldier, I try to follow through with commands anyway, because I believe in my Commander. You think you are asking me to give up my evil, prejudiced views, but I'm just so hateful that I'm holding on to them with everything I have. But, what you're really asking me is to denounce my God and my religion, and really, you be hard-pressed to find someone who would give that up for ANYTHING, no matter how sorry we may feel for someone.
(In this paragraph "you" doesn't refer to any particular poster, but to anyone who may share the views I described.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, and if someone back in history tried to stop the Inquisition, that would probably have been considered anti-Christian too. Or how about Galileo? He was an anti-Christian because he told the truth. When Christianity unjustly attacks something, be it another religion, science, women, minorities, people who read, immigrants, socialists, etc. and they stand up for themselves, I guess you could see that as anti-Christian. I mean, if you want to consider a Jew who wants to keep his religion and not be tortured to death as being against Christianity, I guess that's your call. Or someone who claims that Easter was taken from a pagan holidy anti-Christian, again, that's your call. Or when historical evidence shows that the anti-homosexual passages in the New Testament were retranslated to be so in the 13th century (a really bad one for the Church not doing bad things) or that Church goers consistently show more prejudiced attitudes towards all sorts of groups than non-Church goers (sorry, I mispoke above when I characterized the control as "average people") as anti-Christian, then go right ahead.
In many cases, you're defining what's anti-Christian, not me, not the gays, not the Jews, not women, not people who tell the truth. I don't have a problem with Christianity, except in that it attacks things that I do value. I have no desire to destroy the religion, but I really do think that there are some changes that need to be made. If the studies started showing different results and Christians were consistently less prejudiced than they are now, I'd be delighted. It's the prejudice and the ignorance that the religion breeds that I don't like, not the religion itself. I would hope that many Christians are themselves horrified when other Christians act poorly and don't give them license to do so because they share a common religion.
As to the definition of prejudice, the study of prejudice has been a long and meticuluous one and, frankly Jacare, I suggest that your criticism of the methods of determining prejudice are laughable to anyone who actually knows the field. I do hope that there are at least some Christians out there who will actually take the time to read the literature on the subject and maybe use the insights provided to work towards a future where all Christians are less prejudiced.
That is not to say that they will want Gays to marry. That's an issue, not a way of thinking. Perhaps they will retain that belief and have good reasons for doing so. All I hope is that they stop engaging in the style of thinking about things that is definied as prejudiced.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: It's the prejudice and the ignorance that the religion breeds that I don't like, not the religion itself.
Unfortunately, the definition of prejudice that a lot of non-Christians have fits too well into the actual religion. You almost can't have it both ways.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, so help me, every time you beg for respect by appealing to phantom authority with your own brand of empty pomposity, it just gets funnier.
[ October 10, 2003, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
That is an outright lie. And by the way, that's the only reason I didn't complain to Kayla. Because the shoe seemed to fit.
I registered the name Jesus of Nazareth and made less than 10 satirical posts with it, none of which were very offensive, all of which were obviously in good humour.
The decision to ban all deity-related screen names was made by Kristine Card, not you, and her reasons for that in her email to me were NOT that I had been SO OFFENSIVE that she couldn't take it anymore. If that was the case I would have been banned from Hatrack altogether, and rightfully so.
Her reasoning had more to do with the potential for abuse that deity screen names represented, and that even though my posts were in good humour she didn't want to take the chance that someone would take it incorrectly.
AFTER WHICH I COMPLETELY AGREED WITH HER AND THEN PUBLICLY APOLOGIZED.
Also I have never said that all Christians are my enemies. Katharina, I used to BE a Christian that didn't believe homosexuality was wrong. OF COURSE I am not against these people. And I say it in nearly every frickin post, yet you continue to label me as an all-Christians basher. Find one example of me saying that all Christians are my enemy. Quote it for me instead of putting words in my mouth and slander in our community.
And I have freely admitted bigotry towards Christianity, but you conveniently leave out the context of that bigotry which was discussed at length in previous threads. Of course, you conveniently leave out a lot of things in favor of character assassination.
Again, there is NOTHING offensive about placing the blame for homosexual oppression at the feet of the philosophies that are the predominate cause of that oppression.
The real difference here is that you don't think it counts as oppression, because you think you're right right right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Did it ever occur to you that maybe some Christians kinda wish that the Bible didn't say it's a sin?....My feelings don't always agree with my commands. But, like a good soldier, I try to follow through with commands anyway, because I believe in my Commander."
Maureen, you may look at this as a GOOD thing -- but for those of us that DON'T believe in your Commander, we find it troubling and unnerving.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maureen, There are Christians who don't believe that the Bible unequivocally says that homosexuality is a sin. We've had mutiple threads here on it. I think that this is the latest one.
Of course, I, for one, don't believe that being against something necessarily means that you hate it. However, it is extremely clear to me that many Christians are against homosexuals because of hatred. It is also clear to me that many Christians are not against homosexuality for primarily religious reasons.
It's not my place to judge people's beliefs, but the way they go about forming these beliefs is, I feel, open game.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb, you've lost it. You're flinging insults and practically jumping up and down in the aisle and howling.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, you are informing entire large populations of people that you them far better than they know themselves. You think that's persuasive?
[ October 10, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
kat, tone it down, please. Your last few posts have consisted of nothing but personal criticisms of other posters.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Maureen, you may look at this as a GOOD thing -- but for those of us that DON'T believe in your Commander, we find it troubling and unnerving.
I know. Sorry.
Hey Kat, are you okay? You seem to be kinda wigging out.
[ October 10, 2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maureen,
quote:Unfortunately, the definition of prejudice that a lot of non-Christians have fits too well into the actual religion. You almost can't have it both ways.
Like I said above, the definitions used in the fields I work in don't rely on beliefs only, but on styles and corresponding elements of belief. Among them is stereotyping, anger, but explicit and latent, in-goup/out-group distinctions, and non-belief centric discrimination.
For example, believing that homosexuality is a sin would not be classified as prejudiced thinking. However, expressing hatred for homosexuals, regarding them as a uniform group with stereotyped characteristics, denying them a job based solely on the fact that they are homosexual, and various other types of attitudes or behaviors would be.
Many people have a stereotype of social scientists as being primarily concerned with advancing their ideology. This is especially true when they feel that groups they belong to are show in a poor light by social science research. I'll admit there are many social scientists that this would be true for, but, I don't believe that it is accurate for the majority of us. The best I can do is to invite you read up on the studies of prejudice and let you make up your own mind on how valid the criticisms are.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am? No, I'm not.
Although I do think it's funny. Caleb and Kayla have absolutely no effect on me, but Squicky drives me crazy. It'd be almost complimentary if I wasn't so sincerely annoyed.
[ October 10, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
MrS-
But then, wouldn't denying marriage to homosexuals be considered as discrimination or prejudice? Because my interpretaion of the Bible denies them that right. Therefore, if I believe that, and continue to support my religion, I'm being prejudiced by default.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Marriage is NOT a purely religious institution. It is a secular distinction as well. The government and businesses (eg. insurance) treat married couples differently. People whom are agnostic or atheistic, etc. DO get married.
Why should homosexuals be denied something on religious grounds if atheists can do the same thing with no outcry?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well that's a question though. Why do you believe that the Bible gives you the right to deny homosexuals the ability to marry? From a religious perspective it's pretty obvious. It would not be considered a valid marriage. However, marriage, in our culture, is not tied to any specific religion or even religion in general. The only commonality in the relationship is the purely secular benefits that it confers. So, while I understand why you would feel justified in claiming that homosexuals couldn't get married in a religious sense, how does believing it to be a sin impact the secular aspects of the relationship?
Also, I'm actually not aware of scales of prejudice that take anti-homosexual attitudes into account. I'm sure that they exist, but most of the ones that I've seen used were created before it was really much of an issue. Also, and I don't know if this is true or not, I wouldn't be suprised if there is a reluctance to include homosexuality because of the extremely complicated nature of feelings toward it in our country, which would make accurate and reliable test questions hard to construct.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What if My religion condones and endourses gay marriages. If the Government makes them illegal, isn't that attacking my religion?
On a less debated topic, if we pass a constitutional amendment attacking my religion (a anti-gay marriage ammendment would attack the religious beliefs of a pro-gay marriage church), could you do anything about it?
If not, could we pass a constitutional ammendment demanding every person be a good Christian? After all, people are saying that this country was founded on Christian ideals, and that the 10 commandments are the basis for our laws. Would not a Christian Ammendment, or one offering tax cuts to Christians and other preferred citizenship upon proof of baptism (unless you are in a quasi-unAmerican Christian Sect such as Catholics, LDS, or those overly liberal Episcopaleans with thier gay bishop), be legal if passed? Finally, we could put all of these good Christian values into law where they apparently belong.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think what it comes down to Caleb, is that you're thinking that this is a debate of semantics about Christians and Christians are thinking that the statements are made about all of them.
Please excuse me for using the words I am about to use. I feel it is the only way I can get my point across.
A brick mason I once worked for, after finding some stuff missing from the job site shouted at the top of his lungs, full of rage "Damn Niggers! Why do they gotta steal everything?!?!"
Then he turned and looked at his business partner and two of the mason's helpers. All of whom were African American. Then he said, "Not you guys, I know you didn't steal anything."
You, and others, have used the title Christian much like he used the N-word. Said with spite and hatred. Then you tried, like he did, to exclude a few folks from it that you may have offended.
It doesn't work that way. Not in a civilized society. You have to understand that all of the other folks out there, no matter how much their ideas or creeds are opposite of yours, are your equals. Not superiors or inferiors. Equals. We're all on this spinning ball of clay, water and air together.
No peace can ever happen by targeting any group. You have to work with those willing to extend an olive branch to you and allow them to bring their side to the same table. Just like you have to bring those who are reluctant on your side to the same table.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Speaking of religion and politics... here are some myths to debunk.
quote:Myth 3: Bush's religion talk has appealed to his base but has alienated moderate swing voters. Actually, 56 percent of independents think he mentions his religious faith just the right amount compared to 20 percent who say he does it too much, according to a Pew Religion Forum study. Even most Democrats agree. Attacking Bush's religiosity will not be politically fruitful; alternatively, a Democratic candidate unable to discuss his own faith will place himself defiantly outside the mainstream.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:liberals who go into paroxysms at the mention of organized religion
Just wanted to point out to Zalmoxis that some of us liberals are involved in organized religions, and are even paying members of religious institutions.
Secondly, I think that allowing gay marriage is going to have little to no effect on society at large, especially not on those who oppose it most, who generally have few interactions with the gay community. What is will do is allow those in long time gay relationships right of survivorship, right to be covered by each other's health insurance, and many of the other rights that we straight couples take for granted, and do not have to fight for.
**Ela**
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
WOW. What Sopwith said reminds me off all the times my husband got up and walked out on women who were talking about how "Men are pigs" or "That's just the way men are". They would try to tell him "We don't mean you, Jesse. You're a good guy." It made me angry FOR him. The worst part was that, (sheesh, where does this comma go?) one of them was his mom. ERR!
[ October 10, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"alternatively, a Democratic candidate unable to discuss his own faith will place himself defiantly outside the mainstream."
Which is, of course, why politicians of ALL stripes pander constantly to religious groups.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
More specifically, Tom, they just pander.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Kat -
quote:Caleb, you've lost it. You're flinging insults and practically jumping up and down in the aisle and howling.
THAT'S your response? You accused my "homosexual agenda" of being a mask--hinted at, rather--for simply attacking Christianity, as if my ultimate will for equality was really just a game I was playing to rip people away from the Church. Then you accused me of being 'so offensive' in a totally different context that you completely misrepresented, and THEN you again accused me of lumping all Christians together, when IN NEARLY EVERY SINGLE POST OF THIS THREAD I'VE SAID OUT LOUD, OFTEN WITH CAPS LOCK, THAT I AM NOT REFERRING TO ALL CHRISTIANS.
So I defend myself with the truth and you're response is: I'm jumping up and down, howling in the aisles, and flinging insults around.
Just once maybe when you're attacking other people (I certainly know I'm not the only person that gets this treatment from you) you could quote full text related to your complaint and stop slandering other people? This thread was about President Bush's endorsement of this Christian-right (note that this does not include the Christian-left ) agenda to prevent homosexuals from eventually gaining their rights. You have said nothing on that subject, choosing instead to consistently misrepresent my posting style, critique my ability to persuade people when my sentiments are cast in a much different light than they are actually written, and completely ignore any points that anyone not on your side has brought to the discussion.
Surely you recognize that that's hardly the way to behave if you want people to hear your own plea for understanding and charity?
Really, Katharina, I'm disappointed in you. You probably don't even realize how your actions in this thread are all-too-indicative of the very smear campaign for which I am blaming the Christian Right.
How I'm supposed to say that the majority of Christian beliefs about homosexuality are bigotted and wrong without relating that biggotted and wrong position to Christianity itself is beyond me.
How I'm supposed to participate in an intelligent and thoughtful conversation with YOU is also beyond me, since you consistently show disdain for equality, logic, and reason. And yeah, I guess that counts as a character attack, but I've got to draw the line somewhere. You don't answer specific questions, you ignore it when someone proves you wrong, and you generally take every opportunity to belittle people you're talking to. And then every so often you have to accuse me of speaking only because I love the sound of my own voice.
Well get off it.
I have specific reasons for posting as I do. I am interested in seeing America become a better place, where religion is not allowed to ruin other people's lives. In that pursuit I am forced to point out some of the negative aspects of religion, out of necessity.
You can call that offensive or lumping all Christians together, but really what I'm doing is not so different from the actions of Joan of Arc or Martin Luther. I have a bone to pick with the Church (the majority thereof) because I believe it to be grossly out of line with human interests, and my own future is at stake. How about instead of trying to paint me as a lunatic and an insulter, you could respond to my ideas about human interests?
What is your reason for this madness, anyway? Just to hurt people? I thought you said you weren't going to do that anymore because you didn't want to.
I can't wait to see your one-line response complete with smiley face.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
-|- -|-
Wow. I just double-deuced everyone on this thread.
Is that how you do it, mack? Coz it felt. . .good.
Ooh. I'm all hot now. . .
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Ela:
I know. In fact, I wish that more members of my own faith would more seriously consider some parts of the the liberal platform [especially conservationism, academic freedom, social justice, universal healthcare (or at least more universal healthcare) and multiculturalism (but true pluralistic multiculturalism -- not the pc, victim identity kind)]. That's why what I said was...
quote:I also can't take seriously those liberals who go into paroxysms at the mention of organized religion.
What I was trying to say is that, I hold out the hope that people with strong beliefs can still interact with each other with civility and respect, and that what I'd like to see the citizens of the U.S. fight for is a situation where the most people possible can have a certain measure of material security and the freedom to express their beliefs and interests. How one does this is still a mystery to me. But I do think that the LDS Church shouldn't ally iteself too closely with conservative Christian evangelical groups.
From an abstract point of view, I don't think that the solution is too toss crosses or crescent moons or five-pointed stars or rainbow flags out of the classroom and the public sphere, but rather to make sure that there are public environments where all those symbols can co-exist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw Scott, you're too good for this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know.
Don't know why I continue to hang around you plebes.
EDIT: Kat, when you say, 'You're too good for this,' does that mean that you think my behavior is normally above double-deucing? Or that you accept my joking behavior as being the right way to respond to many of the caustic statements directed at people I normally like?
[ October 10, 2003, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Carry on.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)