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.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The job of the Feds is to defend private property rights, not to decide who can marry who. This whole issue is just insane.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find the source. I tried googling for phrases, but google doesn't recognize this. *still looking*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
posted
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]
posted
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
posted
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.
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.)
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.)
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
