Proposition 8
November 25, 2008
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
By John Fay
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
Few issues of cultural importance in America long escape the gaze of a Simpsons’ episode.
In the episode titled “There’s Something About Marrying,” the city of Springfield legalizes gay marriage, prompting Homer Simpson to become an Episcopal priest in order to reap lucrative benefits for conducting such unions.
Homer very quickly realizes that he could make even more money in nuptials if he is less discriminating, and by the end of the episode he’s proceeding to marry the Sea Captain to the mermaid-shaped masthead of his ship.
We laugh about scenes like this and say they could never happen; of course, that’s what our grandparents were saying about gay marriage a generation ago.
Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the California voters’ decision on Proposition 8 is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis.
The decision of California’s Supreme Court in May to legalize gay marriage, which Prop. 8 overturned, was extremely rash. There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level. For gay marriage to even fit within the court’s jurisdiction, it must have some basis in constitutionality.
Yet the court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?
Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4.
Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs.
This sad reaction illustrates the danger of gay marriage. Now, this is not to suggest that all or even most supporters of gay marriage have acted inappropriately.
Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others.
It’s hard to tell someone they should respect basic social rules — such as not harassing people for honest disagreement — when they already reject other customs, such as traditional marriage.
So, let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years.
If traditional marriage is overturned, it won’t be the last tradition to be abolished by our government, and some of those will be ones none of us want to lose.
Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Proposition 8 disappointing
By Sarah Gaither
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Proposition 8 disappointing
It is difficult for me to express how profound a disappointment the passage of Proposition 8 is.
Approved on Nov. 4, Prop. 8 stripped homosexual California couples of their right to marry, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. As a contrast to the unprecedented election of a black man to the U.S. presidency, the proposition’s passage is a reminder of how much progress in civil rights there is left to be made.
While it is sad to learn that 52 percent of Californians view homosexual love as inherently inferior to heterosexual love, it is outraging and continually baffling that the proposition’s backers see enshrining this prejudice in law as just.
The arguments used to defend the proposition are feeble at best. The argument that marriages are intended for the production of children belies the reality that many heterosexual couples are childless. Are they to be denied the right of marriage too?
The reasoning that heterosexual marriages are the fundamental unit of society and thus deserving of “protection” from untraditional forms of family, is unfounded. Not only does it rely on normative gender assumptions, but it assumes that it is the government’s role to both determine what forms of love and family are acceptable and to enforce them.
A recent parody of this logic has been used in an anti-Prop. 8 ad, which calls to protect traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. With divorce having garnered no such ire from the traditional marriage establishment, the hypocrisy is plain.
Other arguments that claim gay marriage is outside the historical norms of society make the mistake of assuming that the longevity of norms indicates their legitimacy. As Keith Olbermann remarked in his moving commentary on gay marriage, in 16 states interracial marriage remained illegal up until 1967. Only until the United States “redefined” marriage did it become legal for people of different races to wed.
Then, as now, discrimination against individuals stepping outside the norms of society supports the unjust withholding of rights granted to other citizens. In this light, snide comments made by Prop. 8 supporters that “everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex” are especially off base. I can imagine someone 50 years ago arguing that “everyone has the equal right to marry members of their own race.”
Perhaps most significantly, the exclusion of homosexuals from the right of marriage wholly breaches the division between church and state by allowing religious beliefs to determine state policy, however unconstitutional they may be.
And those who argue that Prop. 8 is justified because it passed with a democratic majority should Google “tyranny of the majority” and consider that a majority of Americans once opposed the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the desegregation of schools.
It’s apparent, given the logical irrationality of the common arguments made against gay marriage, that the support of Prop. 8 is driven not by reason, but by emotion. The sooner that anti-Prop. 8 organizers realize this, the sooner they will rally voters to their cause.
In the anti-Prop. 8 ads aired prior to Election Day, there was a remarkable absence of gay couples. By not emphasizing the common commitment, humanness and love of homosexual couples, organizers missed a key opportunity.
It is easy to forget in a relatively open-minded city like Seattle that the vast majority of people have little to no contact with same sex partners.
Thus, their conception of gay relationships are composed almost entirely of conjecture.
For this reason, it’s key that pro-same-sex-marriage efforts, in tandem with battling this discrimination in the courts, encourage understanding. They must emphasize an emotionally-based understanding of these couples’ experiences.
That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law.
Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.
654 Comments
The danger of gay marriage is that people are mad and they don't want to take it anymore? How exactly are gays who are having their marriages destroyed supposed to act? This is not offense, it is defense. They are taxpaying citizens who contribute to the economy and yet are being stripped of these rights.
Your argument about bestiality or underage marriage fails to take into account the idea of consent, something both sheep (LOVEly accompanying graphic) and 10 year old girls can't give.
The government isn't going to abolish your 2000 year old tradition. Letting gay people marry doesn't take away heterosexual marriage; if it did, there might be a reason to be so afraid.
As for that 2000 year old tradition, I highly doubt that marriage 2000 years ago looked at ALL like it looks today. Women as chattel, dowries, and the feudal system all had parts to play that no longer factor into the equation.
I might respond to your invitation to stop and think about this issue if everything I was seeing in this opinion piece wasn't regurgitated line by line from the Religious Right's party platform.
Your comment about homosexuality leading to social dysfunction is so bigoted and off-base that I am appalled. Again, the "sad reaction" has less to do with homosexuals being in the public eye than it has to do with people being angry that they would be denied the right to enter into a committed, loving relationship -- opting for ORDER over CHAOS. What could be wrong with that?
Your reference to the "social problem" is frankly short-sighted and immature. Do you think banning gay marriage is going to send some sort of message, that people should just not be gay anymore?
Christ.
Wow......so you are saying that homosexuality is "more like an emotional condition"
Since I consider you to be somewhat educated could you please show me what medical doctor warrants that the behavior of homosexuals is "a problem that needs to be dealt with" in addition, what the treatment would be.
I continue to hearing the pro 8 people say how bad gays are but never any solutions.
Just food for thought.
"How exactly are gays who are having their marriages destroyed supposed to act? This is not offense, it is defense. They are taxpaying citizens who contribute to the economy and yet are being stripped of these rights."
These marriages should never have existed. The California court overstepped its authority in redefining marriage. Marriage has always been defined as a recognized relationship between a man and a woman. What gives anyone the "right" to redefine it? I'd also like someone to show me where marriage has been listed as a universal right.
Bigoted nonsense aside, you seem to be forgetting a very important other kind of protected class in this country. Sure race and gender are largely immutable and determined by biology. (Pricey surgery and certain popstars aside!) However another protected class is religion. Something hardly biological, nor hardly immutable. Yet not something in which discrimination of is to be tolerated in this nation.
The state's views on marriage having to line up with your religious views is redicilous to say the least. Plenty of religious groups today now embrace same sex couples and seek to have them legally recognized as marriages. Surely with that same reasoning by denying them you're infringing on THEIR first ammendment rights as well?
Mr. Jackson:
You're a fucking moron. I'm surprised your able to read your keyboard. Go finish the third grade and then try your hand at writing again.
I'm afraid your argument lost all validity with me once you referred to homosexuality as a "problem". With all the studies that have been published by non-religious affiliated programs, you should be aware that being gay is NOT considered a problem by anyone that has studied the 'lifestyle' at length.
In addition, you use the argument that gay marriage will assuredly lead to marriage to animals, inanimate objects, etc. The difference to note is that gays and lesbians are human beings, and there is a mutual love expressed that cannot is meant to be recognized by the institution of marriage. Many gay people are also religious, and they are able to reconcile both aspects of their lives without conflict (because they realize the insignificance of sexual orientation in the larger picture). Even if marriage was originally erected as a religious ceremony, in modern times it also has economic and social meaning that extends far beyond the realm of the church. Marriage is no longer defined purely by religion, but is also a government status (whether for better or worse is another debate entirely). To deny any minority a legal status is DISCRIMINATORY, religious insinuations or not.
Props on finishing the third grade, but here are some things you might have learned had you continued your education.
1) Ad hominems are generally a bad way to try to win an argument.
2) "Your" is a possessive. "You're" is the contraction for "you are."
3) "Photo by Matthew Jackson" means that Mr. Jackson is responsible for the graphic, which probably has no reflection on his writing skills, or his ability to read a keyboard. "By John Fay" (the byline in news-speak) means that John Fay wrote the article.
4) Use of profanity can sometimes be taken as a sign of a small mind or a small vocabulary. If you want yourself to be taken seriously, calm down and put some effort into making sure your comments are well-worded.
Cheers.
To Matt:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Scroll down to Article 16. And hey! The name of the document has the words "universal" and "right" in it! Isn't that something.
This article is extremely offensive. What do you propose we do about this "problem" of gay marriage then huh? Do you not realize that gays are human too?
"If gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, why can't they?"
Thanks Tim! When I think of rights, I usually think of the Bill of Rights, and I hadn't though to look elsewhere. I hadn't seen that before, and hence hadn't seen 16(3), that points out the importance of the family as the natural unit of society and calls for its protection. Is it appropriate to surmise from the text that marriage, as the U.N. recognizes it (and calls a right), is the form which corresponds to a natural family?
To all who continue calling voters who voted for Proposition 8 'bigots' I recommend a refresher course in 'mud slinging 101'.
The definition of 'bigot' in my humble dictionary is: "One whose attitude or behavior expresses intolerance, as because of race, religion, politics, etc."
Therefore, any difference of opinion of the aforementioned groups is bigotry if 'acted out' in an intolerant vein in any way - be it riotous demonstration against an opposing group, vandalizing, demeaning, defaming, blacklisting, etc.
Voting one's conscience is not a form of bigotry.
The act of voting in itself is protected by the Constitution, and is an expression of free speech.
I would ask those who would cast the ephitet 'bigot' as a stone to take pause and reflect upon the word before issuing.
It does indeed point out the importance of the family. But in so doing, it does not negate what the first two clauses say about marriage being a universal right for men and for women, and protecting that right. Of course it is protecting the family, but it also doesn't suggest anything about gay marriage somehow infringing on that protection. That's why they are separate clauses, why it doesn't say that you have to have children in order for it to be considered a family, and why it doesn't use the word "natural" to necessitate the union of men specifically to women; there is no "only if" clause.
I think this chart sums it up pretty well:
Tim,
So the question is what definition of marriage was assumed in the writing of the document. I think that it is safe to assume that, in 1948, it meant a union between a man and a woman, or a husband and wife (that's what my 1997 dictionary says it is). There was no need at that time to specify that "marriage" meant "natural marriage." I agree that all people should have the right to marry, given the understood definition at the time this document was written. Any right to any other form of "marriage" cannot be presumed from this document.
Your definition of "natural" is yet to be established, however. If we are to assume that "natural" applies somehow to a religious social construct, we would then logically have to observe other species "in nature" and attempt to find some "natural" definition of marriage of that between a male and a female of the species...which of course is impossible to do on two counts. The first, and more obvious, is that something that is a social construct cannot, by definition, be natural. So your point is already moot. But the second (which assumes that the first doesn't already deconstruct the assumption of "nature" dictating a social construct, which it does, so this is just for the sake of further discussion) is that even "in nature" we find examples of homosexual activity in various species, even monkeys, which are genetically closest to humans; in fact, biologists today even speculate that "nature" might have even required for the existence for homosexuals in society for the purpose of more efficiently fulfilling various tasks, e.g. fighting battles. So even in this instance, we see the infinite fallibility of the term "natural" in regards to marriage.
What is important to point out is the usage of the word "natural" in the text of this document, which is referring to the "nature" of the specific social construct at hand (family) as it functions within a wider social construct (society itself) and the importance that people have universal opportunity to take part in it. At no point does the document use your "natural marriage" phrase, because it is not presupposing there to be such a thing; it is only ensuring universal access to the function of a societal unit (family) within the larger social construct of society itself, which in no way limits that protection to heterosexual marriage. In order to do that, it would have had to specifically define a family as being comprised of a mother and a father who are capable of bearing children--which it doesn't do, because that's not the definition of family.
The University of Washington must have a serious lack of opinion submissions because this thinly veiled bigotry would not constitute an opinion that merits publication in any high school paper. I mean, is this serious? I'm confused. The University of Washington sould be ashamed this was published. At least if you're going to support traditional marriage, use logical, thoughtful arguments (while I vehemently disagree with them all, a few do exist). This is the kind of opinion that leads to violence. Just sitting at my computer reading this I want to throw something.
People like you make me scared in my own country. You are the same type that would have been openly against desegregation in the 1960's. You are full of fear and ignorance...both are very dangerous things to harbor in your heart.
Look, let's face facts- the truth of the matter is that the gay community wants to destroy the idea of marriage altogether. We are seeing the fundamentally violent and anarchic nature of the gay community in their response to the passage of CA Prop 8. The gay community is comprised of deranged thugs and sociopaths, and they will stop at nothing to ram their twisted agenda down everyone else's throats.
Sodomy is a fundamentally violent, invasive act with persistently traumatic medical aftereffects, it is not an act of "love." Homosexuality is a mental illness, and it needs to be dealt with as such. It was removed from the DSM-IV due to political pressure, not as a result of scientific findings. The "normalization" of homosexuality is a threat to the well-being of anyone who struggles with a mental illness, and it simply can no longer be tolerate as a "normal" behavior.
The push for gay "marriage" is not a push for "rights," it is a push for violent anarchy and the complete overthrow of public safety. The homosexual agenda does not end with "marriage"- the next items on the gay agenda include the abolition of age-of-consent laws, the legalization of sexual indoctrination of children, and the legalization of uncontrolled gay orgies on public street corners. It must be stopped at any cost.
Bob, get a grip. Look to the north, for example. In Canada, gay marriage has been legal, coast to coast, for about five years. There's no evidence of anyone, gay, straight or otherwise trying to destroy marriage. Churches in Canada that support gay marriage marry gays; those that don't, don't. Everybody lives pretty much in harmony (at least on this issue). Do you see a problem with that?
Bob,
There are many women who feel about vaginal intercourse as you do about buttfuking. The slippery slope arguements you and the Matt advamce are at the outset logical fallacies. The appeal to reason exhibits anything but;
rather an ignorance of constitutional law more specifically the equal protection clause is most in evidence here.
John Fay:
The basis in constitutionality is under the equal protection statutes.
Women have the right to marry men, but men don't. Men have the right to marry women, but women don't.
Gayness or lack thereof doesn't really have to enter into it. Being a legal adult who can consent and sign a binding contract, though, does. Which precludes sheep, dogs, ship figureheads, and underage persons.
Polygamy, of course, need not be included if the contract is limited to two persons.
"Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union?"
I'm so tired of this. If it is true -- if it is true that there is such a slippery slope -- it begins with MARRIAGE, period. Not same sex marriage. If legalizing marriage hasn't compelled us to legalize, say, mixed-species marriage, then neither would legalizing same-sex marriage.
My grandparent's generation was against mixed race marriage and thought that is would never be allowed as it was immoral and disgusting. Times have changed. Marriage is a simple legal contract between two consenting adults. Forcing a gender qualification on this one contract is just rediculous.
This is satirical, right? Marriage was initially a property transfer between a woman's father and her new owner, I mean husband. Today's version of marriage is nothing at all like the marriage defined by Judeo-Christian mythology, so I don't really understand what the problem is.
Furthermore, your comparison of gay marriage to polygamy, incest, or objectophilia is patently ridiculous. There is no comparison between a partnership formed between two consenting adults, the coercion found in most polygamous relationships, or the abusive nature of incest.
The ignorance displayed in the writing of this article astounds me. The only comfort I have is that the tides are turning, and people like you are being pushed back to the fringes of society, where you rightly belong.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. Just don't let your religious hang-ups screw with the lives of others.
You tell them Justin. These desert religion loonies must have the rug pulled out from under them Far too long have they been in charge.
"Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?"
How about a second criteria, that marriage only be for consenting adults? That would stop it from spreading to incest & bestiality right there. Ever think of that one?
Who let this idiot get his article published? John Fay, please go sign yourself up immediately for COM 334 - Essentials of Argument. Maybe it will help you realize how poor and error ridden this horrible editorial is.
This "column" reads like something that The Onion rejected.
I agree with everything the first commenter said and want to add:
"The government isn't going to abolish your 2000 year old tradition. Letting gay people marry doesn't take away heterosexual marriage; if it did, there might be a reason to be so afraid."
And, if it did, maybe then YOU would feel, for the first time, the devastation and anger that many gays are feeling. Your sentiments about the abolition or so-called "destruction" of heterosexual marriage show only a portion of the fear that homosexuals felt daily leading up to the election. I can't believe, being so fearful yourself right now, that you can't be sympathetic to what homosexuals are feeling and have felt.
You say, "I'd also like someone to show me where marriage has been listed as a universal right," and yet you yourself are scared that heterosexual marriage will 'be no more.' Hypocritical much? Let's just take away all marriage rights then, if that's your reasoning.
I won't even go into how your arguments attempt, like many before you, to naturalize different aspects of identity to validate them in that way, trying to discuss a world where the social takes no part in construction. (Obviously race is only biological and nothing more!) Your arguments about what is only 'natural' and what isn't are so bunk and discredited in so many fields that I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it, as most people will just recognize the base-level analysis and thinking there.
Mr. Fay,
I'm going to go ahead an diagnose you with an "emotional problem." You seem to harbor some fear and dislike for homosexuals. We already have a name for that problem: you are a homophobe. And due to the subversive and corrosive effect this type of emotional problem can have on our society and it's traditions of "equality" and the like, I'm starting a campaign to prevent you form procreating.
I think we can all agree that it's in the nation's best interest.
Sincerely yours,
Your A. Moron
The graphic used for this was disrespectful and insulting. The title states this is about gay marriage, what is the graphic trying to insinuate, that it's a gay man and a gay sheep? Why not throw in a set of "scare grooms" while you're at it.
Bob, I'm going to give you more credit than you probably deserve, and assume you're not simply a satirist.
The "fundamentally violent and anarchic nature of the gay community?" That's what you see in response to the passage of Prop 8? Funny, I see a disparate community coming together with an amazing sense of unity, organizing in a highly effective way, and demonstrating in nonviolent protests all across the country. When tens of thousands of people staged coordinated protests on November 15, from Seattle to Ft. Lauderdale, there was a surprising lack of violence; even the supervising police forces were friendly and supportive of the various demonstrations. There was no sense of threat, only of solidarity.
"Sodomy is a fundamentally violent, invasive act with persistently traumatic medical aftereffects, it is not an act of "love." "
You do realize that the definition of sodomy is any act that is not standard penis-in-vagina penetration? You've just condemned oral sex and anal sex between STRAIGHT couples as well. It might surprise you to learn that fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal among heterosexual couples are all not only common but popular. Why is it inherently more violent and less loving when perpetrated among homosexual couples? Or is your real aim to strip ANYONE of their right to enjoy non-normative sexual expression?
You also seem to ignore--entirely--the rather large subset of the homosexual community that is, in fact, lesbian. There's not much that's "invasive" about their sexual act unless silicone and plastic gets involved.
Finally, if you're not willing to accept the validity of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the nature of homosexuality, then I despair of ever engaging you in logical discussion. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason homosexuality was ever included in the DSM-IV to begin with was due to archaic social and political pressure? Has it ever occurred to you that the psychological "damage" analysts saw in homosexual patients was, in fact, the result of a repressive and intolerant society, and that the cure for this "damage" was not the "cure" of homosexuality but rather a more progressive society?
Seriously, Bob, "the abolition of age-of-consent laws" and "the legalization of sexual indoctrination of children?" Seriously? Can we just stick to the issue? The rest of us talking about legal recognition of consenting relationships between cognizant adults. If you want to talk about adolescent and childhood sexuality, maybe you want a different forum.
If you're going to write an article with "Let's Stop and Think About This" in the title, you may find it useful to stop and think before attempting to make a logical argument on the basis of.... oh right, you left that part out.
You bandy about "Constitutionality, "Homosexuality as an emotional state", the "Christian concept of marriage" without any form of basis or logical progression and ignoring the implications following your "logical" steps. Equal protections under the constitution, christianity is a protected emotional state, divorce, a non-christian concept is legal. Now stop, think, and start over again.
Mr Fay, I find your opinion article biased, homophobic and quite frankly offensive. I hope that you learn to become a decent human being at some point in your life.
Not only is this article extremely flawed in its logic, but it is incredibly bigoted and grossly ill-informed.
Beyond blaming the writer - who clearly harbors some sort of i'll-will toward the lgbt community at large, has an incredibly base and ignorant view of our nation's Constitution and its principles, and whose slippery slope argument is a tired cliche resorted to by people who have little in way of real, concrete argument - I would think that the Daily would show a little more class in the selection of its op-ed articles.
Then again, after a similarly poor-in-taste endorsement of Dino Rossi, maybe this shouldn't come as much of a shock. Yet another reason not to read what is consistently an awful publication.
I can't believe you are an actual journalist who gets paid to write for an actual publication. Does The Daily pay you in free candy or hand made "1 Free Back Rub" coupons. I really hope so because they are definitely not getting their money's worth.
If you want to read a response to this "opinion" (read bigoted) piece, go to the Stanger's blog and read Dan Savage's "Fisking Fay." He tears Fay's emotion based "opinion" apart using rational facts.
<embed FlashVars="videoId=210299" src='http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>
Hey, Fay (Fey?), you're an immature twerp. By your well-researched definition, heterosexuality is an emotional condition. Better check that dip-stick. You're running a quart low.
This article is offensive to me, and I'm not even gay.
Christ, John, really. Go do some research before you just spout off your ignorant nonsense. All of the arguments you use have already been debated and rejected as *actual* arguments against gay marriage. Come back when you have some real logic to talk about. Or don't...
"Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment."
You sir, have no business at an American university with this second grade understanding of our constitution. There's no excuse for this kind of interpretation.
As a gay man, I just loooooooove having my relationships equated to that of men and dogs. I've gotten a pretty clear picture just how you people think of me. Get a new line of arguments, bigot, because this tired Paul Cameron crap is an embarrassment.
How the fuck it is your editor actually let you print that openly bigoted and hate filled opinion piece is an absolute mystery to me. Shame on all of you. The day gay marriage leads to people marrying animals is the day psychotic jesus freaks have actually tricked everyone into letting them control the world. Times are changing and all of you ignorant hate filled bigot assholes are going to be left so far in the past we won't even consider you a memory. I hope the entire UW campus reads this and decides to fuck you up however they can.
I can't believe I just read that.
I agree with the majority of the comments in response to this appalling mockery of a newspaper editorial. In response specifically to the person who stated that homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a result of political pressure, and to the misinformed creator of this rubbish editorial who refers to being gay as a “condition,” I offer the following psychology history lesson.
In the 1950’s, Dr. Evelyn Hooker was the first to empirically test the assumption that gay men were mentally unhealthy and maladjusted. She conducted research that resulted in the conclusion that homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals. The fact that no differences were found between gay and straight participants led to more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that homosexual men and women were inherently unhealthy. After other similar empirical results, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. In 1975, the American Psychological Association publicly supported this move, stating, "Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” Today, the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association all have public stances that support gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The American Psychological Association has published a statement in support of same-sex marriage stating, “Denying same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage is discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of gay and lesbian individuals.”
John Fay is a moron. Even as a Christianist bigot, he's a moron. The Bible isn't 2,000 years old - the Old Testament is closer to 6,000 years old. Marriage in the Bible was polygamist, and the woman was the property of the man. Divorce was punishable by stoning.
John Fay is also a moron because he seems to think marriage didn't exist prior to the Bible, or in any other cultures around the world who didn't have the Bible. Both assumptions are 100% incorrect.
Even if this moron's reading of his Bible were accurate, so what? Our society isn't a theocracy, and our laws aren't based on Christianist beliefs.
John Fay needs to take a class in basic civics. How he's managed to get into college without understanding basic Constitutional principles is sad, but unsurprising.
Tim,
I wish you would pick what point you're discussing with me, because you seem to be switching issues. What I said was that marriage in 1948 was understood to be between a man and a woman, end of story. You're the one that first applied the term natural to marriage in this discussion, so I wonder what you meant by it. I only referred to marriage of the form that "corresponds to a natural family," which can only be marriage between a man and a woman--other arrangements are not naturally capable of producing a family.
I'm not opposed to providing for legal arrangements for two consenting adults to share property and visiting rights, etc., but I am opposed to redefining marriage. There is nothing discriminatory about that--the word should continue to mean what it has always meant.
"which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America"
the fuck it is. only to the inherently religious. for the rest of us atheists, agnostics, non believers, and the generally sane in this country, marriage is a tradition. we do it because everyone else does. because for some it's the ultimate expression of commitment to another person. for the financial support and security, the tax benefits, the health insurance, and the desire to raise children and afford a mortgage.
there's a reason why we have the option of getting married through civil ceremonies in this country. without religion, a religious officiant, a church, without even the mention of god.
so fuck you for suggesting that marriages outside of traditional church views could violate the first amendment. if you really believe that might be true, you are totally misinterpreting the first amendment and should re-do the 8th grade.
I've figured it out. I know what they're doing. The Daily is desperate for ad revenue so they get these absolutely pathetic hacks to write conservative op eds to piss everyone off with their nonsensical and laughable writing. I thought for awhile that maybe they actually were sharing their opinions and trying to foster dialogue, but now they've jumped the shark. This is just too far in the realm if bizarrely stupid to be anything but a desperate ploy to get us to visit the site and generate online ad revenue while we rip this poor sacrificial lamb to bloody little pieces. How Roveian of you...
Of course if that's not the case and this is all serious...wow...that's sad. Really, really sad. Is this the same John Fay in the directory who is a senior in history? He should be failed right out of this University if he is. Someone who had actually studied history would have a clue at how blatantly stupid his arguments are.
Excuse me while I go make some more protest signs for the upcoming rallies to legalize gay marriage in Washington. Ta!
Matt: "I am opposed to redefining marriage. There is nothing discriminatory about that--the word should continue to mean what it has always meant."
Oh, so when I (a woman) get married to a man, it should mean that my father is transferring a piece of his property to my husband, who will thereafter have complete control over me? When I get married, my role should be that of complete submission, domestic servitude, and endless baby production?
Or by demanding that marriage should mean what it has always meant, did you mean that adultery should be punishable by death? Did you mean that a rapist should, as punishment, be forced to marry his rape victim? Did you mean that divorce should be incomprehensible and inadmissible?
Matt, the definition of marriage has ALREADY changed over the years. STRAIGHT people have redefined marriage, not gay people. It has gone from being a business transaction concerning the property of women, to an arrangement of love. Modern marriage is about two equal individuals coming together in a loving commitment to fulfill a promise made to one another in their hearts. It's no longer about feudal power, parental control, population production, matchmaking, or financial manipulation. It's about love.
I have one thing to say about marriage being inherently Christian. I am not Christian, and yet the church endorsed my marriage to my husband. If we are to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians based on the fact that marriage originated as Christian, we really should deny all people who are not members of a church marriage rights as well. Honestly, people nowadays don't get married to be recognized by their church, they get married for, like stated before, social and economic reasons.
I would say that hatred creates a lot more "social dysfunction" than open protest to homosexuality.
I am disappointed that the arguments in this article were even considered to have been made on a "rational basis."
lymerae,
First of all, my primary point was that the right to marriage, as stated in the U.N. document referenced above, refers solely to marriage between a man and a woman.
Second, you say "Modern marriage is about two equal individuals coming together in a loving commitment to fulfill a promise made to one another in their hearts."
If so, why worry about Prop. 8 and changing the legal definition of marriage? How does any legislation prevent people from doing that with whomever they want?
also, you're wrong:
"So, let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years."
marriage as we know of it today in this country has been around since the 12th century. marriage was made a sacrament by the Catholic church as a response to the numbers of men abandoning their female partners and children due to warfare and other social upheavals. men at this time period had little incentive to stick around for longer than was convenient: if war brought them to another region for a period of time and they met a pretty lady there, there was nothing preventing them from starting a second family and abandoning the first. the Catholic churches resources were being drained by single mothers who needed hand outs to feed themselves and their children. to such an extent that the Catholic church made marriage a sacrament for the first time in it's history. If the church says that god says that it is a mortal sin to copulate with another woman, and that you must love and support and cherish each other til death do you part, it makes it harder to run off and start a second family. Add to that the new stigma attached to men who abandoned their families and the children they've sired, and you suddenly have the two parent family model, as sanctioned and created by the church.
Now of course people were getting married in biblical times, and roman times, and in the ottoman empire, but marriage as we know it today has been around for 800 years.
so many inaccuracies in an incredibly biased and inaccurate opinion piece. makes it incredibly hard to take anything you say seriously, but oh how it still pisses me off.
I hope that the Daily does a follow-up explaining how being gay is an "emotional state." And I'd like to hear how it should be "dealt with." Maybe we should go back to the days where gay men would be forced to look at pictures of naked men and receive electric shocks on their genitals in order to "become straight."
You seriously disgust me, John Fay. I'm all for presenting both sides of an argument, but when you call homosexuality an emotional tendency that needs to be dealt with, you aren't sharing a respectable opinion, you are simply wrong.
I can't believe I even read the Daily after all of the horrible articles that show up in it. My high school newspaper was better, and all the writers in that group didn't even end up going to college.
Matt, are you serious? Proposition 8 (and every other piece of anti-gay legislation) legitimizes the marriages of one segment of the population, while denying those of gays and lesbians. It says "Your love doesn't count, your commitment doesn't matter." It's offensive, it's discriminatory, and it's damaging to many more people than the gay and lesbian couples it affects directly.
Saying that marriage is a loving commitment and a promise made in the heart does not negate the need for legal recognition and social validity. Without legal recognition, gays and lesbians are made into second-class citizens. Everyone else's marriages count but theirs. How is that fair? How is that constitutional?
This article is apalling.
I wouldn't send a private email to John -- its much more productive to have this conversation in a public forum. Posting his address, what, you're going to write him a letter? Purposefully trying to intimidate him is disgraceful.
On the plus side, this article made Sarah's look pretty good.
"but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis"
You have an errr...interesting idea of "rational"
The basis of this rationality is that you believe that gay and lesbian marriages equate to “polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union”. That's insane. I find it insulting to distinguish my commitment to my partner from polygamy, incest, or bestiality. Civil rights are not subject to the opinions of blunt minded a-holes such as yourself, Mr. Fay. You are entitled you be as much of a bigot as you please,after all, this is America, but you should hold this opinion without it affecting my civil rights.
“Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs. "
Yes...isn't it a bitch when someone you don't agree with asserts their constitutionally protected rights? No special rights for Mormons!
Those who have the most trouble with Prop 8 supporters and the Mormons being targeted seem to be those who fail to see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. It is all well and good so long as lesbians and gays are used as political bartering chips and boogeymen by the left and right, but the moment we begin to assert that we do deserve the same fundamental human rights as anyone else, the scrutiny begins.
"the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America"
Why would we have to only respect the Christian concept of marriage? It can co-exist alongside a civil definition of marriage..you know, the way the Pilgrims did it!
“Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.”
What?? Since when do we use the church as the exclusive definition of marriage, and while we are at it, which traditional churches do you mean? There are churches who do respect gay marriages. What about their first amendment rights? Under your “logic”, Athiests, as well as lesbians and gays, have no business getting married, or really, anyone who does not seek the blessing of whatever traditional church you presume them to be a member of.
You can be a bigot without hiding behind your selective interpretation of scripture. So come on, out with it...I would love to see a column in which you argue that gay marriage is wrong because you don't like it...because that is the only conclusion I can reach from reading this drivel.
This is one of the most offensive pieces of garbage I have ever read about gay marriage. You are a bigot. Period. And the Daily should be ashamed for allowing such offensive filth to be printed.
Get out of your christian cave.
Homosexuality is not a problem and it is exactly this attitude that keeps people shamed and alienated in our society. How about some acceptance? I simply do not understand what you must find so threatening about the gay community. Is it possibly that gay marriage is a form of validation that the community exists? Practice understanding before you go disturbing the lives of so many with ignorant homophobic comments. Please.
HAHAHA, oh. I love how The Daily's slowly turning into an amateur free-for-all. I don't mind amateur journalists, but when you're choosing random morons off Red Square to write piece of shit articles ... then you're turning into some college campus edition of The Sun.
This year's Daily is the biggest clusterfuck ever! I loves me the dramz! Thanks editors! :D
I am sad this made it to the Daily. While I am against censorship, we should seriously think about whether our student newspaper should be printing articles that attacks the identity of a number of the very students on this campus.
Wow..it is sad to see that you can be blatantly homophobic and ignorant in your editorial piece yet if you were being racist I'm sure your article would not have been printed. Feeling like homosexuality is a 'problem' and an 'emotional condition' is really just the same as hating people based on their race or gender. I love how everybody talks about how sacred marriage is but people for real?? You can get married drunk in Vegas any day of the week. Divorce is as common day occurrence. People preach about the sanctity of marriage but it really is a joke because look at what marriage has become in just our society alone. You use that as some blanket to protect yourself but just be honest. YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC and find homosexuals to be inferior. And if you are religious you clearly need to dig deeper into your religion because in no religion is intolerance, hate, holding yourself above others part of the fundamental teachings. It is just a shame that the Daily allows the publishing of hate articles.
This is disgusting. Homosexuality is an emotional condition? Do you feel straight, like you feel happiness? Doubt it.
In places where gay marriage has been legalized, none of these worst case scenarios have been realized. none.
And what about those of us who don't subscribe to Christianity? You're personal brand of wrong, happens to be my brand of unfair and close minded.
I'm a UW student. I'm getting really tired of the Daily printing a bunch of bullshit just to get a rise out of people, while just perpetuating bigotry. This paper is a joke, our own personal tabloid. I'm embarrassed to be associated in any way with The Daily and you.
To the opinion editor and the author:
I am bemused by your way of framing the issue of gay marriage. What the author of this piece clearly demonstrates is that the issue at hand is not gay marriage. The issue GBLTQ people like myself and our allies face is that people still don't recognize us as people. Apparently, we are instead compared to apes, we are "in denial" about our "problem," and we are emotional nancies going through a phase, according to the author as well as some others who have commented.
I am angered that we can't even discuss the issue of gay marriage without coming back to the same debate about whether or not we deserve to be recognized as equal citizens in society and under the law. The Daily and its opinion writers should really think about which perspectives they're providing on issues that affect people so fundamentally.
Learn your history, you must've just put your fingers in your ears for all of antiquity. There is a wide world of pre-christianity marriage, love, relationships, and (gasp!!) homosexuality in practically ALL cultures in antiquity.
1. "There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage".
That's what they used to say about slavery and/or minority voting rights
2. While I support the right of the writer to share his (bigoted) opinion, I find the accompanying graphic offensive. Unlike the Danish cartoons depicting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, this is not satire, and is not responsible editorial journalism on the part of The Daily editorial staff.
As an Alumnis of UW I find it disgraceful that The Daily would even publish shit like this. Where the hell is the LGBT club to protest this?
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pho...
Enough said.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid...
Also this.
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-a...
He looks sweaty. Must take it up the butt from sheep.
Good going, The Daily. You've sunk to a new low.
This "article" is pure, unadulterated bigoted bullshit.
Mr Fay - so, how will you deal with the "Gay problem"? Will it be dealt with in the same way as the attempt to solve the "Jewish Problem"? Or, going further back in history, the "Witch problem"?.
I have news for you sonny boy - we have always been here. We are not going away. Not now, not ever.
We must never forget.
[Sent via email to Editor-in-Chief, The Daily]
Sarah,
I'm sure you've received numerous emails regarding the OpEd, "Gay marriage? Let's stop and thinks about this," that the Daily ran today. While the Daily obviously has editorial discretion in selecting opinion pieces for publication, I would hope that discretion isn't confused for total absence of judgment. Substantively, this piece is an embarrassment to the relatively high journalistic standard that the Daily has, on occasion, displayed. Most troubling to me, however, is not the content of the piece (it stands on its own merits, or lack thereof). Rather, it's the graphic of a man and animal clearly suggestive of bestiality sitting directly below the headline. Regardless of the Daily's editorial position on gay marriage, I think it shows exceptional poor taste and judgment to reduce the same sex marriage debate and the extraordinary feeling and hurt surrounding this issue to a graphic equating same sex marriage to a bestial relationship.
Given you are the editor-in-chief, you are responsible for every aspect of the Daily's layout and content. Accordingly, you should be ashamed of your paper today. And I would encourage you to do better tomorrow. To many, the Daily is emblematic of the quality of thought and discourse at the University of Washington. Surely this opinion piece and the attendant graphic of man and sheep are not the best that the UW has to offer.
Truly, this is disappointing.
Sincerely yours,
Dave Brown
UW School of Law '08
2007-08 president, Graduate and Professional Student Senate
To the editor:
John Fay's remarkably offensive Nov. 25 op-ed "Gay Marriage? Let's
stop and think about this" devolves into several myths about
homosexuality -- that it's a "problem," for example -- and terribly
faulty reasoning. He writes, "Once you've legalized gay marriage, why
not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the
only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it's wrong
for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?" This thinking
implies that reasonable people in a democracy cannot make important
and valuable distinctions. Nothing, of course, could be further from
the truth. There isn't a slippery slope steep enough for American
society to seriously equate -- let alone equally condone -- the
actions of two consenting adults and the predatory behavior of
pedophiles, polygamists and molesters, where mutual consent does not
exist by definition. Society can still recognize and help foster
loving, stable gay relationships while still condemning those who prey
on the vulnerable. All one has to do is stop and think about this.
"Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs."
1. Why would anyone go to antigayblacklist.com to find donors to Prop 8, when the applet at the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Se... ) is so much easier to use? Of course, citing this more useful source doesn't fit Fay's purposes of demonizing gay people.
2. Why are those, who felt strongly enough about the issue to donate to it in support or Prop 8 are so afraid of their friends and neighbors knowing about their contributions? I have yet to encounter a donor to the opposition, who is unwilling to own their donation, heck were proud of it. I'm posting under my real name and donated $200 to oppose the bigotry of Prop 8, look it up. I'm proud of my donations in defense of equality.
Why aren't the pro-8 donors equally proud of their donations? My guess is it's because deep down in side they realize that their donation was shameful because it supported bigotry.
Because two consenting adults is the same as a 10-year-girl or a dog who can't give their content.
EXACTLY THE SAME.
You fail at logic and biology.
The homophobic, bigoted content of this opinion piece is horrifying. This is a hate piece, and greatly taints the reputation of the Daily and of our University. It brings shame on all students, faculty and staff of the University of Washington.
Would the Daily print an opinion piece calling the color of someone's skin "a problem that needs to be dealt with?"
Why demonize John Fay for his OPINION - see, his OPINION. Why is it okay to have your opinion (I'm speaking to all the opposition)but John can't have his without being hung out to dry.
I agree with Prop.8.
Why go to college if you're going to stridently ignore everything you learn in the classes you're required to take?
MJ, while I agree that people obviously think John Fay's OPINION is wrong (and are expressing that, as is their right), I think that as with the Dino Rossi piece of earlier this month, there are severe problems with the logic and reason of this piece, and that's what people have a problem with.
"There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level. For gay marriage to even fit within the court’s jurisdiction, it must have some basis in constitutionality."
Taking a religious concept (as you yourself referred to it) of marriage and legislating it is, in fact, unconstitutional. The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Banning gay marriage based on a "Christian concept" is making a law based on "an establishment of religion."
As for your claim that the institution of marriage "has been in place for 2,000 years," I assume you got your date from the birth of Jesus. Christianity was not an institutionalized religious tradition until well after Jesus' death. And beyond that, homosexuality existed before Jesus or Christianity.
Homosexuality is not a "problem" or an "emotional condition." I believe it is biological, not something you can switch on and off at will, something you can "solve" or "get over." If homosexuality were a choice, who would make that choice and expose themselves to hate and discrimination?
I respect that people do not agree with gay marriage or homosexuality in general, but please do your homework and refrain from offensive and unsubstantiated claims.
Won't someone think of the sheep?
John John John,
I just wanted to strike the opposite tone of most people here, and say thanks. Between tossing a keg of gasoline into a fire and exposing points of ignorance, the net effect of this article will probably fall on the positive side (along with preventing you from holding public office anywhere outside of Utah and Afghanistan).
BUT BUT BUT. To everyone else here who comments solely on the articles they disagree with (I'm included, this is the only comment I've made), go show some support on the ones you agree with. If the Daily's readership and comments skyrockets with articles like this, it boosts their advertising revenue and times like this (especially with printed newspapers), people are often forced into stunts. Let's help out the Daily with some constructive feedback on the REAL editorials. For every negative comment you make, go post two positive ones. Here's your start:
http://dailyuw.com/2008/11/25/proposi...
Love is an emotional condition. Hopefully all people can experience it. Our declaration of independence states "that all men are created equal". Gay marriage is an issue of equality. This article is not worthy of publication. It's hatred encapsulated in ridiculous sophomoric prose. Shame on you Daily.
what does a man and a sheep (the picture) have to do with the title of the article? gay marriage is not = to bestiality.
As a gay vet in his 50's I must say I have seen my share of writings on the homosexual issues and why there should be civil rights,gay rights,or the right for gay men and women to serve our country.I take pride in the fact I served my country to uphold the right for you to write and publish this type of bigoted rubish.I also take pride in being a parent of a 22 y/o who was raised in a loving same -sex parent household and seeing that person turn into a wonderful human being,open and accepting to all persons of the world,culture,sexuality.The graphic attached is even more offensive.When I read the paper about the increased costs and tution and the President making 880k and not taking his merit pay,its even more enraging.This edition of the paper should be publicly burned in Red Square and the author tied to the back of sheep and dragged!
MJ - again, should the Daily print racist OPINION pieces?
There is a line we must not cross.
MJ,
Mr. Fay is perfectly capable of defending his OPINION, but has apparently chosen not to. Everyone on this board, yourself included, is also expressing their OPINION of Prop 8, and of Mr Fay's column, which he put out there for public consumption and comment. I fail to see how any of this constitutes hanging Fay "out to dry", but it is part and parcel of a common tactic of those promoting anti-gay bias, namely: Attack, and then when your attack gets a negative response claim persecution.
Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
Thank you to everyone who has expressed themsleves here. We need a huge roar against the publishing of this article. Forward to your friends, e-mail your intstructors and school officials, call the Daily (mailbox is currently full, wonder why?). This is NOT okay. This is not "OPINION", this is HATE.
john,
yes i have decided to be start this "gay" emotional condition the day i was born so that i can have a harder life, so that i can experience discrimination, so that i can get hurt everyday by people like you...
what do you suggest i do to stop feeling this gay emotion? please help me. i want to stop feeling less around people like you.
it is not a problem so please help me deal with it instead of just talking about it. c'mon offer some solutions instead of just talking.
i can stop by your house if you want, someone posted your address. i will bring some friends, i am sure we will all want to know you would like for us to deal it... if that doesn't work, maybe we can deal with you...
I can't believe this was written by a college student. For starters I should say that almost everything the author wrote offends me; and past that, leads me to believe the author is extremely homophobic and generally ignorant. The only point I will address amongst his many wrong-headed points, is the authors inferance that homosexuality is an emotional state: This is the same as the belief that being "gay" is curable just like mental illness, and that it is no differnt than a disease or affliction. I can't believe that the oppinion editor of The Daily allowed this blatantly hateful op-ed to be published. Although, I should say at least it was better than the Dino Rossi endorsment as this one had a companion piece against Prop 8. Seriously The Daily has never been this flawed in content for decades maybe longer. I am a former alum and I wish I was never directed here as it made me less proud of my former alma-mater.
Bob,
I want all my Garmonbozia.
Wow. You lost me at The Simpsons. Idiot.
We have over 9000 penises and we are raping sheep.
Dear the Daily, Daily Opinion Editor, and Staff;
I'm a former UW student and Daily correspondent. I've always been impressed with the Daily's mission to nurture young journalists talents, skills, and ethics. Its the charge of the journalistic community to present strong opinions validated with facts and free from political talking points and spin. To be fair, it's a hard task - but one which the Daily has often tackled in the past.
However, today's recent opinion piece (Gay marriage? Let's stop and think about this.), is a poor example of the Daily's potential. The lax display of journalistic integrity present throughout this article is appalling to me. I understand that the author choose an issue which is not black-and-white, and is often muddled by emotional arguments. It's on issues such as this that the Daily's ability to clearly articulate arguments is most needed. Unfortunately, the author has only further clouded the issue more. Fallacies, spin, and ill-founded conclusions abound throughout the writer's work. Where was the opinion editor on this one? Have the checks to ensure integrity of work been completely dissolved? Writing an opinion article on a hot topic is no excuse for poor journalism.
We're living in turbulent times, and many of us look to the journalism community for answers to our questions. In the future, I do hope the Daily can provide the same passion for facts and integrity that it did in the past. Please, consider the responsibilities of your profession when printing further articles.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
96 Comments
I love what you wrote and especially this:
"That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law."
I wish I would have written it! Perfect.
I disagree. I respect your opinion but prop 8 supporters are not voting solely by emotion. Let me explain. If an ape had rights as a person and was attracted to a person should they be given the right to wed in "marriage"? Yeah, its technically a different "type" of a relationship (different from the traditional) - but is it their "right"? -by the way some liberals in Europe believe that Apes should have human rights - go figure. Anyway, I think they should be given an "ape union" instead of marriage, not a civil union out of respect for same-sex types.
The main reason I voted for Prop 8 is not the ape issue comparison but because of the rippling effects if Prop 8 was not passed. Would church sponsored adoption agencies be allowed to operate while only sending orphans to heterosexual couples if prop 8 did not pass? Would teachers have the legal right to teach their students that they "can get married to same-gender class mates" if they want - if prop 8 did not pass? Would certain churches continue to be tax-exempt if they taught and performed only heterosexual marriages if prop 8 did not pass? Would those who profess to believe that heterosexual is ordained of God be looked down on and disrespected if prop 8 did not pass? Some good questions to think of. Why not mention these? Why mention just the ones in your article. Let me tell you the truth - the truth is that it wasn't popular to vote for Prop 8, but it was the smart thing to do - all emotions set aside
Get ready, Ben, because we're coming for your rights next. Do you have blue eyes, blond hair? That's a problem, you see, because if we let blue-eyed blonds marry, we might have to let red-heads marry, and then where would we be. Next, it's apes, and, next, people might want to marry their dogs, their cats.
You absolutely disgust me. I am at a loss for words.
"You absolutely disgust me."??
I must tell you that watching the ugly intolerance in response to the passage of Prop 8 has been quite enlightening.
Gays preach tolerance and then display intolerance. Gays preach against discrimination and then discriminate. Gays preach love and then refer to those who have a different opinion as "haters" and "bigots" instead of treating them with respect.
Gay certitude of their own rightness and righteousness in the face of the overwhelming testimony and opinion of western civilization is just as much a form of fundamentalist as Jerry Falwell ever dreamed of being.
One would think a little humility in light of the novelty of your views would be in order. Such a casual rejection of thousands of years of tradition is quite mind-boggling.
Sarah mentions very little about the true issues at stake: freedom to perform marriages without threatened regulation of practices, church taxation-exemption threatened if churches do not comply, public school agendas including defining broader definition of marriage, church sponsored adoption agencies regulated to comply, discrimination of religious gatherings and teachings, infringing on the rights of churches to perform according to the dictates of their conscience, the meaning of marriage as it is and the demeaning of marriage if broadened in scope to include same-sex couples, tradition. There are rippled consequences. Why did Sarah not mention these - these are the issues at stake- this is Freedom of Religion and the right to practice how one believes to practice and to not be infringed.
Tom, you forgot to mention how letting "red-heads marry" would lead others to marry their own gender. But that's not the point, the point is - lets talk about the issues at stake
Practice what you preach. If you preach tolerance, please tolerate my vote and my opinion. If you believe in love, please don't vandalize my church building simply because I peacefully stand up for what I believe is right. If you believe in kindness, please don't label me as a hater simply because I believe that your lifestyle is bad for society.
If prop 8 had not passed would we have seen this kind of behavior from the Christian community? I doubt it. Practice what you preach.
Look, let's face facts- the truth of the matter is that the gay community wants to destroy the idea of marriage altogether. We are seeing the fundamentally violent and anarchic nature of the gay community in their response to the passage of CA Prop 8. The gay community is comprised of deranged thugs and sociopaths, and they will stop at nothing to ram their twisted agenda down everyone else's throats.
Sodomy is a fundamentally violent, invasive act with persistently traumatic medical aftereffects, it is not an act of "love." Homosexuality is a mental illness, and it needs to be dealt with as such. It was removed from the DSM-IV due to political pressure, not as a result of scientific findings. The "normalization" of homosexuality is a threat to the well-being of anyone who struggles with a mental illness, and it simply can no longer be tolerate as a "normal" behavior.
The push for gay "marriage" is not a push for "rights," it is a push for violent anarchy and the complete overthrow of public safety. The homosexual agenda does not end with "marriage"- the next items on the gay agenda include the abolition of age-of-consent laws, the legalization of sexual indoctrination of children, and the legalization of uncontrolled gay orgies on public street corners. It must be stopped at any cost.
"freedom to perform marriages without threatened regulation of practices, church taxation-exemption threatened if churches do not comply, public school agendas including defining broader definition of marriage, church sponsored adoption agencies regulated to comply, discrimination of religious gatherings and teachings, infringing on the rights of churches to perform according to the dictates of their conscience"
None of these 'issues' that you mention, except for the public schools comment which is another topic, are actually issues. Churches cannot be forced to perform marriage ceremonies - we are talking about civil, legal marriage rights here. Churches which do not recognize or condone homosexuality are in NO legal danger from marriage equality laws. That is a complete fabrication from the anti-gay marriage crowd, playing on fear in an attempt to win people over to their cause. Churches are independent entities that can and will continue to act according to their beliefs.
There you go again Bob with your fear of buttfuking.
A truely anarchic, violent response against prop 8 would have been a few Mormon temple bombings and riots in the streets, or a bunch of thugs and sociopaths crucifying a young straight man on a barb wire fence in Wyoming, or forcing heterosexuals to wear pink triangles in concentration camps before gassing them.
Instead, we get a satrical ad on Mormon missionaries (which is hilarious) being trumpted as an bigoted attack on a religious minority, a few yes prop 8 signs being rearranged into a swatzika being called a defacement of church poperty and as yet unknown source (could have been a yes on 8 supporter) sending talcm powder to a temple being labeled as a terrorist act.
Pretty limp wrist to me.
Patick, look at Sweden, it's well known, even the gov't has said it, that the Lutheran church will shortly be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
I think what Ken wrote entails it all.
Patrick, all of these are the issues, its called Freedom of religion. For example, the Catholic church in Massachusetts (a state that allows same-sex marriage) sponsored an adoption agency. However, these agencies were shut down. Why? Because the Catholic church did not believe that children should be allowed to be adopted by same-sex couples and did not want to participate in these practices. The state disapproved of their decision and they had to shut down. You said, "Churches are independent entities that can and will continue to act according to their beliefs." Look at the facts.
I think what Ken says is ridiculous.
We DO see behavior against the gay community from the Christian community all the time. Ever heard of Westboro Baptist Church? What? You say that's an exception? Well, take a look - the protests are by and large peaceful.
The thing I find most annoying from the Conservative Right this season is this "oh, we're being attacked!" outcry that has gone up in many circles. So some people are standing outside your church, forcing you to look them in the face and realize that legislation you helped support affected actual people with actual feelings and actual families, not anonymous ape-equal individuals in some far-off dreamland called Hollywood. Do you want to know what attacking really is? Being told you can't marry the person you love, being told that you aren't equal in the eyes of the law, and having to fight all the harder for the benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy while continuing to enjoy the "privilege" of being second-class citizens.
If anything, the fact that gays want to get married, and that they are working many times as hard to do so as your nearest drunken teenager in Vegas has to, should say everything.
And you know, reading Gaither's piece in direct comparison with John Fay's piece, also run today, is hilarious. Logical, well-reasoned, and well-written, it is the sort of stuff that the Daily should be proud of; instead that Editorial Board is in their weekly circle-jerk, guffawing about how they're really STICKING IT TO THE LIBERALS.
Sarah, you should probably frame this article with John Fay's right next it. It's not just well written (i think most anti-prop8 articles are pieces of shit, though I agree with them), but in ten years it'll be proof you've been fighting the good fight.
Sarah - thanks for writing this piece! It is well-written and eloquent, and the content is %100 right on.
Equality for all, it's the American Way.
For the record, Catholic Charities decided *against the will of their own Board* to end adoptions to gay families *which they had already been processing*.
No one, certainly not the government of Massachussetts, shut them down. A small group of bishops decided that they were against adoption by gay couples, and decided against the recommendation of their 42-member board to voluntarily end their adoption practices entirely.
I did look at the facts.
Ben,
Catholic Charities adoption programs in MA were NOT shut down by the state. That is completely false.
What actually happened is that Catholic Charities was already placing children with LGBT households for adoption when MA passed a law forbidding discrimination against LGBT households by adoption agencies that recieved STATE FUNDING, as Catholic Charities did. Politically conservatives within the church hierarchy got wind of the law, and forced Catholic Charities to change their existing policy, putting them at odds with state law and putting their state funding at risk. Catholic Charities could have continued to provide adoption services, following the bigoted anti-gay demands of the Bishops, without state funding, but they chose instead to close down entirely, apparently valuing discriminating against gay people above providing homes for children.
Those are the facts:
Catholic Charities received state funding.
Catholic Charities was already placing children with LGBT homes before the law banning discrimination on state funds.
Catholic Charities was free to continue placing children for adoption to heterosexuals only, provided they did so without state funding.
If you are going to admonish folks to "look at the facts" you would do well to learn the facts first, so that you aren't promoting lies and disinformation.
"If prop 8 had not passed would we have seen this kind of behavior from the Christian community? I doubt it. Practice what you preach."
Sorry, but I have to call Bull-fucking-shit on this one. The official Yes on 8 campaign, not some random supporters but the official campaign, sent out extortion letters to No on 8 donors demanding an equal donation or they would put those donors on a blacklist and target them for boycott.
We have also seen episodes of violence (not graffiti or protesting but actual physical violence) against LGBT people in the wake of Prop 8's passage. Using Ken's "logic" we should hold the entire Christian community responsible for these acts.
Good Article. The tat to your tit has sparked the internet to retort when they already have your well reasoned retort printed next to it. Good job Sarah.
As for the we are being attacked meme that is being passed around. No we do not think vandalism or faux-terrorism ("white powder" what is this 2002?) are an acceptable response to the the passage of Prop 8. This doesn't invalidate the polical rallies and peaceful protests that have been going on throughout the country. You don't see gay leaders advocating anything other that peace while making our complaints heard. We are saying that this issue isn't going away. We are not going to stop just because of one vote. in 8 years we have gone from a 22% difference to a 4% difference. Gay Marriage is going to be a reality.
For those that have mentioned the "intolerance" of the gay community and are worried about the rights of churches, please allow this gay to enlighten you a bit.
We are angry. The Supreme Court of CA granted hard fought after rights to the gay community according to the CA constitution. The Supreme Court was fulfilling its role of interpreting the law. Part of that responsibility involves protecting minorities from majority tyranny. In response, religious groups used their financial and organizational powers to change the constitution to take those rights away. That is a clear and directed attack against the rights of gay citizens.
If I organized an initiative to require a license to have children or to redefine the constitution of WA to define marriage as only between same sex couples...wouldn't that piss you off? Wouldn't that be wrong? It is. And before you start wringing our hands and start screaming, "But that's what the gay agenda is!"...it's not, so don't even start.
We are very, very angry at the relentless persecution we face every day.
This is no excuse for vandalism or violence (real, threatened, or implied), but we refuse to put up with this un-american and discriminatory agenda put forth by religious organizations anymore. We will fight back (through protest and legal action in accordance to the law) and we will win. It is only a matter of time.
For those who talk about the rights of churches...the only people making this about religion are the churches themselves. We only want a marriage license, not church approval. None of this has to do with forcing a church to do anything. The state cannot force my grandmother's crazy church to perform a marriage between a catholic and one of their members (something they refuse to do) because that is their religious right to decline to do that. Similarly they have every right to decline to marry gay couples. And you know what? I would fight just as hard for them to retain that right should it be threatened because it would violate the separation of Church & State...just as much as the involvement of religious groups in this fight violates that separation. Chew on that for a bit and spare me your histrionics about religious rights.
Some people think that it is clever to point out that it is hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance. Really, this is just an abuse of literalism. Tolerance, in fact, demands ending intolerance.
Ms. Gaither,
Consider the phrase "tyranny of the majority." If it is as horrible as you say it is, will you be sympathetic toward the minority who are unsatisfied with the outcome of the presidential election? Sure, the majority of the country voted for the president-elect, but there are undoubtibly those who are upset. In regards to Proposition 8, the majority decided. If the majority had banned Proposition 8, you wouldn't be whining. Does this phrase, "tyranny of the majority," only apply when you don't get your way, or do you sympathize with the minority in every situation?
In reference to your statement involving the abolition of slavery, womens' sufferage, and desegregation of schools: you need to get your fact straight. Were these issues not passed by the democratic system? For example, a majority of the states needed to ratify the 19th amendment to add womens' sufferage to the Constitution. Something to think about.
Why must homosexuals get "married" anyway? Whether or not they are "married," they will still live toghether, and be in a relationship. The only reason I can find is that they need to feel normal, because in our society, they aren't. If we called a homosexual union, marriage (in the traditional sense), then can we still call heterosexual marriage, marriage. They clearly don't represent the same thing.
So if the majority of the population in
California wants to preserve marriage as between a man and a woman, then that's what it wants. That's how our system of democracy works. It wouldn't make sense to make a million suffer because 2 people want something different. There will always be opposition to what the majority has ruled, because there is no way to appease everyone. The majority has spoken, let it rest!
@23 Katie, yes - why must I be able to get married and to feel normal? As a human being, why should I be guaranteed civil rights? So silly of me to deserve those rights when others just want to feel more comfortable that their religious beliefs are enshrined in the law.
And to the author, Sarah, thank you for standing up LGBT equal rights.
@10 - Yea, so maybe the Swedish government is going to make the Lutheran church perform gay marriage ceremonies. The difference is the Lutheran church in Sweden probably doesn't care, as they are a progressive society and stopped debating this crap a while ago.
@ 24 -So when does ones preference in the gender of his sex partner become a civil right? As far as I'm concerned, a civil right deals with the non- discrimination against race, religion, and gender. Those for Proposition 8 are not discriminating against homosexuals because of their race, religion, or gender. Keep in mind that nobody is discriminating against you as a person, or discriminating at all. People oppose the lifestyle, just as they would oppose a lifestyle of rampant heterosexual sex, or drunkeness. And "enshrining religious beliefs in the law?" Do you honestly believe that 52% of the Californian population is Christian? I highly doubt it! If the majority of California was Christian, then they would not have passed the laws for abortion. If California, the land of the liberals, didn't want the gay marriage proposal passed, then they're trying to say something. For some people, yes, religion had a part to play in their decision, but not necessarily for everyone.
Bryce, will getting married change anything in your daily life? Will you not still have a partner? Will you not still love your partner? I'm just saying that giving your union the name assigned to the union between a man and a woman is not going to do anything different for you. The two different unions are not the same thing. I'm not trying to stop what you do, because no on can. I just don't think it's right that the majority who voted for the proposition be denied their voice. Everyone, gay and straight, has spoken and this is our outcome. We all need to let it go.
@26 Katie, there is no one homosexual lifestyle. If you approve of one person's lifestyle and disapprove of another with the same lifestyle except for the gender of their spouse, then that is discriminatory.
Per wikipedia, California is 33% Protestant, 31% Roman Catholic, and 2% Mormon, so depending on who you count as "Christian" you can easily reach over 52%.
Katie, how would Bryce getting married affect your daily life? It wouldn't. What's the difference between our unions and straight ones besides gender?
Quit pretending you care so much about semantics and own up to the fact that you think homosexual people are unequal to straight people. Then try and justify having the law enforce those beliefs.
Just for the record, I'm a different Patrick then the one @8.
Sarah, this is a lovely column. Very well done.
Katie, frankly, I'm appalled at your thinking.
"Tyranny of the majority" is a term with an actual meaning. The side that loses an election may well be miffed at the result; that does not mean that they are victims of some sort of tyranny. The idea here is that there are some lines that even a majority cannot be permitted to cross in a free society. One of those lines is equality before the law, the principle that innate distinctions (or distinctions, like personal faith, that are integral to character and conscience) cannot be the basis for denying rights to some that are guaranteed to others. This is especially true when the extension of basic rights to a marginalized community would have no effect on anyone else.
Extending marriage rights to gay couples is a matter of legal equality. Moreover, it won't compel teachers to advocate homosexuality (whatever that means), affect the tax-exempt status of any church (churches not being, of course, the only places empowered to perform marriage ceremonies), or lead to any of the paranoid nonsense being spouted day and night by gay marriage opponents.
I'm sure I can't convince anyone who disapproves of the "homosexual lifestyle" - and what a crude notion that is - that there's nothing wrong with being gay. The only thing that's salient to this debate: It doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not. The same democratic principle that guarantees you the right to marry anyone of your choice guarantees gay people the right to marry anyone of their choice.
Thank you for this, Sarah. Eloquently written as always. Unlike the trash that was presented as the "opposing viewpoint."
Keep up the fight against hatred and intolerance with the most powerful weapon we have: Love.
Homosexuals have no need of "marriage" rights. Goverment sanction isn't necessary for the lot of you to sodomize each other, you've been doing it in secret for years.
What this is REALLY about is an attempt to destroy traditional family practises, and damn you all for it.
To "Chris K.:" There is EVERYTHING wrong with being gay. How is sodomy a natural sexual practise? It's utterly disgusting.
Well, Bob, there's the tiny fact that "Whatever Bob Finds Disgusting" isn't a particularly useful barometer of right and wrong.
Go ask the naturalists who have documented homosexual behavior among hundreds of bird and mammal species.
Careful. Your repressed fantasies are showing.
I'm certainly not alone in finding the behavior of homosexuals to be patently revolting. They're like pigs wallowing in their own filth. Human beings are supposed to be more civilized than pigs. Too bad the gay community insists on shoving their repellant sexual practises in everyone's faces, otherwise I wouldn't even be aware that homosexuals practise buggery. Really- it's utterly vomitous.
As for my alleged "fantasies," the only fantasy I entertain is the continuing hope that the government and the high courts of this land will see reason, and continue upholding the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The gay community can throw all the childish temper tantrums they want- in the end, it won't matter as long as the will of the majority is upheld.
You people DO realize that no matter how much the gay community minces and prances and has "Pride" parades and stamps its tiny feet and throws big spastic childish tantrums about so-called "same-sex marriage rights", the fact remains that at the Federal level they're SOL, right?
I mean, the Defense of Marriage Act was sponsored and passed in 1996 under the presidency of none other than the illustrious Bill Clinton, one of the gay community's most revered public officials. Your antics at the state level will never pass the Federal litmus test- too bad, sucks to be you. Gays do not and should not have the right to supplant the traditional definition of marriage. You don't need government sanction to bugger each other- just be secretive about it, as you have always been.
If you want to draw more attention to yourselves, why don't y'all go stage a big gay Pride parade in Tehran? Hey, I can't think of a better way to draw attention to your cause than to see 10,000 of you get martyred by Islamic extremists. You know that's what would happen to you. And you think the USA is intolerant. Idiots.
Face it, homosexuality is a mental illness. It's time we re-define it as such.
To Ms. Sarah,
Great article, though I think more of the legal issues of marriage should have been included, health rights, inheritance, child rights, overall you have written a great piece, unlike Mr. Fay.
To Bob,
We, the gay community, are not "shoving" our sexual practices in anyone's face. We may be showing who we have fallen in love with, love does happen without sex in case you haven't evolved that far yet, and are asking for the civil rights that go along wanting to spend your life with said person. Said sex acts are not only preformed by gay couples (gay men or women) but by straight couples, search anal sex on google and I will bet you get more straight links than gay. Plus you are leaving out gay women, you do know women are gay as well right?
The bottom line though is that given the rights that we deserve to have, civil rights that go along with sharing a our lives with the one we love (a consenting legal human,) no one would notice us anymore than straight people.
A note to Bob:
Your level of anger and hate sounds frighteningly close to the type of speech heard by historical figures who eventually advocate genocide...kind of like Mr. Fay in the accompanying article to this one. (ie. Gay people are a social problem that need to be "dealt with".)
Such vitriol makes you the one wallowing in your own filth like a pig, not me. The filth that has come out of your mouth has spilled down your chest and now covers you in the stench of your own insecurities and baseness.
When you're ready to speak with respect and rationality then let us know and we'll have a democratic dialogue.
Nobody is "advocating genocide," zeph. And nobody hates you, because you aren't worth the energy. I simply speak for the vast, silent majority of people in this country who have long since agreed that homosexuality is an aberration, and the homosexual community has no reasonable claim to "marriage rights." You need psychiatric treatment, not "marriage rights." Too bad for you, deal with it.
Furthermore, we have seen in the backlash over the passage of Prop 8 how out-of-control and violent the homosexual population is, and it is both enlightening and frightening.
Face it- the gay community has lost its own cause by behaving like baboons. You are acting like thugs and sociopaths, and you have no one to blame but yourselves. The gay community deserves no respect, because you extend none to anyone who believes differently from you.
An important fact that a lot of prop 8 supporters are leaving out is that marriage isn't just about love. It includes many legal rights and protections that just living together doesn't provide. In states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, partners typically have no rights to make medical decisions, unable to contest custody of children, and in extreme conditions can be denied seeing their partner because the surviving family disapproves of their lifestyle. What would a husband do if he couldn't visit his wife because her family didn't like him?
I find it terribly amusing that the Daily staff are removing angry comments from the John Fay piece such as "Go fuck yourself" but refuse to remove Bob's blatantly despicable and unacceptable vitriol. I smell a double-standard, Ms. Jeglum and Ms. Shephard. You and your editors must truly be a bunch of tools.
@29-Frankly, Chris, I am appalled at your thinking.
So if there is no "tyranny of the majority," then why are so many people upset that the majority of the people have voted to ban gay marriage? They don't want the rule of the majority to affect them. Do you believe slavery is wrong? What about women’s' suffrage? A majority passed those amendments. What if the minority ended up getting its way? Slavery wouldn't most likely affect you, but you still think it's wrong, correct?
Is homosexuality a personal faith? Do you worship homosexuality? Is there a religious book with instructions to live that kind of a lifestyle? Do you say prayers or chants about being homosexual? When the church of homosexuality or the homosexual faith is established, then we'll talk...
If teachers aren't "compelled" to teach homosexuality, they why are there groups advocating the use of books such as "My two daddies" or "My two mommies" in our schools? You may think that it won't have any effect on the heterosexual's daily life, but if it is legalized by the government, how can we avoid it? It will be everywhere. Our children will be forced to learn about this "alternative lifestyle" in our schools, and so on. Every problem starts out small, but like everything else, the issue of homosexuality will blow up in our faces. Just as you don't want heterosexuality forced down your throat, we don't want homosexuality forced down ours.
@-27 Patrick:
You really think that I out of all people approve of one homosexual lifestyle over another? If you haven't realized it by now, I disapprove of every homosexual LIFESTYLE, or else I wouldn't be here. And do you really think that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same thing? They're not. If they were, we wouldn't be having this problem. And again, I do not have anything against the people who partake in this lifestyle. I disapprove of what they do. I would certainly hope that you don't hate me as a person because I don't agree with you on some things. If you did, you would be discriminating against me as a person, and that's wrong.
If 66% of of the Californian population is religious, then what happened to the other 14% of the religious people who didn't vote for Proposition 8? They either didn't support it, or didn't care enough to vote for it. So statistically, religion didn't play a factor for everyone.
You know what, you’re right. Bryce getting a legalized “civil union” wouldn’t have much of an effect on my daily life, at this moment. As I was saying earlier, every problem grows, and without a doubt, if we give homosexuals an inch, they will want the mile. It will eventually integrate into our schools and our children will be forced to learn about this “alternative lifestyle.” Would you want your adopted children to have heterosexuality forcefully taught to them?
So quit saying that this is about personal equality! It’s nothing personal. I don’t agree with your ACTIONS, just as you don’t agree with mine. I am just as entitled to have my opinions about gay marriage as you are yours. What goes on in your bedroom should stay there, as should mine. And is there really a need to flaunt our sexuality in public, no matter the orientation?
And I'm sorry, there are still more of us than there are of you.
Katie, you are implicitly (and at points, openly) endorsing the hatred that has resulted in the death and suffering of queer people throughout history. You don't agree with our actions as rational, free people. We don't agree with your actions and the actions of people with whom you associate, actions that have resulted in the death of innocents like Matthew Shepard and the suffering of countless others. We have given you an inch, and you have taken a mile in oppressing us, hurting us, and murdering us. When we get an inch, we use that inch to try and establish justice for all that has been done unto us by hateful bigots hiding under the guise of "tolerating intolerance."
Your last statement, "there are still more of us than there are of you," only calls more attention to your condoning of injustice and violence in our society.
In short, screw you. We don't want your thoughts or perspectives on our "alternative lifestyle." They're not informed, anyway, as you clearly show in your writing. If they were informed, if you knew how much I and others have faced, you would not think the way you do.
@40
Doug, the only comments removed were ones which posted Fay's address and phone number.
Doug M.: Regardless of whether you want the opinions of the majority on your alternative lifestyle- and alternative it is, it is most certainly NOT normal or healthy- you are going to get them. We, the vast silent decent majority of law-abiding citizens, are going to continue to defend the institution of traditional marriage and all that it entails from the childish, thug-like antics of the sociopathic homosexual community.
Whenever there are laws available to defend traditional marriage, we shall support them. Whenever debates over the legitimacy and legality of homosexual behavior arise, we shall voice our opinions as to your aberrancy. We shall not be bullied into silence. Homosexuality is a mental illness, and the homosexual community is ramming this point home with your current out-of-control hysterics.
So you feel "oppressed"? Please- move to Tehran and then get back to me on just how oppressed homosexuals are here in North America. You demand tolerance? Believe me, you are BEING tolerated. But this full-frontal assault on traditional marriage will not go unchecked.
The homosexual community has no legitimate claim to "marriage rights." There is no historical precendent for it, and no demonstration whatsoever of its legal necessity.
Furthermore, in Massachusetts we are already seeing the ultimate agenda of the gay community being played out: elementary educational indoctrination of children with the homosexual agenda, and a push for the abolition of age-of-consent laws. "Get 'em while they're young," that's the plan, right? How absolutely abhorrent and despicable. Shame on all of you.
The vast majority of the American people will continue to uphold the validity of one man, one woman marriage that has served as the cornerstone of Western civilization for centuries. Deal with it. The childish temper tantrums of the gay community cannot change the will of the people.
Bob, it would be really helpful if you could cite your sources for the claims you make about the "push for abolition of age-of-consent laws" and others. If these things are at all true, I'd love to read about them.
Aren't we Amurricans going over to places that oppress people's civil liberties to, uh, liberate them? So what's the point of your Tehran argument? Sounds like our country would want that kind of Tehrani oppression to change.
From the 1972 Gay Rights Platform ( <http://www.afa.net/Homosexual_Agenda/...> ):
"7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."
This abomination is an integral part of the gay marriage agenda. If you think the Gay Rights platform has changed since then, you're kidding yourself.
Furthermore, it is the EXPLICIT goal of the homosexual community to obtain "gay marriage rights" in order to effectively destroy the meaning of reproductive marriage:
"[Gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
- Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
This is NOT an innocuous agenda. The homosexual community is using "gay marriage rights" as a wedge issue with whish to introduce total social anarchy into the fabric of American society.
RE Comment #47:
"Aren't we Amurricans going over to places that oppress people's civil liberties to, uh, liberate them? So what's the point of your Tehran argument? Sounds like our country would want that kind of Tehrani oppression to change."
Who do you think you're kidding?? Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, and Turkey practise some of the mosty egregious human rights violations on the planet, do you see us invading them? Hell no, they're our allies. Way to miss the point, which is that the homosexual community in America experience tremendous tolerance and social freedom.
They have nothing to complain about.
Got anything not 26 years old and not hosted on the AFA's site? How do you know it hasn't changed? Do you have newer proof of this? Something that's not used as a fear tactic by a conservative group known to be biased against gay rights?
You can read things any way you want to -- you choose to see Signorile's quote as a threat. Anyone with an open mind would see it as wanting to turn people away from seeing and treating homosexuals like, oh, YOU treat them. They're people. Not the enemy. The quote does not say it wants to do away reproductive marriage, it just wants to open up the way that families are thought of.
You have to work really hard to be this close-minded. Seriously. To read threat into this instead of just wanting to stand up and be treated equally and with respect? No wonder you're so afraid. I pity you. I know you will mock me for it, but you deserve more prayer than you know.
Bob,
It took me about 5 minutes to find that mainstream gay groups have deplored that portion of the platform that was written in 1972.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/GLAAD/gen...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA#T...
"Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: 'NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization.'"
Yes, whatever. The fact remains that homosexuals have no need of "marriage" rights. All the childish foot-stamping in the world won't change that.
Even if Prop 8 is overturned, it will be introduced onto the CA state ballot and passed again and again until the homosexual community has no choice but to accept the law. And good luck overturning the DOMA.
Sarah,
Especially when compared to the filth that was written in opposition to your piece, your article was thoughtful, sensitive, and well written. Thank you for taking the time to write such a great opinion.
Jake
Bob: You are an ass, plain and simple. Please go hate somewhere else. You are not welcome in my community until you can learn to treat everyone around you with respect and dignity.
Katie: You are free to hate all you want. What are you not free to do is to institutionalize that hate into laws that deny particular classes of people civil rights. You exemplify perfectly the problem of the tyranny of the majority. You are why we have Constitution meant to protect minorities.
Jake Faleschini
GPSS President
Bob, true to your irrational arguments, when proven wrong you just pretend like something that is central to your view didn't matter, anyway. I suggest some honest self-evaluation because it suggests you're not being honest with yourself. And the gay community is sociopathic? I refer you to any number of instances of violence against gays. By your logic, this means the straight community is sociopathic. And how many serial killers have been gay vs straight, do you think?
Every last argument you and others have made in support of prop 8 can with NO modification be applied to slavery, segregation and a number of other injustices that have been carried on through the ages.
Prop 8 is not a problem because people voted a certain way. Voting for a president takes nothing away from individual rights (except in cases like Bush, whose administration has consistently chipped away at civil rights). Prop 8 is a problem because it aims specifically to take away a right to someone. The entire premise of that proposition is discrimination.
Should I tell Katie to just shut up and not complain if a law is passed that women aren't allowed to vote? It might seem ludicrous that it could happen, but what if it did? Using exactly her argument, I could oppose any dissent she might have.
And reversing that, what about women's suffrage? Surely it saw failures before it saw success. The 19th amendment was a the culmination of a movement, not the beginning. In fact, reading about it, voting rights were gained by women first on a state-by-state basis before it was granted at the federal level. Sounds familiar.
By the way, 52% is a very narrow majority. Bob, I'm sure you'll eat your words when fairness prevails and an additional 3% of the state of CA votes to overturn prop 8 in a couple years.
Jake F.: WHAT community? This is an open internet forum. If you don't want opposing views posted here, then you need to implement better censorship protocols.
The gay community will have my "respect" when they demonstrate that they are deserving of it. That won't be anytime in the near future.
@43- Doug, way to present your view with tact. I’m sorry that your only defense is “screw you.”
How dare you accuse me of killing gays and oppressing people! Why do you even put me in the same category as murderers! You need to make sure that when you make such claims, you have your facts right first. Yes, there has been violence towards homosexuals, and I do not condone those actions. Please realize that back in the Roman Empire, Christians were put to death and violently persecuted because what they believe was deemed wrong. Every religious belief or type of people has been oppressed at one time or another. I do not affirm the actions of those who do that to anyone. That is a result of fear and hate. I am neither afraid nor fearful of homosexuality. Admit it, the majority of the population does not kill and oppress gays,. There are only a few people who commit those crimes. Be careful what you accuse people of.
And I only say that there are more of us than there are of you to confirm that there is still a majority of the population that wanted to approve this proposition. And if you agree with a democratic society, then you would agree that what the majority wants, the majority gets. As I was saying in an earlier post, no one seems to have a problem with the election of the president-elect, except the minority. This whole “tyranny of the majority” garbage only comes into play when it’s against something you want. It is human nature to be upset when one doesn’t get his way.
Well of course you don’t want to hear opinions that disagree with what you believe! Who does? It doesn’t sound like you’re so informed yourself. I know what’s going on, I’m not an idiot, but I still believe that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. It is not only wrong morally, but physically and anatomically. Scientifically, homosexuality is a choice, and not a chemical imbalance, so it’s not “natural,” except in less than 1% of gay people. If any of the major world religions are right about the judgment to befall homosexuals, and any unrepentant sinner for that matter, then I am certain you would not do what you are doing now.
@-Bob. I’m glad that there is another rational human being on our side. Keep it up!
Why does everyone accuse those who are against the action of homosexuality of being hateful? WE DO NOT HATE YOU! You are fellow human beings, there is no reason to hate. Homosexuality is not a "class" as you say it is, Jake. Homosexuality is also not a civil right! It is a preference in sexuality, not a race, religion, or gender issue.
Should I tell hexalm to shut up he didn't get his way? Denying suffrage based on gender is indeed a violation of civil right, because it has nothing to do with a private matter such as sexuality. In our democracy, it would be wrong to deny someone the right to participate in deciding our government. It goes against the meaning of "democracy."
And I agree with Bob, the gay community will have my "respect" when they demonstrate that they are deserving of it.
Katie- the term tyranny of the majority applies when the majority uses the law to oppress a minority group. I know you have repeatedly said that homosexuality is not a "class" of people, but frankly, you are wrong. You can't change your sexuality at will (I assume you are straight). You could not force yourself to be sexually attracted to women any more than I could. You claim to want to respect the privacy of the bedroom, but you use what happens in mine as an excuse to treat me differently under the law. I asked before, but you didn't answer, so let me rephrase: what is the difference between a gay couple and a straight couple other then gender? What is the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, other then an issue of gender? I'm not being rhetorical, I'd really like to know what you think, because I can't fathom how the view you're expressing is not bigoted and intolerant.
People accuse you of hate because you are advocating a legal position that can only be justified by hate. You recognize us as human beings, but support a law that denies us of the civil right to marry, which has been recognized as a civil right by the United States Supreme court.
Respect is one thing, but no minority group needs to prove they are deserving of equal treatment under the law.
To #59 Patrick C.:
" Respect is one thing, but no minority group needs to prove they are deserving of equal treatment under the law. "
Really. Try explaining that to anyone who suffers from schizophrenia or bipolar illness. Try explaining that to Hispanic illegal aliens, the physically disabled, Islamic foreign nationals, and the mentally handicapped. Do you REALLY believe that these groups receive genuinely "equal" treatment under US law? If so, then you're a complete idiot.
" You could not force yourself to be sexually attracted to women any more than I could. "
This premise is patently disproven by the existence and behavior of people who label themselves as "bisexual." The argument amounts to nothing other than more tantrum-throwing.
" People accuse you of hate because you are advocating a legal position that can only be justified by hate. "
What drivel. "Hate" has nothing to do with anything. I defend the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman on the grounds that it is the cornerstone of a strong, stable society, and anything which seeks to change that definition threatens social stability. Hate isn't a factor.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue with your first point. Two of those groups are not US citizens, so of course US law does not fully apply. Are you saying that other groups face injustices? Because that's true, but the existence of one injustice doesn't justify another. Are you saying these groups should be treated unequally? In which case, I disagree strongly. Again, Hispanic illegal aliens (why just Hispanic ones?) and Islamic foreign nationals are not US citizens by definition. The mentally handicapped may not be allowed to vote if their handicap removes their capacity to, and should be institutionalized if they present a danger to themselves or others. Otherwise, I think the law should be applied equally to all people.
Your second point is only valid if you believe that everyone is bisexual. So, are you bisexual Bob? Do you find men sexually attractive? Forgive my rudeness in assuming that you are attracted to women at all. But if you accept the existence of a sexuality that is exclusively one way, I don't see how you can deny the existence of one the other way. I do object to your characterization of my argument as a tantrum, though, as I stated my point calmly even in relation to some other statement of mine.
As to your third point, I'll agree that its pretty drivelly but the point stands. You've come up with a justification for your position, and that's all well and good, but ultimately, I think your point of view is rooted in a hatred for people who are fundamentally not like you.
Unfortunately, there is no way to argue anymore without bringing my Christian beliefs into play. We are all beating this issue to death, because whether we like it or not, our world is going to continue to morally decline. I warn you, judgment day is coming. You may get your way now, but those who do not believe in God and do not repent of their sin, will be eternally separated from God.
Sin drives people to do the things they shouldn't: steal, murder, be attracted to the same sex. There's nothing that we can do to change our human nature. I know that you are among the last people to believe in Christianity, so you are not going to believe or even consider a word I say.
As to your question, Patrick, fine, there is no difference between the two couples other than the gender of their sex partner. Go have sex with whomever or whatever you want. Men, women, animals, tables, chairs.... Who am I to tell you what to do?
I will end this arguement only because the homosexuals and every unrepentant sinner will be punished because of their unbelief. Reap what you sow. We can agree to disagree; you don't agree with me, I don't agree with you. There's no point arguing for either side, really. Sin will run its course and God will reign victorious.
So you need to consider the bigger picture. Why are you here? Where did you originate? Where are you going
after you die? If I were you, I would ask God to reveal Himself to you. It's not going to hurt you. Trust me, there is a God out there who loves you, and wants to have a relationship with you, but if you turn your back on Him, we will be faced with destruction. If you need help with this, I would be more than happy to talk with you further. John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only betgotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life.
Katie, my dear,
You'll have my respect when you are deserving of it. Namely, you'll have it when you don't associate yourself with murderers and violent people, which you implicitly do by using the same argumentation they do. Only true nuts don't see the paradox of your argument: "I don't hate, I just believe you are fundamentally a bad, terrible, evil, sinning person! I won't kill you but I believe someone else [God or his "messengers"] will strike you down!"
Is there anything else you wrote you would like me to translate back to you? Do you look yourself in the mirror when you say these things?
And honey, if you were informed, you might actually get to know a gay person, and thus have a true perspective on this. I'm sure that you would possess none of your poorly articulated beliefs about this issue if your brother was gay. This is, of course, under the assumption that you would open your ears and eyes for a few seconds to absorb such information, rather than wallowing blindly in your ignorance as has been clearly typical of your life.
Also, I've gotta figure, Bob is a troll. He is baiting people like no other. If you've got any sense left (I'm guessing not, but here's to hoping), you would not align yourself so closely with someone who, like Ann Coulter, tries to be as extreme as possible in order to highlight just how bad that particular position is.
Happy Thanksgiving - I'm not thankful for feeling like I have to repeat the battles of coming out of the closet again on my own college campus.
On a closing note, I'm insulted you would compare Christians being persecuted 2000 years ago to me, my friends, and people in my community being harmed by people right now, a month ago, a year ago, decades ago, and long before Christians existed.
From your vantage point as the "majority" (something you claim to be a part of), you haven't a damn clue what it is like to be beaten, verbally abused, or murdered. I don't want to hear that drivel from you, because frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. When you experience true suffering, much like Jesus who you chalk up as someone who tells you to hate the gays, come back and we can have a talk. Until then, and I mean this with all of my fabulous little heart Katie, screw off.
Katie - My interpretation of the Son of God is that he would think you are a robot sheep. Or a sheep robot. In my interpretation of the Bible, God reveals his true self: cumulative human thought and energy, rising to the next dimension. Those who don't exercise their human ability to think will be considered apes. I advise you think for yourself. But by all means, think for yourself with God as your witness. That could work. I'm respectful of your views. They just don't equal mine, so I'm going to disregard yours and tell you the truth (which I just did, which is your a sheep robot. Or a robot sheep. which sounds better to you?)
Sound ridiculous? I'm sure your reaction is similar to mine when I read yours.
And Bob, you commit an ecological fallacy when you say the actions of the very few in response to Prop 8 are the characterizations of the many. Look at some Geography classes. Or logic.
You are also a robot sheep. Or a sheep robot. God damn, what the hell is it? GAH! I got it. A Shobot.
And I'm sure your reaction to my ridiculousness is similar to my reaction to your... patterned English grammar with the nouns "child-tantrum", "sociopath", "thug", and "insert what my mommy and daddy told me here".
Bob, you really remind me of Chris Cooper's character from American Beauty. Not that I imagine you've seen it.
Sarah,
Fantastic article..
For a bit, I actually thought about trying to rebuttal some of the anti-gay rhetoric that has been posted in the comments, but then I told myself I shouldn't waste my time with such poorly written arguments.
Sarah, thanks so much for your article.
I think there are many legal issues brought up with the passing of Prop 8. But in a purely religious vein: I find myself deeply saddened by some of what has been said on this forum. And I can not help but feel that God is too.
One thing I have always loved about Christianity is that we have pledged to treat others as we wish to be treated. If it is true that homosexuality is a sin, I think it is for God to decide and not man. Are we so arrogant to preach the word when we do not understand that fundamental principle? Our job is to treat each other with love, acceptance, and respect, and let the fate of folks be decided in the next realm - not in this one.
When the second coming happens, I think there are going to be a lot of "Christians" who find themselves surprised with what the Maker has to say to them. Because to accept Christ as your savior means more than just showing up at church for social hour and parroting whatever interpretation of the Bible is being pushed there. It means thoughtfully engaging with what has been written. Wrestling with the realities of the world we live in and how the Scripture relates to current conditions. Accepting that we humans are fallible and that we might not always have everything figured out.
I will pray for you. I know my God and he is just and merciful. I truly hope you will see the error of your ways, and God will display more kindness and openness in your own direction than you have here to a legitimately oppressed people. God bless you. I sincerely hope you will open your heart, and let Him in to show you the light.
And I'm sure that God is really happy with homosexuality as well.
Katie,
Your views, no doubt logically consistent, are against legal recognition of no-fault divorce and marriage between Christians and non-Christians?
@68-OO Are we talking about the same Christianity? Are we REALLY supposed to accept sin, because it's unloving not to?
Of course God thinks homosexuality is a sin! Just take a look at Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 9-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and countless more. While it is true that it is God's duty to judge, that doesn't mean that Christians can't stand up for what is right. We want others to have a saving knowledge of the Creator, we don't want people to keep living in sin, because the outcome will lead to eternity in Hell. God has made it clear that homosexuality is a sin, so there's nothing left for humans to decide. We are merely advocates for what is right.
And yes, being a Christian is much more than just attending "social hour." Humans don't have everything figured out, we're sinners, but that's why God gave us the Bible. It is His Word to us; and "instruction book" so to speak. One cannot be saved if he doesn't believe. The issue of homosexuality is clearly spelled out in the Bible, however, if one doesn't believe in the Bible, then it's not going to matter to him
@65-Bret.
Robot Sheep? You truly believe that I am not thinking for myself? So will not disregard your views, but I will tell YOU the truth. My "interpretation of God" believes you are a sinner. That's that. However, He has given us a chance to redeem ourselves. God sent Christ to die on the cross as a payment for our sins. All we need to do is believe, truly believe, that God is God and that we are fallen creatures. We also need to believe that Christ did die to atone for our sins. Fine, go ahead and tell me that I am a "robot sheep," as you so maturely put it, but I can clearly think for myself and this is what I believe.
@64 Doug
Why wouldn't you compare another "class" of people who were persecuted and killed because what they believe and did things that were different from what the others believed. While the things they were being killed for were different, it's the same principle. And your "fabulous little heart" sound kind of hateful there, Doug. Don't hate me because I believe something different from you. You're right, I haven't had to experience the abuse and torture that the "oppressed homosexuals" have, but keep in mind that there are Christians killed every day, especially in the middle east, for what they believe. So don't even for a minute tell me that homosexuals are the only "class" of people being opressed.
And to your response earlier: I don't have to personally know a gay person to know that his actions are wrong.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too! I'm thankful that Christ died for my sins and saved me, giving me eternal life. I'm also thankful that one day, He alone will get His justice.
Katie-
I may be immature, but I'm trying to spell out a point. You may be a Christian, but you are also an American. The United States government, not the Church, grants permission for spouse's to visit their ailing spouse in a hospital. The US Gov't grants upwards to 1,100 rights to a married couple that homosexual couples do not have.
It seems that if you always stand up for what's right, and I am sinner, why not have my rights stripped too? In fact, if you are a sinner, which apparently we all are in God's eyes, why not have your rights stripped away too?
The US Gov't should not be chained to historical precedence; our country's foundation was built on a "grand experiment". Why not keep experimenting in the vein of acceptance and neighborly respect?
I agree with 00, his point is all too clear. Jesus' number one message is to love. Why contradict his message with the intentions of a long dead Council of Nicaea that turned the Bible into what you read today? If the Bible is God's word, and God says homosexuality is a sin, and God says Jesus is his son and your savior... well Jesus was not considered a deity until well after his death. He was actually seen as a simple man with a big heart and a big message. Pretty sure his message did not include "Love thy brother, but if he happens to love another brother, tell him he is wrong and prevent him from doing it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Co...
I know I will not change your mind, but think about this. Against gay-union-marriage? Then don't get one. And leave those who do to their own miserable marriages that will probably divorce (a sin!) in 2 years anyways. Let them be miserable without your righteousness.
Jesus was considered the Son of God way before His death. Just look at all the Old Testament prophecies. He and His death were foretold centuries before He was even born. While He was on earth, He preformed miracles that couldn’t be preformed by anyone other than God. Even after His “death,” He wasn’t really dead. The whole miracle in His death is that He rose from the dead. And for the record, Christ is more than a mere “deity.”
I would think twice before allowing the U.S. government to “experiment” by recognizing gay marriage. Look at the fallen civilizations of Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon, and Rome for example. When they turned to homosexuality and perversion, it was a sign that they were heading toward destruction. I don’t particularly want our nation to follow their example. If we allow homosexuality, what are we going to allow next: abortion, divorce, euthanasia? Oh wait, we already do. Remember what morals this country was originally founded on. Why forget those morals and do the complete opposite? I guess we really do want to destroy our country!
Christ told us to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Neighbor, not “your neighbor’s sin,” and I’m pretty sure that He is the last one to advocate the love of sin. Again, I will say that I don’t hate the person, I am trying to say that I disagree with what they do, and that God does also. I’m still not sure that you’re grasping the full idea of Christ and Christianity; recognizing sin is an important step in repentance.
Out of love, I don’t want people to be miserable in their unrighteousness. That is why I’m sharing my beliefs. I realize that not everyone is going to believe, but it will be well worth it if even only one person repents and accepts Christ.
Katie -
Please move to a theocratic country. Seriously, that's what you're advocating, go ahead and find one and see how you like living there. Because if you get to get rid of those certain things that make you think the country is going to be destroyed, you're going to give up a lot of other things, too, including possibly your education, your right to dress the way you want, and your right to vote.
Please take Religion 201, or at least read that link someone posted about the Council of Nicaea in 325 -- where the leaders of Christianity decided what they believed. Jesus' status as a deity was decided long after he lived. The stuff about homosexuality was decreed by a cranky ex-Pharisee (Paul) who also didn't think marriage was all that hot and thought the world would end within his own lifetime.
Additionally, there are those who point out that what happened at Sodom & Gomorrah was more about rape than the homosexuality; since gay marriage is the opposite of rape, I don't really think it applies.
This is the problem with painting things with such a large brush. The details get lost. And frankly? If I believe in something and am going to bet my life on it, I'd want to know as many details as possible. And I'd want my beliefs to be able to withstand such scrutiny.
Katie-
You do know that Judgment day has thought to have come and passed multiple times. Where is our thousand years of peace? Where is Jesus?
And who decries that homosexuality is a sin? Have you ever met a gay person? Are they such bad people? I know plenty of gay people and they are often more interesting than the average Joe. They live in a society that has yet to fully accept who they are. How would you feel if you had to keep secret your own life, practically live a lie? Even in our progressive Seattle, there are still people like John Fay, Bob (who I'm guessing is John Fay)...you, who seem to end at toleration, be it with hesitation, of homosexuals.
Homosexuals can be very deep people, because they engage in much introspection. They think about who they are and where they've come from. And I know this because I have gay friends, not because a book told me so. They often juggle elephants by choosing orthodox acceptance, sacrificing their true selves, or coming out and dealing with intolerance. There's no book that tells them how to deal with this. There's no scripture they can recite from memory.
I still do not understand your self-righteous argument, KNOWING what's better for others than they do. It's astoundingly condescending, and makes you sound childish and intolerant. Being gay doesn't hurt anybody. Being intolerant does.
Furthermore, your history of Christianity is very biased. Historians don't know where Jesus went for much of his teens and twenties. Many theorize he went to India and studied Buddhism. It could just be that Jesus came back to the Middle East and tried to use God as a metaphor - for yourself. By having a relationship with yourself, you can introspect and re-read your actions, identifying your own sin and become a better person.
Did he succeed?
If Paul was the only one who deemed homosexuality wrong, then why did Moses write that it was wrong in Leviticus 18:22?
And please tell me where in the Bible it mentions that Sodom and Gomorrah was more about rape than "sodomy?"
Men can't decide the status of Christ's holiness. If that were the case, then it would be idolatry, making something a god that isn't. God repeated over and over that He is God, and that Christ is the Son of God. The Council didn't just come up with the idea that Christ was God, they studied the scriptures to reach their conclusion. The purpose of the Council was to decide if the teachings of Arius were heretical or not. They weren't deciding anything new, they were just separating the beliefs and affirming one of them.
If giving up my education at an extremely liberal university meant living under a government that was Christ-centered, then I would leave in a heartbeat; anything to get me away from the lunatics. Unfortunately, we live in a sinful world, and there isn’t a perfect government.
Katie,
The Bible also makes the touching of pigs on the Sabbath a capital crime. Are you willing to put every professional football player in the country to death? There are times when we should cast aside the outdated beliefs of our ancestors.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all citizens of the United States "equal protection [under] the law." Lawyers call this the "equal protection clause." It is this clause that protect minorities (like women) from the tyrany of the majority. No matter how many times you say that it does not exist, it will not go away. The real world does not work like that.
Jake
I think we can no longer continue this argument, for the sake of all out sanity. But I will leave you with this. If idolatry is worshipping something other than God, and Jesus did not exist before God put him on this planet, and if everyone is a manifestation of God, would that not mean that we should all be worshipping ourselves or worship no one at all? Is it not irrational to make an idol of Jesus if we are all from the same creation?
A common modern rabbinic interpretation is that there is a potential messiah in every generation. The Talmud which often uses stories to make a moral point (aggadah) tells the tale of a highly respected rabbi who found the Messiah at the gates of Rome and asked him "When will you finally come?" He was quite surprised when he was told, "Today." Overjoyed and full of anticipation, the man waited all day. The next day he returned, disappointed and puzzled, and asked, "You said messiah would come 'today' but he didn't come! What happened?" The Messiah replied, "Scripture says, 'Today, if you will but hearken to His voice.' " (Psalm 95:7)
Let's live in today, rather than yesterday.
Someone much wiser than I once said, "It is a fool who seeks reason within the chambers of the human heart."
I have read through every comment posted in this forum and I must say, I have been shaken to the core. The individuality that defines the human condition defies all labels, categorization and conjecture. To define sexuality in terms of black and white, or even shades of gray, is preposterous and when religion rhetoric is used to defend or pursue any kind of institutionalized argument, it is inherently denying it's own faith; get closer to your God your own way and let others live as they have chosen to live.
I could quote facts or scripture until your ears fall off, but I'm not savvy with politics nor religion.
Every human experiences love and desire. Let's at least respect that.
Rome's decline and fall came after converting to Christianity.
No-fault divorce is explicitly defined (by Jesus, in the gospels) as adultery. This impacts far more people than would ever be touched by homosexual marriage. Yet it's legal, because we live in a secular democratic republic.
I think Jesus was gay. I tried to be gay once too, but it didn't work, I couldn't find men attractive. That just proved to me that sexual preference is not a choice (I had my doubts before that). The bible isn't exactly the word of God either, it was pieced together, altered, and censored from random writings based upon the opinions of a majority of a few powerful gentleman several hundred years after the individual pieces were written... I don't trust it. As for why I think Jesus was gay, he espoused the genuine love of all mankind, but ignored women for the most part. Also, he totally rocked.
I love what you have wrote, and it gives me some faith in the Daily. But after the publication of John Fay' "Gay Marriage? Let's stop and think about it" and the picture, I really don't think I will read the Daily ever again. Sorry that a respectful journalist such as yourself has to work along side idiots such as Fay.
Also I agree with Brain #81 being gay is not a choice. I tried to be a lesbian but I was sadden to realize that I am only attracted to men. But Jesus was so gay.
There is no such thing as seperation between church and state in the us.
Our entire government was founded on religious beliefs and as long as their are church going people in the states, there will be no seperation.
I for one am in support of Prop 8, and while you may disagree with all the arguments, they are still more then valid. Race (which does not truly exist and is a variable social construct) is completely different then homosexuality and therefore can't be compared when talking about denying rights of marriage, the similarity between the two is that....they were not allowed to marry, and that is were they stop.
I respect the authors opinion, and i'm saddened and even disgusted to see the hypocrisy and hatred towards Fay be a group of people who claim to be ever so accepting...the irony....and trust me, in my eyes, it lowers your credibility.
#84, you really don't have any conception or understanding of US history, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the basic premises of democracy as opposed to theocracy.
Please purchase the founding documents of our country from Barnes & Noble or another esteemed independent bookstore. It will be a start in the right direction for you.
To 84-
Using your fancy sociological vocab, one could say homosexuality is a variable social construct. Check out Ian Hacking, or better yet, look at the wikipedia page for social constructionism, specifically strong construction. Read the part about the construction being harmful the way it is currently viewed and understood and we would be better with modification? How about apply that to the oppression of the homosexual?
@ Katie: What I find preposterous is the idea that you feel like you know what g-d thinks based!!! on a book that has nothing to do with g-d and everything to do creating, well, rather mindless lemmings such as yourself. Sorry, I know you will consider it name-calling, but it is mindless to allow one source to, unquestionably, inform your thinking.
What if you are wrong? Oh, faith steels you against such thinking, right? But Katie... you are wrong.
One of the problems in "debating" with you is that the people debating with you don't know the Bible as well as you do. However, no one cares about the Old testament. God does not speak directly and thus is unknowable. What does JESUS say about homosexuality -- that is what should concern you. But I guess Jesus doesn't mean as much. *shakes head* This hierarchal thinking will be the end of us all.
Katie, many people think YOU are a lunatic. And YOU are sinful, too. Look over this page. Is pride not a sin? And don't try to say you aren't being prideful, even if it is in yourself as a Christian -- it's still a SIN.
As usual, we are being shown the horrible side of Christianity. Indeed, to most gay people, this is the only side seen. It is the side that condemns while attempting compassion as if compassion somehow alters the condemnation. In all of your condemnation of homosexuality, you forget that homosexuals are people, too. Period. You are surrounded by us and you don't even know. Some of the people you love most or even best and you don't even know it.
Truly, I feel sorry for you, ultimately, because you don't understand yourself... so you profess to understand what should happen to other people.
Where's the humility?
Where's the thought?
Let's stop and think about this. Marriage was around way earlier than the Bible was written and way earlier than the emmergence of Christianity. Why does Christianity get to deem what constitutes a marriage?
This article was disgusting. Homosexuality is a choice not a predetermined trait. If it was caused by a gene, then it would have died out years ago because guess what... gay people can't have kids together!!! What a concept! I can't believe you morons never thought of that.
Personally, I found it interesting to read Sarah's comments, even though I disagree with her interpretation of our law.
But the way she formulated her views was done marvellously.
Hey Wow!
I understand that you don't agree with Sarah's opinion, but please, give her some respect.
Being harsh and calling her names will not give you any credibility and instead, it will make people not want to have any further conversations with you.
If you want your opinions to be heard and respected, please, show love and respect to the people you disagree with.
I won't reiterate all the anti-prop 8 arguments since they have already been well articulated. But, just for the record, there are many mainline christian churches that have repented of homophobia and are now considered "reconciling congregations" making no distinction between gay and straight people. Homophobia is not a part of the christian faith, it is just a social prejudice that has been framed as a religious issue using a few flimsy bible passages that have been mistranslated and taken out of context. Please be aware that, like every society and religion, we have our crazy people, but christianity itself does not condone discrimination.
Christianity condones and promotes righteousness.
Exactly :)
I don't want to get too involved in this, as the majority of you are really harsh in your rapport, but I have to respond to #80 Wow. I simply want to address your faulty logic.
Let's assume that homosexuality is caused by a gene. A heterosexual couple gives birth to a homosexual person, do they not? (Homosexual men or women who repress themselves and marry a member of the opposite sex are a negligible factor here.) Therefore straight people must carry this gene and pass it on to their gay children. This gene could be a mutation, a recessive gene, or some other case. Siamese twins generally don't have children (and don't have a shining survival rate, either), so why do they keep cropping up? Do you think that dwarves are the only people who give birth to dwarves, or that they do not give birth to average sized individuals?
Sorry, but your argument does not hold up. You would do better to cite a scientific study of human genetics or behaviors to back up your opinion that homosexuality is a choice.
I think the issue is, if we feel something, or a have a desire, does that define who we are? I think there is such a thing as self control and the choice to corral our feelings and keep them in check. Just because you feel something is good doesn't necessarily make it right. I once heard a great person say "Feelings make great servants, but lousy masters." I'm not saying anything one way or the other, I'm just putting the idea out there that just because a person has a feeling, they don't have to let that feeling define thier identity unless they want it to. That being said, feelings, emotions, and desires are all hard things to deal with and counseling, friends, and especially prayer are great ways to work through what a person's going through.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#1 Seriously?
(Olympia, WA | Unverified Name)
on November 24, 2008 at 8:21 p.m.