April 27, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā” “Yeah, sure ā you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
If it is…
Bryan Singer is gonna be awful pissed.
I was wondering what the purpose was of having V and Fry cook eggs in the exact same way.
I guess we don’t need those expensive genetic tests after all.
V for Vendetta… V for Nasty!
(that one goes out to waterbucket)
So those who adamantly skipped BM and then saw V basically saw the gayer of the two films? Pretty ironic, isn’t it?
Although really, the “Take a stand” ads for X-Men 3 are totally the gayest ads for a superhero movie that I’ve ever seen.
C’mon, BATMAN+ROBIN did all this and more years ago.
Nipples on the Bat-Suit? check.
Cod-pieces? check.
Stylish costume changes in the middle of a crisis? check.
Two man-hunks living (and sharing everything?) together? check.
etc.
I’m trying to think of a non-gay superhero movie. I mean, I was going to say X-Men 2, but I’d completely forgotten about Batman and Robin — perhaps intentionally.
Frankly, I think a little bit of gay does a superhero movie good, as in X-Men, V for Vendetta, presumably Superman, etc. Too much is bad (B & R) and not enough…well, you get Daredevil.
What I meant up above was that I was going to say that X-Men 2 was the first gay superhero movie — not that it was a non-gay movie.
By the way, did anyone see this from TMZ.com?
“Randy Quaid has filed a lawsuit claiming he was done in by producers of ‘Brokeback Mountain.’
TMZ obtained a copy of the lawsuit, filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming producers falsely represented the movie to him as “a low-budget, art house film, with no prospect of making any money.” Qauid claims the representations were a ruse from the beginning. ‘Brokeback’ has grossed around $160 million.
Quaid’s suit claims that in 2004, he met with director Ang Lee, who offered him the role of Joe Aguirre. The suit alleges that Lee told Quaid: “We can’t pay anything, we have very little money, everyone is making a sacrifice to make this film.”
The suit does not specifically state how much Quaid made, but it does claim that the defendants “were engaged in a ‘movie laundering’ scheme designed to obtain the services of talent such as Randy Quaid on economically unfavorable art film terms…”
The suit asks for $10 million in damages as well as punitive damages. It also seeks ‘restitution for all ill-gotten gains.'”
I’m speechless.
Larry Gross’s analysis is interesting, but I’m troubled by the amateurishly unexplained way in which he decrees that Natalie Portman JUST CAN’T ACT. “JUST CAN’T ACT” syndrome is great evidence of a crap argument, because it *sounds* irrefutable — it’s often preceded by “I’m sorry, but…”, as if the writer just can’t help but speak the truth — but is usually backed up by exactly NO examples from movies of scenes that aren’t played well or details of the performance that don’t work. No, no, we can’t be bothered with that, because so-and-so JUST CAN’T. I hate to counter an argument with “so what makes you an authority on acting??” but that kind of non-argument begs for it.
Anyway, out of all the people to say this about, Natalie Portman strikes me as a deeply bizarre example. V FOR VENDETTA doesn’t represent her best character or her best work, but she’s been terrific in plenty of other stuff:
GARDEN STATE, where she takes that typical “quirky girl who makes life OK for the morose hero” role and makes it feel lived-in and even sort of believeable. The cadence of her speech in that movie is key to the success of her character.
CLOSER, with her strange mix of sophistication and childishness.
ANYWHERE BUT HERE, an episodic and fairly boilerplate mother-daughter drama in which she completely holds the screen against Susan Sarandon — check out the scene where she imitates the Sarandon character at an audition.
And I think she’s fine in the STAR WARS prequels, too. Not the best actorly materials to work with, but she’s sweet and likable, which is really all you need (and everyone forgets that the most wooden Queenly parts of PHANTOM MENACE are actually acted by Keira Knightley!).
Plus, she can rap. š
Acting is ultimately about aesthetics and ‘truth’. I suspect it all depends on how well one can relate to the performer in a given circumstance.
I see DiCaprio pick up a gun and try to act ‘tough’ and I automatically burst out laughing. On the other hand, I have always thought certain ‘tough guy’ actors like Kurt Russell have never really gotten thier due and are quite exceptional.
I think Portman is a good but not great actress.
Part of the problem is that modern American actors believe you can be taught acting when really it is about observing human nature and living life. These young actors think that hanging out at Spago at 21 makes them worldly, it does not, it only makes them shallow.
In other news, the United 93 trailer looks positively riveting.
I also think it will be cathartic for many people to watch. If it is as good as it looks and treats the subject matter seriously, I hope people support it. If they do not, all the ‘pissin’ and moanin’ will start to seem hollow.
“and everyone forgets that the most wooden Queenly parts of PHANTOM MENACE are actually acted by Keira Knightley”
My god, it’s all freaking true.
Kiera Knightley… Kiera Nasty!
(Sorry, I just can’t quit that)
In Dave P’s original review of V for Vendetta, he asked what a film like this from the right might look like. It is a valid question.
While on Amazon I came across a book called Prayers for the Assassin by Robert Ferrigno.
I have not read it and I have no idea if it is good or crap, but it does seem to be just what was asked; a right-wing version of V where America has been turned into an Islamic state with Christians taking the south and the ‘blue’ states taking the North and converting to Islam after a 2015 terrorist attack that was blamed on Israel.
The villain seems to be a Muslim millionaire who wants to destroy the Christian south.
Again, I have no idea if this is any good and it seems to me just as paranoid as many left wing films are right now. But…people are reading it as it is 312 on amazon books.
Anyway, since the question was asked, I thought I would look.
Sounds more like religious propaganda to me. I thought the right’s criticism of liberals was that they were secular, not that they were Muslim.
http://www.surgeofpower.org
Saw this in THR saying it was the first gay superhero movie to hit the big screen…too bad V opened a week before them.
Wow, whatever drugs Randy Quaid’s lawyer is taking? I want some. The test for false representation of a future event isn’t what actually happens — it’s what the person making the representation believes at the time. Good luck proving that the producers didn’t believe what they were saying at the time, giving what they’d gone through to get the movie off the ground.
If he didn’t negotiate for anything on the back end, that’s his agent’s fault. Besides, geez, he’s in how many scenes? He worked for how many days — maybe a week? Did he give up any other work to do the movie? (I would bet no.) Good luck convincing a jury of working people in LA that’s worth 10 million dollars. He’d have to establish that he’d ordinarily make that much — does anyone believe Randy Quaid’s quote is 10 million?
“Money laundering.” “Ill-gotten gains.” “Punitive damages.” Yeah, right. Those drugs are the good stuff.
(A film like V for Vendetta from the religious right would look an awful lot like the Left Behind books, IMO.)
All things being equal, I consider V’s Christian fascist state to be much more likely to happen than for any large Western population to ever decide to convert en masse to Islam.
I actually would consider that Turkish Valley of the Wolves movie to be closer to a right-wing paranoid fantasy than anything involving Islam as the bad guy.
“I actually would consider that Turkish Valley of the Wolves movie to be closer to a right-wing paranoid fantasy than anything involving Islam as the bad guy. ”
You mean left-wing.
As you were.
Why doesn’t Philip Anschutz bankroll something? Or is he only interested in straightforward family fare? How about the Dominos pizza founder? Instead of starting Catholic Town, he could make movies.
No, right-wing. If you asked me whether the Left or the Right was more afraid of their organs being harvested and sold to a wealthy elite…I don’t think it would be kids in San Francisco and art patrons in the Upper East Side who would be having those particular nightmares.
“”I actually would consider that Turkish Valley of the Wolves movie to be closer to a right-wing paranoid fantasy than anything involving Islam as the bad guy. ”
Nicol D: “You mean left-wing.”
—
Wait a sec… it’s extremist Turkish right-wing. Not the same as our ring-wing, per se, but right-wing none-the-less. The folks who made “Valley of the Wolves” (and those who’d love to turn back the clock to some sort of 9th-century Caliphate) are reactionary and staunchly anti-progress and extremely conservative religiously… the very definition of right-wing extremism.
JeffMCM,
Then why is that it was left-wing actors that the subject matter appealed to?
Also…who is harvesting and selling the organs…and who are they being sold to?
Telemachos,
“The folks who made “Valley of the Wolves” (and those who’d love to turn back the clock to some sort of 9th-century Caliphate) are reactionary and staunchly anti-progress and extremely conservative religiously… the very definition of right-wing extremism.”
Could you define turning back the clock for me please?
One of the most ‘progressive’ ‘faiths’ right now one might say are New Age Pagan types who believe in the devine feminine. And their beliefs and practices are much older than the so-called ‘conservative extremists’ you reference.
Again, what would you call ‘progressive’?
Bathhouses and orgies like in the Roman days of Caligula?
Secularists who believe certain religions should be seen and not heard like in 200 AD?
Talk about turning back the clock!
Nicol, Billy Zane and Gary Busey didn’t take those roles because they’re left-wingers…they took those roles because they’re hacks who’ll do anything for money. It was shameful and un-American of them, but it’s even more insulting for you to suggest that they took the roles out of ideology.
In the movie it’s a Jewish doctor who sells Iraqi organs to rich New Yorkers etc. Substitute “Idaho” for “Iraq” and I believe my point is made…I don’t know what point you were trying to make…maybe if you weren’t so opposed to film theory, your ideas wouldn’t be so easily refuted.
How about a movie about the Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity and was going to be executed for it? It looks like he’s going to be spared that fate now. Hollywood could really spice it up though. I can see the executioner getting a call from Karzai right before he releases the guillotine. Or maybe Clint Eastwood working against the clock to save him. The possibilities are endless.
Has anybody seen the movie (Valley of the Wolves)?
The thought of Gary Busey being ideological is hilarious.
“Then why is that it was left-wing actors that the subject matter appealed to?”
What left-wing actors? And how do you know that anything but a paycheck appealed to them? Assuming otherwise — without evidence — is highly faulty logic.
Jeff,
“It was shameful and un-American of them, but it’s even more insulting for you to suggest that they took the roles out of ideology.”
Uhhh…have you actually read some interviews with Billy Zane about this project?
If it is not out of ideology than why would it be shameful and un-American? Isn’t capitalism American?
“In the movie it’s a Jewish doctor who sells Iraqi organs to rich New Yorkers etc. Substitute “Idaho” for “Iraq” and I believe my point is made…I don’t know what point you were trying to make…maybe if you weren’t so opposed to film theory, your ideas wouldn’t be so easily refuted.”
Again, it’s only modern film theory I’m opposed to, Jeff. The one that means you do not know the proper meaning of the word metaphor.
‘Member the old meaning…once you use actual places and iconography it is no longer metaphorical subtext, but text.
As to the point I was trying to make…
hmmmm…maybe that amongst the hysterical fringes of the left, a Jewish doctor selling the organs of dead Iraqis to wealthy captalist American New Yorkers isn’t exactly what I would call ‘right wing’ paranoia.
Or maybe that a scene showing an American military commander (played by Zane) raiding an Arab wedding and using Iraqi children as human shields plays right into left wing propaganda and paranoia about the American military.
Yeah…I think that was the point I was trying to make.
And we were getting along so well yesterday.
Stella’s Boy,
The situation you referred to will most likely never make it onto an American movie screen in my life time.
Didn’t Zane or his manager say that he was misled about the storyline in the movie, and that he never would have starred in it had he known? I recall reading something along those lines recently. And yes, the left wing hates the military. Despises it. Just like Bill O’Reilly says.
I remember reading an interview with him where he made very hysterical remarks about what the American military were doing in Iraq.
I tell you what…I’ll try to track both down.
Nevertheless, I get of the ‘actor was fooled’ argument (see Randy Quaid also). It really just reinforces the stereotype that actors are all flakes, which is not true.
Zane has given conflicting interviews.
In the NY Times before the furor erupted he is quoted as saying he acted in the film because he is a pacifist and against all war.
Later he said to various outlets, that some scenes were added in after he left production that changed the film.
Busey issued a statement about not letting people dictate to him about free speech.
Make of this what you will. Either they really believe in the cause of this film…or they are really stupid…or both.
But I think you would have to work really long and hard to make this one out to be ‘right’ wing propaganda as defined in Western right/left terms.
Nicol D, it’s hard to pin down definitions, especially if you feel like re-defining things as you see fit.
However, anti-semitism is hardly a “left” sentiment — case in point being the Czar’s secret police who formulated the ridiculous “Protocols of Zion” to begin with.
The film is certainly virulantly anti-American (and anti-Semitic), but unless you define the “left” as being specifically that, I don’t see how it follows.
Through history, the efforts to use religion as a political tool and to subjugate or terrorize a population through religious extremism is generally indicative of right-wing sentiment; Franco’s use of Catholicism during the Spanish civil war, the Inquisition, Islamic extremism, etc.
“an American military commander (played by Zane) raiding an Arab wedding and using Iraqi children as human shields plays right into left wing propaganda and paranoia about the American military.”
I think I missed that memo. You know, the one about our paranoia of human shields and stuff.
I mean, I got the ‘some soldiers tortured people in prison’ and the ‘bring our troops home’ memos… Honestly, it isn’t the troops over in Iraq that make The Left sweat bullets. It’s the commanders stateside throwing billions into a project that has turned into a civil war these past months. But back on topic…
The Feingold Censure motion being compared to Vendetta’s gay pride? Priceless. I mean, just damned cool writing there.
However, I’d give the movie an eight-and-a-half because the Evey plot was far more rewarding than Inspector Finch’s, but that is just where I and Gross disagree.
When I think of “leftist activist actors”, Zane and Busey hardly come to mind.
Random side note — ever see a film called THE BEAST? It’s a terrible movie, but quite surreal, especially in today’s political climate. It’s Kevin Reynolds’ first feature (I think), starring George Dzundza (!) as an evil Soviet tank commander in Afghanistan, with Stephen Baldwin (!!) as one of his minions. Steven Bauer (!!!) plays the heroic mujahadeen fighting the Soviets, and Jason Patric is the “intellectual” Soviet who, when abandoned by Dzundza as a traitor, teams up with Bauer to take the tank out.
It makes sense given the climate back then (evil Soviets, heroic Afghans), though it tries to go counter to most 80s action films and ends up in some weird neverland instead. Now it just seems bizarre.
Nicol, I might not understand ‘metaphor’ but you don’t understand ‘subtext’.
I believe that the paranoid anti-American fantasies that this Valley of the Wolves movie subscribes to are extremely similar to the paranoid anti-government fantasies that plenty of fringe groups on the Far Right subscribe to…groups like the Branch Davidians of Waco, lots of survivalist groups in Idaho and Montana, etc. Your extreme insistence on literalism (and underlying die-hard notion that liberal=anti-American) has blinded you to see the underlying similarities that form the basis of what I was talking about.
Billy Zane was in Silver City, so that’s a sign that he harbors liberal tendencies…but he was also in Bloodrayne.
This thread certainly came a long way from ‘gay superheroes’.
JeffMCM;
Neither an oppressive Christian regime nor an Islamic one is plausible for the foreseeable future in Western Europe, but over the long-run, its much easier to imagine the latter due largely to two things; Faith and Demographics.
The Church is on life support in Western Europe, while Muslims are passionate about their faith. The secular, multicultural humanism that Europe now prides itself on would be no match for the fervently held beliefs of a confident Muslim minority in terms of motivating people to fight.
Europe is facing a demographic disaster, as the birthrates for natives are well below replacmeent level. It is not too hard to imagine a time, maybe just a few decades from now, when large-scale immigration of Muslims, plus their high birthrates, have combined to give them a strong enough minority to force their will on the weak, cowed, and ever-shrinking majority.
So the idea that a state such as the one in V could arise in Western Europe is more a projection of paranoid leftwing fears than any likely course of future events.
What about a state such as the one in V arising here? Just a paranoid left-wing fear?
Perhaps the most unintentionally funny moment in V is when the gay Jay Leno character admiringly speaks of the beautiful imagery and poetry of the Koran.
I mean, if there is one major religion in the world under whose dominion a gay person may suffer genuine persecution and oppression (as opposed to the false kind characterized by a refusal of the people to grant gay unions the same status as traditional marriage), and maybe even lose his life, simply for being gay, its the Religion of Peace.
Two points…
The rise to power of the Hard-Right Christian movement didn’t take place in the future, it had taken place now. The movie itself, however, was placed in the future.
Second, denying legal partnership rights under the court of law is oppression, no matter how lightly you dress it up.
Stella’s Boy:
I think the idea of such a state arising in the United States is also a paranoid leftist fear, though admittedly not to the same extent as is the idea of one arising in Europe.
Christian faith is still going strong in the US, and can count on both the higher birthrates of religious whites, a mostly Christian black population, and the immigration of mostly Catholic Hispanics to serve as at least some protection against it going the way of Europe, who as I said earlier, has a shrinking and non-believing native stock, and the immigration of non-Christians.
I don’t think the United States would fall down the path of V for a variety of reaons. For one thing, I think the tug of war between security and freedom will not be allowed to swing to far towards the former. In the past, our govt has taken steps that, in hindsight at least, we now disapprove of, yet they generally did not outlast the war/threat that led to them. Even though this current war is open-ended, I do not think that the people will permit any significant or lasting infringement of their rights. As it relates to the treatment of homosexuals, well the people of this nation are increasingly tolerant (and maybe even approving) of homosexuality, while at the same time hostile to the idea that marriage be redefined, against their will, for homosexuals. There is no conflict between the two, and just as the majority has voted down gay marriage every time they’ve been given a chance, they would also reject any genuine persecution of homosexuals.
Ted Striker, what you are talking about is more plausible over a time span of multiple decades, up to a hundred years…and if the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that a lot can happen in a hundred years. And anyway, the current anti-immigrant fervor that much of Europe is experiencing will probably stem that tide to some degree.
Here’s something interesting: I just went to Google to look up “European birth rates” and the third link down is for a white supremacist group.
You are right though, that Stephen Fry’s line about the Koran was a little…corny. Regardless, I’m unaware of any major religions that are particularly gay-friendly.
Tofu;
Its not oppression, and everytime the Left makes that ridiculous argument they cheapen yet another formerly powerful word (as they have done with ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ and ‘homophobe’ etc), and they insult the majority who clearly disagree.
The West today (including the United States) affords to homosexuals more freedom, tolerance, and acceptance than in any other time or place in history. That the people still choose to grant to traditional marriage certain status in law that they do not grant to gay unions is not oppression. It is an endorsement of the ideal, and the people have every right to do it.
So you’re saying gays have enough rights, and equality would be asking too much. Am I correct?
I have no idea what you mean when you say “an endorsement of the ideal”.
Freedom shouldn’t be up to referendum.
Wasn’t there somebody a week or so ago…I forget the name…who was also pushing the ‘European demographic crisis’ bandwagon?
You should hang out together. Maybe you already are.
Homosexuality is a rare enough occurence that it will probably never find acceptance in the mainstream of any religion or the culture at large. But to say that the government can deny them certain rights in order to uphold the “ideal,” that crosses the line for me.
The majority in this country has also chosen to, at times, back questionable policies like segregation. I don’t see that as an implied validation of segregation so much as a sad artifact of non-progressive thinking. Same goes for some of the more homophobic policies today that have majority approval. I believe that these policies will eventually be a thing of the past but that does not mean I will stand silent and efectively condone them…already we are seeing congressmen propose rollbacks in the gay adoption policy. And then what?
Ted Striker, I appreciate your calm, measured opinions, but I have to take issue with the implied assertion that the country has already given gay people enough and that they are no longer persecuted. Until they have equal rights, they will still be oppressed by the law.
JeffMCM; I agree that the European Islamic regime scenario would likely not be possible for several decades, but I still think its more plausible than the rise of a regime based on a faith that native Europeans have increasingly turned their back on. From what I understand, not even the ‘conservative’ parties in Europe will speak of or use religion in politics to the extent that even Democrats will in the United States. In short, I just think that that ship has sailed in Europe, and its not coming back.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the white supremacist group website and European birth rates. Surely you’re not suggesting that it is something that only skinheads would know about, are you? Are we not supposed to notice it? Is this something beyond the pale for civilized and polite discussion? Does good taste render it verboten? I would have thought the open mind of a liberal would welcome the discussion of any and all topics.
For better or worse, Europe and its offspring have dominated world affairs for 700 yrs or so. Most of the great art, technology, and civilization we enjoy came from Europe, or the larger Western world it spawned. Now maybe Europeans will eventually halt their voluntary decline, and this will all be irrelevant, but if it continues then I do think there is legitimate reason to wonder about what may fill the void. Maybe it would be something better, but maybe it would be worse. I don’t know; who knows? Do you? And if the birthrates of a non-white people were so low, then I think people would rightly and justifiably be concerned. I wouldn’t want to see the native people of Africa disappear either, but since there is no reason to think that they will, then there is no reason to talk about it. That’s not the case with Europe (though ‘disappear’ might be stating it too strongly) If diversity is so great, then surely we should be concerned about the possible decline of the society that celebrates it the most!
And its particularly unfair in a debate over the question of the most plausible form of tyranny that might rise in Europe to try and discredit the opposition by casting racist aspersions on the mere mention of facts that undoubtedly bolster my claim. As we both said, it may take decades, but you can’t deny that a Europe with more Muslims and less non-Muslims would be a Europe more ripe for an Islamic regime. Is the truth no longer a defense?
And I’d disagree with the ‘anti-immigrant fervor’ line. Usually such feelings in fact reflect anti-mass immigration sentiment, not hostility towards individual immigrants.
As to the other matter; my general point was that its absurd to use words like ‘oppression’ to describe a situation where society has chosen to preserve marriage as they’ve always known it. If you want to call it unfair, then fine, but to say that the majority is oppressing homosexuals in choosing not to grant the same recogntion to their unions is both false, and insulting to that majority that has otherwise been very accomodating to homosexuals.
By ‘endorsement of the ideal’, I of course mean traditional marriage. Now, you can protest all you want wishing it weren’t so, but the union of a man and a woman will always be seen as the preferred, ideal family unit. Parents will always hope that their sons grow up and marry nice women, and that their daughters grow up and marry good men. As such, it is natural that they will prefer laws that endorse this arrangement and balk at the idea that alternatives are just as valid.
And I completely disagree that freedom somehow requires the recognition of homosexual unions. Nothing in the Constitution was ever intended as requiring such recognition, so yes, the matter of marriage should be left to the people and/or their elected representatives. Homosexuals are of course free to seek full-fledged marriage rights, but there is no ‘right’ to them. And considering trends in public opinion, it is likely that homosexuals will soon be granted full marriage rights (even if they may not have the word ‘marriage’) in large parts of the nation. They in fact already have them in California, and much of the Northeast. So it may be that time is on your side, but impatience and contempt for the parts of the nation that disagree do not justify outrageous acts of judicial activism that have no constitutional justification.
That was a lot of words and not much content.
There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage. But the 14th Amendment does promise “Equal Protection Under the Law”.
“Parents will always hope that their sons grow up and marry nice women, and that their daughters grow up and marry good men. As such, it is natural that they will prefer laws that endorse this arrangement and balk at the idea that alternatives are just as valid.”
So basically if a man is gay, his family will still want him to have an unfulfilling heterosexual marriage and will want the government to keep it that way. That does sound oppressive.
To be fair to Ted Striker, it sounds like he/she’s not maliciously anti-gay but rather, like so many other people, simply profoundly ignorant of what the terms of the gay marriage debate are. It sounds like he/she would be okay if domestic partnerships were allowed, as long as the word ‘marriage’ doesn’t get used. Splitting hairs, but whatever.
On the other hand, his ‘more white babies’ argument is basically thinly veiled racism.
Those darn gays just won’t stop trying to shove their lifestyle in Ted’s face. They really threaten his nice heterosexual relationship. I mean, he was really happy until the gays suddenly wanted to be treated equally and fairly. Now what is he supposed to do?
“Through history, the efforts to use religion as a political tool and to subjugate or terrorize a population through religious extremism is generally indicative of right-wing sentiment; Franco’s use of Catholicism during the Spanish civil war, the Inquisition, Islamic extremism, etc.”
This is quite simply not true. Our modern notions of left and right come from the sixties and what the left and right has stood for fluxuates constantly from generation to generation.
The Republicans eradicated slavery yet now most blacks won’t vote Republican. The Democrats used to be the home to working class Irish and Italian Catholics and now they vilify them. These things are constantly in flux…and will be again.
Also be careful of quoting vaugue generalizations about the Inquisition, Spanish War, Islamic extremism etc. More have died in the past 150 years due to Marxism and aetheism than those instances you reference.
Also…to all of the ‘oppressed’ who seek ‘equality’;
Can you please, provide us with a definition of how you define ‘oppression’ and ‘equality’ and what philosophies you use to define it that way?
Cause you’ve faced a lot of oppression in your life as a straight white male, right Nicol?
So you can’t answer the question in other words?
Oppression: an arbitrary and unfair negative action a group forces on individuals within the group.
Example: For your whole life you’re told that marriage is sacred and that it is the ultimate expression of showing love to another. It is something to aspire to. You find the love of your life and commit. And you discover that people don’t want you to get married, or if you do you can’t call it marriage, because the person you love is not deemed socially appropriate.
Equality: social state where different people have the same status.
Example: Black people had to sit in the back of the bus and only whites in the front. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that blacks have a right to sit in the front. But it is inherently unequal to force certain people to sit in the back. Just like it is unfair for the government to force people to get a second-class marriage just because you don’t think they deserve “real” marriage.
That was my first reaction Nicol. What oppression have you ever endured? In addition to what palmtree said, when I think of oppression I think of a specific group of people being unfairly labeled and/or held down by the powers that be. Equality seems more self-explanatory. How do you view them oh wise one?
Nicol, I think of states where dismissal based on sexual orientation is not illegal, where gay people are not allowed to get married and share property rights, where gay people cannot adopt, where homophobic laws against sexual acts remain on the books, where men and women who have contributed decades to the military can be fired because they have a same-sex partner…I mean, I could go on, but I think you are smart enough to understand that this is oppression, even if your political philosophy will not allow you to recognize it as such.
What is equality? Simply put, a world where the events above are not legal.
“Oppression: an arbitrary and unfair negative action a group forces on individuals within the group.”
“…when I think of oppression I think of a specific group of people being unfairly labeled and/or held down by the powers that be.”
Let’s say that there is an observant Muslim immigrant family who is coming from some wartorn part of the world where they cannot raise thier children in peace. They come to a Western country that proclaims tolerance such as Canada or America. They are working class; father and mother do the best they can to get by. They put thier children in a public school which is predominantly white and viciously secular. They cannot afford private education.
When sex education class is discussed, the Muslim parents object because they do not agree with homosexuality or same-sex marriage or the overall way that sex is taught. They are told they have no choice. This is what thier kids will be taught or they will fail. They are then labelled as ‘bigotted’ and ‘homophobic’. The children are laughed at for their ‘intolerant’ beliefs.
Would you consider this oppression?
“Equality: social state where different people have the same status.”
What kind of status?
There are many millionaires yet I am not. Is this what you mean?
What type of different people? Religiously different…racially different…culturally different…sexually different?
Are all things equivocal?
Oh geez you’re right Nicol. That would be oppression. What was I thinking? I’m going back to hating gays. That makes much more sense.
Why is ‘disagreeing’ the same as ‘hate’?
Yes, that is oppression if what you state is true. But in your example, is it the government that is forcing the Muslim parents to send their kids to this class or just some extremely vehement neighbors who are pressuring them? Sure a lot of people are vocally against gay marriage, but to have the government step in is a different story. You may be against smoking, but to create a law saying that it is illegal to smoke is crossing a line.
I think equality is not about being all millionaires or all the same skin color, etc. It is about being able to live with the same basic opportunities (make money, get an education, etc.). It is not about everyone getting an iPod, but rather everyone having an equal opportunity to find the means to acquire one. One of those basic opportunities is to get married.
Actually, I would consider it separation of church and state.
Nicol, you very pointedly ignored my post, didn’t you? You always ask for examples of how gay people are being oppressed and then, when they are offered to you, dodge the answer.
And seriously, are you really comparing equality to communism? Equality is where everyone, regardless of gender, skin color, or sexual orientation, is protected equally under the law. ‘Nuff said.
For the record, smoking is a legitimate health issue, which should be subject to the law.
But my point remains: peer pressure and intolerance is a part of life in a way (didn’t we learn anything from Crash?). But to have the government complicit in it against a minority is an oppression that really crosses the lines of personal preference to public enforcement.
You guys are forgetting that one should always concede defeat in any argument where the opposition is on top of a big, shiny white steed. And he’s smarter than you are too.
So Nicol, if your theoretical Muslim family came to America and was told by school officials that they could no longer tell all their new American friends that Jews were evil, would that be oppression too? Something they had learned all their lives? Even if there were no Jews in the school?
What Nicol doesn’t like is the shift in our culture to a default acceptance of homosexuality, instead of a default belief that gays have something wrong with them. This is the massive divide that separates people who otherwise say they’re for equal rights, anti-gay bashing, etc. It’s the final frontier.
“Yes, that is oppression if what you state is true. But in your example, is it the government that is forcing the Muslim parents to send their kids to this class or just some extremely vehement neighbors who are pressuring them?”
It is a public school. They…like the majority of people cannot afford private. They are working class.
“One of those basic opportunities is to get married.”
What is marriage? Should everyone have access to it under any circumstances?
“You always ask for examples of how gay people are being oppressed and then, when they are offered to you, dodge the answer.”
No. I merely asked for definitions of a principle. You offered specific examples.
“Equality is where everyone, regardless of gender, skin color, or sexual orientation, is protected equally under the law.”
You omitted religion in this. Is that intentional or are Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Jews not equal to you? Are they second class citizens?
“So Nicol, if your theoretical Muslim family came to America and was told by school officials that they could no longer tell all their new American friends that Jews were evil, would that be oppression too? ”
In my example I do not say they call anyone or thing evil. They merely disagree. Do you accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being filled with hate?
Are you accusing all Muslims of hating Jews, Jeff?
You did a lot of debate in high school, didn’t you?
I ask that because you’re quite good at parsing tiny subtleties of phrase to totally shift the debate in your favor.
I was using a hypothetical Muslim family who belives, as many do, that Jews are evil. I do not believe all Muslims hate Jews any more than I believe that all Muslims hate gays in your example.
But I think you knew that, just as you also knew that nobody really thinks religion is a factor in treating people equally, and are merely using these questions as a rhetorical smokescreen away from your unsupportable arguments.
Although you do seem to assume that James Leer thinks that you’re a second-class citizen, which feeds into your rampant persecution complex, so maybe I’m wrong.
I mean ‘everybody’ instead of ‘nobody’ in the above. Whoops.
Actually, as a jew who believes deeply in the First Amendment, I do think that telling someone that they cannot tell others that jews are evil is oppression.
And I also think that actions against jews (or any other group) on the basis of those beliefs should be aggressively prosecuted by the government, though I have some issues with hate crime laws. But the action is where the conflict with law is. And opinion, however stupid, must be vigilantly protected.
No, freedom to practice religion is part of equality under the law, but I love the massive leaps you took to accuse me of hating Orthodox Jews somehow. As I’ve said before, I am a liberal Democrat from a large Catholic family of democrats. Shocking, I know, but they do exist.
So Nicol, I offered you examples of homosexual oppression. Do you take them as valid and admit that it does exist under the law? Or will you answer my question with a question about a wholly different group?
Really? If someone had a kid in a first-grade class and one of the other kids was telling the class that they didn’t want to share toys with David Jr. because he’s Jewish and Jews are evil, you wouldn’t want _some_ kind of action taken?
I don’t care what the kid’s parents tell the kids at home – that’s their business – but in the public sphere of the classroom, doesn’t that constitute a form of illegal discrimination?
No, that’s not illegal for a child to say, jeffmcm. I don’t think DP is saying no action should be taken — in this case, I’m sure the child would be disciplined or suspended. But it’s perfectly legal to state your opinion, no matter how hateful.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing against free speech, but behavior. Remember this began with Nicol’s argument that conservative religious types should not be forced to learn sex education. If a public school was teaching that discrimination against homosexuals was acceptable, then any form of discrimination follows.
James,
I ususally don’t take requests but…here we go!
“Nicol, I think of states where dismissal based on sexual orientation is not illegal,”
Which states are you referring to? No one should be fired from a job for being gay.
“…where gay people are not allowed to get married”
What do you believe marriage is? This is the whole reason why there is a debate.
“…and share property rights,”
I agree with you.
“…where gay people cannot adopt,…”
Do you believe gender differences are learned or innate? This one is much more complex.
“…where homophobic laws against sexual acts remain on the books,…”
What states are you referring to? It should not be illegal for anyone to be a homosexual or engage in homosexual acts. Last year the Supreme Court struck down all anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional.
“…where men and women who have contributed decades to the military can be fired because they have a same-sex partner…”
That is technically not true.
“No, freedom to practice religion is part of equality under the law, but I love the massive leaps you took to accuse me of hating Orthodox Jews somehow. ”
I accused you of nothing. In your example you did not include freedom of religion. I am not going to assume you believe in something if you do not state it.
Again, can you tell me what philisophy you use to define your words such as ‘equality’ and ‘oppression’?
As to you having a large Catholic family…then you must have debates with them about these subjects all of the time.
Jeff
“just as you also knew that nobody really thinks religion is a factor in treating people equally, and are merely using these questions as a rhetorical smokescreen”
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Seriously. Can you explain?
I agree with what Dave P. said about hate crimes laws. I am fairly libertarian when it comes to free speech (although nothing is absolute) and I think hate crimes laws are tantamount to thought crime.
Who gets to define what hate is? Many people here define mere disagreement as hate and confuse a question with an accusation. That is very troubling.
“Remember this began with Nicol’s argument that conservative religious types should not be forced to learn sex education.”
Jeezuz Jeff…
Do you go out of your way to miscontrue and misrepresent other people’s arguments? That’s why I copy exactly what I am responding to above my response.
Sheesh.
This is what you said:
“Let’s say that there is an observant Muslim immigrant family who is coming from some wartorn part of the world where they cannot raise thier children in peace. They come to a Western country that proclaims tolerance such as Canada or America. They are working class; father and mother do the best they can to get by. They put thier children in a public school which is predominantly white and viciously secular. They cannot afford private education.
When sex education class is discussed, the Muslim parents object because they do not agree with homosexuality or same-sex marriage or the overall way that sex is taught. They are told they have no choice. This is what thier kids will be taught or they will fail. They are then labelled as ‘bigotted’ and ‘homophobic’. The children are laughed at for their ‘intolerant’ beliefs.”
That reads to me as a group of people with conservative religious beliefs who have problems with the way their children are taught sex ed. You used Muslims in order to appeal to liberal sympathies, and because you think we all hate Christians, but the idea is the same.
What on earth does “viciously secular” mean? I’m chuckling at the notion, although I admire your poetic streak.
Re: rhetorical smokescreen, your constant diversions, digressions, and requests for clarification are the equivalent of a parliamentary strategy to avoid direct discussion of the issues at hand in situations when they are not favorable to you; and to resituate the debate in ways that are favorable. Don’t sit there and bat your eyes and say things like “I am not going to assume you believe in something if you do not state it.” This is a coy strategy to cloud the issue; a smokescreen.
Congratulations, though, for making me tired of the discussion. It’s clear that you’re more interested in parsing semantics than in pursuing “that elusive quality of truth” that you so sanctimoniously pretend to be after.
Nicol, more than 30 states do not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class in employment. See this monster.com article:
http://diversity.monster.com/gale/articles/firedwhatnow/
As for what I believe marriage to be…could it be simpler? It is all the legal rights of marriage, defined under that term. Like it or not, marriage is a legal state of being, and the rights that are granted under that should be available to gay people.
As for your rebuttals to “don’t ask, don’t tell” and gay adoption, I don’t even know what you’re positing unless you elaborate.
Nicol, in your Muslim scenario, it is not clear whether the kids are being forced or just pressured to take an unfavorable class. Many courses are designed so that any one of numerous classes can fulfill requirements. Couldn’t they just take another less offensive class?
I think the problem of gay marriage is not the legality of it necessarily, but the religious aspect. Because religion is seen as governing marriage, people believe that gay marriage is a perversion of their religious beliefs. To which I reply: gay people deserve to express their religion too. Not all gay people are secular hedonists. Some are also deeply devout and are protected under the Constitution in their rights to practice their religion. It may not be the way you want your religion to be practiced, but that’s why its called freedom of religion.
“Re: rhetorical smokescreen, your constant diversions, digressions, and requests for clarification are the equivalent of a parliamentary strategy to avoid direct discussion of the issues at hand in situations when they are not favorable to you; and to resituate the debate in ways that are favorable.”
Thank you jeff. That is exactly how I feel every time I try to have a discussion with Nicol. I just couldn’t find the right way to phrase it. Well done.
Marriage is an institution with its origins in religion. It seems to me that the problem is not the government’s denial of homosexual marriage, but rather that our government is in the business of marriage at all.
The government should offer civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and with a civil union comes the standard legal protections and tax breaks. This prevents the government from making a value judgment on your relationship.
A marriage from the church then complements the civil union. If you’re straight, no problem– in today’s system, you go to the church and the courthouse anyways. If you’re gay, it is up to you and your church to settle the validity of your relationship. Some churches will allow gay marriage, some will not.
So gays get the same legal protections as everybody else, and conservatives don’t feel that the institution of marriage is somehow tainted. This system would meet the stated requirements of both sides of the debate. And for that reason, I never expect it to happen.
But Eric, the way things are now, straight people can go down to the courthouse, no church involved, and be *married*, not into a civil union. In the scenario you propose, if I understand it correctly, no one going down to the courthouse would be “married” — that would strictly be a ceremonial/religious thing.
This is not a flawless plan, though. Marriage has its *roots* in religion, but it hasn’t been a strictly religious proposition in this country in I-don’t-know-how-long. What about the institution that it’s clearly become, for better or for worse (I would say better, but.. whatever)? Why should that have be rolled back because we allegedly got the idea from religion? Do we have to “give back” doing unto others, or charity work, or other values/actions that many people acquired through a religion?
That’s why I don’t understand how religion enters into the gay-marriage thing (or why there is a gay-marriage “thing” at all). Most Christians don’t care if two atheists go and get a marriage license, right? At least, they seem OK with keeping their displeasure to themselves, as that’s been an option for a good long while. Yet for gays they’re apparently overstepping religious boundaries??
The only attempts at logical arguments against gay marriage seem to be on the order of “there’s no law that says they *should* have this, so it’s not discrimination, and if there’s civil unions, it doesn’t hurt gays not to have this, so nothing should be changed.” But it doesn’t hurt anyone to change laws and allow gays to marry, either. It just makes some religious people mad. I mean, so do R-rated movies in some cases! But they’re allowed.
Yes, what I was saying is that the thing that everybody gets at the courthouse, straight or gay, would be called a “civil union.”
The government’s involvement in a traditionally religious rite is the problem. It has been a problem for as long as the government has recognized marriage, but its symptoms have only become apparent in recent years.
I think you and I are on the same side. As I said above, I doubt my plan would ever happen. If it does not, I do believe that legal gay marriage is the next best choice.
Eric is spot-on right. What he wrote is the Libertarian argument.
It’s a simple question – How can one cry about protecting the separation of Church and State from Christian Conservatives, and still want to be *married* by the state?
Marriage is a sacramental construct. It is not an original concept by the state. It entered American society via the church and became secularized when the state realized how much cash it was missing out on. The money issue is the same reason no politician has proposed changing the semantics.
The best thing for all people would be to have a civil union for the state and put marriage back where it belongs, with religious organizations. This way you would have equal recognition for all by the state.
Palmtree would have everyone believe that only religious homosexuals are being hurt. In the scenario Eric and I back, these people would be able to if the religious organ they belong to recognizes gay marriage. The state would be free and clear.
So save the politicians, who else would have a problem with this? How about those who do not want to see marriage as a religious property. Why? Because it would strengthen religion within society. If you really wanted that title of being married, you’d have to practice your faith which would lead to a natural uptick in church-going Amercians. Then you have the divorce issue. 50% of marriages do end, but 82% of those that stay together were married in a formal church setting. By having civil unions separate from marriage, the disparity would appear rather quickly. The attrition rate for civil unions would be massive compared to sacramental marriage.
Jesse wrote – “Marriage has its *roots* in religion, but it hasn’t been a strictly religious proposition in this country in I-don’t-know-how-long. What about the institution that it’s clearly become, for better or for worse (I would say better, but.. whatever)? Why should that have be rolled back because we allegedly got the idea from religion? Do we have to “give back” doing unto others, or charity work, or other values/actions that many people acquired through a religion?”
You didn’t “allegedly get the idea” from religion. It was co-opted.
In religion, marriage is a construct, *not* an idea. Charity is an idea that you can or cannot act upon. You *enter into* marriage. You do not enter into values/actions. It’s more than ritual and symbolism, which is another reason the secular crowd wants to hold onto state marriage.
Martin, two religious people trying to get married are not the ONLY people a ban would hurt…Why twist my words? Did that really sound like what I was arguing? I was merely saying that that was a situation where rights were definitely without question being violated.
Eric I agree that the government shouldn’t be involved in legal marriage at all–but since they forced many into it for reasons of mortgages, tax breaks and pensions & healthcare in some states, yes indeed as a matter of civil rights it should be open to all.
Legal marriage is a legal contract of committment. Religious marriage is entirely different in the US. Plenty of people are “married in the sight of God” and it means Squat in court in most states (unless Common law is recognized re. division of goods)) I don;t understand who it hurts to afford all men and women regardless of their chosen partner the right to have the legal contract that protects property and allows for easier set up of pension and benefit plans.
and to the people harping on “traditional” marriage–what is that supposed to mean? Are traditions “good” and whose traditions are they?
Slavery was “traditional” for many societies–didn’t make those societies “right” or enlightened to maintain that particular tradition.
ALl our kids aren;t going to GO GAY if same sex couples are allowed to have Legal Union.
I am very happy to keep church and state separate–in marriage and any other insitution like public schools or health clinics that use public monies. Neither the majority or the minority should be imposing their religious objections on anyone else in publicly funded work, yet they still try all the time as if they have a “right” to do so by being loud or using emotional blackmail.
Palm – that was a typo on my part that I thought was changed before posting. My Apologies.
Lota – people who get married in a religious context do not see state marriage as being equal. Change all state licensed marriages to civil unions and the problem goes away. Differentiate bewteen sacramental and legal and the issue is resolved and you’ll get what you want – tax breaks, healthcare, etc… equality within the eyes of the government.
Personally, I think a lot of homosexual people who do want to be married are being used by social marxists looking to gut Judeao-Christianity from American society.
Sounds like quite the conspiracy theory Martin, and it also assumes that many gay people are too stupid to know that they are being used. Not buying it. Of course, conservative politicians and the religious right are using shameless scare tactics to convince straight people that the institution of marriages is doomed because of homosexuals.
well I know state marriage is not seen as equal by the modern “traditional” marriage folk, and nor should it be since each “religion” has different rules which are difficult to enforce or prove in court and this is a pluralistic society with one Law for all.
It should be as easy to get divorced as it is to get married, yet legally this isn;t the case either.
Many religions are against divorce which “undermines marriage” in their terms, yet they haven’t gone on the all-out assault against politicians as they have on same-sex marriage.
If heterosexual divorces are made in heaven, why can’t homo-marriages be made in heaven too?
Seems legally unfair. Legal marriage will win the day against the anti-homos. Making Divorce accessible won after many decades of campaigning.
Thanks for the retract, Martin.
I’m wondering what is the scenario for allowing gay people to get married. Is everyone going to become gay? Is God going to start hurricaning the whole country? Or is it based on real studies of the effects of homosexuality on children or on culture in general?
From what I understand, studies have shown that children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight parents. And didn’t the American Psychological Association endorse gay adoption, saying that there is no reason to believe that somehow straight children will be magically turned gay by having gay parents?
Stella
traditional marriage is already doomed with Common Law being in practice in most developed nations and with 2 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce in the US.
Heterosexual divorce is more common than heterosexual marriage.
When divorce was “decriminalized” in Rep of Ireland you should have seen the rush to get divorced. Unbelievable, even though the Catholic Church and Church of Ireland issued incredible threats from the pulpits.
“Traditional” marriage is not a stable thing, so how can same-sex marriage undermine it further?
I never knew Marxists were such a threat to our country before I started reading this blog. How come I’ve never met one? Or, wait…maybe one of you is a Marxist!!! Or several of you!!! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW?
Trust me, Martin, there’s no collusion between gay people wanting to get married and “social marxists looking to gut Judeao-Christianity from American society.” That theory would conveniently ignore that gay people are actual people with actual motivations, not theoretical people lounging around with nothing to do until “social Marxists” gave them the idea, “Hey, don’t you want to get married?” Gay people want to get married because they want to get married.
I just can’t believe that friggin’ Spain has gay marriage and we don’t. SPAIN?!?!?!
Actually, the linking of Marxist theory to issues of sexuality and gender is something that is very well alive and the basis of modern ‘progressive’ views on human sexuality. The linkings are found in the writings of everyone from feminist theorist Catherine MacKinnon to gender identity ‘philosopher’ Michel Foucault.
Both were/are/continue to be heavily influencial to modern ‘progressive’ thought on notions of gender, queer studies, feminism and human sexuality. Both heavily used Marxist theory to inform their world-view.
In most academic circles and universities thier names are revered as Christ’s is in the Vatican.
Remember, the other day when I asked what ‘philosophy’ were people using to inform their definition of ‘equality’; this is what I was getting at.
Same sex marriage as a concept is as much a creation of modern feminists as it is the gay community.
That in no way is to suggest that gay people who want to marry are being insincere…I believe many are. But it is a much more complex issue that is not only about them.
Nicol, I suggest you get your head out of the academia you loathe so much, get into the real world, and meet some gay people.
Jeff,
How can you be for or against something if you do not understand what it is you are for or against?
Yes, that is my way of sending out a smokescreen to obfuscate the truth of the debate and make conditions more favourable to me.
Heh.
So it’s okay to deny certain rights to certain people in order to avoid validating the philosophy you believe is behind it?
What determines what is a right if not the philosophy behind it?
Are you asking a real question or a rhetorical question?
Personally, I am very clear what it is I am for or against. I think you are the one who has a muddled (albeit intellectually validated) worldview.
Seeking out Marxist scholars who agree that gay rights is a good thing is a way to grasp at straws to find ways to legitimize discrimination.
“Seeking out Marxist scholars who agree that gay rights is a good thing is a way to grasp at straws to find ways to legitimize discrimination.”
But we discriminate in marriage all of the time.
Number of participants is restricted; age is a restricting factor; so is relation of blood relatives.
I suspect you are for all of these other forms of discrimination. Why?
Okay, what is the philosophy that allows people to practice freedom of religion? Because that’s the one I mean. Is that Marxist?
No. In Marxist philosophy freedom of religion is a threat to the state. Which is why in communist countries the first thing to go is the freedom to worship.
Which side is it in the debate on marriage that most fears religion and its influence in culture?
Nicol, like I said before, you don’t really want to debate. You have a fixed and unchanging set of beliefs which you are out to promote, through all manner of rhetorical games and diversions. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if that’s your method you must abandon certain pretenses.
Age is a limiting factor in marriage because only consenting adults can and should make those decisions. Blood relation is a limiting factor because inbreeding is almost universally agreed to be a bad thing, so you’ve got me there! Outdated customs and morality! Except science agrees that it’s undesireable. As far as polygamy goes, I don’t really care about it. I think it’s inherently sexist and unfair to women, but I don’t think it’s a serious societal problem either deserving of much debate.
Interesting Nicol, a fear of religious freedom is inherently Marxist. Well, I’d call not allowing two gay people to marry an infringement on their religious freedom. Whether allowing it will lead to gay triplets marrying underage lesbian twins, I can’t say for sure.
I don’t think it’s Marxism per se that limits religious freedom as much as it is totalitarianism and everything that comes with it. It just happens that every Marxist nation has also been rigidly authoritarian.
Hey Nicol: how about if the Left agrees to not push crazy Marxist/feminist notions as long as the Right stops trying to turn everyone into an Evangelical? Oh, I forgot, you’re Catholic.
“Nicol, like I said before, you don’t really want to debate.”
Oh but Jeff, I do. That’s why I ask questions and challenge your assumptions. What else is a debate if not that?
What should I do? Just roll over and admit you are right? Or perhaps I’ll just come to the table with a lot of vulgar language and spew invective?
“Blood relation is a limiting factor because inbreeding is almost universally agreed to be a bad thing, so you’ve got me there! Outdated customs and morality! Except science agrees that it’s undesireable.”
But the argument for redefinition of marriage as it played out in Canada and France and in the courts in America argue sexual relations are no longer a factor in marriage. That is why two veterans in Canada who lived together but were not gay said they might get married to get better ‘benefits’ in thier old age.
That’s why some feminists argued that any collection or group living together could be called a family and qualify for marriage (ie. a group of students)
See Jeff, we all have assumptions that we need to challenge. If you were to go a neo-con web ring right now I’m sure there would be a few lone liberal or progressive voices challenging their thoughts too.
They’d ask:
What is patriotism? Define free speech? Why are we selective in who we decide to ‘liberate’? Define terrorism?
And they would be right to.
That is the nature of debate. Contrary to what you may think I am always open to having my mind changed…but you have to answer my questions to do it.
It doesn’t come easy.
“What should I do? Just roll over and admit you are right?”
That would be fine.
Anyway, if your mission has been to challenge assumptions, I regret to say that you have not succeeded…just as I doubt that I have successfully challenged any of your assumptions either. Your approach has been wayyyy too faux-intellectual and smug. If you want to convince people of your arguments, stop acting like Moses carrying the tablets of wisdom and, to quote the Jews, just be a mensch.
I never heard of any of those Canadian or French cases. They sound interesting, but they also sound like fringe instances of crazy left-wingers going too far, which is too bad. I’m sure you’re also aware that plenty of heteros have gotten married for ‘benefits’ as well…shocking!
I don’t think you’re a bad guy, and your thoughts are much more interesting than the knuckle-dragger who seems to have left this blog. Your arguments have often been strong, but as I’ve stated before, it’s the (often unspoken) assumptions underlying them that are flawed.
“In most academic circles and universities thier names are revered as Christ’s is in the Vatican.”
What utter nonsense. MacKinnon is an incredibly divisive, controversial figure. Her views are hardly universally accepted even among those who call themselves feminists.
“That’s why some feminists argued that any collection or group living together could be called a family and qualify for marriage (ie. a group of students)”
Name them, please. And please tell us exactly when these arguments were made. Citing sources that other people can look up would be nice, too.
Yes, folks, it’s true. Feminists are out to destroy society and make everyone into Marxists. Those issues like equal pay for equal work, education, and child care? All just a big smokescreen to cover their real, family-destroying, atheist agenda. ::eyeroll::
Yeah, Nicol, I just wonder what caused you to grind your particular ax.
I’ll tell you I do have a certain personal aversion to Christianity but that stems from growing up with it at private school and at home and at church and at school organizations and being rather neck deep in it and then realizing that it wasn’t for me. I had to challenge all my lifelong assumptions to do that too.
Nicol you seem to judge everyone left of center based on what really amounts to the beliefs of a few people on the fringe. I imagine that you would have a serious problem with someone else judging everyone right of center based on the ramblings of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
JeffMCM:
I take your cheap ‘thinly-veiled racism’ shot as your conceding of defeat in the argument over the most plausible form of tyranny that may some day rise in Europe, as the all too predictable use of that tired, false, and now meaningless charge is generally a refuge for someone who has nothing of substance to say. Its interesting how quick so many on the Left will resort to the various ‘-isms’ when confronted with facts that they don’t like.
JeffMCM/StellasBoy: No need to wonder, as I’ll spell it out for you. First off, I do in fact know most of the terms of the gay marriage debate. I can understand that you’d want to frame the terms in such a way that it backs up your position, but there really are two sides. But really, none of that matters to me, as I’ve deliberately chosen not to debate the merits of recognizing or not recognizing gay marriage. Its not a debate I’m interested in. So when you speak about the gay lifestyle ‘threatening my heterosexual relationship’ you are bringing up a point in the debate (the claim that recogntion of gay marriage will not hurt traditional marriage) that I’ve not made, or even addressed. My main points of contention deal with the idea that not recognizing gay unions equals oppression — which I think is absurd — and with the question of who ultimately decides the issue. I think it is properly in the realm of popular and legislative authority, and I don’t think the judiciary should impose or mandate any outcome.
In short, its about the process for me. When you speculate that I would be okay with domestic partnerships/civil unions, but not gay marriage, you assume a preference for an outcome that I have not put forth. In fact, so long as the courts stay out of it, I’m fine with any outcome because it will have been decided by what I consider to be the appropriate authorities. I don’t like that Massachusettes’ Sup Court imposed gay marriage on their state, and I don’t like that Vermont’s Sup Court imposed civil unions; but I have no problem with Connecticut’s legislature voluntarily (i.e. w/o judicial coercion) adopting civil unions, or California enacting domestic partnerhships. If the time comes when a state voluntarily adopts gay marriage, and uses the word ‘marriage’, then so be it. But that would not happen in the majority of states (nor would the various euphemisms like ‘civil unions’), or Congress for federal purposes, in any foreseeable future. So the Left must rely on a federal court imposition of your preferred policy, and I am completely opposed to that because I think it is illegitimate.
Palmtree/JeffMCM:
As to the 14th; we just have different opinions as to what judicial philosophy should reign. I think judges should apply the Constittuion in accordance with the intent of the various provisions as understood by the nation that gave consent to them. You apparently think that judges should interpret and apply the Constitution in ways never envisioned or intended, or in other words, in any manner they see fit, so that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.
We’ve passed amendments and laws dealing with race and sex. We have not granted homosexuality any such consideration. And that is the problem for the Left; you can’t pass such amendments, and in most cases, even simple legislation because it is out of touch with most Americans. I can understand the frustration such a sitution brings, but it does not justify having a few judges twist the meaning of the Constition into saying the things you can’t pass in the proper democratic channels.
My comments about parents and children were not meant in the way you took them, but rather as a simple demonstration of what your side must contend with — human nature. So many on the Left seem to believe in this fantasy where society and people will look at homosexual relationships the same way they do heterosexual ones, with the same level of acceptance and even celebration. You seem to believe that some day the sight of two men or two women walking down the street holding hands will be greeted with the same nonchalance as a boy and girl. You seem to think that there will be a day when homosexual relationships will be seen as no different than traditional ones. Well, the reality is that that is never going to happen. In an environment where 95-98% of the population is straight, the other 2-5% will always be seen as an aberration from the norm. Now, that doesn’t necessariy have anything to do with the law, but it does help explain just what you are up against in trying to convince society to treat the two as the same.
And as to your bus analogy; again, we have as a nation and a society chosen to deal with racial equality through Amendments and legislation. We have given consent to it. We have never done the same for sexuality.
“You seem to think that there will be a day when homosexual relationships will be seen as no different than traditional ones.”
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I agree that homosexuality is not normal, but that still doesn’t make it unnatural. I don’t think society needs to celebrate homosexuality any more than it needs to celebrate any other minority.
Since the Courts were created by the Constitution, doesn’t that make them legitimate?
Stella’s Boy – “Sounds like quite the conspiracy theory Martin, and it also assumes that many gay people are too stupid to know that they are being used. Not buying it. Of course, conservative politicians and the religious right are using shameless scare tactics to convince straight people that the institution of marriages is doomed because of homosexuals”.
How much of a goddman double-standard is that statement? Gay people are too smart to be used by social marxists, but straight people can be duped into mass fear?
If Gay America was that smart, they’d actually be changing policies because they’d deduce a winning strategy. In fact, the exact opposite has been occurring.I guess the only way to justify the actual results then, is too claim the other side is unenlightened. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
I’ve been friends with a number of gay couples who approach marriage with sincerity. But they are not the advocates. I think the overall gay community is smarter than its leaders, much like most Fundamental Christians are better people than Dobson or Bozell will ever be. But each side allows the delusional to rise the top and the group as a larger whole pays for it.
I would never say one side is smarter than the other.
I must say I am simply amazed at how many of you have little care or comprehension at the level of social marxism that is at the heart of leftists causes.
It’s not conspiracy. It’s philosophy. Beliefs in ideas like social justice come right from marxist ideology. The people advocating for it may have gotten the notion from an F’ing Star Trek episode, but that doesn’t change it’s meaning. We’re not debating intentions. And this applies to all people. If you don’t know the root cause of your position, it’s not the fault of another person because they point it out. Go read Crichton’s State Of Fear for a good example of how a noble goal can be co-opted by ideology.
What I also love is the variations on the old cliche that “Person X should get to know (insert group here)”. I could give you several examples of gay couples I am friends with and gone out of my way to make sure they were given equal treatment in contractual situations. How many of you are friends with Christian conservatives?
If belief in social justice stems from Marxism, call me a Marxist.
Ted Striker: I would never concede defeat to a racist argument. Correct me if I’m wrong, but everything you had said amounted to little more than anti-immigrant people paranoia. If I thought liberal democracy was legitimately under threat in Europe, I might be more willing to agree with you. But I don’t.
I think that reading “Equal Protection under the Law” to mean “except based on sexual preference” requires more of an activist reading than applying it in a blanket manner to all people. If you say “the founders never meant to include gays” then you’re putting words in their mouths that they never said. The problem with strict textualism in a legal argument is that it’s virtually impossible to apply in a real-world setting and never has been. Judges have defined what laws meant since day one.
Next time I start trying to take rights away from Christian conservatives, I’ll double-check.
I am a gay person and would like to get married one day, and am not allowed. Simple as that. This desire is not rooted in some sort of Marxist philosophy, and the fact that I cannot…well, yes, I regard that as oppression.
I’ll tell you this, though, Ted: younger generations ARE increasingly nonchalant about two men or two women in a relationship. Attitudes are changing for the better, even as our politicians try to stoke a climate of fear. The oppressive initiatives that are being put into place will not last in the face of progress.
As for your assertion that “we have as a nation and a society chosen to deal with racial equality through Amendments and legislation. We have given consent to it. We have never done the same for sexuality”…well, we hadn’t done that for racial equality until we did, either! There’s a first time for everything, isn’t there?
“So many on the Left seem to believe in this fantasy where society and people will look at homosexual relationships the same way they do heterosexual ones, with the same level of acceptance and even celebration. You seem to believe that some day the sight of two men or two women walking down the street holding hands will be greeted with the same nonchalance as a boy and girl. You seem to think that there will be a day when homosexual relationships will be seen as no different than traditional ones.”
This is already the state of things in most large Western cities. Better get used to it.
And I don’t mean American West, I mean American/Canadian/Australian/European.
Re: so-called “judicial activism”; the Constitution was written with checks and balances to prevent a tyranny of the majority from denying minorities their rights. There were already amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing blacks and women equal rights; why bother passing the Voting Rights Act or other laws to protect them?
Clearly gays are bellyaching for Special Rights.
Jeff, do you even know what philosophy you’re using?
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.
Yeah. I was being ironic.
That was exactly my point Martin, to show what a crock I think your statement is.
Jeff, so was I…with the first sentence at least.
The rest was a quote (and it’s not Marx).
I thought it seemed kind of archaically verbose. One of the Federalist Papers?
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.
I’m flattered that you would think I could pull off archaically verbose.
The New Left’s definition of democracy=
10 people in a room.
8 people believe one thing.
2 people believe another.
The government should force the 8 to believe what the two believe.
If championing the rights of children to live in a society that at least aspires to saying that they are crucial to the definition of marriage and family makes me a fascist…then just call me French.
What’s the New Right’s definition Nicol? 10 people in a room and anyone without a bible or a bribe is asked to leave? So in all this you have merely been championing the rights of children? I’m sure the New Left hates children, right Nicol? Very anti-children.
Never hear you talk about’em and their rights.
Nope. Never.
No one should be forced to believe anything unless their beliefs are directly responsible for harming someone. Which goes back to the question of how does gay rights directly harm you, or children for that matter? All I’ve heard is someone mention the APA say that children raised by a gay couple do not turn out gay. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?
“From what I understand, studies have shown that children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight parents. And didn’t the American Psychological Association endorse gay adoption, saying that there is no reason to believe that somehow straight children will be magically turned gay by having gay parents?”
Um, that was Stella’s Boy by the way. So did that not count as talking about children rights?
“we have as a nation and a society chosen to deal with racial equality through Amendments and legislation. We have given consent to it.”
Yeah, never mind that the 14th amendment was enacted into the constitution post-civil war (with the southern states kicking and screaming) and yet it took almost another 100 years before there was any real redress for racial discrimination.
“Never hear you talk about’em and their rights.”
That would be children that the left doesn’t care about. Uh-huh. Because it’s the left that’s cut the availability of Medicaid for poor children, cut food stamps that help feed poor children, and cut $12 billion in student loans that help children get a college education.
Oh, wait. That wasn’t the left at all. Oops. That was the Republicans. The Democrats (if you can actually call them the “left” anymore) opposed all of those things.
The right is very good at talking about things like protecting children and “family values,” but what they really seem to mean is that children should only see and hear what the right wants them to, and that everyone else should be forced to comply with their idea of morality in the name of “protecting the children.” The rhetoric has nothing to do with making sure that *all* children, even the poor ones, have a decent place to live, food, basic medical care and the opportunity to get a decent education. Those things are the first they go after in the budget process every single year.
I’ll believe the right gives a damn about children when they put their money where their mouth is, instead of giving more tax cuts to their buddies.
Oh, Nicol, now you’re just being ridiculous. Somehow, since we weren’t talking about children’s rights during a discussion on gay oppression, that makes us anti-kid? Please, that’s such a bait and switch. Every time you’re confronted with valid points, you immediately reframe the debate so as not to address them.
But I will say that several people have mentioned children already, albeit indirectly. For instance, I talked about how many states do not protect gay parents during custody battles and adoption services. I’m sure you don’t care about that, but if you were really as open to debate as you claim to be, why not take a look at this article?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.custody29mar29,0,5461675.story?coll=bal-local-arundel
Nicol, grow up.
“The rhetoric has nothing to do with making sure that *all* children, even the poor ones, have a decent place to live, food, basic medical care and the opportunity to get a decent education. Those things are the first they go after in the budget process every single year.”
I agree with all of this. My politics are much more complex than right and left. Just because you label me a neo-con…does not mean that I am.
As for children they are hurt two fold in our culture…by a complete free market system on the right that does make it harder for poorer families to get ahead and provide the basic necessities to poor children which they deserve.
They are hurt by the left, which sees the family as a source of patriarchal oppression and seeks to redefine marriage in a way that children are no longer included in the definition of marriage or the family.
James,
I did look at that article and although I have not further researched the case, it does seem like the right decision was made. The mother did not present any arguments. I do not believe that children raised in gay homes ‘turn gay’. That is silly. But, just as the courts in France believed, I too believe that children have the right to live in a society that at least aspires to giving them a positive mother and father role model.
“Somehow, since we weren’t talking about children’s rights during a discussion on gay oppression, that makes us anti-kid? Please, that’s such a bait and switch. Every time you’re confronted with valid points, you immediately reframe the debate so as not to address them.”
I am not the one saying that children have nothing to do with marriage and the family. Your side is. Children are involved and they seem to be the last thing that advocates of redefiniton of marriage care about. Sweep them under the table, shut them up, put them in government subsidized daycare with a grilled cheese sandwich while progenitor one and two earn a six figure salary to subsidize a home in the Hamptons.
Every child has a right to live in a society that at least aspires to give them a mother and father, even if there are exceptions.
To say that children are not a part of the concept of marriage or family and that it is just about property rights and taxes to me is a great disservice to children’s rights.
Who cares about them in a society that says they are no longer crucial to the definition of the family?
Where are their rights when they do not count?
If reframing the debate over marriage as being about ‘what’s best for children’ as opposed to ‘what’s best for the gay and feminist community’ makes me the ‘villain’ than just call me Snidely Whiplash.
Jeff,
Maybe if you actually threw in some opinions as opposed to skulking around the corners and throwing out insults and sarcasm whenever you were presented with contrary opinions to your own I would actually let your comments bother me.
Maybe.
Maybe if you got off your soap box and started acting like a real human being, you could get people to take your opinions seriously. I deliver sarcasm because everyone else seemed to have done a suitable job of rebutting your repetitive, baseless arguments and for me to say more would be a waste of time.
You keep talking about ‘redefinition of marriage’ in terms that nobody here has promoted or agreed with, but you stick with them because they’re the only way for you to continue the argument, thus it becomes circular and never-ending.
You’ve agreed in the past that gays deserve to be treated equally; you have never offered any reason outside of vague, ominous hints, as to why gay marriage is a harmful thing. You’re just arguing now to hear your own voice, for self-aggrandizement. Grow up.
“They are hurt by the left, which sees the family as a source of patriarchal oppression and seeks to redefine marriage in a way that children are no longer included in the definition of marriage or the family.”
Children have never been part of the definition of *marriage.* There has never been any legal or societal requirement that marriage include children — we don’t prevent women over the age of menopause from marrying, or people who are otherwise infertile, or those who choose not to have children.
Please show me any example of a person/organization of any influence at all (meaning not a lone nutjub) on the “left” who seeks to redefine family to exclude children.
Again, you take the most extreme example you can find (or imagine) and assert that it’s the viewpoint of some “left” — as if the “left” was some singular entity that agreed on everything, rather than an extremely heterogeneous collection of individuals and groups of all kinds who rarely agree on anything, much less everything.
“I agree with all of this. My politics are much more complex than right and left. Just because you label me a neo-con…does not mean that I am.”
Well, I haven’t labelled you a neo-con, ever. And it’s nice that you agree.
But my point was to say that the right is oh-so-interested in children’s welfare when the “left” “never” (your word) addresses or tries to protect children and their rights is patently, demonstrably false.
Yeah, and if we’re talking about ‘won’t someone think of the children!’ how about the thousands of kids in group and foster homes who would love to be adopted but can’t be thanks to anti-gay-adoption laws in place around the country? How about the destabilizing effect of having two unmarried parents who are unable to share health benefits?
If you start getting into children, the weakness of the anti-gay marriage argument is staggeringly large and I recommend for Nicol’s sake that he change the subject AGAIN.
“Maybe if you got off your soap box and started acting like a real human being, you could get people to take your opinions seriously. ”
Constantly responding to me in snarky, huffy tones does not convince me that you do not take me seriously. Seriously.
“Children have never been part of the definition of *marriage.* There has never been any legal or societal requirement that marriage include children — we don’t prevent women over the age of menopause from marrying, or people who are otherwise infertile, or those who choose not to have children.”
Not true. That’s why I used the word ‘aspires’. There have always been exceptions, but once a society quits even acknowledging children in the formation of the family…do you think that is better or worse for children?
Even in pagan Greek society, you ultimately married for the sake of children.
“Please show me any example of a person/organization of any influence at all (meaning not a lone nutjub) on the “left” who seeks to redefine family to exclude children.”
Please read the complete court arguments on this subject in all the countries where it has been discussed. I won’t provide a link. If it really matters to you, you will. If it doesn’t, a hundred links won’t make a difference.
“…how about the thousands of kids in group and foster homes who would love to be adopted but can’t be thanks to anti-gay-adoption laws in place around the country?”
I’m Jeff and I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blooooowwwwww your argument down. Nice try.
“If you start getting into children, the weakness of the anti-gay marriage argument is staggeringly large and I recommend for Nicol’s sake that he change the subject AGAIN.”
As opposed to the rhetoric and generalizations that you spew on your side. C’mon Jeff, complexity and nuance is more than childish rhetoric and name calling. Show me my arguments weaknesses.
Do you really believe as Lynn does that marriage and family has nothing to do with children?
If this is true why do proponents of same sex marriage not feel comfortable making this argument in the public sphere but only in court?
No, you first. We would all like all children to be raised in a stable father-mother environment, but that ain’t happening. So tell me why it’s wrong for all states to legalize adoption by two gay parents. Or why it shouldn’t be legal nationwide for gay partners to share health insurance. Go ahead. Surprise me.
And please, don’t answer my questions with more questions. This is not your high school forensics class.
“Not true. That’s why I used the word ‘aspires’. There have always been exceptions, but once a society quits even acknowledging children in the formation of the family…do you think that is better or worse for children?”
First — what part of what I said isn’t true? Which, to refresh your memory, was: “Children have never been part of the definition of *marriage.* There has never been any legal or societal requirement that marriage include children — we don’t prevent women over the age of menopause from marrying, or people who are otherwise infertile, or those who choose not to have children.”
Children are not part of the definition of marriage, and nobody is questioned about their intention to have children when they marry. Nobody who doesn’t or can’t is legally prevented from marrying. Nor do I see any evidence that society discourages those who can’t/don’t choose to have children from marrying.
“once a society quits even acknowledging children in the formation of the family…do you think that is better or worse for children?”
It is not the same thing. We are talking about what constitutes a marriage. Does allowing infertile people to marry somehow compromise the definition of a family? Your argument makes no sense.
“Even in pagan Greek society, you ultimately married for the sake of children.”
So assuming this is true for the sake of argument, please explain again how allowing marriage between those who don’t intend to have children somehow hurts them? Or how allowing gay spouses to adopt would hurt children? Would we be better off if a single gay person adopted or had IVF or whatever?
Your argument might make some sort of internal sense if you were suggesting that any childbirth outside of heterosexual marriage should be banned. That would be fascist, of course, but at least it would make sense. But that isn’t the law — any single person can have a child, and in most places, single people can adopt. Any single person with a child is entitled to any benefits, tax deductions, etc. that a married couple with a child can get. So given that… how, again, does allowing gay people to marry and have two parents instead of one hurt children?
I said: “Please show me any example of a person/organization of any influence at all (meaning not a lone nutjub) on the “left” who seeks to redefine family to exclude children.”
Nicol replied: “Please read the complete court arguments on this subject in all the countries where it has been discussed. I won’t provide a link. If it really matters to you, you will. If it doesn’t, a hundred links won’t make a difference.”
So, in other words… you can’t provide a single example, and expect me to find evidence to support your theory.
What countries have “discussed” redefining a *family* (not *marriage*) to exclude children?
Moreover, how does what one person argues in one case anywhere in the world meet my criteria for finding a person/group of influence on the left? Anyone can argue anything — that doesn’t mean anyone else, much less the entire “left” agrees with it.
There is nobody on the “left” of any influence or repute who has suggested *excluding* children from the definition of family.
With so many people choosing to have children out of wedlock, and with so many people choosing to get married later rather than sooner, it hardly seems that gay people are attempting to “redefine marriage.” Couldn’t you argue that straight people are doing the same Nicol, if that is what it really is? You continue to paint the left with extremely broad strokes Nicol. That is hypocritical of you. You are constantly instructing people to see shades of gray and you go on and on about the complexity of certain issues, and you would hate it if someone made broad generalizations about the right or religious people. Yet you persist in doing just that when you refer to the left or the New Left.
Remember when Britney Spears got married and then had it annulled a couple of days later?
I don’t remember a single member of the Right complaining about how she was mocking or undermining marriage. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Excellent point jeff. I thought the exact same thing when that was all over the news. No one said a thing. Nothing about how that is a true threat to the sanctity of marriage. Nothing about how that cheapens marriage. Not a word. I bring that up all the time when arguing with people about how gays will somehow ruin the sanctity of marriage. Cause straight people do such a wonderful job of preserving the sanctity.
“Do you really believe as Lynn does that marriage and family has nothing to do with children?”
Just for the record, this is not even close to what I said.
I said the legal and societal definition of *marriage* has never included children. “Marriage” and “family” are not synonymous.
A married couple is a family; they are also married. A married couple with a child or children is a family; the couple also has a marriage. A single parent with a child or children is also a family; there is no marriage involved. A daughter living with her elderly mother is a family; again, no marriage involved. A single man and his child who live with his sister and her husband are also a family; the sister and her husband are also married. All of the above would be true if all the children were adopted or born before the marriage.
Is this clear enough? *Families* include children when children are born/adopted into the family. The participants in a *marriage* are two adults. One does not need to have, want, or aspire to have children in order to have a marriage. One does not need to be married in order to have, want, or aspire to have children.
Are you getting this now? Or are you still going to insist that “marriage” and “family” really mean the same thing? If so, why do we need different words for them? Why don’t we say “I’m getting family!” instead of “I’m getting married!” Because they don’t mean the same thing.
I am still patiently waiting for the name of the person of influence on the “left” who wants to redefine family to exclude children.
Top 10 Things I have learned about many on the left (but not all) regarding Redefinition of Marriage:
1. When asked many questions on the topic from many different angles, they cannot answer most of them and act shocked that you asked; they think you are changing the topic. Instead, these complex and nuanced thinkers who see things in 10 different shades of grey resort to the same ham fisted cry’s of ‘equality’ without even trying to understand what that word means and who or what philosophy gives them the right to determine what is a ‘right’.
2. Most have absolutley no idea or inkling about the derivation of culture, ideas and thoughts. Same sex marriage did not originate overnight, and its origins are as much in the radical feminist and Marxist movements as the gay community.
3. Many have no idea whatsoever who the forebearers of modern left-wing philosophy are. To imply that Catherine Mackinnon or many others like Bell Hooks, Andrea Dworkin, Karl Marx, Naomi Klein or Michel Foucault are ‘fringe characters’ to modern left wing thinking is to display an ignorance about the origin of ideas and who is actually leading your philosophy of thought. To paraphrase Lincoln…what is taught in the classroom of one generation is turned into law in the next.
4. Most do not qusetion why they believe what they believe. Instead, they resort to the same hamfisted rhetoric. Words mean nothing without philosphy behind them. Pope John Paul II believed in ‘equality’. He did not agree with same sex marriage. Che Gueverra believed in ‘equality’ and in the gulag system he helped create for Cuba homosexuals were thrown in jail. Both men used the word ‘equality’, both had very different philosophies. What is your philosophy? Why?
5. Most have not read nor have any desire to read the arguments for this as seen in court transcripts form Canada, Spain or France. I do not provide the links because…let’s be honest, if you cared you would have read them already.
6. Most have not read the feminist arguments for same-sex marriage, ie. Martha Bailey, who is not a ‘fringe’ feminist and was commissioned by the Canadian government to write on it. She believes it would lead to the dissolution of the concept of family and marriage. She sees that as good. Apparently the Liberal Canadian government at the time agreed with her.
7. They do not like to acknowledge children’s rights and get the willy’s when you do. Again, read France’s decision. The majority of the people on the planet disagree with you. Children are best served when raised in a traditional family with a positive mother and father role model. Are there exceptions…sure. But we have forty years of research on the sexual revolution now. This is not 1958 even though we are supposed to act as though it is. As France said, further ‘mutations’ of the traditional family have not served children and society well at all. The word ‘mutation’ comes from thier legal decision (ie. the collective of bohemians in Rent are not a family…although Martha Bailey wants them to be).
8. Most do not question omissions in the media. ‘Conservative’ and ‘religious groups’ roundly critiqued everyone from Britney Spears to the disintergration of marriage by heterosexuals in our culture. But if you only get your news from the mainstream media you might not know that. What’s that they say about media bias?
9. Most leftists hate, hate, hate being questioned and always when stuck in a corner call the questioners arrogant, a child etc. They try to make you feel inferior for questioning them using mostly sarcasm. This is to obfuscate that they cannot answer most questions posed to them. Just like in university.
10. The anger and intolerance shown to those on this thread alone to those who disagree is staggering. I am not surprised. What of course is upsetting is not the views you have but the supreme hypocrisy. Those who claim to be tolerant and open minded, of course…prove themselves anything but. Everyone has a right to be heard on this subject and seperation of church and state does not and has never meant that Evangelicals, Mulslims, Catholics and Orthodox Jews etc. should keep thier mouths silent on these matters. They are citizens and have a right to be heard like everyone else.
This the last post I will write on this subject on this thread.
Feel free to leave your insults and insinuations below.
Top 5 Things I Have Learned About Some on The Right (But Not All) From This Discussion:
1. Whenever they can’t provide evidence for his specious assertions, they change the subject, or assert that if you really cared, you’d find the evidence yourself. Never mind that it wasn’t your assertion in the first place.
2. They believe “the Left” is some cohesive, single-minded movement, all of the members of whom believe the same thing at all times. Therefore, anything the flakiest, most whacked-out loon once wrote in an obscure book nobody read is attributed to the entire “Left.”
3. They believe that if anything “the Left” believes even vaguely resembles an idea in any political philosophy many find abhorrent, the idea must have originated there… never mind that the idea might well have predated that philosophy or developed independently since that time. (This theory does not apply to any ideas espoused by abhorrent right-wing movements, however.)
4. Some on the right hate, hate, hate, being asked to give a simple answer to a simple question.
5. Instead of giving an answer that won’t support their argument, they instead choose to misconstrue and misstate their opponent’s views to the point of absurdity. This, however, does not constitute “intolerance” in their view of the world.
“This the last post I will write on this subject on this thread.”
Finally! An end to the parade of self-aggrandizing obfuscations.
This is not a complex issue. The only reason to make it complex is to bury it in confusion and faux-intellectual intimidation.
One final non-insult to Nicol: go outside, get some air, and please stop being so defensive/combative. They say that the threshold for actually understanding that gays aren’t monsters is to meet and get to know three gay people, give that a shot. And no, I don’t think Conservative Christians are monsters…just unaware.
The funny thing is that we STILL don’t know Nicol’s real stance on the matter because he would never come right out and state it. Because then we might actually be able to, y’know, debate it.
There was never a debate. Just two sides restating their positions over and over again in such a way that no common ground was ever really reached, although it was attempted occasionally.