'Endangered species': Campagin accuses Planned Parenthood of encouraging black women to abort 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Marriage matters
On this Valentine’s Day Eve, WORLDmag.com guest columnist William R. Mattox Jr. uses the 1967 film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner to illustrate his point about how traditional marriage between one man and one woman helps us “find unity amidst stark diversity”:
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner celebrates the triumph of true love over conventional thinking. But it also pays tribute to something deeper and more profound. The film affirms that the greatest difference in the human race is not the difference between black and white, but the contrast between male and female.
Read Bill’s entire column here.
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top116 Comments to “Marriage matters”
This was fun–I really appreciate the line about “Michelle being a mystery,” but I suspect some will take issue. For the rest of us, vive la difference!
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, marriage does matter. And the event below is a very good reason why.
While on a family cruise leaving from Miami – Lisa, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Miami’s Jackson Memorial Hospital with her partner Janice and three children following close behind. There, the hospital refused to accept information from Janice about her partner’s medical history. Janice was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. Even after having all of their civil union, power of attorney etc., etc., documents faxed to the hospital administration. (Can you imagine having to do that as your loved one lays dying?)
A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Janice’s request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor’s acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Janice nor her children were allowed to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival.
Soon after Lisa’s death, Janice tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.
I wonder if Mr Mattox gets a little twinge of satisfaction when he thinks about the anguish and the questioning and the wondering why her loved one wasn’t standing next to her that must have gone through Lisa’s mind as her brain slowly turned to gelatin. Or is empathy a word that is completely foreign?
Report comment to moderator
This is headed nowhere fast……
Report comment to moderator
#3 –
Making it completely different than hundreds of other similar discussions on worldmagblog.
The times are changing. Apparently, evangelical Christians are not. In these uncertain times there are some things we can depend on.
Report comment to moderator
This is a beautiful article that articulates something I’ve had difficulty doing.
Duncan,
Instead of undermining the beautiful and sacred institution of marriage and bringing down civilization in the process, maybe we could focus on fixing the problem with visitation laws in some hospitals. Just a thought.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
Oh, Evangelical Christians are definitely changing, and not for the better, but if you’re looking for stability, turn to Jesus Christ–the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
Bring down civilization? Nothing like a dramatic overstatement.
Instead of treating people in the most inhumane ways possible, while hiding behind the robes of Jesus, we could focus on treating people, as Jesus would have done, with equality. Just a thought.
Report comment to moderator
3 – True.
Report comment to moderator
This post lacks substance in that it does not elaborate on its thesis. In actual fact, the film reference coincides with the SCOTUS case of Loving v. VA, which pretty much scotches the concept of race as a barrier to marriage. The language in the holding there can easily be applied to gay couples.
Interestingly, the language the lower court used is often employed by “christians” who seek to deprive gays of this basic civil right on religious grounds:
<b”Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.” — in a ruling by Caroline County Virginia Circuit Court Judge Leon Bazile, 1958
He then proceeded to fine the Lovings $1000.00, then banish them from their home state of VA.
Oops. Judge Bazile got it wrong. I suspect many of those who call themselves Christian have, too, on the issue of gay unions.
Ree – do you see the inconsistency with allowing gays to visit loved ones in the hospital as a family member would, and opposition to any form of recognition for their relationships?
In 1967, more than 70% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. Today, those who hold those views are viewed as anachronistic bigots.
Report comment to moderator
Duncan,
She should ahve gone to Palm Beach where gay men sodomize each other, without sofas, on the public beaches and under the public pier so little children can see first hand how they were not created.
Report comment to moderator
(I should have opened with “this post and the attached article”. I did in fact read both.
Report comment to moderator
One needs a sofa for sodomy? Llama, you’re doing it wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Ree,
Any gay couple can legally set up visitation rights, in every state in the USA. It takes about $50 and about 30 minutes of their time. This is stupid argument since no one stops them from doing so.
Report comment to moderator
I think the point is that they should not have to spend money and time and tote documentation around while others do not, Llama. Got any arguments as to why they should?
Report comment to moderator
Llama, did you miss the part where the documentation was all faxed to the hospital? Or did you simply ignore it because it doesn’t support your claim?
Report comment to moderator
9 – correct, the cases are definitely related. I wondered when a “magic poster” out there somewhere in the universe was going to bring that up.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not magic, Bianca! But my ability to make pancakes from scratch might be.
Report comment to moderator
And cue the predictable response that Loving was decided wrongly, and anti-miscegenation laws were just fine and dandy.
Report comment to moderator
#18 Even in Alabama in the bad old days, the miscegenation laws werent rigidly upheld. There may have been laws about black/white intermarriage, but as then Gov Jim Folsom joked there seemed to be a lot of “moonlight integratin’” going on. (”Some of the folks in Birmingham are whiter than me!”)
This effort to equate or conflate the Loving court case with same-sex marriage is a bit tiresome.
I dont think the lesbian partner/hospital deathbed scenario is as frequent as its made out to be. It becomes an issue when the partner has a blood relative there who interjects him/herself into the mix.
Report comment to moderator
There is something a bit unjust about some inheritance laws. But again, in the following scenario to the person to be blamed is the dead homosexual, not his surviving life partner or the dead homo’s relatives
Two gay men in Oklahoma lived on a ranch. It was by title the property of one of the two. These men lived there and operated this ranch for 20+ years. During that time the title-holding homo never took legal steps to deed the property to his buddy. After the owner’s death, the survivor continued to live on the property and run the ranch.
But then the deceased man’s hetero relatives came to town. They pushed the issue and the gay survivor was eventually evicted off the property.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, you are quite wrong about the rancher case. In fact, it’s amazing how wrong that wrong can be when it seeks to justify iniquity:
Beaumont and Meadows raised five children on the ranch — three from Beaumont’s previous relationship with a woman and two who “we kind of adopted along the way,” Beaumont says. Although Meadows left the ranch to Beaumont in his will, which was also signed by a notary public, the judge hearing the case decided that another signature was required.
Entire story here: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/04/27/beaumont/
As for how frequent the rights of gay couples are violated – isn’t once one too many?
Report comment to moderator
Amazing how far an argument going nowhere can go in just a few minutes.
Report comment to moderator
22 – yeah, well, who knew? The Pancake Master showed up and
POOOOOOOOOOFFFFFF!!!
Report comment to moderator
Just as I managed to skim through most of the preceding posts, feel free to skim past mine.
This is a wonderful mystery and thanks for putting up the thread. The uniqueness of being female or male is to be embraced. The relationship that can exist in a marriage is incredible, two such different people becoming one is truly a gift from God. Being able to combine the “races” is, I am told, difficult, but not on the same lines as combining male and female. Race being more of a social construct than a legitimate difference. So often we, as Americans, in an attempt to be equal, throw out those differences and pretend they are not there. As mentioned in post 1, vive la difference or whatever those French people say.
Report comment to moderator
The idea that plumbing is the only thing that differentiates any couple is a tad silly, methinks. Most couples are an exercise in “one of these things is not like the other”.
Bianca – blueberry or banana for you?
Report comment to moderator
#24 Race being more of a social construct than a legitimate difference.
You are precisely correct Mumsee!
“Ethnicity and supposed “racial” groups are largely cultural and historical constructs. They are primarily social rather than biological phenomena.” (Reference)
Anthropologists now reject the term ‘race’ as it applies to humans since race means subspecies or variety of species. Humans are all of the same species.
This Darwinian concept that certain ethnic groups were more or less advanced than others on the evolutionary chain has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. Concepts of Negroid and Caucasoid are an embarrassment to modern anthropology. Yet many people continue to misuse the term ‘race’.
Report comment to moderator
#14 Bart,
Sure I do. Like all people who try to circumvent established rules and laws, gays need a legal document to show that what they want to do is in fact accepted by society adn approved.
Think of it like a zoning variance. Say I want to open a gay sterilization clinic. But, the zoning doesn’t allow anything except Muslim Mosques or any other non Christian Church on the property I want to use. So I go to the controlling government and get them to OK in writing my zoning variance so I can legally sterilize gays on that site.
Do you see now?
Report comment to moderator
It is evident to me that homosexuals — certainly the ones here — have no acceptance, no ability to understand, the unique relationship between a man and a woman. And that’s what the article is about.
Report comment to moderator
#15 Duncan,
Faxed documents are easily forged and usually not accepted as fulfilling the legal requirements. Most establishments that can be easily sued by whack jobs, require the wet original so they can judge its authenticity.
Nothing new there.
Report comment to moderator
@ Llama – you’re not making a lot of sense, so I’m afraid I don’t see. If you would allow certain rights provided that a legal document is produced, why not allow gay couples a legal document that gives them all rights, such as a civil union? How is it ok to allow these things piecemeal, but not under one umbrella document? (The whole sterilization/Muslim/variance thing went off the rails – I read it twice and nothing came from it.)
Every couple is unique, much as every person is unique. There seems to be a bit of a misconception as to what the word means in this context.
Report comment to moderator
#20 Sawgunner,
Any estate, even for gays, can be properly processed adn passed on to the legal survivors with a proper will and or trust. This is how things are done. Hospitals and other agencies can be handled with a proper living will. All people should have them regardless of their ability to pick just the right fabric.
Report comment to moderator
As for faxing – NJL can confirm that faxed documents are legal and binding for most business transactions, as are scanned and e-mailed ones. Plus, few would sue a hospital for allowing a loved one to visit.
Langbehn said a social worker told her Florida is an “anti-gay state.”
I guess it is.
Report comment to moderator
In that case, dear Llama, I hope you carry your original marriage certificate, your will, and your power of attorney with you at all times.
Oh and thank you and NJL and Bianca for proving my point about empathy.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Bart,
If the will does not fulfill the legal requirements of the state a judge may decide the will null and void. That is why a lawyer should used used for them, one who specializes in wills, they should be properly reviewed and recorded.
The judges ruling can also be appealed at higher authority as well.
Report comment to moderator
#30 Bart,
Civil Unions are not rights and only allowed in states where they have been properly enacted into law. Couples historically mean heterosexual ones. Gays want the definition to include them too, as they do marriage, but they are quite rightly referred to as gay couples instead. They used to be properly called ‘odd couples’ too.
Report comment to moderator
Ranchers are known, in general, for being hardworking, nature-loving, rugged individualists. They are not known for being experts in either probate law or fabric selection. The person in question is in his 60s, and has been impoverished by the thievery of his “christian” relatives. I’m not sure if an appeal is an option for him.
Report comment to moderator
They used to be properly called ‘odd couples’ too.
Not anymore, though.
Report comment to moderator
#33 Duncan,
My lawyer can have certified legal copies sent overnight of all my papaers that require it within 24 hours of notice – after being faxed by him first. Nothing new about that either.
Report comment to moderator
Janice and Lisa didn’t have 24 hours.
Report comment to moderator
Gays have been using this non existent supposed legal quandary forever. No one believes them anymore, especially law makers, because the law makers know they have enacted laws that protect the right of gays in all of these matters.
It is a ruse to try to drum up sympathy for them and their lost cause since they are losing their battles every day when put to the vote of the people.
Report comment to moderator
25 I like ‘em all ways!!!!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t about empathy, Duncan. Or sympathy. If you have your documentation, no hospital “in its right mind” would run the risk of a lawsuit like this, certainly not in 2009, any more than they would ignore any other power of attorney. Your “hypothetical” is just what Llama says it is — a means to drum up sympathy.
Accept who and what you are, Duncan. I certainly accept you for who and what you are. You are the one with the psychological need to be something that you are not. You are not a husband because you don’t have a wife. It’s that simple. I am not a wife because I don’t have a husband. Call it whatever you want to call it, but don’t redefine words because you don’t fit into a category. We all don’t fit into every category. Most of us are honest about that. Homosexuals evidently aren’t.
(And yes, the faxed and scanned documents are legal.)
Report comment to moderator
To NJL – Duncan’s hypothetical… wasn’t hypothetical: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/08-4
As you can see, the hospital did indeed run this risk, and is paying the price for it in its reputation and likely will pay monetarily, too.
There are more examples, if you’d care to see them, though I think that what it would drum up from you couldn’t possibly be called empathy or sympathy.
As for Duncan’s relationship, what he is to be called under the law is a function of the jurisdiction in which he was married. If the certificate says “husband”, that’s what he is.
Report comment to moderator
Look, we’re dealing with a group of people (conservative Christians) who consider gays to be sub-human, and therefore undeserving of any legal or social rights. They don’t want us to have jobs, they don’t want us to have a place to live, they don’t want us walking around free. Some, like Llama want us to carry identity papers like the Jews did in Germany. If they had the political power, they’d have us arrested and even executed. Let’s face it – conservative Christians have an undying hatred of gays that will never be satisfied. I mean, what do you call a group of people who dedicate their lives to making other people’s lives as difficult as possible? Hatemongers.
It should be noted that the Lovings of Loving v Virginia were foursquare in favor of marriage equality.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t mean to be unkind, but why are so many on the “christian” side of this issue not inclined to be close readers on the subject? This is particularly irksome when they are obviously otherwise intelligent and claim to know so much on the subject.
NJL – Duncan’s hypothetical is not hypothetical: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/08-4
I doubt that or the other documented cases will drum up anything that can properly be called empathy or sympathy from you.
As for what Duncan is to be called legally in the context of his relationship, it isn’t up to you. It’s up to the governmental entity that granted the legal status. Socially, it’s generally accepted to defer to the wishes of the couple themselves.
And speculating on the psychological needs of a stranger does little but invite them to do the same to you.
Report comment to moderator
It should be noted that the Lovings of Loving v Virginia were foursquare in favor of marriage equality.
Amen to that! That’s why in the library you see minority rights books all together, whether it’s about the different races or gays. It’s the same issue, people. Listen to Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Gays are not sub-human. In fact, they are very human, wanting whatever it is they want, whenever they want it.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
You do know you’ve become a parody of anti-Christian rhetoric, don’t you? Making up all sorts of things that you know aren’t true, but that sound sufficiently nasty to attach to the label “Christian.” As you know, the connection is yours, and it’s imaginary–and silly.
Report comment to moderator
#43
There goes Anlir again. Making up stuff out of whole cloth. Not a word of truth, but he’ll keep repeating it, because he’s so full of hate and intolerance that he can’t accept anything but his own imagination as truth.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. Pile on, much?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, the whirleders really know how to party. All we’re missing is the pancakes.
Report comment to moderator
OOO) = short stack with a banana for Bianca.
It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people refuse to be close readers on this issue, yet act as though they know what they are talking about. We had Sawgunner in 20, and now NJLawyer in 42.
Duncan’s “hypothetical” is all too real. WMB won’t let me post a link, but it did indeed happen. I doubt that this will elicit anything that can properly be called empathy or sympathy from NJL.
I would posit that one of these incidents is one too many, but there are many other documented cases where hospital officials did indeed brave the ensuing lawsuits.
As for what Duncan is to be called under the law, that is whatever the governmental body chooses. “Husband” is not unknown in these situations. Socially, of course, the proper thing to do is to defer to what each member of the couple wishes to be called.
Finally, NJL, I would suggest that speculating on the psychological needs of a stranger in a public forum invites others – including that person – to do the same to you.
Report comment to moderator
You do have to wonder about the conservative Christians on here who are obsessed with making gay people’s lives as miserable and difficult as possible. What compels them to express such unmitigated hatred toward gays? Talking to them is like trying to talk to a KKK’er about blacks or a neo-Nazi about Jews. Their wall of hate is impenetrable.
Report comment to moderator
No, I don’t. People should be able to decide who can visit them in the hospital and who can’t. It need not be tied to familial relationships.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Anlir, you really do live in a fantasy world, don’t you. Perhaps you should go seek out some words from a KKK member about blacks or Jews and compare them with the words of the Christians here about homosexuals and then evaluate the similaries. Hint: you won’t find any.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir is a bot.
Report comment to moderator
Denial will not get a person beyond their wall of hate Ree.
Report comment to moderator
Uh-oh, Ree. The problem with your statement at 52 is that it just didn’t work here. And as for 53, there’s this:
NAZI ANTI-JEWISH SPEECH
VS. RELIGIOUS RIGHT ANTI-GAY SPEECH:
Are They Similar?
The first example:
Quote:
Jews 1% of population: control politics, world opinion, NYC, & have lots of money
“At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Jews sit at the junction of the world financial markets. They are an international power. Although only one per cent of the world’s population, with the help of their capital, they terrorize the world stock exchanges, world opinion, and world politics. New York is today the center of Jewish power.” – Nazi propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew,” http://www.holocaust-history.org/der…e/stills.shtml
Gays 1% of population: control politics, have lots of money
“Homosexuals display political control far beyond their numbers. A tiny fraction of the population (about 1 percent), homosexuals have one of the largest and fastest growing Political Action Committees in the country (The Human Rights Campaign) and give millions of dollars to candidates”. – Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying before the US Senate Labor Committee hearings on S.2238, July 29, 1994.
The gays control television & radio, Hollywood
“You know, the gays are in control in Hollywood; they are in control of television; they are in key positions at the Washington Post now; and they watch everything that is coming into the newspaper or television and radio, and they are editing it out.” – Anthony Falzarano, Parents & Friends of ‘Ex-Gays’, http://www.frc.org/net/st95l1.html
Gays more politically powerful than other Americans
“On average, they [gays] are far wealthier, more educated, and more politically powerful than other Americans.” – WHY SCHOOLS ARE TEACHING YOUR KIDS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY,
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a read-only document link to the entire comparison. I found it fascinating. https://faculty.rpcs.org/rauchtilstrag/antiSemistism/comparison%20anti-J%20speech%20v.%20anti-Gay%20speech.doc
Naturally, no one *here* is saying most of the things that the “christians” quoted in the document are saying. But I’d wager that there are not a few who agree with them. And to be fair, these people do purport to represent the “christian” perspective, so it’s sort of in for a penny, in for a pound.
Report comment to moderator
What makes that portion of the Nazi writing piece anti-semitic propaganda is this language: “they terrorize the world stock exchanges, world opinion, and world politics. Just saying that Jewish people and or homosexuals have a lot of political and financial power isn’t “hate speech.”
I don’t know how much power and influence Jewish people really had in the 1930s and 40s, but just pointing out that a specific group of people hold a lot of power doesn’t necessarily indicate hate. In the case of the Nazis, it did, and they said much worse things than what you quoted. And even that portion deliberately uses incendiary language (terrorize).
When liberals claim that right wing conservatives Christians hold disproportionate power and influence over middle America, are they also guilty of inciting hatred against Evangelicals?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Is it theoretically possible in your mind to consider homosexuality sinful and sanctioning of the behavior harmful to society while not simultaneously hating homosexuals? If these two ideas are fundamentally incompatible in your mind, then there’s no reasoning with you. But if you want to be consistent, then you have no right to disapprove of any behavior while still claiming not to hate and desire the most greivous ill will upon anyone who engages in it.
And if it is theoretically possible in your mind to disagree with you without wishing harm upon you, then how would someone go about proving that this is their position?
Report comment to moderator
Ree, all I can say is, read the whole thing. It will make you uncomfortable. Context is key.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
Conservative Christians can shout it from the rooftops about how evil gays are till the cows come home. But they don’t have the right to force us to live under their religious dogma and surrender our rights as citizens. The bottom line is that conservative Christians are attempting to legally make us second-class citizens in America. You wouldn’t stand for one minute of having your legal rights stripped from you, and we aren’t going to stand for ours being stripped from us. On that, there will be no compromise. We will fight for our freedom and rights for as long as it takes. History is on our side.
Let me turn it around on you:
Is it theoretically possible in your mind to consider Christianity evil and sanctioning of the behavior harmful to society while not simultaneously hating Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Bartleby there are extreme opinions on all sides. I have heard atheists (some on here) say that religious instruction of children is child abuse. Can I deduce from that that all atheists want to take my child away from me?
Report comment to moderator
No, KBells. But then, atheists lack the numbers or power to do so even if they could. As for the people quoted in the article at 57, they could and did make everyday life miserable for many gay people. Your argument strikes me as a false analogy.
For the record, religious instruction of children is not child abuse on any level. Sooner or later, the child grows up and can decide for himself if he buys into what he’s learned, or not. This is why adult baptism, Confirmation, and Bar and Bat Mitzvahs are a really, really good idea.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t get why a hospital would refuse visitors except relatives in the first place, especially when no relatives are visiting.
I can see limiting the number of visitors and giving precedence to close relatives. (I imagine a lot of guys might like visiting, say, Paris Hilton if she were hospitalized.)
Report comment to moderator
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner celebrates the triumph of true love over conventional thinking. But it also pays tribute to something deeper and more profound. The film affirms that the greatest difference in the human race is not the difference between black and white, but the contrast between male and female.
Really? I would think the film played upon gender stereotypes at that time which labeled females more understanding and males more stubborn and proud. As the film deliberately set out to test the racial divides in America, I would hardly think they set out to do even more than that; propose that the divide was gender not racial.
Marriage is not based on difference or similarities but compatibility and desire. The author’s claim that biological differences is enough to keep marriage an exclusive hetero institution is rather simplistic and for WORLD to publish it demonstrates its desire to throw red meat to the masses and keep the issue alive while the Republican party is in decline. If it was a new argument by all means publish it but why recycle.
Report comment to moderator
They wouldn’t. There is a remedy at law if there were indeed legal documents presented to the hospital. I doubt this is a recent case inasmuch as it would have been all over the news if this had happened (and probably blogged about). Ree is correct and I agree with her that a person should be able to see whomever they’d like to see in the hospital. That’s very simple, too. Indeed, it’s common sense.
The only people here who are in denial are those who can’t get through life without redefining words; in other words, those people who can’t accept who and what they are. If homosexuals were comfortable about being homosexuals, they wouldn’t have this need to redefine everything. I’m not a mother, but I don’t have a need to redefine “mother” so that my cat and I can be mother and son. The idea is ridiculous.
A husband is a man who is married to a woman, and a wife is a woman who is married to a man. Marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman. There’s nothing wrong with those definitions as Mumsee so eloquently stated above. But there is something wrong with people who psychologically can’t handle that they don’t fit those standard, normal, traditional definitions. That’s real denial.
And, no, socially I would not refer to Duncan’s partner as his husband. I simply refuse to do so — because he isn’t a husband by definition. It’s that simple. I would not dishonor real husbands or real wives in such a way. So, stomp your feet, call me whatever names you want to call me, but facts are still facts. It’s not about hatred. It’s about facing facts, and homosexuals are the ones who can’t accept who they are, certainly on this board. I would say that the Christians here see homosexuals as sinners, just like the rest of us. Just so our homosexuals know, they will never rewrite the Word of God any more than I can rewrite it to make my sins go away either. To think otherwise would be an even greater denial.
Report comment to moderator
And, no, socially I would not refer to Duncan’s partner as his husband. I simply refuse to do so — because he isn’t a husband by definition.
This reminds me of my grandfather who refused to call black people anything other than the “N” word. He said no matter how many laws there were, he would never acknowledge that the “N’s” were equal to white people.
Conservative Christians do exactly the same thing to gays. They cling to their anti-gay prejudice as firmly as grandpa clinged to his racism.
Report comment to moderator
Not only do I consider it theoretically possible, but I’m quite certain that it happens all the time. Lots of people share the opinions of Hawkins, Hitchens, and Harris that Christianity is evil and harmful and yet they don’t hate Christians. Of course, I strenuously disagree with their opinion and their agenda, but I can separate it from their personal opinion of individuals.
Report comment to moderator
#58
You’re stretching it. The rhetoric is similar which is what you asked now the results of the rhetoric may be different but the similarities are there. That alone should give you cause to pause.
Report comment to moderator
Bartleby,
The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about that site is the way that it deliberately tries to misrepresent Christians and to create a great deal of hype about the alleged threat that homosexuals live under. Even the reference to Mathew Shepard is dishonest since it implies that Mathew Shepard was killed by KKK types out looking for homosexuals to kill. As I understand the situation, it doesn’t even appear that Mathew Shepard’s murder had anything to do with his sexual inclinations after all.
A critical reading of those quote comparisons reveals that the similarities are entirely superficial, but it would take more time than I’m willing to devote to show why. The one we already discussed, though, is a good representative of how misleading the comparisons are.
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Christians have long denigrated the murder of Matthew Shepherd. They simply refuse to acknowledge crimes against gay people because of their sexual orientation or perceived orientation.
The reality is, conservative Christians have, through their anti-gay rhetoric down through the years, created the climate where violence and death has been visited upon us. They give cover for others to do evil things to us.
Conservative Christians couldn’t come right out and say the murder of Matthew Shepherd was wrong. No, instead they had to use it to go on another anti-gay diatribe. They have no shame.
Report comment to moderator
This reminds me of my grandfather who refused to call black people anything other than the “N” word. He said no matter how many laws there were, he would never acknowledge that the “N’s” were equal to white people.
So not calling one man’s partner “husband” is now equal to actually using a racial slur/epithet?
Do you hear yourself?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Anlir, your lack of comprehension skills is downright weird. Of course his murder was wrong. Just by referring to it as murder is an acknowledgement that it was wrong. It wasn’t only wrong–it was evil. The only thing in dispute is the motive of the murderers. It would be no more and no less evil if they murdered him for being homosexual or if they murdered him for money or just for the sheer kicks of it. It was evil no matter what the reason. But it’s downright dishonest for homosexual advocates to claim that it was necessarily motivated by animosity towards homosexuals if there’s no evidence that it was and for them to imply that this is an ever-present threat for homosexuals in general.
Report comment to moderator
Look, I understand that conservative Christians want to continue using language that denigrates us because that justifies and enables their anti-gay prejudice. If they were to treat us decently and civilly that would be at fundamental odds with their campaign to keep us legal and social outcasts.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, NJL @ 66. Willfull ignorance is truly an abuse of God’s gifts. I doubt this is a recent case inasmuch as it would have been all over the news if this had happened (and probably blogged about).
The case is from 2007. This is readily available to you on Google, and the filings are on Lexis. You choose not to avail yourself of these resources simply because you choose not to know that which makes you uncomfortable.
Note that the word “citizen” has been redefined for persons of color since the Civil War. Likewise “registered voter” for women since 1920. Our society redefines important words all the time. I don’t care what kind of relationship you have with your kitty – it’s not the same thing as two adults making a life together. Such sloppy reasoning for a lady of the bar!
It’s not about the Word of God – I think most gays are content to let you keep whatever of the myriad versions of it you’ve decided on. It’s about civil rights for couples.
Report comment to moderator
NJL’s point exactly. We don’t care what kind of relationship two men or two women have, it’s not the same thing as marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – the fact remains that conservative “christians” did indeed say all the things listed on that site, with the same motive – to incite hatred of the gay community.
Regarding the Matthew Shepard murder… again, the willful blindness is amazing to me.
In late 2004, ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas reported on an investigation into the murder for the television program 20/20. Though Vargas primarily relied on personal interviews with people involved with the matter, the report was billed as exploring “New Details Emerging in the Matthew Shepard Murder.”[3] At the forefront was the possibility that the murder had in fact been motivated by drugs rather than Shepard’s sexual orientation. McKinney, Henderson and Kristen Price (McKinney’s girlfriend) claimed in these interviews that the attack was a result of heavy drug use, a robbery and a beating gone awry.[3] Price, in her interview with Vargas, ultimately openly remarked: “I do not think it was a hate crime at all. I never did.”[3] This statement contradicted Price’s first interview with 20/20 in 1998, in which she said (of McKinney and Henderson’s attack): “They just wanted to beat him bad enough to teach him a lesson, not to come on to straight people, and don’t be aggressive about it anymore,”[16]. In the report, Price and McKinney’s long-time friend Tom O’Conner, on whose property McKinney and Price once lived, also stated that they believed McKinney was bisexual. O’Conner stated that he and McKinney had sex in the past. However, when Vargas asked McKinney whether he had ever had a sexual experience with another male, he said that he had not.[3]
The 20/20 report also stated that an acquaintance of Shepard’s, Tom O’Connor, said that Shepard informed him of his HIV+ status.[3]
Retired Police Chief of Laramie, Commander Dave O’Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive: “My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes … then something changed and changed profoundly… But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what [McKinney and Henderson] said.”[17]
‘Twas indeed a hate crime, Ree.
Report comment to moderator
Not a single conservative Christian group could issue a flat-out condemnation of Matthew Shephard’s murder without adding a coda that denigrated gay people. They used the situation to shake their bony, self-righteous, judgmental finger one more time at the “evil” gays.
Report comment to moderator
@ Ree in 76… Except that it is, in MA, and CT, and Spain, and Canada, and various other jusrisdictions. If you read the documents signed by gay couples there, they say “Marriage Certificate”. There is nothing that can change that – no Bible, no foot-stomping, no denials on the part of any “christian” will ever make those couples not married.
Report comment to moderator
Bartleby,
How does your last post show that the murder was motivated by anti-homosexual feelings just because some people speculate that maybe that was the motive? Whatever the case, I don’t dispute that it was a “hate crime.” Anyone who would beat a man to death for no apparent reason must necessarily be consumed by hatred. I would dispute, though, that if the hatred was necessarily directed toward the man for his sexual behavior then it was necessarily worse than if their hatred was sparked by some other cause. People don’t generally beat people to death because they’re consumed with warm fuzzies.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, I’m starting to wonder – well, let’s belay that conclusion.
You say: But it’s downright dishonest for homosexual advocates to claim that it (MS’ murder) was necessarily motivated by animosity towards homosexuals if there’s no evidence that it was…
There was lots of evidence for that. See (77). Plus, read the full Wiki entry on the subject.
You continue…
… and for them to imply that this is an ever-present threat for homosexuals in general.
I respond:
FBI reports increasing anti-gay hate crime rate
Numbers actually higher, says Triangle Foundation
By D’Anne Witkowski
Originally printed 12/9/04 (Issue 1250 – Between The Lines News)
New information from the FBI shows that hate crime based on sexual orientation increased in 2003.
The FBI’s “Hate Crime Statistics 2003″ reports 1,430 hate crimes based on sexual orientation, putting this category at the second highest after race bias. Sexual orientation previously ranked third, behind race and religion.
The total number of hate crimes reported by the FBI in 2003 was 8,715, with 16.4 percent based on the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.
According to Jeffrey Montgomery, Triangle Foundation executive director and co-chair of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the FBI numbers do not reflect the true picture of hate crime against gays.
“There’s a huge problem with the FBI report … especially when it comes to anti-GLBT incidents. They are dramatically under counted by the FBI,” he said. “There is no accounting anywhere in that report for violence targeting transgender people, which is another problem.”
One of the reasons for the under reporting, said Montgomery, is the way hate crime statistics are gathered. The FBI relies on local law enforcement to report hate crimes. However, many local law enforcement agencies are not required to track crimes motivated by anti-gay bias. For example, sexual orientation is not included in Michigan’s hate crime laws, making it difficult for local law enforcement agencies in Michigan to keep track of that data.
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=10468
A quick peek at the latest reporting shows an even bigger increase, particularly in Bible Belt states.
Where on earth are you getting your information, Ree?
Report comment to moderator
Bartleby,
Legal declarations don’t create reality. The state didn’t create marriage, and the state can’t redefine it. Would you recognize as a legitimate marriage, a union between a middle-aged Arab sheik and a pre-pubescent little girl in Saudi Arabia, for instance, because the state issued them a certificate?
Report comment to moderator
One thing I’ve learned over the years on here is that you cannot reason with hate. Bottom line is that conservative Christians consider us to be the scum of the earth, and nothing – nothing – absolutely nothing will dissuade them from that. From that flows their prejudice, their attempts to strip us of our legal and civil rights, and their undying determination to treat us a social “pariahs”. The best we can do is to boldly oppose them and expose their bigotry for everyone to see.
Report comment to moderator
@ Ree – The state confers rights and responsibilities with a marriage certificate. The religious component to which you allude is completely separate. As for age differences – what you describe was commonplace in Western Europe around 120 years ago, and in America more recently than that. (Edith Wharton, Jane Austen and Charles Dickens can fill you in.) I might not like it, but such a couple would indeed be married.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Anlir – bigotry always exposes itself. It’s a combination of ignorance and prideful sin that just can’t hide. But it’s fun taking it apart, no?
There’s a string of posts on the blog Joe.My.God. from this time last week that detail progress being made on the legal front for individual gays and gay couples. I would suggest you read them – they are rather significant. You may feel better having done so.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the info Bartleby. I’ll check it out. Some of us have been here fighting these bigots a long time. It’s good to remember that progress is being made on marriage equality in spite of them.
*****
Legal declarations don’t create reality. The state didn’t create marriage, and the state can’t redefine it.
Except it does and it did.
I dare say that any court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, Spain, and South Africa would laugh Ree, NJLawyer, et al out the door for telling the court that same-gender marriage isn’t legal.
Ya gotta love the way conservative Christians put themselves above the law.
Report comment to moderator
Off to dinner – g’nite all!
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Anlir, we Christians have definitely learned that one cannot reason with hatred, bias, and stereotypes. That’s why we roll our eyes at yet another one of your misinformed, hateful, bigoted, stereotyped posts. Why do you still blog here, seriously? It has been an awfully long time since you’ve contributed anything at all useful to the discussion, and not some stereotyped and hateful rant about Christians. Your posts used to be worth reading sometimes for what they said; now they’re like the tabloids in the checkout lane, a lot of excited language about stuff that’s not true. It is not the Christians on this blog who are making the outrageous claims about “the other side”–it’s you.
Report comment to moderator
See my response in #83 Cheryl D. Then take a long look in the mirror. I simply have nothing more I can say to you.
Report comment to moderator
#76 Thank you Ree! Finally someone gets what I’m saying! They just ignore what is being said. How true when you write “Legal declarations don’t create reality.” It just creates a legal fiction.
Bartlesby: 2007 is not recent to me, and as I said, there are remedies at law.
You come to a Christian website where Christians apply the Word of God, which informs their decisions in their daily life and when they vote. Christians are a part of the society at large, and the society at large, Christian or not, is not in favor of marriage for homosexuals. If you took the time to read Frank’s remarks yesterday, you would find that I thanked him for his post wherein he stated that Christians have a duty to teach their children to be Christians first, Americans second. Keep hugging your Constitution and ignoring the Word. God didn’t write the Constitution, and He’s not an American. The Constitution will mean nothing when the Lord returns.
Report comment to moderator
You gotta love an attorney spitting on the Constitution! I guarantee if NJLaywer found herself in front of a court in Massachusetts trying to declare that gays are not legally married, she would bend her knee to the court’s jurisdiction and ruling that in the eyes of the Commonwealth of MA, they are indeed married. And if NJLaywer tried to deny a married couple their legal rights, she would find the court giving appropriate legal relief and remedy to those couples.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve read everything by Jane Austen, and I’ve never seen any reference to little girls getting married, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (post 91), since you didn’t write post 83, I don’t know what you’re saying. But I don’t understand how “a good long look in the mirror” will help me here, since I’ve never preached hatred on this blog and you have, more and more fiercely (and honestly, more and more irrationally, and very much at odds with how people on this blog have treated you).
Well, I can keep praying for you, because honestly, I really do care about you. (And no, I’d never say you’re the scum of the earth. I don’t like to see homosexual “marriage” pushed, and I don’t like any kind of in-your-face sexuality, even the trashy magazine covers in every checkout aisle–but I’d never try to deny your legitimate citizen rights, or your dignity as one made in the image of God. Nor would I claim that you’re a sinner and I’m not. We both stand in need of God’s grace.)
Report comment to moderator
#76 Anlir
“Look, I understand that conservative Christians want to continue using language that denigrates us because that justifies and enables their anti-gay prejudice. If they were to treat us decently and civilly that would be at fundamental odds with their campaign to keep us legal and social outcasts.”
You’re Gay and…?
I don’t care about the color of your hair, how tall you are, your sex or your age. Those things make up part of you. Being a homosexual is also part of you. Most of us here on WMB care about where you are going to end up after you die. We would like to get to know you in heaven. Have you accepted the gift of eternal life from God through the substitutionary death of His Son, Jesus? Jesus came to Earth to live and die so that we may live eternally. All God and Jesus ask is that you accept the gift that they offer. Have you believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus gave his life to save you from death everlasting?
If you don’t believe, just ask God to give you the faith to believe. God only wants what is good for you.
Please ask for faith from God. I would like to get to know you when we are in heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, as usual, you miss the point of what people are saying to you. It is irrelevant whether the law recognizes homosexual marriage. You think you’ll have something if you get that passed, for some odd reason. You won’t with God. You will never be able to walk up to God and wave that piece of legislation and get Him to recognize it. His views on the subject are well-known. Indeed, you cannot claim that you have not been told, because you’ve been told over and over again here on the blog. So, you will be held accountable, just as we all will be held accountable. That’s what you want to avoid. You seem to think that if you get American laws passed that that will somehow change God’s Word. It won’t.
Yes, homosexuals are “legally married” in Massachusetts — but that holds no water with God. He doesn’t recognize that. What don’t you understand about that? The law is one thing, God’s Word is another. No matter what happens under the law, you can never make me personally believe that homosexuals are truly married, that they are husband and husband or wife and wife. I simply don’t believe it, and I do not recognize it on a personal level. And you can’t force me — though you try. Legal fictions exist for a reason, but they are still fictions.
Report comment to moderator
And just so you know, Anlir — I would rather hear that I spit on the Constitution than hear that I spit on the Word of God. Your nasty comments are a badge of honor.
Report comment to moderator
I think we could all use some more pancakes. I had leftover frozen pumpkin pancakes with apple cobbler topping this morning. Made it all from scratch just like Bartleby makes his. Major yummo.
Swedish pancakes are cooler ’cause you can stuff ‘em with all sorts of mess – or leave the sugar out of the cakes and make mu shu.
Yum.
Report comment to moderator
Bartleby said at #30: Llama – you’re not making a lot of sense
That’s normal. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
As for the rest of the thread .. “They will know we are Christians by our utter lack of sympathy or empathy for homosexuals” seems to still be in full effect.
Report comment to moderator
Ree asked: Is it theoretically possible in your mind to consider homosexuality sinful and sanctioning of the behavior harmful to society while not simultaneously hating homosexuals?
Theoretically, yes. In practice, it seems rare.
Report comment to moderator
NJL 97
It is irrelevant whether the law recognizes homosexual marriage.
So why oppose it?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: When someone wants sympathy and empathy while committing sin, what would you have us say?
Do you sympathize with murderers or their victims? Do you encourage alcoholics to drink by opening a bottle for them? Do you tell drug addicts that the drugs are bad for them while you hand them pills or a needle?
You, like Anlir and Duncan, want Christian permission to sin. The answer to that from me is NO, loud and clear. For example, it would never occur to me to ask the Christians here or anywhere for sympathy and empathy while I dishonor my parents. They would rightly tell me to stop dishonoring my parents.
You, like Anlir and Duncan, are willfully refusing to accept that no Christian will condone sin.
Report comment to moderator
We really don’t give a rat’s behind what NJLawyer’s, et al god says about gays (or supposedly says). We don’t live under your religion. We live in the United States of America, which guarantees all citizens freedom and equality under the law without regard to religion or lack thereof. What the Bible says is totally irrelevant to our rights as American citizens. We don’t want or need permission from your god or your religion to live our lives. So stop trying to use your religion to deny us our liberty and freedom. It’s unconstitutional and immoral.
Report comment to moderator
Some of the critics of Christians are like petulant children.
Parents can provide all the basic needs of a child and show them lots of warmth and affection. They can even give them a few luxuries and treats. Nevertheless, some children will pout and say, “You hate me because you won’t give me everything I want.”
Christians are willing to respect the rights of homosexual people. They are willing to treat them cordially and courteously. They are willing to invite them to church and to socialize with them.
But because we will not budge on our core principles, some of them claim that we hate them. It’s emotional blackmail designed to make us give in–just as it is when a child holds his breath or goes on a hunger strike.
Please, homosexual friends, grow up. You can disagree with us all you want–as vehemently as you want–but don’t say that it is hate in order to try to guilt us into giving our approval to what our Lord forbids us to approve.
Report comment to moderator
Do you sympathize with murderers or their victims? Do you encourage alcoholics to drink by opening a bottle for them? Do you tell drug addicts that the drugs are bad for them while you hand them pills or a needle?
Equating a consensual same-sex relationship to murder, alchoholism or drug addiction is outrageous. All I’m advocating is legal rights. As Anlir says, I really don’t care what you think your God does or doesn’t approve. If you happen to be right about it, then God can send all the gays to hell where you (in all love, of course) think they belong.
In the meantime, however, the civil law can and should provide a means for them to form the same kind of lifelong unions that heterosexual couples can. You don’t have to like it, but you may have to tolerate it. That’s part of what living in a free society means… some people will use their freedom to do things you don’t like, just as you use yours to preach about how vile they are to do so.
Report comment to moderator
You, like Anlir and Duncan, are willfully refusing to accept that no Christian will condone sin.
You’d have a lot more credibility saying that if you hadn’t spend the last few months spreading falsehoods about my positions on things. The most offensive of those was when you accused me of defending rape, but there have been several other cases. And yes, I will keep reminding people of those incidents, even though you will yet again not have the integrity to own up to it.
As you so clearly demonstrate, some Christians not only condone sin, many of them unrepentantly commit sin, and then proudly prattle about how righteous they are.
Report comment to moderator
I never said I was anythign but a sinner, SteveG. So, if anyone is prattling, if anyone is holding himself out as high and might, it is you.
And just so you know, you defend all sorts of abominations.
Report comment to moderator
I equate consensual same-sex relationships with sin, because they are defined as such in the Bible. That is no different than imbibing in too much alcohol or any of the other things I mentioned. The truth is, I can equate it any way I want, and you can’t stop me. That’s what really sticks in your craw — that I refuse to lower my standard, whether it is on this topic or abortion. That’s what always sticks in your craw.
Report comment to moderator
You can call it sin all you want to. You have that right and freedom. But you don’t have the right to demand that the force of law back up your personal beliefs, in cases where you can’t show any non-religious reason why they should.
What sticks in my craw is the notion that American civil law exists to promote a specifically sectarian moral view. That’s not it’s purpose. You can be as condemnatory as you like in your personal beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 108 and 109
Those are two powerful posts – truth has a way of scratching the hardened surface of those who fight against God.
God bless you my friend.
Report comment to moderator
I made no such demand. You, however, have demanded that the Christians here worship at the feet of American law. This Christian will not. Worship American law all you want, Steve. Make it your god. But remember that man’s law is self-serving and it can turn on you, it can turn you into a slave, it can break you. Anyone who worships man’s law is a fool.
And another thing you should remember is that Christians have as much a right to affect and effect law in this country as anybody else. We’re citizens and we vote. That, too, sticks in your craw.
Report comment to moderator
And you should read Mark 2:23-28, too.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure I get the relevance:
23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
You, however, have demanded that the Christians here worship at the feet of American law. This Christian will not. Worship American law all you want, Steve. Make it your god. But remember that man’s law is self-serving and it can turn on you, it can turn you into a slave, it can break you. Anyone who worships man’s law is a fool.
I have demanded no such thing, nor do I “worship” the law. I do, however, respect that the role of the civil (government) law in a free society does not properly extend to enforcing sectarian beliefs on the population as a whole.
In this context, that means that religious people/organizations do not have any obligation to recognize or solemnize gay marriage, but neither do they have any right to attempt to use the civil government as a means to enforce that belief in secular law.
Report comment to moderator
I see these ambulance chasing attorneys on TV and I think “surely they can’t stoop any lower than that”. Then I read a (self proclaimed) attorney on here who spits on the Constitution and expresses her contempt of the law, and I think “Yep, attorneys can go lower than that”.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (post 104),
Actually, you do need permission from the God of the Bible to live your life–permission He has graciously granted by giving you breath and the freedom (this side of death) to spit on Him. May you recognize His mercy while you still can.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!