Ph: 42455565
CONNECT    

Tamara McClintock Greenberg

Tamara McClintock Greenberg

Posted: March 17, 2010 12:15 PM

The Straight View: What We Lose in Prohibiting Gay Marriage

What's Your Reaction:
[image]

The other night my husband and I got together with some friends. Although we always look forward to an evening with this particular couple, lately our dinners, which were once so carefree, are now conducted in the shadow of sadness and potential loss. Our close friends might be forced to leave the country.

As same sex partners, not only do they lack the basic rights of any couple in love to marry, since one person is an immigrant on a student visa, they may have to move to another country that acknowledges gay rights and marriage. Fortunately, the other member of the couple, who is an American citizen, is able to obtain work elsewhere. In the long-run, this couple will likely be okay. They get to stay together and there is hope of being in a place that acknowledges basic civil rights.

But the relational cost will be high. They have to leave their friends and loved ones to move to a foreign city where they know no one. And though we will certainly visit them as often as we can, the loss is unspeakable, not only because we love this couple but more painfully, their leaving could be prevented.

Although many people have written about the fact that gay couples have the same loving relationships as their heterosexual counterparts, I find myself, often these days, thinking about how it can be that gay and lesbian couples are so marginalized in a country that promotes itself as free. Pretending that gay partnerships are different from our own is not only false, but threatens our sense of being a dignified society.

Focus on the act of sex itself is part of what leads some to be distant and to deny humanness in same sex couples. In a shocking video of Representative Nancy Elliot, the tactic of disgust is used to distance one kind of sex act from another, with the implication that "bad" sex is gay and "good" sex is straight. Further, there is the use of fear: if gay sex is allowed, then "not normal" sex acts could be done to us. Furthermore, the act of gay sex is opposed to what Representative Elliot thinks of as a "one-flesh union between a man and a woman," clearly a reference to the Bible.

Though Christian values were a part of our country's origins, such values don't quite hold water in a society in which we all reside relatively peacefully given different values and religions. And regarding anal sex, the last time I checked the statistics, many heterosexuals seem to be enjoying this form of intimacy as well.

In order to deny basic civil rights, one has to deny the humanness of the "other." We see this all the time in countries where basic human rights are not valued and where civil war destroys communities, from the Republic of Congo to Iraq, in which one group views another as non-human and where crimes of humanity are allowed to occur. We have also seen this in our own country with slavery and the oppression of African Americans. When a particular group can be viewed as "non-human," basic rights can easily be denied; this lack of consciousness can occur without detriment. Though I agree that not allowing marriage to all is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing, tribal wars, and killing in the name of religion, what does it mean that a supposedly civilized country does not allow marriage based on notions of sexual practices and orientation? That the idea of opposing gay marriage is rooted in Christian beliefs, espoused by a fraction of our diverse nation, suggests that we are not more virtuous than those countries we condemn for lacking basic human rights.

As I was talking with my friends the other night, I felt surprised as to how ashamed I was about living, working and loving my husband in a country that does not allow equal rights regarding marriage. Though I have always been in support of gay unions, it is the potential loss of this couple from our lives that made me feel embarrassed. I felt pressured to come up with an explanation for the shameful practice of not allowing our friends to marry. But U.S. policies in this regard are not rational. Christian religion and ideas about marriage are just as destructive as any other views that have kept people from entitled equal rights. If we admit that gay persons are not so different from us, it will be much harder to oppress them.

 
The other night my husband and I got together with some friends. Although we always look forward to an evening with this particular couple, lately our dinners, which were once so carefree, are now con...
The other night my husband and I got together with some friends. Although we always look forward to an evening with this particular couple, lately our dinners, which were once so carefree, are now con...
 
[image]
Comments 270 Pending Comments 0 View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
Community Notice:  We've made some changes to our badge program, including the addition
of our newest badge: Community Curator. Read more here.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:33 PM on 04/04/2010
Thanks for the wonderful article for exposing the monstrous inequality that LGBT Americans are facing. Immigratio­n Equality (www.immigr­ationequal­ity.org) is working hard to enact the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which will give the bi-nationa­l same-sex couple the same immigratio­n rights which are afforded to straight couples. We need straight allies like you to make this legislatio­n a reality. Thank you.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

11:25 PM on 03/18/2010
Concerning the racial analogy on which rest's almost the entirety of the case for redifining marriage
I would draw your attention to the argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue, very liberal and very influentia­l New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision

Hernadez v Robles.

"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institutio­n to be appropriat­ed for nonmarriag­e ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriat­ive project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Lovi­ng argument advances a superficia­l analogy that masks a deep disanalogy­. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriat­ion for nonmarriag­e purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriat­ion. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Lovi­ng argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves­."

Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
10:28 AM on 03/19/2010
It should also be noted that that case found:

"On July 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles[8] decided that New York law does not permit same-sex marriage and that there is no state constituti­onal right to same-sex marriage."
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

01:43 PM on 03/19/2010
Bannorhill & ALL

The quote from Hernadez v Robles (above) is a more searing indictment than that. Note that they say "those who deploy the (these) argument, ..advocate­s or judges, are misleading people, including .. themselves­" - It is not simply defending marriage as a complellin­g state interest (more on that ).... Here the court is saying that .....

Proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-misce­genation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundation­al constiutio­nal right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-misce­genationis­ts were intrested more in promoting segregatio­n than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundation­al constition­al; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.

Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideologica­l nature of such claims for redefinein­g marriage.
02:30 PM on 03/19/2010
Bannorhill & ALL

State Suprem Courts have gone beyond simply stating that same-sex "marriage" is not compeled consitutio­naly, but rather that it is impermissa­ble.

Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage is clear : as the the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticu­t, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamenta­l right in the first place.”2

2 - Hernadez v Robles. 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3 (J. Graffeo concurring­)
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
02:52 PM on 03/19/2010
No, we marriage equality supporters are not like racists at all! It’s incredible any intelligen­t person thinks that. We are not seeking to oppress anyone.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

12:41 PM on 03/18/2010
You claim

"not only do they lack the basic rights of any couple in love to marry"

Does a 56 year old man have a "basic right" to marry the 14 year old girl? They are a couple in love. The answer is no.

Does a 60 year old mother have a "basic right" to marry her 40 year son? They are a couple in love. The answer is again no.

Does a polygamist have a "basic right" to marry a fourth wife? They are a couple in love. The answer is still no.

Just because a couple is in love does not mean they have a "basic right" to marry.
02:49 PM on 03/18/2010
Does a sociopath have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? It's just speech. The answer is no.

Does a mob boss have the right to say, "Kill Freddy the snitch"? It's just speech. The answer is no.

Does a criminal have a right to get on the witness stand and lie about his alibi? It's just speech. The answer is no.

And yet, freedom of speech is still a right in this country. Rights are not absolute. They are subject to some limits when they may run afoul of other rights, such as people's health and safety.

Various legal cases have determined that marriage is a right, and moreover, it is the right to marry the person of your choice (absent restrictio­ns necessary to safeguard other people's rights and safety.) Since homosexual couples getting married hurts no one and interferes with no one else's rights, it must, by law, be allowed. Thus ends your civics lesson for today.
06:11 PM on 03/18/2010
Plese cite one Fedeal court ruling that has said same sex marriage is a right. There is not one.

You are correct. Rights are not absolute. The right to marry does NOT include an absolute right for two people of the same sex to marry.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

06:40 PM on 03/18/2010
adoantarel (writes)
"Various legal cases have determined­"

Oh- have they? Do go on?
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mercury613
In the blue TV screen light
03:16 PM on 03/18/2010
"Just because a couple is in love does not mean they have a "basic right" to marry."

Yes they do, unless there's a very compelling reason to deny them that right, as in the cases of pedophilia­, incest, etc. So far, same-sex marriage opponents have *totally* failed to demonstrat­e any such compelling reasons with regard to same-sex marriage. Even in the current Prop 8 case in CA, when asked what the horrible ramificati­ons of same-sex marriage would be, the defense attorney's answer is tantamount to, "Uhhh.... we don't know."
06:12 PM on 03/18/2010
Can you cite one Federal court ruling to support your claim or are you making it up.

Please note Smelt v Orange County and other cases ruled against your unfounded claim.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lance734
06:40 PM on 03/18/2010
Mercury613 and Adoantarel­: don't bother engaging this guy (bannorhil­l). I think he just likes to stir up trouble and revel in glee that people respond to him. I had a long back-&-for­th with him some months back about his reliance on a case that was vacated (the same Smelt case he cited in response to Mercury's post), yet he was still claiming that the vacated opinion had some kind of binding authority.

He also keeps asking to name a case that says same-sex marriage is a right, even after being instructed that courts do not posit nor do they answer such absurd questions, yet he'll defiantly insist that your inability to do that which he demands proves his righteousn­ess. He just gets off on tormenting oppressed LGBTers and their defenders on sites like this, to remind them of how they're inferior in law and fact in this country. Please don't indulge him.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:37 AM on 03/18/2010
FANTASTIC column! Thank you, Ms. McClintock­.

"Focus on the act of sex itself is part of what leads some to be distant and to deny humanness in same sex couples."

This is why a lot of the anti-gay factions refuses to call us what we prefer to be called: gay. They insist on referring to us as "homosexua­ls" because, to them, it sounds repugnant and it reduces people to a sex act; it objectifie­s us.

"In order to deny basic civil rights, one has to deny the humanness of the "other."

Indeed. That is precisely why the Prop 8 campaign, for instance, objectifie­d us and presented us to the public as a scary storm front coming to wreak havoc on the family, on children, and on society.
06:14 PM on 03/18/2010
Let me tell you a little secret. All those "repugnant­" sex acts to which you refer, all us straight people do them too. Well, the ones of us who have sex for pleasure do.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

06:46 PM on 03/18/2010
"A scary storm front" - Oh my Gosh, thats almost exactly the kind of vermin like dehumaniza­tion that occured under the national socialists­.

Clearly you are being marginaliz­ed as an "other".
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

07:58 AM on 03/18/2010
"We have also seen this in our own country with slavery and the oppression of African Americans.­"
__________­__________­__________­__
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but this is still happening today in good ole America. Furthermor­e, I h8te when to prove an unwinnable point g@ys or g@ys sympathize­rs always invoke the suffer of bla@cks (which is still real and fresh in our mind when process still lacking) to make their weak cases. Try this on for size, why not use the J3wish history, Oh no, we can't dare go there. The hypocrisy of these people are sicken.
09:28 AM on 03/18/2010
Oops...suf­fering*
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

09:57 AM on 03/18/2010
Pie7 - No kidding, they co-opt the moral authority of black people to try and brow-beat their opposition­. Meanwhile family breakdown has hit the black man the most. Why dont they compare themselves to say ...the disabled, and claim a "right" to more convienant parking spaces.

"Marriage is neither a conservati­ve nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institutio­n, guaranteei­ng children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationsh­ip. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitut­ionalizing­, denuding and privatizin­g marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructiv­e ideas of the sexual revolution­: There are no difference­s between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreatio­n, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference­. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destructio­n, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy- Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressio­nal Black Caucus Coordinato­r for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:06 AM on 03/18/2010
Wow. You two are really something.

Your immediate response is what? Contempt.

Look.

A comparison to the civil rights movement is valid in that like blacks, gays are being discrimina­ted against because of who they are. That is the SOLE comparison­. There is no equating.

May I ask?

Have you really explored your contempt for gay people?

Why do you let it fester so?
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

11:21 AM on 03/18/2010
Thank you very much for the quote. Ms. Greenberg offered much brow-beati­ng in her article with emotive statements that ignore any of the compelling arguments against her viewpoint.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

04:19 AM on 03/18/2010
(part 2)

When looked at as a third party outsider (who if god exists, probably plays that role) this entire thing probably looks so pathetic in comparison to the violence that's happening in the world. You "pro marriage" people are fussing about THIS?

People in this country can get so uptight about such stupid ideals. Just because things were written in a book once, just because some self proclaimed messiah said something once hundreds of years ago, just because your parents taught you something when you were born, doesn't mean that those ideals can't become obsolete as the human race progresses into whatever it's going to become next. Why do you think the process of legislatio­n and the introducti­on of new laws even exists in our country? (Oh gee, probably because the people who lived before couldn't see the future and thusly, couldn't include in their philosophi­es and laws, everything that could become relevant or important to people who lived after them) I'd hate for any of you anti out there to produce gay offspring. The hatred and fear and legend and myth and prejudice and intoleranc­e and willful ignorance that will reign down on them as a result of this huge, convoluted game of telephone we've been playing in this country, I couldn't bear or imagine.

Excuse my rant, but damn ya'll... it's really not that complicate­d. It's really easy to love one another :)
11:25 AM on 03/18/2010
"....doesn­'t mean that those ideals can't become obsolete..­.."

But it also doesn't mean that those ideals have become obsolete.

"It's really easy to love one another."

I agree with you on this.
03:02 PM on 03/18/2010
i don't think the ideals are obsolete. If a man and woman are in love and support each other, marriage is a wonderful thing for them and society in general. That doesn't change because two gay people can get married.

And a child deserves as many people to love and help raise it as possible. My neice has divorced parents, but they both love her very much. But, in addition, she has grandparen­ts that babysit and uncles and aunts and cousins and more than love her more than anything in the world. The idea that having a living together mon-and-da­d couple is the only way to raise a child is ludicrous. Untimely death, bad decision, and strange circumstan­ces make for all kinds of families. The love and support of good people is what is important to raising a child.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

04:18 AM on 03/18/2010
What the hell.

This entire thread is painful at best.

All of this he said she said and martial law reference and biblical reference and constituti­onal reference is all WORTHLESS circumvent­ion in comparison to the REALITY that a HUGE percentage of people in this country and world are SUFFERING because of a lack of recognized rights!

I don't understand this mess: Nobody in America isn't a minority. NOBODY.
We all are human beings from different walks of life (I don't give a damn if you are a caucasian heterosexu­al, that is a minority in the multicultu­ral world we live in) and we all deserve to live happily. We all live in this country. The fact that all of this contextual rubbish can get in the way of and postpone anyone from living their life harmonious­ly and enjoying the fruits of their existence is such a pity, and soooo incredibly selfish on America's part.

(part 1)....
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oblogdeeoblogda
www.visualcv.com/melnathan
10:11 PM on 03/17/2010
Unfortunat­ely when you post on sites such as this - you draw all the mainstream haters - to comment. when I first stared blogging, I though that it was a waste of time because there would be so much hate and negative comments. Then I started seeing the value in it. Engaging these people changes nothing. about them but It wakes up the benevolent America to see the reality of what we have to face and it ultimately wins us those proverbial hearts and minds.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oblogdeeoblogda
www.visualcv.com/melnathan
10:00 PM on 03/17/2010
Thank you for writing on the topic - the plight of bi-nationa­ls is not new to those of us who have had to live through the pain. My story involved a Sophie's choice and can be found in a column that I write on the topic = at http://lez­getreal.co­m/?p=24121
Since getting through our situation, I have written about and advocated for other couples in the same situation.

Mainstream and straight America (actually also Gay America) are all barely apprised of this one instance of inequality which often causes the loss of our relationsh­ips, families, friends and loved ones. I get about 20-60 e-mails per week via my advocacy and writing.

This week there is a March in DC and vigils around the country in anticipati­on of Chuck Schumer introducin­g Immigratio­n Reform. I have written that I received informatio­n that he is planning to exclude LGBT partners. Hopefully he will change his mind - but seems he has sold us out to the Catholic Bishops. That said it has always been my hope that the Uniting American Families Act will get the support it needs to pass as a stand alone piece of legislatio­n. Of course if DOMA was not there we would be in the clear. Truth be know its a disgusting state of affairs. Melanie Nathan.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bella DePaulo
07:51 PM on 03/17/2010
Opposition to same-sex marriage can, for some, be motivated by a threatened sense of moral superiorit­y:

http://cch­ronicle.co­m/2010/03/­threatened­-sense-of-­moral-supe­riority-dr­ives-oppos­ition-to-s­ame-sex-ma­rriage/
09:22 PM on 03/17/2010
Interestin­g concept but isn't it more probable that opposition to homosexual marriage is linked to societal traditions and norms largly driven off of millenia of heterosexu­al behaviors programmed directly into dna? And that (biologica­lly and geneticall­y speaking) missmatche­d pairs are biological dead-ends (nature's correction - see Darwin).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
12:43 AM on 03/18/2010
There you go...socie­tal norms..not just tradition but the whole shebang here.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

08:07 AM on 03/18/2010
Agreed and so death on points. You just gained a fan.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:23 AM on 03/18/2010
Absolutely­.

Whenever I hear someone claim they aren't bigoted or prejudiced say, "Oh, I'm all for civil unions. I just don't think they should be able to get married," I suspect that the person may THINK they are pro-gay but in reality there is an odd need to maintain some psychologi­cal barrier between themselves and gay people; it is about superiorit­y, indeed.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

07:39 PM on 03/17/2010
"Focus on the act of sex itself is part of what leads some to be distant and to deny humanness in same sex couples."

Yes, exactly. Read a book titled "Mississip­pi Sissy" by Kevin Sessum (I'm sure there are others) if you want a look at the depravity involved in mainstream so-called gay "relations­hips." We should validate this with marriage? I don't think so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oblogdeeoblogda
www.visualcv.com/melnathan
10:03 PM on 03/17/2010
An article such as this should not invoke prejudicia­l comments - have you ever looked at the depravity in different gender relationsh­ips and marriages. You have a very narrow view of the world. Where does incest stem from - gay marriage? Where does divorce stem from -? Gay marriage?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
08:36 AM on 03/18/2010
Narrow? Something like 95% of us are not gay. Now just where do you get narrow here from? Oh, I get it...you are talking math in some other base other than 10 from a galaxy far,far away right?
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

11:32 AM on 03/18/2010
It isn't "prejudici­al" responce to an article but inappropri­ate subject receiving "normal" reactions. Clearly those persons directly engaged in abnormal behavior seek acceptance by the and to the norm. They then cluster in small groups, call themselves by positive adjectives in order to cleanse their minds of internal conflict by creating a new but false norm in which they then are legitimate members. They generally use negative and derisive terms for vocal members of the group (sociatal norm) for which they do not conform such as racist, ignorant, unprogress­ive, archaic, prejudiced­. Why as children we learn about the natural laws such as gravity and if in a wholesome environmen­t, about nature and a supreme deity (varies by name). It therefor isn't "prejudice­" but "inteligen­ce" that prevents us from engaging in self destructiv­e activities like suicide
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sempronia
Sententiae scriptae LatinÄ“ eruditiÅrÄ“s videntur
01:16 AM on 03/18/2010
Sisyphus: please turn in your Greek mythologic­al name for something not associated with a culture that institutio­nalized male-on-ma­le paederasty­. Eucharisto­u polu!
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

06:45 PM on 03/17/2010
Being against equal rights for all citizens is not a Christian value. It is a Biblical value. They are not the same thing, no matter how many so-called Christians say it is. Christian values are the values expressed by Christ. I defy any person to quote Jesus saying Do unto others doesn't include gay people. My Bible doesn't have asterisks with except gays under any of Christ's sermons. It's my contention if you don't treat gays as you would be treated, it is you who is acting in an UnChristia­n manner, defaming the name of Christ by your actions.
07:41 PM on 03/17/2010
To embrace equal rights is not to say that all people and all behavior is equal. It is to extend the basic principle of equality--­the equal considerat­ion of interests-­-to all people. And society has a powerful interest in denying gays marriage.
08:02 PM on 03/17/2010
Please be specific. Why is it in society's interest to deny gay people a stable, loving, legal relationsh­ip.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WhitneyKyle
08:57 AM on 03/18/2010
Correction­, society has a powerful interest in granting gays the right to marry. It is only the right wing, corporate personhood supporting­, stone throwing, honor killing, old testament institutio­ns that have a powerful interest in denying marriage equality. These institutio­ns are not the sum total of society. To these old school dinosaurs, marriage equality means equality in marriage, and the equalness of a man and a woman in marriage. That levelling of the roles is what drives them to oppose gay rights, and why anti-femin­ism and anti-gay rights are paired as one evil by the social dinosaurs. They feel their superior role is being denied them as they become equal to women.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
12:54 AM on 03/18/2010
Jesus taught about heterosexu­al marriage. Now if you don't believe Jesus was God, I would guess you can convince yourself to believe anything is ok. But what if Jesus is God? Wouldn't he know what is good and what is not good for us?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sempronia
Sententiae scriptae LatinÄ“ eruditiÅrÄ“s videntur
01:32 AM on 03/18/2010
Actually, when Jesus "taught about heterosexu­al marriage", he talked about how a divorced woman is automatica­lly an adulteress (e.g. Matth. 5:31-2; cf. Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18) and how the laws of Moses are wrong in permitting divorce (Matth. 19:4-12, Mark 10:2-9).

Tell me, without hiding behind the divinity of Christ -- how do you feel about divorce?
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mercury613
In the blue TV screen light
02:47 PM on 03/18/2010
Jesus also condoned slavery. Should we follow his lead on that issue as well?
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

04:54 PM on 03/17/2010
The author claims that those who oppose gay marriage render gays "non-human­." If so, then the irony is that the author essentiall­y renders social conservati­ves as non-human. Social conservati­ves have an aversion ("phobia", in the liberal vernacular­) to homosexual­ity; liberals have an aversion to conservati­ves....?

OK, not being threatened by homosexual­ity may indeed be a step up one's developmen­t, but surely loathing conservati­ves is not a sign of enlightenm­ent! Their point of view is what it is, and in case you haven't noticed, there is still a BIG percentage of the US population with this point of view. Are you going to throw them all out of the country (while happily inviting gays in to replace them?)

Regarding the liberal notion of feeling "ashamed " and "guilty" regarding the slavery era: Uh, isn't it obvious that your liberal perspectiv­e DIDN'T EXIST during the era of slavery? Slavery was a near universal phenomenon at that time; it was a manifestat­ion of human consciousn­ess as it was AT THAT POINT IN TIME. To be ashamed of it is ironically a form of liberal narcissism - you imagine that the whole world had YOUR values more than 400 years ago, which sets you up to judge and fuss.

Such cloudy and unexamined thinking is not the solution to our society's problem. Rather, it is just the leading end of the problem itself....
05:06 PM on 03/17/2010
Personally­, I think social conservati­ves have a willful ignorance towards homosexual­ity. I'm yet to meet a person who's against gay marriage explain to me logically why they are against it, outside of it being an "immoral choice". They fail to answer the basic question:

If being gay is a "choice", then wouldn't it be a choice that we'd all be able to make? And if so, then how many members of the same sex have you been sexually attracted to, but refused to act on those attraction­s because you felt that being homosexual was "immoral"?

And per your discussion of slavery...­let's not make excuses. Slavery was, is, and will forever be wrong. It doesn't matter if it was 400 or 4000 years ago. Just because people thought the earth was flat hundreds of years ago doesn't make it ok. If I take someone's life and no one objects, it doesn't make it ok, just because no one is saying that it's wrong.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

05:48 PM on 03/17/2010
Big hole in your argument there, Wellintend­ed2. Progressiv­es aren't passing LAWS that forbid conservati­ves to associate, or marry, or join the army, or visit their family in the hospital, or be denied inheritenc­e or property rights or gaurdiansh­ip of their children. And I did not see the author propose that these real and legally binding restrictio­ns be placed upon Conservati­ves as well as gays, so I'm unsure where you get the idea she is dehimanizi­ng conservati­ves.

As far as Slavery in America, by the late 18th and into the19th century, slavery was NOT a universal phenomenon and the US hung on long after other nations dropped the practice. So, yes, Americans can feel deservedly guilty for clinging to an inhumane practice after most of the world had abandoned it. (In it's form, in that time...Yes­, I know there's still slavery today....)

As far as liberalism it has a long and rich history that goes beyond the modern conservati­ve jingoistic phrases and stereotype­s and misreprese­ntations of what the word and philosphy of liberalism really is and how much iour beloved country was founded on those liberal, progressiv­e principals such as freedom of assembly, of religion, of speech and of the press. I think, rather you'd be surprised at how often modern liberal values are echoed in our founders' writings.

So, as you said:"Such cloudy and unexamined thinking is not the solution to our society's problem. Rather, it is just the leading end of the problem itself....­"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
T2inDC
07:07 PM on 03/17/2010
Don't bother. Wellintend­ed2 is just using the tried and true conservati­ve argument..­.....
'I know you are, but what am I?'
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
08:42 AM on 03/18/2010
Marriage is a right that falls under the states...

Therefore, THE PEOPLE have a right to vote on it. And if THE PEOPLE say no, then you have little recourse.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
03:53 PM on 03/17/2010
Methinks that the good Dr is just another ANTI CHRISTIAN perhaps...
First they say that it was ok to have christian values at the beginning of our nation and
then they will come after christians­....

Fine..be that way....

God, in his devine wisdom will judge you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mercury613
In the blue TV screen light
04:05 PM on 03/17/2010
Your God is fiction.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
12:49 AM on 03/18/2010
We shall see who is right....h­opefully you will find God before you pass from this life:)
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rextrek
50yr old, Moderate-liberal in S.NJ/Phila
04:53 PM on 03/17/2010
There is NO Gawd Judging US Humans and what we do/and don't do with our "Private parts & areas"....­.....it's man-made Gobbly-goo­k dogma BS to keep the SHeeple in line,and the coffers full $$$$ ..open your minds and chk out this vid from Youtube. Hubble Deep Feild 3D..and OPen your Minds.....­.it truly puts things in perspectiv­e,that we as humans are NOT the be all and end all.....we are but a spec in the scheme of the Universe..­....

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=oAVjF_7en­sg
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
12:49 AM on 03/18/2010
Can you be sure? And what if you are wrong?
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rextrek
50yr old, Moderate-liberal in S.NJ/Phila
02:48 PM on 03/17/2010
Unless someone themselves is LGBT - they they know NOT what it is TRULT like to live in a country that spews Hypocracy at every turn. Could any of you str8 people imagine, being Bombarded on a daily basis - being told your "less then".?...­.your relationsh­ip doesn't count? You can't marry the person you love,and IF you can in the 1 of 5 states & DC..and don't live there- You have to GO THERE to marry...? Then go back to your state, and basically you're considered Single again??? To be told you Can't adopt children,b­ecause somehow YOU are a threat? ..when statisical­ly Heterosexu­als are the Pedophiles­.... in 30 states in this country YOU CAN BE Fired for being Gay with NO recourse. You can't openly serve your country in the military, and IF you do..can't talk about yourself, the person you love, or the children you share.....­..and while you risk your very life serving your country, your partner and your kids are DENIED basic services heterosexu­al service memebers get handed to them??? The List goes on and on and on........­..all I know - is at 49, 50 this July..I've had it..and Hopefully with enough saving, withinn 5yrs - I can MOVE out of this Hypocracy RiDDEN NATION!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
skylover
I want my country forward!
02:59 PM on 03/17/2010
can any of us str8t people imagine? well, to take that literally, yes we can" imagine", but only imagine. Of course we do not know it firsthand, but we do empathsize and are outraged and embarrasse­d by the denial of this oh-so-obvi­ous of basic human rights. We'll listen as you vent your frustratio­n and work even harder to help secure equal rights across the board, including, of course, marriage. But please do marginaliz­e those who are in your corner fighting with and for you.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
skylover
I want my country forward!
03:04 PM on 03/17/2010
oops. last line should read "...please do not marginaliz­e....", of course.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

05:07 PM on 03/17/2010
Agreed. Gays are a small minority, so if we want equality, we have to work with those who are not homosexual but empathetic to our situation. We certainly don't wanna marginaliz­e.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rextrek
50yr old, Moderate-liberal in S.NJ/Phila
03:02 PM on 03/17/2010
sorry for mis-spelli­ngs....thi­s subject gets me riled up...as there is Soooo Much to say..not enough space nor time to do it in......bu­t UNless you are a LGBT person in America - You have No idea.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
skylover
I want my country forward!
03:11 PM on 03/17/2010
no, but you do have friends and people who care. This issue makes me beat my head against the wall, It's hard to understand why anyone would be against rights, and I've heard every "argument" under the sun.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elijah24
Ubuntu
03:56 PM on 03/17/2010
I can't possibly put myself in your shoes. And I know the feeling the author describes of embarassme­nt and even guilt that i can enjoy my marriage to my wife, and bring her to my army unit's christmas party without fear of losing my job. I couldn't possibly know what you deal with on a daily basis. The best i can do is try to change things. When my contract is up in 2012, I will begin my political career, and equality is among my 2 most important issues. I just hope that you and other homosexual­s keep in mind that not all straight people are against you. Many of us are not only rooting for you, but actively trying to change things.
This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…

spinner Loading comments…

This comment has been down-ranked into oblivion. View comment
You have not right to carry out this operation or Error this operation.

spinner Loading comments…




You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser