tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post796681748016800041..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Give it a restRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-77815469105722000152009-06-30T06:07:07.419-05:002009-06-30T06:07:07.419-05:00There are two flaws in your argument, Rick.
The f...There are two flaws in your argument, Rick.<br /><br />The first is that it's based on a strawman and a fear of the slippery slope at the same time. It seems you're not so much against granting gays the same thing us heteros have, it's that you're afraid of some sinister "real motive" of some, in fact a tiny fringe, same sex marriage supporters. This real motive seems to be some communist-inspired plot to destroy the nuclear family.<br /><br />The second reason your argument makes no sense is its focus on children. I agree that children do best with their mother and father. The problem is, gay couples are already "having" children through their own means. In the case of adoption, these are children whose biological parents have already been determined - in the absense of gay marriage - to be better off with anyone besides their biological parents. Either the state has taken them away or the parents themselves have made the choice. In other cases, gays are having children via IVF or surrogacy. As with laws against no-fault divorce or adultery, it seems your side is not looking for the actual legal remedies to the problem you identify. <br /><br />I'm sorry if my rhetoric has been out of line, but quite frankly I haven't seen much in your argument that goes beyond that bumpersticker showing that marriage = the two pictures of men and women shown on restroom doors.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-79200904639553352152009-06-28T15:14:02.165-05:002009-06-28T15:14:02.165-05:00For those of us who do, these kind of arguments po...<i> For those of us who do, these kind of arguments positively turn the stomach.</i><br /><br /><br />I was elected Senior Warden of a church with a substantial gay population. Almost all of that group are very nice people (there will always be a few in any bunch).<br /><br />At the risk of sounding like a guy making a "some of my best friends argument," I have broken bread with gay people. I've had gay people stay at my house. Whatever you think of my arguments, they don't stem from not knowing - or liking - any real gay people.<br /><br />Your hypothetical about what will happen to me if there is a lesbian couple down the street suggests that you don't or won't understand what I am saying. The lesbian couple down the street is not the issue; the issue is the redefinition of marriage and its impact (not tomorrow by some type of osmosis or, as one commenter supporting SSM, "gay germs") but over time on the legal and cultural norms surrounding marriage.<br /><br />I am not saying that heterosexuality should necessarily be the normative form of existence. To discuss that we'd have to get into Catholic Theology of the Body and I suspect that I would not say anything like that. I do think that children being raised by their biological mother and father ought to be normative in the sense that it is their birthright and, all things equal, their odds of thriving are better that way. Of course, it's not always possible so I do not believe that it should be considered normative in the sense that families in which that could not happen ought to be looked down upon.<br /><br />Anon<br /><br />Thanks and, to be clear, I do not regard Leviticus as establishing norms for human sexuality in 2009.<br /><br />Happy Pride to you as well.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-33128350314488571322009-06-28T11:58:39.677-05:002009-06-28T11:58:39.677-05:00Sandra
I am a middleaged gay man who enjoys Rick&#...Sandra<br />I am a middleaged gay man who enjoys Rick's column<br /><br />Rick you pose arguments based on reason<br />I do not perceive you as coming from a bias against gay people<br /><br />It has been my perception through life that those who argue against gay rights in whatever form have done so based 1) on leviticus 18:22 and/or 2) some individuals are afraid of they fact that even though they are straight they have attractions to members of the same-sex so they deal with it by disliking gay people, and/or men who really dislike gays are often hung up on their sense of masculinity, (curiously I have never found this to be the case among women).<br /><br />Within a fundamentalist view of christianity and among mormons gay people have no place and are sinners, (the Catholic church is marginally better),<br />(Episcopalian church is more reasoned on this)<br /><br />Happy PrideAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-52896718767836685792009-06-27T20:35:46.656-05:002009-06-27T20:35:46.656-05:00I did go back to read the 2006 posts.
A couple po...I did go back to read the 2006 posts.<br /><br />A couple points stand out:<br /><br />1. You were a more reasonable man then than you are today. In 2006, you said of the amendment's civil-union language: "I do not like it much," and further, "there is a reasonable argument that civil unions ought not to be recognized." Now, you think paltry domestic partnership protections will be, quite literally, the downfall of marriage and western civilization.<br /><br />2. You rely heavily on abstractions in order to evacuate real people from your discussions, as if lesbians and gay men exist only as fearful, murky ghosts.<br /><br />3. The argument that we need to keep heterosexuality as the exclusively normative form of existence is, frankly, cruel. It is, of course, an argument that we need to maintain stigmas against homosexuality. If barring lesbians and gay men from marriage is one way of, as you say, "maintaining the idea that heterosexuality is normative," then what other tools should we also employ? Like gay jokes or anti-gay harassment. Under your reasoning, wouldn't those also produce a net benefit because they present heterosexuality as normative while (really the same thing) stigmatizing homosexuality?<br /><br />4. The argument about adultery is particularly germane to recent discussions. Let me put real people back into the spectral substance of your argument: you think that allowing the lesbian couple down the street to obtain a civil marriage license will make you more likely to commit adultery -- or, perhaps more generously, to create an "open" arrangement. This type of argument denies people their fundamental sovereignty, not to mention the dignity through which they forge their own lives. It's a breed of finger pointing that egregiously removes people's agency and responsibility.<br /><br />At bottom of all these arguments is a simple fear that we will stop seeing heterosexuality (and heteosexuals) as better than homosexuality (and lesbians and gay men). It's a fear that, quite frankly, we'll stop stigmatizing our lesbian and gay neighbors. I think that's why this argument seems so anachronistic to me, a relic from a meaner time.<br /><br />More and more, the norm is to know a lesbian or gay couple and, frequently, to know a lesbian or gay couple raising children. For those of us who do, these kind of arguments positively turn the stomach.Sandranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-25778849166024984372009-06-27T19:51:38.467-05:002009-06-27T19:51:38.467-05:00Tosa
If it makes no sense to you so be it, you ha...Tosa<br /><br />If it makes no sense to you so be it, you haven't refuted a thing I have written on the subject for over two years, so you'll understand that your view doesn't do much to make me reconsider.<br /><br />"My religion" (by which I take it you mean Christianity) calls for many things that cannot and should not be written into law. My argument against same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion or the traditional positions of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) that homosexual conduct is sinful. Writing that position into law would mean criminalizing homosexual conduct. I certainly don't favor that. I don't even favor criticizing homosexuals because I do not believe that it is helpful or accurate to call them sinners on account of their sexual orientation or, say what you want, decision or need to act upon it. (In that sense, I dissent from the traditional position of "my religion" although its more complicated than that; sin is not always the simple black and white concept we believe it to be.)<br /><br />I have said repeatedly that I am not prepared to say that Heather's two mommies are sinners. Whether we ought to change the legal and cultural definition of marriage to include their relationship is an entirely different question.<br /><br />What the social trends are is, of course, entirely irrelevant unless you think that whatever the social trend is must always be good. <br /><br />This is not an issue on which I have read "a few" opinions. I have read many and given it great consideration. Perhaps you have done that, but your comments here really do nothing more than parrot the bumper stickers. That's why you are able to say that it is an easy issue. It's not.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-84095585807524582972009-06-27T16:57:09.125-05:002009-06-27T16:57:09.125-05:00Anon 11:14
Being a nurse myself, I can't under...Anon 11:14<br />Being a nurse myself, I can't understand how:<br /><br />1) John Edwards cheated on his wife while she had (has) cancer.<br /><br />2) Teddy Kennedy left a woman in a car in a river. She died. And drowning is not a pleasant way to die as you well know.<br /><br />Both are such despicable acts. And one of them has remained in the senate for a long, long time.<br /><br />Barney Frank and Bill Clinton are faces of the Democratic party as well. I need not go into detail.reddessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-58658255959201251652009-06-27T14:09:25.797-05:002009-06-27T14:09:25.797-05:00I think, if I may summarize, the thing about socia...I think, if I may summarize, the thing about socially conservative politics is this:<br /><br />1>Social conservative politicians argue for a social order, that, to the extent it existed at all (the 1950s or even the victorian age seem to be models, yet sexual hypocrisy was rampant at those times too, just not publicized as well. And come to think of it, were those times any more moral? Bastard children were shunned because of the actions of their parents, wives were forced by convention to stay in abusive marriages, etc.), no longer exists since the sexual revolution. They seem to make the argument that the sexual revolution can be put back in a bottle. Good luck with that.<br /><br />2>Social conservative politicians provide all the evidence one needs that this desired social order cannot exist, since as the biggest proponents they seem to fail at higher-than-average rates to live up to its supposed tenets.<br /><br />3>Given that this social order either never existed or no longer exists, and given that putting the sexual revolution back in the bottle and the gays back in the closet is an idiotic notion at best, and given that social cons can't even seem to get their desired lifestyle right, <br /><br />What sense does it make to even try?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-68616874357818006632009-06-27T13:54:37.933-05:002009-06-27T13:54:37.933-05:00You're right, I am not convinced, because neit...You're right, I am not convinced, because neither you nor any of the anti-SSM scholars you mention (I've read a few) make an argument that makes any sense.<br /><br />You accuse me of wanting to remake the world as I want it to be. That's not accurate. I favor same-sex marriage because marriage no longer, if it ever did, have the one-size-fits-all definition across all couples, as you arrogantly claim to be able to define. Marriage's purpose and structure has evolved across time, across cultures, and across individual couples far more than you admit. <br /><br />I favor it because society is evolving in its attitude towards gays and is gradually coming to the conclusion that if the state is going to grant legal benefits to couples, there isn't a reason any longer to deny those benefits to couples. Religions are changing much more slowly, and some never will, but that's irrelevant. Your religion also says I'm not supposed to work on Sunday and that if I'm rich it'll be hard for me to get into heaven, but I don't see any of those provisions written into law and people are free to believe and practice those things if they wish.<br /><br />Rick, I'm afraid it is you who are defending a world you think should exist but no longer does. You seem to refuse to recognize the fact that gay couples can and will continue more and more to have children through adoption, IVF, surrogacy, or whatever; not to mention the fact that sticking a kid in foster care who can't find a hetero home while refusing to allow a gay couple to adopt is about the most immoral example of letting perfection be the enemy of the good that I can think of.<br /><br />Given this reality, your argument makes no sense. At all. It doesn't matter much because my opinion will win out in my lifetime, while your opinion will be viewed as a relic like the stagecoach or the fax machine.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-11208645797597190402009-06-27T12:39:57.743-05:002009-06-27T12:39:57.743-05:00Reddess is responding to the argument about conser...Reddess is responding to the argument about conservatives changing their mind when they have been been blessed with gay children.<br /><br />Tosa - It's not that these things would be politically difficult. They would be impossible, although there may be room for modification of divorce laws. Beyond that, criminalizing adultery has a history. It doesn't work.<br /><br />The argument against SSM is not "going after" gays. It is that the reasons that marriage is culturally and legally structured in the way it is has to do with the unique nature of heterosexual relationsips. There is no reason for society or the state to extend that cultural and legal structure to other forms of relationships and there is no reason for persons in other forms of relationships to accept them.<br /><br />Extending marriage to other forms of relationships will inevitably change those legal and cultural constructs. In the specific case of same sex marriage, it will also tend to reinforce the already insidious notion that children are not, in the great run of cases, best off when raised by their biological mothers and fathers.<br /><br />If you really want to try and understand this argument, I wrote about in extensively here in 2006. You might also check out the scholarship of Maggie Gallagher, Helen Alvare, Mary Ann Glendon, Thersa Stanton Collett, Robert George and the Institute for American Values. <br /><br />Again, the argument is hardly unreasonable. There are academic advocates of same sex marriage (e.g., Ladelle McWhorter) who predict and welcome such an effect and a body of academic literature that criticizes the privileging od marriage.<br /><br />But these arguments are complicated and don't lend themselves to the short attention span of the blogosphere. In addition, here, they tend to be met by invective rather than reason. As you can see from the comments here and in the recent post, lots of people are invested in the notion that opponents of SSM just "must be" homophobic (whatever that means) or hateful. <br /><br />If you see marriage as the conferral of "benefits" or you buy into some Hegelian notion of the evolutionary eradication of all traditional distinctions, then you won't be convinced. If you are the type of person who believes we can remake the world as we want it to be, you won't be convinced.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-11566553744050701672009-06-27T11:15:15.323-05:002009-06-27T11:15:15.323-05:00no family values
no human values
sanford reflect...no family values<br />no human values<br /><br /><br />sanford reflects the sameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-24582476389688201492009-06-27T11:14:08.485-05:002009-06-27T11:14:08.485-05:00while we are off the topic....as a nurse I can not...while we are off the topic....as a nurse I can not fathom how Newt Gingrich could have gone to his first wifes bedside with divorce papers while she had cancer.....such a despicable act and such a man still is a spokesman for the republican party what a stainAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-46089495487244504042009-06-27T06:22:57.859-05:002009-06-27T06:22:57.859-05:00reddess,
Deflection. If abortion were banned fore...reddess,<br /><br />Deflection. If abortion were banned forever or Down's cured tomorrow, this specific issue would remain, as would the weakness of Rick's argument.<br /><br />Actually address the topic at hand.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38379910686494774752009-06-27T03:56:15.884-05:002009-06-27T03:56:15.884-05:00Perhaps as some liberals are blessed with children...Perhaps as some liberals are blessed with children with Down Syndrome they will stop murdering them through abortion.<br />I can say that with authority. I had a little girl with Downs.reddessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-8748874295497252952009-06-26T18:56:48.487-05:002009-06-26T18:56:48.487-05:00respectable arguments are use to hide prejudice .....respectable arguments are use to hide prejudice .....was done with slavery.....was done with interracial marriage...and the chinese exclusion act...dred scottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-47175444790594629862009-06-26T18:28:10.269-05:002009-06-26T18:28:10.269-05:00"You're a respectable guy, but how is you..."You're a respectable guy, but how is your argument respectable at all?"<br /><br />Many have pondered ever thus.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-26015792976301291622009-06-26T18:03:45.996-05:002009-06-26T18:03:45.996-05:00So let me get this straight - passing policies tha...So let me get this straight - passing policies that would actually strengthen the institution of marriage are politically difficult, so your movement doesn't want to marginalize itself by even trying; but since going after the gays is politically expedient, you'll deny them the benefits of the insitution we heteros have already degraded because it's more politically expedient, even though giving them those benefits would have no discernable effect on the institution itself.<br /><br />You're a respectable guy, but how is your argument respectable at all?AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-81704724456569133572009-06-26T17:53:14.622-05:002009-06-26T17:53:14.622-05:00Perhaps as some of these conservative bloggers are...<i>Perhaps as some of these conservative bloggers are blessed with gay children and gay grandchildren they will modify their views.</i><br /><br />They've always been so blessed. The difference now is that they will no longer be able to keep those children and grandchildren in the closet. <br /><br />Once, the parents and grandparents, operating under the prejudices of their generation, changed their children. Now, as with the Cheneys, the children are changing their parents.Sandranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-47380485558077290732009-06-26T15:42:31.045-05:002009-06-26T15:42:31.045-05:00Perhaps as some of these conservative bloggers are...Perhaps as some of these conservative bloggers are blessed with gay children and gay grandchildren they will modify their viewsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-6248316382608648262009-06-26T14:15:13.078-05:002009-06-26T14:15:13.078-05:00Good comment John....George Bush was against same ...Good comment John....George Bush was against same sex marriage however Cheney with a lesbian daughter did not seem to have a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-63303900244280903992009-06-26T13:34:41.710-05:002009-06-26T13:34:41.710-05:00A moral race to the bottom? How about a race upwa...A moral race to the bottom? How about a race upward from here, up to reality, with a big dose of public maturity? I'd prefer a race where the players honestly strive to explain... because I don't see honest explanations. I see political positions. The guv who seems baffled to explain how he fell in love with another woman while he was married... Another politician who only bristled and gruffed when asked how he squared his party's positions with his gay daughter's very existence. I remember another who only chirps about the wonders of babies when asked to square her preaching with her teen daughter's pregnancy. No, it doesn't mean the principles are wrong... it could mean that your approach to them isn't nuanced, isn't reality-based, or that your proposed implementation of them in laws for everyone might not be as fair and just as you claim it would be. It's all "family values" when the spotlight is pointed outward, but it's all personal and messy and off-limits when the light shines inward. I could go on, but I've already written more at Brawler's place.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-53017676166907022352009-06-26T09:14:15.519-05:002009-06-26T09:14:15.519-05:00It's an attempt to marginalize social conserva...<i>It's an attempt to marginalize social conservatives by asking them to embrace something that you know is politically impossible and practically unworkable.</i><br /><br />In a decade, the same will be true of arguments claiming we should continue preventing gay couples from marrying.Sandranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-50763885167207368102009-06-26T08:08:29.750-05:002009-06-26T08:08:29.750-05:00Anon 7:20
Unless you have some special source of ...Anon 7:20<br /><br />Unless you have some special source of knowledge, your comments about why someone else's marriage ended are speculation and, in this case, potentially defamatory.<br /><br />Tosa<br /><br />That argument is a trick. It's an attempt to marginalize social conservatives by asking them to embrace something that you know is politically impossible and practically unworkable. There is nothing inconsistent about saying that some things that are wrong should not be made illegal. In any event, if you read the literature on same sex marriage, opponents of SSM often cite no-fault divorce laws as examples of a legal change having a harmful expressive impact.<br /><br />As far as abortion laws, I don't know what you are referring to. If you mean things like condom distribution, social conservatives tend not to believe that these things work very well at all.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-18957399512792947292009-06-26T06:17:37.695-05:002009-06-26T06:17:37.695-05:00Shark, if the fight against gay marriage were real...Shark, if the fight against gay marriage were really about protecting the sanctity of marriage, then shouldn't you social cons also be pushing other policy options, such as ending no-fault divorce and criminalizing adultery, as part of an overall effort? <br /><br />Seems to me right now the gays are the only target of your political efforts. Making divorce more difficult and criminalizing adultery would without question make people think a lot harder about entering into marriage and put a lot more work into maintaining it, thereby strenghening the institution, would it not?<br /><br />Since you're not going after these obviously effective measures, it's a little hard to take you seriously when you make one issue that really has nothing to do with the strength of hetero marriage the centerpiece of your effort to protect it while ignoring much more effective efforts.<br /><br />It's the same reason I don't take you social conservatives seriously on abortion. You're (in general) opposed to measures that have been shown in other countries to reduce teen pregnancy and the need for abortion, prefering instead to advocate policies (abstitence-only sex ed) that have shown to be utter failures, all in the name of imposing your cultural beliefs.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-84472350027177000302009-06-25T22:37:56.717-05:002009-06-25T22:37:56.717-05:00"Some argue that this means that Republicans ..."Some argue that this means that Republicans ought to drop the emphasis on family values."<br /><br />Only if they want to be taken seriously.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-90652794090774545822009-06-25T19:20:52.214-05:002009-06-25T19:20:52.214-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com