Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 29, 2011
Homo Bible Thumper Ordered to Attend Gay Pride
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM
She reportedly threatened to give gay kids conversion therapy:
An attorney for a graduate school counseling student told federal judges in Atlanta on Tuesday that the student's First Amendment rights were violated when professors at a Georgia university sought to punish her for her biblical views on gay rights. Augusta State University put Jennifer Keeton on academic probation for saying it would be hard for her to work with gay clients, and threatened to expel her unless she attended events like Augusta's gay pride parade...
University faculty were concerned that Keeton was scheduled to practice counseling in middle and high schools as part of her degree program and could possibly harm young students with her views, Correia said.
The poor dear. She probably feels like authority figures are trying to tell her what to believe, how to feel, and what's morally right and wrong.
1
I think that making her go to a gay pride parade is a bit much, but they're absolutely right to censure a would-be counselor who wanted to teach people harmful falsehoods.
inb4 Alleged shitstorm
inb4 Alleged shitstorm
2
The school is absofuckinglutely right to expel her. She shouldn't be a counselor if she won't accept the curriculum they are teaching her.
3
I believe in freedom of thought, but people with certain beliefs should stay out of certain jobs. This women counseling teenagers would be like Brendan Kiley becoming a DEA agent.
5
if they want to make the point that gay folks are normal, the last thing they should do is make her go to a gay pride parade.
8
I agree she has no business counseling anyone if she insists that her religious beliefs allows her to ignore science. If she believes that she is called to be a Christian counselor then she should pursue exactly that. They are part of a Masters or PhD in divinity, and as far as I know (from individuals who are in the program at George Fox) the degree is not for counseling outside of a Christian setting. Those programs are available from various Christian universities and colleges. Then she can find some church or Christian school to practice in. She isn't being persecuted, she is being given direction and advice in how to matriculate and intern in a program that is appropriate for religious convictions. Any hurt feelings she has are her own creating. Religious beliefs are like penises. You can be proud of it, but cramming it down someone's throat without their consent is rape.
9
@Kim, Awesome Person:
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to write that last line down and save it for a rainy day to make me appear to be much wittier (no, not whiter) than I really am. So thanks in advance!
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to write that last line down and save it for a rainy day to make me appear to be much wittier (no, not whiter) than I really am. So thanks in advance!
11
"The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, the national gay rights law firm, took the opposing side. They argued that counselors should avoid imposing their values on clients."
Well of course they should.
Those counselors should be imposing American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal's values on clients.....
Well of course they should.
Those counselors should be imposing American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal's values on clients.....
12
8
Right.
In the Qunited States of Gaymerica only Homosexuals are allowed to cram their beliefs down throats.....
Right.
In the Qunited States of Gaymerica only Homosexuals are allowed to cram their beliefs down throats.....
15
I'm kind of surprised she was accepted into the clinical graduate program in the first place.
Prospective grad students have to write a statement of their future intentions, get multiple recommendation letters from professors, and go through at least a couple in-depth interviews before being accepted.
Either she blatently lied on all of those or her current professors and advisor really dropped the ball.
Prospective grad students have to write a statement of their future intentions, get multiple recommendation letters from professors, and go through at least a couple in-depth interviews before being accepted.
Either she blatently lied on all of those or her current professors and advisor really dropped the ball.
16
@7: Funny that you should say that in defense of someone who wants to subject gay people to conversion therapy.
18
16
so many errors in one little pile of poop.
1 objecting to government entities dictating people's beliefs is not the same as defending those beliefs. Logic fail.
2 "she was interested in practicing conversion therapy"≠"wants to SUBJECT". English fail.
so many errors in one little pile of poop.
1 objecting to government entities dictating people's beliefs is not the same as defending those beliefs. Logic fail.
2 "she was interested in practicing conversion therapy"≠"wants to SUBJECT". English fail.
19
@18 No government entity is dictating anybody's beliefs. A profession is requiring that it's practitioners conduct themselves in a certain way. Jennifer Keeton's professors didn't ask her to change her spiritual beliefs only to keep them to herself while interacting with clients.
20
I see. Telling kids that choosing homosexual behavior may be harmful to them is out. Anyone daring to do so should be drummed out of college in a hollow square of pony tail wearing men with beer guts and cardigans!
But telling them that thinking they're physically something they demonstrably aren't is in! Think you're a hedgehog? A man trapped in a womans body? Born the 'wrong' sex? You're EXPRESSING yourself, celebrate it!
What this young woman should realize is, as Kim in Portland pointed out, secular counseling is a joke. She should have sought her degree in a theological setting where concepts like right and wrong, true and false are still valued.
But telling them that thinking they're physically something they demonstrably aren't is in! Think you're a hedgehog? A man trapped in a womans body? Born the 'wrong' sex? You're EXPRESSING yourself, celebrate it!
What this young woman should realize is, as Kim in Portland pointed out, secular counseling is a joke. She should have sought her degree in a theological setting where concepts like right and wrong, true and false are still valued.
21
@1: "I think that making her go to a gay pride parade is a bit much"
Seeing as it's a secular event, it's absolutely not a bit much.
Seeing as it's a secular event, it's absolutely not a bit much.
22
@20,
A counselor telling a gay client that "being gay" is wrong is a big problem because it's coming from a person who is assumed to be educated and is a sort of authority figure on the subject. It would be like a cop writing a person a ticket for a violation that didn't really exist... the person is much less likely to call BS on the cop because the cop is perceived as an educated authority on law enforcement.
If that girl wants to tell gays that they're harming themselves, she should do it as a non-authority and someone who really doesn't know anything about the subject (such as yourself). That way, everyone would know she was just spouting her opinion and not necessarily presenting facts or the truth.
A counselor telling a gay client that "being gay" is wrong is a big problem because it's coming from a person who is assumed to be educated and is a sort of authority figure on the subject. It would be like a cop writing a person a ticket for a violation that didn't really exist... the person is much less likely to call BS on the cop because the cop is perceived as an educated authority on law enforcement.
If that girl wants to tell gays that they're harming themselves, she should do it as a non-authority and someone who really doesn't know anything about the subject (such as yourself). That way, everyone would know she was just spouting her opinion and not necessarily presenting facts or the truth.
23
@18: "2 "2 "she was interested in practicing conversion therapy"≠"wants to SUBJECT". English fail."
"Augusta State University countered that the counseling program would risk its accreditation if it didn't hold Keeton to a code of ethics. The school has a duty to require students to counsel all segments of the community, including those who are gay or transgender, it said in court papers.
Keeton told other students that she was interested in practicing conversion therapy — where a therapist tries to "cure" a person from being homosexual — after graduation, said Cristina Correia with the state Attorney General's office. Correia said Keeton also told her professor"
Reading article fail. Fail at life fail. Fly away, troll.
"Augusta State University countered that the counseling program would risk its accreditation if it didn't hold Keeton to a code of ethics. The school has a duty to require students to counsel all segments of the community, including those who are gay or transgender, it said in court papers.
Keeton told other students that she was interested in practicing conversion therapy — where a therapist tries to "cure" a person from being homosexual — after graduation, said Cristina Correia with the state Attorney General's office. Correia said Keeton also told her professor"
Reading article fail. Fail at life fail. Fly away, troll.
24
@SB
What post were you reading where Kim said that? The one where she compared religious therapy to rape?
What post were you reading where Kim said that? The one where she compared religious therapy to rape?
25
@20 I'm no expert, but I think what the data shows is that being gay carries certain risks, STIs, substance abuse, suicide, etc, but that telling a gay kid that homosexuality is wrong increases those risks.
26
@Ken
@STI risk mostly result from the mechanics of anal sex if you participate in it. Anal sex is just riskier. For straights as much as gays.
@The Substance abuse, suicide and mental issues stem from the years of abuse heaped upon us in the GLBT community for being different. Because God hates fags, men marry women and women marry men. When a young impressionable child realizes that they are different, and they will, from the heteronormative construct then that can be traumatic. Especially in societies that permit bullying due to not being "normal."
So fuck you for implying that we're the reason we suffer, instead of you insufferable fucking homophobes that seek to make life miserable because you're uncomfortable with how other people love each other.
@STI risk mostly result from the mechanics of anal sex if you participate in it. Anal sex is just riskier. For straights as much as gays.
@The Substance abuse, suicide and mental issues stem from the years of abuse heaped upon us in the GLBT community for being different. Because God hates fags, men marry women and women marry men. When a young impressionable child realizes that they are different, and they will, from the heteronormative construct then that can be traumatic. Especially in societies that permit bullying due to not being "normal."
So fuck you for implying that we're the reason we suffer, instead of you insufferable fucking homophobes that seek to make life miserable because you're uncomfortable with how other people love each other.
27
@20: Homosexuality is not hazardous to your health. Irresponsible and unprotected promiscuity is hazardous to your health.
I'm really tired of you letting your ignorance show.
@25: *what the data show
FTFY.
I'm really tired of you letting your ignorance show.
@25: *what the data show
FTFY.
28
23
Yes.
She was interested in practicing conversion therapy.
And unless she is FORCING clients to undergo the therapy she is not SUBJECTING anyone to anything.
Clients who seek conversion could receive it from her.
What part of freedom and choice offends you?
Yes.
She was interested in practicing conversion therapy.
And unless she is FORCING clients to undergo the therapy she is not SUBJECTING anyone to anything.
Clients who seek conversion could receive it from her.
What part of freedom and choice offends you?
30
@15: My grad program required a pulse and a willingness to mortgage my future to pay tuition. Granted, I'm not studying head shrinking, but not every program gives a shit about the quality of the brains in the tuition-paying bodies.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
31
Principle E of the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics:
"Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices."
"Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices."
32
26
And yet, while many many more heterosexuals than homosexuals engage in anal sex it is homosexuals who have AIDS at 90X the rate of normal Americans. weird.
And homosexuals who live in secular humanist cultures that embrace and promote homosexuality still have greatly elevated levels of STDs, suicide, substance abuse and mental illness. also weird.
Shame on anyone for suggesting that you be responsible for your own life, for your own life's choices.
Fuck yourself for being too much of a pussy to acknowledge and accept the consequences of the choices and behaviors you embrace....
And yet, while many many more heterosexuals than homosexuals engage in anal sex it is homosexuals who have AIDS at 90X the rate of normal Americans. weird.
And homosexuals who live in secular humanist cultures that embrace and promote homosexuality still have greatly elevated levels of STDs, suicide, substance abuse and mental illness. also weird.
Shame on anyone for suggesting that you be responsible for your own life, for your own life's choices.
Fuck yourself for being too much of a pussy to acknowledge and accept the consequences of the choices and behaviors you embrace....
33
31
Did the faculty respect this woman's cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on religion?
Or did they coerce her into embracing their values.
Did the faculty try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors (such as their own gender identity, culture, religion, sexual orientation...)?
Or did they bully this woman to gratify their own prejudices and bigotries.
Did the faculty respect this woman's cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on religion?
Or did they coerce her into embracing their values.
Did the faculty try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors (such as their own gender identity, culture, religion, sexual orientation...)?
Or did they bully this woman to gratify their own prejudices and bigotries.
34
an aside-
the troll's last registered identity lasted all of 8 hours.
Our Little Danny really really doesn't like being exposed to ideas and facts that contradict his own bigotries and ignorant prejudices.
the troll's last registered identity lasted all of 8 hours.
Our Little Danny really really doesn't like being exposed to ideas and facts that contradict his own bigotries and ignorant prejudices.
35
another aside-
But mostest of all Our Little Danny hates having his hypocrisy exposed, tied up in a bundle and shoved up his ass on his own blog where he expects unquestioning adoration from the FanBoys and FagHags.
Yeah.
Our Little Danny hates THAT mostest of all.
But mostest of all Our Little Danny hates having his hypocrisy exposed, tied up in a bundle and shoved up his ass on his own blog where he expects unquestioning adoration from the FanBoys and FagHags.
Yeah.
Our Little Danny hates THAT mostest of all.
36
@26 In my experience gay men get into trouble by doing the things that straight guys wish they could do but don't because their wives wouldn't like it. You know, sleeping around, drinking and partying all the time, stuff like that. I'm sure discrimination contributes to many of those problems, but I also think that there are certain inherent risks to being a man w/o a female partner to rein you in.
@27 FTFY?
@27 FTFY?
37
Thank you, Laura557 @ 31. As someone who is studying head shrinking, I am shocked that none of her advisors have gently spoken to her about how her biogtry and intollerence make her totally unsuited for her course of study.Not only is she in vilation of Principle E, she is (in my view) more grossly in violation of standard 2.02 as it pertains Boundaries of Competence, 2.06 as it pertains to Personal Problems and Conflicts, nearly EVERY facet of Standard 3 in regards to Human Relations particularly 3.03 "do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status." Not to mention a gross misuse of her position as a person of trust. However, as a Grad student, she should be under constant and direct supervision. The school fucked themselves on this one.
38
@30,
I hear ya. And I know some grad programs are like you described. Clinical psychology though, really is tough to get into.
Clinical psych grad schools are more competitive than medical school. They really do screen applicants excessively (I was in a social psych grad program so I got a first row seat to watch it).
That chick never would have made it in if she told them she planned to do "pray-away-the-gay" therapy. She definitely either hid it/lied about it, or the admission committee fucked up.
I'd guess it was the former... that she "conveniently" hid the fact that she's a bigot until she was already accepted, and then dropped the bomb.
I hear ya. And I know some grad programs are like you described. Clinical psychology though, really is tough to get into.
Clinical psych grad schools are more competitive than medical school. They really do screen applicants excessively (I was in a social psych grad program so I got a first row seat to watch it).
That chick never would have made it in if she told them she planned to do "pray-away-the-gay" therapy. She definitely either hid it/lied about it, or the admission committee fucked up.
I'd guess it was the former... that she "conveniently" hid the fact that she's a bigot until she was already accepted, and then dropped the bomb.
39
"but I also think that there are certain inherent risks to being a man w/o a female partner to rein you in."
Holy fuck I think my head just exploded from stupidity.
Holy fuck I think my head just exploded from stupidity.
40
@29: Cite your source for your allegation that 20% of homosexuals contract HIV. As I've explained to you time and again (using the CDC's own numbers no less!) the actual rate is somewhere between 3% and 7%.
Also, correlation does not imply causation. The same months in which popsicle sales are highest also have the highest rates of drowning, but that doesn't mean that popsicles cause drowning.
@33: They never told her that she wasn't free to believe that homosexuality is sinful. They just took issue with her letting her personal opinions influence her professional conduct.
@36: Fixed That For You. LMGTFY.
Also, correlation does not imply causation. The same months in which popsicle sales are highest also have the highest rates of drowning, but that doesn't mean that popsicles cause drowning.
@33: They never told her that she wasn't free to believe that homosexuality is sinful. They just took issue with her letting her personal opinions influence her professional conduct.
@36: Fixed That For You. LMGTFY.
41
@26
So far as I understand, Mr. Mehlman is himself gay.
You can't actually prove that the substance abuse et al is a result of social pressures. As VL points out, there's a difference between causation and correlation. For all you know these are part of the disorder of homosexuality. Or they aren't. I can't prove it one way or the other, so I won't make claims about it. Unlike homosexuality per se though they are demonstrably harmful behaviors in themselves needing treatment, whatever the cause.
For someone to ask of others that they take responsibility for their choices isn't a phobia. I have a phobia of small dark enclosed spaces, like caves. It's an irrational fear, not founded on personal experience or rational thought about the situation. I have a rational expectation that a man or woman who chooses homosexuality accept the consequences of their behavioral choices. I don't expect them to mold their behavior by my choices, but I object to being asked to mold mine by theirs either.
I'm sorry you apparently had a tough childhood or adolesence. Tall kids or short ones, skinny ones or fat, kids with excessive acne or insufficient sartorial taste all got razzed in school. It's part of the process.
And then we grow up. Hopefully the rewards of your choices appear to you to outweigh the costs, but don't ask the rest of society to bear those costs if they don't.
So far as I understand, Mr. Mehlman is himself gay.
You can't actually prove that the substance abuse et al is a result of social pressures. As VL points out, there's a difference between causation and correlation. For all you know these are part of the disorder of homosexuality. Or they aren't. I can't prove it one way or the other, so I won't make claims about it. Unlike homosexuality per se though they are demonstrably harmful behaviors in themselves needing treatment, whatever the cause.
For someone to ask of others that they take responsibility for their choices isn't a phobia. I have a phobia of small dark enclosed spaces, like caves. It's an irrational fear, not founded on personal experience or rational thought about the situation. I have a rational expectation that a man or woman who chooses homosexuality accept the consequences of their behavioral choices. I don't expect them to mold their behavior by my choices, but I object to being asked to mold mine by theirs either.
I'm sorry you apparently had a tough childhood or adolesence. Tall kids or short ones, skinny ones or fat, kids with excessive acne or insufficient sartorial taste all got razzed in school. It's part of the process.
And then we grow up. Hopefully the rewards of your choices appear to you to outweigh the costs, but don't ask the rest of society to bear those costs if they don't.
42
@33 & SB Lol. Basically, you're saying that it's okay for your pharmacist to force aromatherapy on you when you're just trying to buy some antibiotics. Or for your waitress to only serve you gluten-free vegan dishes, no matter what you want on the menu.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Yeah, good luck with that.
43
Holy shit. I've just completed my practicum in School Counseling and this is one thing we've talked about extensively in classes from the beginning. I can't fathom her not only wanting to practice conversion therapy but WITH A FOCUS ON CHILDREN.
Based on the article, the school seems to have done most of what they should have, but I wonder why they didn't refer her to a non-faculty therapist to work out her shit. This is getting sent to all my classmates- and I'm actually going to ask what our program's response would be.
Based on the article, the school seems to have done most of what they should have, but I wonder why they didn't refer her to a non-faculty therapist to work out her shit. This is getting sent to all my classmates- and I'm actually going to ask what our program's response would be.
44
The troll got twelve comments in so far. I think it's interesting how they tend to come in spurts, if you know what I mean.
And thank you, dear Kim, for being the voice of reasonable Christians. You are second only to Mother Vel-DuRay when it comes to that (and only because she's my mother)
And Seattleblahs, I'm glad we're here to give your family a break from your endless bloviating. How long a Thanksgiving weekend it must have been for your loved ones.
And thank you, dear Kim, for being the voice of reasonable Christians. You are second only to Mother Vel-DuRay when it comes to that (and only because she's my mother)
And Seattleblahs, I'm glad we're here to give your family a break from your endless bloviating. How long a Thanksgiving weekend it must have been for your loved ones.
45
SeattleBlues, exactly how are gay people asking you to "mold your behavior to theirs"? As far as I can see, what a gay person does has little or no impact upon you, other than asking you to subsidize a marriage (which they are doing for you already, and costs what, a dollar a year?)
You're maintaining that gay people are forcing you to behave a certain way...how is that so?
You're maintaining that gay people are forcing you to behave a certain way...how is that so?
46
45, dear, Seattleblahs is a complicated sort: He went through a "forced feminization" phase, and now that he's a "family man", he tends to blame that whole part of his life on gay people.
(In reality, it had everything to do with his potty training and his BDSM mistress. Us homos were just the people in the audience at The Vogue. Sure, we stuffed dollars in his panties, but we did that to any performer.)
But I still say he was an uncanny Debbie Gibson. And I really think he was happier in those days.
(In reality, it had everything to do with his potty training and his BDSM mistress. Us homos were just the people in the audience at The Vogue. Sure, we stuffed dollars in his panties, but we did that to any performer.)
But I still say he was an uncanny Debbie Gibson. And I really think he was happier in those days.
47
I think she should be raped. A woman who wants to live in the Republic of Gilead as to accept she's gonna get raped.
49
@41: I DON'T THINK SO, TIM.
You can't infer causation from correlation alone, true. But here's where it shows that I have training in statistical methods and you do not. You CAN infer causation given two of the following three (if A is the cause and B is the effect):
-Correlation (A and B occur together)
-Control (Changing A causes a corresponding change in B)
-Mechanism (There is a plausible mechanism consistent with the data by which A might cause B)
In this case, we can infer causality because we have both correlation and mechanism; the psychological effects of harassment are fairly well-understood.
Yes, I raged so hard my floor turned to lava. I feel like knowing statistics has made me more sensitive to idiocy in the world.
Also, Seattleblues, the APA does not classify homosexuality as a disorder. What credentials do you have that entitle you to overrule the APA on issues of psychological health?
You can't infer causation from correlation alone, true. But here's where it shows that I have training in statistical methods and you do not. You CAN infer causation given two of the following three (if A is the cause and B is the effect):
-Correlation (A and B occur together)
-Control (Changing A causes a corresponding change in B)
-Mechanism (There is a plausible mechanism consistent with the data by which A might cause B)
In this case, we can infer causality because we have both correlation and mechanism; the psychological effects of harassment are fairly well-understood.
Yes, I raged so hard my floor turned to lava. I feel like knowing statistics has made me more sensitive to idiocy in the world.
Also, Seattleblues, the APA does not classify homosexuality as a disorder. What credentials do you have that entitle you to overrule the APA on issues of psychological health?
50
People don't choose to be gay, and gay people can't choose to be straight. Conversion therapy is a failed theory. It has been proven to cause psychological harm. Homosexuality isn't a mental illness, and it doesn't have, nor does it need a cure. Psychology is a medical science, not a Christian Bible study. Allowing this woman to be a counselor is like letting a faith healer work as a doctor in a shock trauma unit.
54
@36--you wrote: " In my experience gay men get into trouble by doing the things that straight guys wish they could do but don't because their wives wouldn't like it."
Reminds me of an old joke.
A handsome young man went to visit his parents one day and said, "Mom and Dad, there's something that you need to know: I'm gay." The mother lovingly said, "I love you just as much as I ever have." The father echoed the mother's words, but seemed a bit hesitant.
Later the father took the son out into the back yard for a man-to-man talk. "I still love you," he said, "But there's something that I don't understand. What do two men do together?"
The son said, "Do you know all those things that you try to get Mom to do that she refuses to do?"
"Yes," the father said.
The son smiled. "That's what we do."
Reminds me of an old joke.
A handsome young man went to visit his parents one day and said, "Mom and Dad, there's something that you need to know: I'm gay." The mother lovingly said, "I love you just as much as I ever have." The father echoed the mother's words, but seemed a bit hesitant.
Later the father took the son out into the back yard for a man-to-man talk. "I still love you," he said, "But there's something that I don't understand. What do two men do together?"
The son said, "Do you know all those things that you try to get Mom to do that she refuses to do?"
"Yes," the father said.
The son smiled. "That's what we do."
55
@38, Alas, she's not in a clinical psych program. She's in a school counseling program, which is a master's degree and doesn't require any damn biology classes. Much easier to get into, I'm sure--having gone through a school counseling graduate program. As it was a few years after my bachelor degree, it didn't require a letter from a professor. The interview was with two professors and a current student, alongside two other applicants. Her letter of intentions could very easily have avoided any mention of gay kids. It would not have hard for her to slip in, without telling a single lie.
As usual, Kim wins the thread.
As usual, Kim wins the thread.
56
@41, you keep not responding, so I'll keep trying. This is from last week:
So, I wrote this in a thread from a couple weeks back, but you wandered off and never replied. So, here we go:
Saying that being gay is a choice implies that being straight is a choice. So: did you choose to be straight? I seem to recall you saying that you did not, that your attraction to women is completely natural to you. So, why is it so difficult to believe that same-sex attraction is completely natural to other folks?
Now, you may say that gay folks should just deny those attractions. That doesn't seem very Christian. Why would God make folks gay, and then punish them by not letting them be happy? You seem very happy with your family, fulfilled with your marriage. Why deny that to gay folks? What do you get from that? How would it harm you? Oh, wait, you've already said it wouldn't harm you or your marriage.
Then you'll claim that there's some societal cost to this, that we won't see for at least a generation. However, I can't recall if you've ever been clear on what that damage would be, or would look like. Could you help me out here?
The Declaration of Independence says that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that citizens must be treated equally under the law. Why do you hate America?
So, I wrote this in a thread from a couple weeks back, but you wandered off and never replied. So, here we go:
Saying that being gay is a choice implies that being straight is a choice. So: did you choose to be straight? I seem to recall you saying that you did not, that your attraction to women is completely natural to you. So, why is it so difficult to believe that same-sex attraction is completely natural to other folks?
Now, you may say that gay folks should just deny those attractions. That doesn't seem very Christian. Why would God make folks gay, and then punish them by not letting them be happy? You seem very happy with your family, fulfilled with your marriage. Why deny that to gay folks? What do you get from that? How would it harm you? Oh, wait, you've already said it wouldn't harm you or your marriage.
Then you'll claim that there's some societal cost to this, that we won't see for at least a generation. However, I can't recall if you've ever been clear on what that damage would be, or would look like. Could you help me out here?
The Declaration of Independence says that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that citizens must be treated equally under the law. Why do you hate America?
58
A similar situation arose at Eastern Michigan University (Ypsilanti, MI) in 2009. That case is currently making its way through the legal system after the student sued EMU. She lost on her first attempt, and appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
A multitude of articles exist, but here's some basic ones..
http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?…
http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?…
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/…
A multitude of articles exist, but here's some basic ones..
http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?…
http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?…
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/…
59
Fuck her. Her belief that homosexuality is wrong is rooted in her religious beliefs, so she would in effect be pushing them upon the kids she counseled if she was suggesting conversion therapy. She can no more do that than she can suggest they convert to Christianity. Now if she was going to be a pastor... But no credible institution would turn a graduate out into the world with degree in hand if she was going to up the odds of her clients committing suicide.
60
@46
Whatever you're smoking at the moment is almost certainly illegal.
I'm very thankful that I understand almost nothing you wrote. Potty training is something I did with my kids and in the long ago days in which I was a toddler. Oddly, as a toddler I didn't have any kind of mistress, never mind whatever a BDSM one might be. As for the, umm... cultural... references they all escape me.
But please- for the love of God- don't enlighten me. Some things I'm much happier not knowing.
@56
Inclinations may not be choice driven. Behavior always is. I didn't choose to be vaguely repelled by gambling and casinos (noisy, never any natural light, too many people) narcotics of any kind, being drunk and so on. It doesn't mean acting on these impulses is good for the actor, or that they're any less a vice or a potential addiction because I'm not personally prone to them.
The concept of original sin is pretty universal in Christian churches. The fact that we're subject to unhealthy desires doesn't excuse our acting on them, nor does it indict the deity ipso facto. Cancer happens naturally, but if I contracted it I'd fight it anyway.
I don't personally punish anyone. Not my call. But society has a right to protect its' key structures, like law and family, against minority attacks upon them. This is discrimination. It is anyway if you use that term in its classical sense. That is, it is judgement based on experience and history of a circumstance and acting accordingly.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are not blanket grants of autonomy. We still owe accountability for our choices to those in our social circle, and to the larger polity. Want to sleep with other men or women? Okay, not my business. Want to make others give 3 rousing cheers and a lot of legal protection to that choice. Now that's the business of others.
More...
Whatever you're smoking at the moment is almost certainly illegal.
I'm very thankful that I understand almost nothing you wrote. Potty training is something I did with my kids and in the long ago days in which I was a toddler. Oddly, as a toddler I didn't have any kind of mistress, never mind whatever a BDSM one might be. As for the, umm... cultural... references they all escape me.
But please- for the love of God- don't enlighten me. Some things I'm much happier not knowing.
@56
Inclinations may not be choice driven. Behavior always is. I didn't choose to be vaguely repelled by gambling and casinos (noisy, never any natural light, too many people) narcotics of any kind, being drunk and so on. It doesn't mean acting on these impulses is good for the actor, or that they're any less a vice or a potential addiction because I'm not personally prone to them.
The concept of original sin is pretty universal in Christian churches. The fact that we're subject to unhealthy desires doesn't excuse our acting on them, nor does it indict the deity ipso facto. Cancer happens naturally, but if I contracted it I'd fight it anyway.
I don't personally punish anyone. Not my call. But society has a right to protect its' key structures, like law and family, against minority attacks upon them. This is discrimination. It is anyway if you use that term in its classical sense. That is, it is judgement based on experience and history of a circumstance and acting accordingly.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are not blanket grants of autonomy. We still owe accountability for our choices to those in our social circle, and to the larger polity. Want to sleep with other men or women? Okay, not my business. Want to make others give 3 rousing cheers and a lot of legal protection to that choice. Now that's the business of others.
62
SB, wow, you hit the trifecta there. You've compared homosexuality to cancer, called it a vice, and labeled it a sin. I think there was also an 'unhealthy desire' and 'potential addiction'.
Now, where is your evidence that homosexual behavior is any of these things? There must be some concrete evidence, if you're going to deprive folks of their civil liberties. The state must have at least a rational basis for doing so, or a compelling interest. Can you show anything of this nature?
The 14th Amendment is very clear about equal protection under the law. It most certainly is a grant of autonomy.
I notice you did not address my questions regarding why it's all right to deny some adults the chance at happiness and fulfillment that you and your wife enjoy. I didn't indict any deity. You seem to agree that homosexuality is natural to some people; does it not follow that God made them so? If so, then why do you get to deny them that happiness and fulfillment of marriage that I keep coming around to? Remember, you have to prove homosexuality is 'unhealthy' before you can use that as an argument.
Now, where is your evidence that homosexual behavior is any of these things? There must be some concrete evidence, if you're going to deprive folks of their civil liberties. The state must have at least a rational basis for doing so, or a compelling interest. Can you show anything of this nature?
The 14th Amendment is very clear about equal protection under the law. It most certainly is a grant of autonomy.
I notice you did not address my questions regarding why it's all right to deny some adults the chance at happiness and fulfillment that you and your wife enjoy. I didn't indict any deity. You seem to agree that homosexuality is natural to some people; does it not follow that God made them so? If so, then why do you get to deny them that happiness and fulfillment of marriage that I keep coming around to? Remember, you have to prove homosexuality is 'unhealthy' before you can use that as an argument.
64
Fuck them. Their belief that homosexuality is acceptable is rooted in their religious beliefs, so they are in effect pushing them upon the graduate students in the program. They can no more do that than they can suggest she convert to faggotry.
65
@clashfan
No.
I noted that not all things which seem to be biologically natural are also desirable. Not all urges we may feel are those which we should indulge. Which is why I mention vice. Not all things that occur naturally should be celebrated, which is why I mention cancer. This is different from equating homosexuality with vice or disease.
I have no right whatever to deny an adult the right to practice whatever consensual sex they wish based on my values, religious or otherwise. Conversely, the strident gay special citizen status groups have no right to force a view of homosexuality as inherently benevolent and desirable on others in public policy. At best they can say (and have done so with appropriate success in legal challenges) that private sexual practices between consenting adults aren't the business of the state. To go from there to an assertion that gay men or lesbians should be able to redefine social terms for their choice driven minority convenience is what I object to.
No violation of due process or equal protection has happened to the LGBTPQRSTUVWXYZ and whatever other splinter designations they've come up with community. Dan Savage can marry any woman willing to marry him. So can I. Cienna Madrid can marry any man with the dubious taste to wish it, so could my wife. Perfect equality under the law. QED.
No.
I noted that not all things which seem to be biologically natural are also desirable. Not all urges we may feel are those which we should indulge. Which is why I mention vice. Not all things that occur naturally should be celebrated, which is why I mention cancer. This is different from equating homosexuality with vice or disease.
I have no right whatever to deny an adult the right to practice whatever consensual sex they wish based on my values, religious or otherwise. Conversely, the strident gay special citizen status groups have no right to force a view of homosexuality as inherently benevolent and desirable on others in public policy. At best they can say (and have done so with appropriate success in legal challenges) that private sexual practices between consenting adults aren't the business of the state. To go from there to an assertion that gay men or lesbians should be able to redefine social terms for their choice driven minority convenience is what I object to.
No violation of due process or equal protection has happened to the LGBTPQRSTUVWXYZ and whatever other splinter designations they've come up with community. Dan Savage can marry any woman willing to marry him. So can I. Cienna Madrid can marry any man with the dubious taste to wish it, so could my wife. Perfect equality under the law. QED.
66
@65: I keep asking these questions and you keep avoiding them.
If only same-sex marriage was allowed, would marriage equality be present?
What if same-sex and opposite-sex marriage were both allowed? How about then?
If only same-sex marriage was allowed, would marriage equality be present?
What if same-sex and opposite-sex marriage were both allowed? How about then?
67
@65 You keep citing biology, but marriage isn't an issue of biology. It's a social construct. You do recognize the difference, don't you? Once you understand that there's a difference maybe you'll admit that even your poor understanding of biology isn't a basis for denying marriage rights. For most people marriage is about love. That may not be true of your marriage, but some people marry because they genuinely care about each other and want to share their lives. I know you don't have a glib comeback for that so you'll ignore it, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument isn't based on anything but your religious beliefs. And in spite of claiming that "I have no right whatever to deny an adult the right to practice whatever consensual sex they wish based on my values, religious or otherwise" you've proven that's exactly what you believe.
Besides, you've already admitted elsewhere that Dan and Terry are married. So either you were wrong then or you're wrong now. I would say pick one, but I know your beliefs change to fit the argument.
Besides, you've already admitted elsewhere that Dan and Terry are married. So either you were wrong then or you're wrong now. I would say pick one, but I know your beliefs change to fit the argument.
68
Eveybody is picking on my friend, Seattleblues, and I think it's just that they don't understand him the way I do. Let me see if I can explain just one of his points!
When he wrote "I don't expect them (the homosexuals) to mold their behavior by my choices, but I object to being asked to mold mine by theirs either," this is kind a what he means.
Back when I was a boy in the South, everybody knew how they was supposed to behave, and if somebody wasn't following the rules, it was okay to let em know. Didn't take much. You just had to kind of be a little bit rude to em. Now I know that being rude is bad. Practically a sin. But some times, like when people wasn't following the rules that made things better for everbody, a little rudeness could go a long way.
So if, for example, a white man was running around with a negress, or a nice Baptist lady started seeing some jew boy, or two men started acting like they had some kind of unnatural attraction, well, you could snub them a few times at church, or not talk to them at the store, or pretend like you didn't see them on the street, and usually, more often than not, they got the message. They either straightened up, or they moved some place like New York where that kind of behavior wasn't that abnormal, and the situation usually didn't call for any more than that. Everybody knew the rules, and they played by them, and life went by smoothly for everybody and it was good.
These days, though, people aren't following the rules, and I can't take my grandchildren to Wal-Mart without seeing all kinds of miseginated babies. Or I go to Lowes and see two men agruing about whether to put natural stone or ceramic tiles in their bathroom. And there are two lesbian couples living in the mobile home park where I rent spaces now. And there are so many jews in town that they don't drive to Jackson for services any more, but they're talking about building a church here, and they've married into all kinds of good families. And if I try to keep to the old rules and try to get them in line by snubbing them at church or not talking to them in the store, and I'm doing all of this for their own good, just to let them know where the boundaries are. But all of a sudden, I'm the bad guy! So it's like Seattle Blues says: I have to change my behavior for the sake of theirs, and it's just not right, I tell you, because all I'm trying to do is keep things normal.
More...
When he wrote "I don't expect them (the homosexuals) to mold their behavior by my choices, but I object to being asked to mold mine by theirs either," this is kind a what he means.
Back when I was a boy in the South, everybody knew how they was supposed to behave, and if somebody wasn't following the rules, it was okay to let em know. Didn't take much. You just had to kind of be a little bit rude to em. Now I know that being rude is bad. Practically a sin. But some times, like when people wasn't following the rules that made things better for everbody, a little rudeness could go a long way.
So if, for example, a white man was running around with a negress, or a nice Baptist lady started seeing some jew boy, or two men started acting like they had some kind of unnatural attraction, well, you could snub them a few times at church, or not talk to them at the store, or pretend like you didn't see them on the street, and usually, more often than not, they got the message. They either straightened up, or they moved some place like New York where that kind of behavior wasn't that abnormal, and the situation usually didn't call for any more than that. Everybody knew the rules, and they played by them, and life went by smoothly for everybody and it was good.
These days, though, people aren't following the rules, and I can't take my grandchildren to Wal-Mart without seeing all kinds of miseginated babies. Or I go to Lowes and see two men agruing about whether to put natural stone or ceramic tiles in their bathroom. And there are two lesbian couples living in the mobile home park where I rent spaces now. And there are so many jews in town that they don't drive to Jackson for services any more, but they're talking about building a church here, and they've married into all kinds of good families. And if I try to keep to the old rules and try to get them in line by snubbing them at church or not talking to them in the store, and I'm doing all of this for their own good, just to let them know where the boundaries are. But all of a sudden, I'm the bad guy! So it's like Seattle Blues says: I have to change my behavior for the sake of theirs, and it's just not right, I tell you, because all I'm trying to do is keep things normal.
70
@68, that was brilliant, thank you.
@69,
@65: OK, now we're getting closer. You say: "Not all urges we may feel are those which we should indulge." I infer from this that you believe people should not have sex with people of the same sex as themselves. Why do you believe that? I mean, if you're not equating homosexuality with vice or disease, then what *is* the problem?
I don't think of myself as a 'gay special citizen'. But I am a citizen, and I currently don't enjoy the same rights as you do--the right to legally marry the person I love. Forty years ago, some states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. You had the right to marry any white person you wanted--just like any other white person. You fell in love with a woman of a different ethnicity from yourself. In Virgina, pre-Loving, you'd not have been able to marry her. How would that make you feel? Luckily for you and your wife, others fought to "redefine social terms for (your) choice driven minority convenience".
Homosexuality is not inherently benevolent; it is neutral, just as is heterosexuality.
Once again, you have not addressed my arguments about what rational basis or compelling interest the state has in denying me the fundamental human right to marry. You have not attempted to answer my question about why you want to deny those rights--that happiness and fulfillment that you enjoy in your marriage--to people whom God has created gay.
Nor have you attempted to define just what societal ill will befall the culture is we allow a few more of its people to get married.
@69,
@65: OK, now we're getting closer. You say: "Not all urges we may feel are those which we should indulge." I infer from this that you believe people should not have sex with people of the same sex as themselves. Why do you believe that? I mean, if you're not equating homosexuality with vice or disease, then what *is* the problem?
I don't think of myself as a 'gay special citizen'. But I am a citizen, and I currently don't enjoy the same rights as you do--the right to legally marry the person I love. Forty years ago, some states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. You had the right to marry any white person you wanted--just like any other white person. You fell in love with a woman of a different ethnicity from yourself. In Virgina, pre-Loving, you'd not have been able to marry her. How would that make you feel? Luckily for you and your wife, others fought to "redefine social terms for (your) choice driven minority convenience".
Homosexuality is not inherently benevolent; it is neutral, just as is heterosexuality.
Once again, you have not addressed my arguments about what rational basis or compelling interest the state has in denying me the fundamental human right to marry. You have not attempted to answer my question about why you want to deny those rights--that happiness and fulfillment that you enjoy in your marriage--to people whom God has created gay.
Nor have you attempted to define just what societal ill will befall the culture is we allow a few more of its people to get married.
71
@70: I recall her identifying as trans/asexual, but making coherent points is not generally her way of posting.
74
@66
I've answered them before, but if you wish...
If you think you can garner the popular will to pass same sex marriage as legally normative, go for it. I won't be holding my breath, however.
But in a hypothetical (and infeasible) world where 97% of adults were gay and 3% heterosexual I suppose your standard would apply. In that case gay marriages would be the norm and heterosexuals those asking that their choices entitle them to alter the structure for their convenience. Your point?
I've answered them before, but if you wish...
If you think you can garner the popular will to pass same sex marriage as legally normative, go for it. I won't be holding my breath, however.
But in a hypothetical (and infeasible) world where 97% of adults were gay and 3% heterosexual I suppose your standard would apply. In that case gay marriages would be the norm and heterosexuals those asking that their choices entitle them to alter the structure for their convenience. Your point?
75
Your satire is at least a welcome change from blind hatred of anyone who dares to hold slightly different ideas.
You're wrong of course, but that goes without saying.
My marriage to my differently skin colored wife wouldn't have been possible 40 years ago in many states. We still fit the basic definition of marriage, a man and woman coming together in a romantic partnership for life, with the likelihood of child rearing. Loving recognized this injustice and rectified it. A court case that averred that gay 'marriage' was a marriage would be fundamentally altering the definition of the term, not recognizing the exclusion of those who otherwise would fit the definition.
No thanks necessary. It's one of my daily acts of kindness.
You're wrong of course, but that goes without saying.
My marriage to my differently skin colored wife wouldn't have been possible 40 years ago in many states. We still fit the basic definition of marriage, a man and woman coming together in a romantic partnership for life, with the likelihood of child rearing. Loving recognized this injustice and rectified it. A court case that averred that gay 'marriage' was a marriage would be fundamentally altering the definition of the term, not recognizing the exclusion of those who otherwise would fit the definition.
No thanks necessary. It's one of my daily acts of kindness.
76
"blind hatred of anyone who dares to hold slightly different ideas."
Because anyone who thinks you're an asshole does so blindly.
"with the likelihood of child rearing"
Infertile or choosing-to-not-have-kids heterosexuals and homosexuals who adopt, you ceaseless dullwit.
Because anyone who thinks you're an asshole does so blindly.
"with the likelihood of child rearing"
Infertile or choosing-to-not-have-kids heterosexuals and homosexuals who adopt, you ceaseless dullwit.
77
"fundamentally altering the definition of the term"
Reality fundamentally alters the definition of the term as marriage is currently practiced. Your particular definition means nothing to the State.
Reality fundamentally alters the definition of the term as marriage is currently practiced. Your particular definition means nothing to the State.
78
@76 and 77
In construction contracts there's usually a governing assumption as to how work will be done. It's called 'standard practices and procedueres.' For instance, walls are generally framed at 16" OC. If a client wishes them framed at less or more, he or she must explicitly say so, or the framing will be done as it usually would be on any other job.
I know that some people marry late in life, with the intent never to have kids, or find themselves unable to have children. This in in way alters fundamenal assumptions about the role of child-bearing and rearing in marriage.
Marriage has meant what it means for millenia, in basic form. Sometimes multiple spouses are part of the culture. Opposite sex spouses. Sometimes the element of romance is secondary, as with arranged marriages, but still with opposite sex spouses.
What Canada chooses to call a marriage, or the State of New York for that matter, is not. It fails the very basic assumption of opposite sex unions. Child rearing or not, this never has altered.
Or is that too difficult for you to understand, that the exceptions don't prove the rule?
But you're exactly right. My personal definition of marraige carries no weight with the state. Nor does yours, or Dan Savages. The collective opinion of generations of the majority of the culture though? Yeah, that might carry some weight.
In construction contracts there's usually a governing assumption as to how work will be done. It's called 'standard practices and procedueres.' For instance, walls are generally framed at 16" OC. If a client wishes them framed at less or more, he or she must explicitly say so, or the framing will be done as it usually would be on any other job.
I know that some people marry late in life, with the intent never to have kids, or find themselves unable to have children. This in in way alters fundamenal assumptions about the role of child-bearing and rearing in marriage.
Marriage has meant what it means for millenia, in basic form. Sometimes multiple spouses are part of the culture. Opposite sex spouses. Sometimes the element of romance is secondary, as with arranged marriages, but still with opposite sex spouses.
What Canada chooses to call a marriage, or the State of New York for that matter, is not. It fails the very basic assumption of opposite sex unions. Child rearing or not, this never has altered.
Or is that too difficult for you to understand, that the exceptions don't prove the rule?
But you're exactly right. My personal definition of marraige carries no weight with the state. Nor does yours, or Dan Savages. The collective opinion of generations of the majority of the culture though? Yeah, that might carry some weight.
79
SeattleBlues, this 'definition of marriage' is extremely provinicial, in both place and era. Different cultures throughout history have had different marriage customs. We have never insisted that married couples rear children; as Zombie Dagny says, many straight couples are infertile or choose not to have children. Also, many couples marry late in life with no expectation of children. Are their marriages invalid?
I'm just going to cut and paste this, since it still applies, as you've not attempted to address any of these points:
Once again, you have not addressed my arguments about what rational basis or compelling interest the state has in denying me the fundamental human right to marry. You have not attempted to answer my question about why you want to deny those rights--that happiness and fulfillment that you enjoy in your marriage--to people whom God has created gay.
Nor have you attempted to define just what societal ill will befall the culture is we allow a few more of its people to get married.
I'm just going to cut and paste this, since it still applies, as you've not attempted to address any of these points:
Once again, you have not addressed my arguments about what rational basis or compelling interest the state has in denying me the fundamental human right to marry. You have not attempted to answer my question about why you want to deny those rights--that happiness and fulfillment that you enjoy in your marriage--to people whom God has created gay.
Nor have you attempted to define just what societal ill will befall the culture is we allow a few more of its people to get married.
80
@78: " fundamenal assumptions about the role of child-bearing and rearing in marriage."
Your fundamental assumptions. Which is not what we're discussing. Your religious views have fuckall to do with the State.
Your fundamental assumptions. Which is not what we're discussing. Your religious views have fuckall to do with the State.
81
@74: I said nothing about the relative proportions of gay and straight people. If, in today's world of ~95% heterosexuality, only same-sex marriages were allowed, would that be just?
(Let me tell you why the proportions of gays and straights do not matter for the purposes of this thought experiment. If you were the only man, and your wife the only woman, who wanted to marry someone of a different race, would it be just to keep you from each other simply due to lack of popular demand?)
@75: What makes you so sure that "the basic definition of marriage" is "a man and woman coming together in a romantic partnership for life, with the likelihood of child rearing"? What gives you the right to define it for everyone else?
Marriage, for many in society, has historically and widely had little to do with romance, and been purely a political alliance. Marriage has never, to the best of my knowledge, been withheld from a sterile couple whether or not they intend to adopt. Marriage, in certain parts of the world, does not require that the two spouses be of opposite genders.
You claim that gays want to redefine marriage for everyone, but you seem to be the one intent on imposing your own definition on others. If Dan and Terry get legally hitched in the USA, or if my cousin and her partner do the same, it does not affect you one whit. If you are allowed to define marriage how you see fit, millions of your fellow citizens are affected.
(Let me tell you why the proportions of gays and straights do not matter for the purposes of this thought experiment. If you were the only man, and your wife the only woman, who wanted to marry someone of a different race, would it be just to keep you from each other simply due to lack of popular demand?)
@75: What makes you so sure that "the basic definition of marriage" is "a man and woman coming together in a romantic partnership for life, with the likelihood of child rearing"? What gives you the right to define it for everyone else?
Marriage, for many in society, has historically and widely had little to do with romance, and been purely a political alliance. Marriage has never, to the best of my knowledge, been withheld from a sterile couple whether or not they intend to adopt. Marriage, in certain parts of the world, does not require that the two spouses be of opposite genders.
You claim that gays want to redefine marriage for everyone, but you seem to be the one intent on imposing your own definition on others. If Dan and Terry get legally hitched in the USA, or if my cousin and her partner do the same, it does not affect you one whit. If you are allowed to define marriage how you see fit, millions of your fellow citizens are affected.
83
@78 "My personal definition of marraige carries no weight with the state. Nor does yours, or Dan Savages. The collective opinion of generations of the majority of the culture though? Yeah, that might carry some weight."
In other words you're admitting that you're against same-sex marriage because of the religious belief held by a large number of people over a long period of time is that it's wrong. I know you're trying to pretend it's something else but it really comes down to you wanting to impose your religious beliefs on others. You're admitting that logic doesn't carry any weight for you, and neither do facts.
I really thought you'd given up making this argument because you've had your ass handed to you so many times, and, really, I think it's like every other argument you make. It's not what you really believe. I don't think you really care of people of the same sex get married. I think you just bring it up because you enjoy stirring people up. Be my guest. Nobody's going to infringe on your right to sound stupid. I just hope you remember how childish your own behavior is when you accuse others of being immature.
In other words you're admitting that you're against same-sex marriage because of the religious belief held by a large number of people over a long period of time is that it's wrong. I know you're trying to pretend it's something else but it really comes down to you wanting to impose your religious beliefs on others. You're admitting that logic doesn't carry any weight for you, and neither do facts.
I really thought you'd given up making this argument because you've had your ass handed to you so many times, and, really, I think it's like every other argument you make. It's not what you really believe. I don't think you really care of people of the same sex get married. I think you just bring it up because you enjoy stirring people up. Be my guest. Nobody's going to infringe on your right to sound stupid. I just hope you remember how childish your own behavior is when you accuse others of being immature.
84
"I really thought you'd given up making this argument because you've had your ass handed to you so many times"
He's got nothing else.
He's got nothing else.
85
@78--you wrote: "In construction contracts there's usually a governing assumption as to how work will be done. It's called 'standard practices and procedueres.' For instance, walls are generally framed at 16" OC. If a client wishes them framed at less or more, he or she must explicitly say so, or the framing will be done as it usually would be on any other job.
This analogy is so inexact that I'm not even sure it's relevant. Presumably it is an attempt to justify heterosexual marriage (and only heterosexual marriage) when there in no desire or possibility for children. At least that's the argument it *seems* intended to address. But I don't see the application.
My brother divorced when his children were young. While single, he got a vasectomy. When he remarried in his middle forties, he clearly knew that he wasn't going to have any more children. Additionally, his second wife--approximately his age--had a grown son from her first marriage, and didn't want any more children. I've never asked about the state of her reproductive organs, because since my brother is obviously and involuntarily infertile as an individual, they are, for all practical purposes, infertile as a couple.
If the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable family framework for children (the point you seem to want to make in this thread), presumably my brother and his wife are the walls that are to be framed at something other than 16" OC.
But here is where your analogy makes no sense: you state, "If a client wishes them framed at less or more, he or she must explicitly say so, or the framing will be done as it usually would be on any other job." My guess is that this is a (somewhat tortured) reference to the marriage license, which would be the relevant contract signed before the family "framework" was put in place. But my brother and his wife did not have to have any special clauses put into the lisence explicitly stating that they had neither the desire nor the ability to have children. They just went down to City Hall and got the lisence along with all the other (presumably--but not necessarily) fertile couples that day. Nobody asked any questions about the state of their reproductive organs, and do you know why? BECAUSE IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHETHER PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED ARE GOIGN TO HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT! Even the wedding services typically performed in Christian church weddings ask the couple to vow to stay together for better or worse (etc. etc.) without *once* making a single reference to children.
So how does your analogy make sense here? And how does it provide a rationale for denying marriage to same sex couples? If neither the government nor the church requires proof of ability or desire to have children before allowing a marriage to take place, and if neither requires an explicit statement of reproductive intent (or a specific statement denying reproductive intent) before the wedding takes place, how is it that having children is the defining feature of marriage?
And if it's not, then how is allowing same sex marriage a fundamental change in the institution?
More...
This analogy is so inexact that I'm not even sure it's relevant. Presumably it is an attempt to justify heterosexual marriage (and only heterosexual marriage) when there in no desire or possibility for children. At least that's the argument it *seems* intended to address. But I don't see the application.
My brother divorced when his children were young. While single, he got a vasectomy. When he remarried in his middle forties, he clearly knew that he wasn't going to have any more children. Additionally, his second wife--approximately his age--had a grown son from her first marriage, and didn't want any more children. I've never asked about the state of her reproductive organs, because since my brother is obviously and involuntarily infertile as an individual, they are, for all practical purposes, infertile as a couple.
If the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable family framework for children (the point you seem to want to make in this thread), presumably my brother and his wife are the walls that are to be framed at something other than 16" OC.
But here is where your analogy makes no sense: you state, "If a client wishes them framed at less or more, he or she must explicitly say so, or the framing will be done as it usually would be on any other job." My guess is that this is a (somewhat tortured) reference to the marriage license, which would be the relevant contract signed before the family "framework" was put in place. But my brother and his wife did not have to have any special clauses put into the lisence explicitly stating that they had neither the desire nor the ability to have children. They just went down to City Hall and got the lisence along with all the other (presumably--but not necessarily) fertile couples that day. Nobody asked any questions about the state of their reproductive organs, and do you know why? BECAUSE IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHETHER PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED ARE GOIGN TO HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT! Even the wedding services typically performed in Christian church weddings ask the couple to vow to stay together for better or worse (etc. etc.) without *once* making a single reference to children.
So how does your analogy make sense here? And how does it provide a rationale for denying marriage to same sex couples? If neither the government nor the church requires proof of ability or desire to have children before allowing a marriage to take place, and if neither requires an explicit statement of reproductive intent (or a specific statement denying reproductive intent) before the wedding takes place, how is it that having children is the defining feature of marriage?
And if it's not, then how is allowing same sex marriage a fundamental change in the institution?
86
So the whole point of this was to encourage freedom, yet they were going to force her to go somewhere with people who believe the opposite of her as a repercussion...They're cool *sarcasm* -_-
SN: I do agree someone so biased shouldn't really have that position but forcing them to do something to keep it is not a good look
SN: I do agree someone so biased shouldn't really have that position but forcing them to do something to keep it is not a good look
87
@86: "forcing them to do something to keep it is not a good look"
Oh no, she must be around the people she is legally required to understand for her licensing! What hell is this!
You're a shitty "supporter" if you believe that she should be given an exemptions to the requirement to provide fair and equal treatment to all she counsels.
If she wants to be licensed to treat others, she must follow the code of conduct.
Oh no, she must be around the people she is legally required to understand for her licensing! What hell is this!
You're a shitty "supporter" if you believe that she should be given an exemptions to the requirement to provide fair and equal treatment to all she counsels.
If she wants to be licensed to treat others, she must follow the code of conduct.
88
she has every right to become a counselor with those beliefs. through a private school where bigotry isn't supported with public money.
89
@88, she has a right to whatever beliefs she wants. What she can't do, according to her desired profession's code of conduct, is treat gay clients/students as if their sexuality is morally wrong and must be changed.
90
@88: "she has every right to become a counselor with those beliefs"
Unless being a "counselor" requires licensing, that is.
Unless being a "counselor" requires licensing, that is.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (90) RSS