- ‹ previous
- 2286 of 8922
- next ›
California's Prop 8 Push: "Save Our Children!"
I was walking down an Oakland, California street tonight when I passed a family, there were at least six of them, with big yellow signs that read: "Yes on Prop 8" and "Keep Government Out!" and "Save Our Children!" Now Proposition 8, as you likely have heard, is the latest attempt to erode equal rights, this year's "say no to gay marriage" initiative on the upcoming state ballot.
They were yelling, all of them, even the little kiddies, "Save Our Children! Save Our Children!" It's a curious slogan. How, exactly, is banning same-sex marriage "restoring marriage and protecting California children?" It isn't like Measure OO, a city initiative that would boost funding for youth development, dedicating a chunk of the city's budget to after-school and other programs for kids. In fact there's no money at all in the initiative that would save our children, the gay or the straight ones. And it does nothing to restore anything, or protect anything, it's not really "pro" anything.
And how, exactly, is banning people of the same sex from the benefits of marriage keeping government out? Is the government demanding women marry women or men marry men? According to one TV ad it sorta is. In the spot, a young girl comes home from school and tells her mom proudly, "I can marry a princess!" Have mercy, what parent doesn't want their kid to marry into royalty?
One irony of Prop 8 that's not lost on me, living in the shadow of the 13th Mormon Temple built in the US, LDS members have spent nearly $10 million to drive Prop 8. This organized effort is aimed at alienating people who live differently than the majority of society—shouldn't the Joseph Smithers have a little compassion?
And shouldn't that family on the corner spend their time and banner efforts on initiatives, or candidates, that really matter, that will affect their lives daily? It's up to them of course, but to me there are far more pressing matters that actually matter to families.
Marx would support Prop 8. Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
Marx would support Prop 8. Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
So, did you call them on their bulls--t when you walked by them?
Marx would support Prop 8. Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.
Who the hell gives a flip about Marx? What are you talking about!?
So, what you're saying is that social philosophers of the Victorian Age would have a problem with Prop 8? This is hardly surprising. By the way, the notion that capitalism promoted homosexuality and that socialism would "cure" this is pretty dated. It would be more accurate to argue that modern sexual identities were created under capitalism with the heterosexual family favored as the means of passing on wealth and defining the capitalist social hierarchy. As stated by Jeffrey Weeks, "the family was a factory for the production of submissive personalities... the economic and social forces produced a family pattern which encouraged the authority of the father." (Sexuality and its Discontents, 163-164) One of the great weaknesses of Marx was his failure to address the role of the bourgeois family and morality in the maintenance of a capitalist society. With that in mind, we might consider Lisa Duggan and Nan Hunter's suggestion that same-sex marriage could "denaturalize the social construction of male/female differentness, once expressed as authority/dependence relationships" (Sex Wars, 107).
I think its more accurate to
I think its more accurate to say that capitalism--and the development of industrialized urban centers--created the idea of any kind of sex life/sexual identity. Before that, sex was to procreate more workers/helpers... no wonder marx would advocate heterosexual breeding.
The point is, we HAVE leisure time, we all have sexual identities, so why discriminate against some and not others?
Freud would also support Prop 8. Freud saw adult homosexuality as a developmental arrest of childhood instincts which prevent the development of a more mature heterosexuality. Freud's theory of immaturity--an alternative category that was neither religion's sin (theory of morality) nor medicine's disease (theory of pathology). Freud offered a more inclusive paradigm. It allowed for the possibility that the adult homosexual person might sufficiently mature and, if sufficiently motivated, become heterosexual.
By Freud's argument then, Siggy, you went through a period of homosexuality in your teen years before maturing out of it?
Paul, I did not chastise the parents (or trip the little ones). They obv feel strongly so rather than get into a back and forth I thought I'd take my judgments to the Internet. Anon anon...
Liz, take the easy way out. I bet that Paul would have educated them on how ignorant they are.
I am voting yes on Prop 8 simply because I fervently believe that no union between two members of the same sex constitutes marriage. I believe homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples, but to define gay unions as marriages is to defile a divine and sacred institution that has, since its existence, involved husband and wife.
Nathan, contrary to popular spin, you can't have this argument both ways. You are either a bigot or you are not. You are voting the way of bigots. If there were anything truly divine [you might want to look it up - mostly used in daily context to describe deities or desserts] about marriage between a woman and a man, than heterosexuals have lost sight of this, judging by the divorce rate. I don't typically use grandiose words like 'divine', but for your benefit, I'd argue that my long term relationship with my husband is as divine as any I've seen in either heterosexuals or homosexuals.
Constitutionally, however, I think that all civil contracts between both groups should be defined as civil unions and that marriage should be confined to the religious sector as a ceremony that has nothing to do with law. That preachers and priests are the ones to officiate over the paper work involved in a civil union, to my mind, blurs the separation of church and state.
Elizabeth, no worries. I, too, have learned when to pick my battles. But my immediate reaction was sort of, "You got 'em, didn't you?"
The most inflammatory but terribly funny thing I could imagine doing is standing across the street from them with a huge picket sign that read, "Brigham Young Wore Lace Underwear!" Or better still, "Brigham Young Had Five Wives, Two Husbands and a Goat!"
Paul says incorrectly, "You are voting the way of bigots."
Marx and Freud are not bigots. You are the one that is mistaken.
Charlies, may I call you Charlie? Marx and Freud are not favored by contemporary scientists and theorists. Quoting them makes you look uninformed. Society and its notions, even and especially in the academic realm, evolve.
Paul, you have sold out. It is people like you who are responsible for people losing their pensions and 401K's on Wall Street.
The early Mormons were persecuted for several reasons, polygamy being one of them. Those pose this "ironic" argument are unfamiliar with why homosexuality is a sin in most of Christianity. They are also unfamiliar with the LDS doctrine about polygamy. Polygamy is a sin. You might say, "Wait a second, several prophets in the Bible were polygamist." These would count as leaders that received inspiration about the exception to the rule. Polygamy is a sin unless there is an inspired exception made by god. We see this with David and Goliath on the sin of murder. Mormons view monogamy as the eternal principle and polygamy as the rare exception. The exception in the LDS church was granted during a very trying time when several of the men in the church had been killed and shortly before a long trek across the US. Few members of the church participated in it at the time.
The LDS Church is the most visible advocate for prop 8 but it certainly is not in the majority for those that support it. The reason why the LDS church gets a fair amount of focus is because of how organized the church is. Every LDS church operates and teaches the same doctrine, has the same programs, and demands a lot from its members. It is truly impressive to watch from an organization standpoint. When the LDS church needs to mobilize for disaster relief efforts it is quite impressive. A far greater number of other churches have asked their members to help in the YES campaign. Most of those churches have strong congregations but weak cohesiveness between congregations. The Catholic Church for example has made their stance on this issue clear and has issued a similar mandate to its members, but you will find certain catholic priests and members out of sync. The LDS Church gets a lot of focus in the media because even with its small numbers, it is surprisingly effective and pushing a cause.
An additional fallacy with the argument is relating the level of persecution and rights sought by homosexuals and Mormons. When polygamy was practiced by LDS, the only thought was "Let's get the hell out of here and live in a place (Utah) where we can't be touched." The persecution of the church was far greater than any challenge faced by the gay community (in my opinion). In Missouri it was even legal to kill Mormons for a period of time. With regard to equating rights that the two groups sought, the LDS Church expressly teaches equality for all individuals and showing tolerance and charity for homosexuals. A good Q&A about the LDS stance can be found here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attrac...
There's absolutely nothing special about marriage per se. It's a social invention, and it has absolutely no significance except that given by the people who choose the commitment.
I'd never be so perverse as to assume knowledge of God's desires, but if I was an omniscient, omnipotent, loving being, I really wouldn't care one bit about something as arbitrary as a type of contract.
I know Ten of God's desires. Here's one for you to ponder. Notice how specific God is in His wording. Do yourself a favor and don't argue against Him. -- Commandment #5: Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Hey Dan,
Do you think that GOD would want a man to lay with a man..? or a woman to lay with a woman, no matter how HOT that is.. ahhaha
I assume you are not married..? How can you think that there is nothing special about being married..?
If you had stood up in a house of GOD and taken vows, then maybe, just maybe you might think different.
I live in CA and the deviants are going DOWN..!!!!!
Bill
Bill Nigh, stop trying to control other people with your imaginary friend, God.
Paul, referring to God as an imaginary friend, is hate speech. Shame on you.
Oh No, Pastor Bob!
You can say anything derogatory thing you want about Christians and it isn't hate speech!
Hate speech is defined as anything less than glowing praise directed towards anyone who could possibly claim minority status, like the Muslims.
Paul and Elizabeth, I can't believe you obviously don't see how hypocritical you are! You have both made yourself bigots by your blanket statements about Mormons. Your comment about the sign you would hold across the street. How derogatory and hateful can you be. All the yes on 8 signs I've seen don't say anything derogatory or hateful about gay people.
A coalition of conservative African American pastors is lobbying Congress to vote against a bill that would extend federal hate-crimes laws to cover gays, saying they fear it would prevent them from preaching against homosexuality.
They say it would pin the hate crime label on their sermons against homosexuality, which they consider a sin.
"This bill will offer a status for gays, lesbians and transgender people under the equal protection status that can muzzle the black church," said Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., pastor of Hope Christian Church in Lanham and founder of the High Impact Leader Coalition. "This law can be applied in the way that can keep the church from preaching the Gospel."
I do not hate anyone from the gay community and I am voting "yes" on prop 8. It's obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don't think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence. But I am writing this to let people know that there are many, many people who are voting "yes" on 8 and are not doing so out of hate. I am not motivated by hate. The reason I go out and encourage people to vote "yes" and have a "yes" sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments. As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that's it! No addendums, no "but maybe later"s, a union between a man and a woman. I am working to keep God's institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less.
Defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does not exclude homosexuals from marrying. It would only do so if it defined marriage as between heterosexuals. Under the traditional definition, a homosexual man can still marry a homosexual woman.
Immanuel Kant would also be opposed to same-sex marriage. Using his formula of practical contradiction , it is fairly easy to show that it is universally wrong to enact homosexuality. Because his framework is based on universally and necessarily true concepts (a priori knowledge), it cannot be countered by moral relativism.
Prop 8 is NOT about equality, it IS about the legalization and complete social approval of homosexual behavior. This will only further degrade the morality of our society. This should not be an issue that is discussed in the schools. It should be something that is discussed in the home. What has happened to our society? What has happened to our values? They used to be honestly, integrity, personal morality, family, patriotism, etc. Now it has changed. The common theme is cheat a little, lie a little, for who will it hurt? When morality as a society has degraded to the point that basic values are compromised, we are in trouble. If someone chooses to live their life in the homosexual manner, that is their affair, just don't push it on the rest of us. Look at the people who are against prop 8, they are stealing signs, keying cars, spray painting garage doors, harassing people and calling good Christian people dirty names. These are not the people who we really want to be roles models for California. Vote YES on prop 8!
If your argument against gays has something to do with God, why does God keep making so many of them? Have you ever asked a gay person: at what point in life was it when they CHOSE to be gay, and why? Ask yourself: when did YOU choose to be heterosexual? Think people can choose, really? how about you? Think you could manufacture genuine sexual attraction for a member of your own sex? Much as I am tolerant, no way can I mock up real sexual feelings for another male, personally. How about you?
If you oppose homosexuality because it's "unnatural", why do you suppose that over 500 different species of animals have been observed exhibiting homosexual behavior, at a rate of around 5% of any population?
If you believe that marriage is sacred and created by God, then you must oppose divorce under all circumstances, correct? Why don't we propose the death penalty for divorce? Really, I mean it. Come on, church goers, put your money where your book is...
I'm married, 2 kids, and I believe in traditional marriage, which is between one white man and one white woman... wait, my wife isn't exactly white, she's Asian... kinda brownish... you know, not so long ago, MY marriage wasn't traditional. But we've evolved from that position haven't we, and the world did not collapse.
Gays should have the right to marry and be just as miserable as the rest of us. No on Prop 8.
It is ironic that Marx and Engels share so much in common with their 20th century bible-thumping (or Book of Mormon-thumping)counterparts. It is inevitable, as churches become more secular, touting political prowness, and demanding legislative enforcement of their dogma on the rest of society, that the social trends move in the opposite direction. The natural developmental cycles of humans follow a social evolution that parallels the physical ones. There is no need but to smile in assured confidence that short of totalitarian domination by despotic, dogmatic christian demogogues, homosexuals will play a dominant socio-economic role in the directions of the social order and the cultures that follow! It bemuses me to observe the quibbleing of faltering religious automatons over the excrement of their failing social order.
MEJ, don't forget the Jews that support Prop 8. Rabbi JJ Rabinowich, California director of the Orthodox Agudath Israel, noted that "marriage between a man and a woman has been fundamental to the Jewish people for thousands of years. We also agree with the many studies showing that children flourish best when raised by a mother and father."
A more detailed argument for supporting Prop. 8 was put forward by Daniel Korobkin, one of the city's most visible Orthodox rabbis and one of three signatories of the official statement by the centrist Orthodox Union as its West Coast director for community and synagogue services.
The statement endorses Prop. 8 and notes that "One of G-d's first acts is to join Adam and Eve in marriage and to command them to build a family."
It adds, "We know the threat to people of faith and houses of worship is real and under way.... Religious institutions and people face charges of bigotry and could be denied government funding and more if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land."
Speaking in his capacity as "a community rabbi in Hancock Park," Korobkin cited both biblical and contemporary reasons for his views.
While the Torah's strictures against homosexual relations are well known, he said, talmudic literature goes beyond this injunction by warning that a society that endorses such a relationship endangers itself, which is a greater sin than the act itself.
"If we permit same-sex marriage today, why not incestual marriage tomorrow, or bestial marriage after that?" he asked.
Korobkin also expressed fears that defeat of Prop. 8 would endanger the right of religious adoption agencies to refuse adoptions to gay couples or compel schools to teach that all forms of marriage are equally viable.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I like the 1st Amendment. Every part of it seems to be related to discussion of Proposition 8.
The 1st amendment guarantees my right to an opinion. The strongest differences of opinion over issues are usually questions of deciding "greater good".
I am neither lesbian nor gay, but if my opinion affects my neighbor, I should think about it seriously. After much thought, my view is most similar to the one articulated here:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
It contains non-religious(not that there's anything wrong with that) arguments written by Margaret Somerville, an ethicist who has advised The United Nations.
I will vote Yes on Proposition 8 and if you will read and think about Ms. Somerville's ideas, maybe you will too.
sad people....we are a
sad people....we are a disastrous lot.
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE, PEOPLE...
Holy smeroly, you Americans are freakin religious-obsessed. What makes you so? Get over yourselves and instead of fighting about same-sex legislation, focus on the rest of the world's plight. Yes there is a REST OF THE WORLD. (And that doesn't just mean Alaska and Hawaii.) Gay, straight, black, white, jewish, catholic, agnostic - what else can you possibly argue about before you wake up and realise our planet is choking, and we as a collective species (regardless of gender, sexuality, religion, colour or freakin wardrobe choices) are in SERIOUS TROUBLE. And your god/prophet/buddha/whatever aint gonna save you. Maybe try and carbon-capture some of that stuff coming out of your mouth instead?