- ‹ previous
- 1347 of 7911
- next ›
Gay Marriage Ban Succeeding in California
I'm really unhappy that my home state looks like it will pass a gay marriage ban next month. (California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, is ahead in the polls.) This serves as a reminder that no matter how badly Barack Obama beats John McCain and no matter how many Senate seats the Democrats pick up, this is not a fundamentally progressive country. This is a country fed up with Republicans. I mean for christ's sake, this is California, the one place you would think voters would embrace gay marriage!
The success of Prop 8 supports a theory I have and that I'm sure many share: electing a black man named Barack Hussein Obama was only possible because of just how screwed we are as a country. Let's keep in mind, during the post-election pats on the back we're all going award ourselves because we elected the nation's first black president, that in a test of our tolerance conducted in a vacuum, one of our most progressive states failed.
(Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe I'm overly-pessimistic. Whatever. I'm in a bad mood about this.)
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Vote yes on 8, according to Marx. 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.
Vote yes on 8, according to Marx. 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.
You need some self-examination. Part of the problem we have is that there is _no_ liberal media. Obama is well to the right of center, and yet is treated, even by _Mother_Jones_, as a progressive candidate.
How can we be progressive (or even merely have a few progressive agenda items) if we have no left-wing media? Only Comedy Central is left-wing. Let that sink in.
How much coverage has MJ given to the Greens or to Nader? None at all. The two corporatist parties have utterly destroyed any opposition, aided by progressive suicidalists.
I agree with JG. Eventually our corporatist government will fall and something better will take its place.
Sorry Austin, but that isn't the implication of JG's comments. He is saying since we have no progressive left-wing journalism that consistently thinks outside the box and shows that there are solutions and ideas beyond the corporate parties status-quo we are going to continue what we have been getting. I agree with you in that the corporate government is doomed to fail but there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be replaced by something better or anything inevitably that a guy like Nader will get elected. Which is why we need media outlets like Mother Jones to provide responsible and well informed coverage about third candidate parties and to give them legitimacy because in reality, they might actually be the change we need.
What you're all missing is that it often takes disaster to make progress. FDR couldn't have implemented the New Deal without the Depression. Teddy Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson couldn't have implemented their progressive reforms without the assassinations of McKinley and Kennedy. It took the Civil War to end slavery, and the Revolution to make the Bill of Rights possible.
So OK, a non-white candidate can win only because everything conservatives have touched has been ruined or corrupted. If Obama wins this year and things get better, I predict he wins in a landslide in 2012, including a majority of the white vote. That's consistent with a what a pollster interviewed recently by Rachel Maddow said about the "Bradley effect", namely that black candidate encounter white racist resistance in their first wins, but then tend to have much easier reelections. I think that was yesterday's radio show, but sorry, I don't recall.
Prop 8 shouldn't have a hope in a just world, but patience. The NAACP was 60 years old before it won its legislative victories. Liberalism has more staying power than prejudice.
There may be a conflict between the top of the ticket and Prop 8. To the extent that the minority communities are more socially conservative and more likely to vote in the general election, Barak may win big and Prop 8 could see unusual support. I have only anecdotal evidence of this, being from behind the Orange curtain myself.
Don't just sit around and complain -- Prop 8 is winning because it's supporters have contributed millions more in support of it than opponents have in opposition. Have you given yet? All I read here are excuses for your inaction.
As a No on 8 volunteer, I'll tell you exactly what the problem is: Gay and liberal Californians just don't care enough. I've been appalled at how even people right here in San Francisco, people living and working on Castro Street no less, have told me repeatedly that they have no time and no inclination to get involved with the campaign and protect their own rights. Yes on 8 out fundraised us 3-1, and it's our own damn fault, because our side is simply lazy and complacent.
Yep.
Complacency.
"It makes no different to me.."
Etc, Etc,
How is it that this entire nation in this national election could possibly have the spare time or resourses for insightful empathatic consideration of these anti prop8 tv/billboard advertisments?How would there overall yet sheltered ignorance preceive the hatiers message? Well ill tell you.. the world will fall one state means moral cumbustion for republicans with the angelical finger of contradiction, there own judgment is called. Yes i think we are all ready to beleive change is needed, but i think as time has told the change needed is within us the voters.
Vote yes on 8, according to Marx. 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.
Doc Freud says vote yes on eight. 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.
vote NO to prop8
Vote NO to homophobia
Vote NO to religious talibans in Afghanistan or in California
Têtuniçois, your bigotry shows when you speak against the Taliban in Afghanistan. We need to have tolerance of people that we disagree with.
Marriage is both a collection of cultural customs, beliefs and values and a collection of laws. In discussing this subject those different sides are often mixed, however.
Also, children are a rather natural part of marriage too, despite many married couples not having children, so children should never be forgotten either when discussing marriage and laws related to it.
It is difficult to change the cultural customs, beliefs and values of others. Generally, people have right to their beliefs and values. A major part of people still see marriage as a union of one woman and one man, and that is not likely going to change any time soon. They have every right to hold to that belief, especially as that belief has been so strong throughout the whole world. They also don't offend anyone's human rights by doing so, especially if they don't try to force their views on others. Neither side of the fight shouldn't be trying to force their cultural values on others as long as their values respect the basic human rights of those others too.
But I suppose we are talking about the laws related to marriage and not so much about some cultural customs and beliefs? Well, defenfing the human rights of homosexual people and gay couples could be done also without mixing the traditional marriage customs to the matter - like it is already done in many countries. You can have laws defending the rights of gay couples without trying to force the valus of some gay culture down everyone's throats.
What's wrong with the idea of registered partnership for gay couples, by the way? It can guarantee all the same legal rights to gays as married men and women have. We may never get to the situation where everyone would see gay marriages and couples being equal to heterosexual marriage anyway. It is not just about gays being a small minority, but also about the simple fact that homosexual people cannot get children, only maybe adopt them.
You're free to disagree but personally I'm not sure if I would see it a good thing if gay couples start adopting children a lot? Often when discussing the rights of children, many specialists assure us that - in an ideal situation - small children should have both a father and a mother (and biologically they always have, of course). So both a male and a female role model in the family for children. But suddenly, when discussing the gay rights, the whole matter is often forgotten, and even those very same specialists can suddenly turn their position and start claiming that all gay couples should have every right to adopt all the children they may ever want to have too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that gays couldn't understand children at all, not to mention that they would be bad people. I'm sure many gay families could raise children just fine, or sometimes better than some heterosexual couples. But still, shouldn't we try to offer children the best possible and most balanced and natural families they could have? Most children would also want to know and live with their real biological parents if anyway possible. Many specialists agree that children should have both a mother and a father in an ideal family - that simple - even if they couldn't admit that in front of the huge pressure from those supporting the gay rights.
But I suppose that our western society sees the rights of sexual minorities (and sexual rights in general) so utterly important nowadays that they go even before children's rights too?
The problem is Mother Jones is that you are not viewing this in the correct way. Issues like this go beyond what you want, it is a moral issue. Whether you agree or disagree, GOD said that it is wrong for a man to lay with a man. I accept all people no matter what because GOD made all people but there are certain lifestyles that He does not condone. For instance, He does not want man to lay with animals and if you do your research, you will find that the virus that causes Syphilis and AIDS originated in animals. We can have any opinion on this that we want, but it does not change the fact that GOD has condemned it and you can be as ultra-liberal and disagree all you want but it is what it is. We cannot allow ANY group to gain special rights based on what they do in the bedroom because it opens the door for ANY group that wants rights based on sexual orientation. If we allow gay people special rights, why not pedophiles, rapists, child molesters because after all, those are sexual orientations as well. Also, one thing most people either don't know or deal with or don't care about is that up until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disturbance by the American Psychiatric Association. They based this on clinical observations and assessments not opinions or wishful thinking and they only amended it when some gay people got on the board and did some arm twisting. This is a checkable fact.
So you cannot tell people that they are wrong to uphold GOD's law in favor of man's law, no matter how you feel about the law especially when it involves behavior that has been identified as being mentally problematic. The votes are in, the people spoke and they said no to gay marriage, which was the right thing to do. The gay community cannot say oh it was the government or it was this or it was that. The PEOPLE voted and they said no. End of subject.
Your belief in what God, or what YOUR God says, is NOT what this country was founded on. This country was also not founded on the pschoanalytical notions of Freud. This country was founded on the right to the pursuit of happiness, justice, and equality of all. If you are so God loving, then you must love the pledge of allegiance which state: " and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with LIBERTY, and JUSTICE, for ALL." You do not get to pick and chose what you think this country was founded on or what direction it should go based on your own biased and discriminatory beliefs. The bible is NOT OUR CONSTITUTION! When are you people going to get that through your heads?!? In this country we are entitled to practice whatever religion we wish, and MANY religions believe that a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman!
You honestly believe that our country is founded on Freud's belief?!? If that is true, then you certainly exhibit the characteristics of a mental illness so described in the DSM IV!!!
You can ignore the Bible but you cannot change it and you can choose not to follow it, but that doesn't change it either. You can choose to follow the rules that you want but just remember, they are man-made rules and therefore fallible. The bible teaches us that God did not intend for us to be tenants upon the land, He gave the land to our ancestors to be passed down but instead, man with his greedy man-made rules, has it so that every 30 days, we have to worry about the roof over our head. God says that if a man rapes a woman, he should be executed, but by man-made rules, good luck even putting the guy in jail, much less executing him. God did not intend that a man rape a woman or a child and then get to stay in prison a few years only to be unleased on society again. God said that every 7 years, your creditors should release you from your debts but man's rules will take your bank account, your home, garnish your wages, if you owe money. This is not to say you should not pay your bills but He said you should get a release. God said that if a marriage is not working out, you can get a bill of divorcement, but by man's rules, you wait and wait for a year or two and have to go through all these changes and if you are a Catholic, you are taught that it is a sin against God to divorce, which is not true. So, if you choose to follow man's laws, feel free but I would rather follow God's laws because they are way more just. This vote in California is very timely for me personally because I am having a problem with a gay man in my office. When he came to work here, I was very nice to him as I am to everyone. I knew he was gay but as long as you don't try and force your beliefs down my throat, I don't try and force my beliefs down your throat but then he began to throw his "gayness" in my face and I told him how I felt about it and he tried to get me in trouble for it. I feel that hey, I treated you like a human being and that should have been enough. Why must you now add an extra level and tell me that I must accept what you do in your bedroom? When you do that, then you open the door to the very thing you don't want. You were accepted as a human being which is as it should be and that should have been enough. I have found that gay's tend to be very into forcing their beliefs on you and if you don't accept it, you are a "homophobe" and that's not fair. So you choose which road you want to follow but as with any road be sure it leads you in the right direction.
Allowing gays to marry is NOT a religious thing. It is a legal, contractual thing. The so-called institution of marriage confers over 1400 rights on a married couple, something that as of today - no 'civil union' or 'registered partnership' does. Until some laws are passed that guarantee complete and total equality for gay couples - this argument is going to continue.,
For the bible-quoters above - the exact quote is 'man shall not lay with a BOY'. In other other words - it is referring to pedophilia - not homosexuality. Two entirely different things. Other relevant passages also include the same punishment for eating shrimp, wearing clothing made of two different fibers, and touching the skin of a dead pig. If you are going to abide by one verse - you must abide by all of them.
And finally - saying that gays got the DSM IV changed is disingenuous. The actuality is that the most recent research is showing that there are actual physiological differences in the brains of gay people when it comes to their sexual preferences. This is NOT a 'lifestyle choice' as you put it. Gay people are gay in the same way that straight people are straight. No choice involved. And since that is the way it is - if you claim that 'God doesn't make any mistakes' then God also created gay people. Deal with it.
Finally, as regards children. Lesbian couples can 'get' children the same way as many straight people do - by artificial insemination. And gay men can 'get' children too - many times in the past, they have had hetero relationships and have actual children that result from that. Sure it would be nice if all kids had a mother and father like in the 1950s. But with the divorce rate in this country being over 50%, the institution of hetero marriage doesn't seem to be a really great place for kids to be either. Kids raised by gay and lesbian couples - in a loving home - do just fine. Kids do well when they are in families where they are loved and wanted - no matter how those families are constituted.
All of these biased points are feeble attempts at justifying homophobia. There is no other way to look at it.
Well, first you are wrong in your quoting. Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 18:22 say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination. There is no mention at all about boys and frankly since you were wrong about something so easily verified, it makes the rest of your commentary suspect. And as to the rest, I personally DO follow the dietary laws and so do others. And since it is a mental issue, these men need help. It would be incredibly unfair if God held something against you that you had no control over. But we enable and empower them by telling them that it's "okay" to be gay when in fact its a cry for help. Oh and you don't like pedophiles? So I guess that makes you a pedophilophobe? And the Civil Liberties Union in California needs to stop being so hypocritical. They are always on and on about the right to vote but since they are upset that people voted down gay marriage, they suddenly want to challenge the vote. And if voting like this will keep groups like Men to Boys from marching down the streets chanting we're here, we're queer and we're coming to get your sons as they did in a town not far from me, I'm all for it.
noella - Actually you are wrong in your quoting. The correctly transliterated verse reads "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam." Do you read Hebrew? You may want to learn since you appear to take the bible literally - which makes everything you say immediately suspect. ...I wonder if you advocate executing queers. ...Do you condone slavery? Leviticus does, so where did you get your slaves?
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)
It's just a suggestion, but you may not want to publicize your belief in fairy tales and talking snakes. Someone's liable to commit you.
You see you keep asking me what I condone or don't condone when in fact you should be asking God. This is His law and I choose to follow it, my opinion doesn't matter. And regarding slavery, He said you were to choose from among the heathen, which means that if you worship anyone but Him, he would allow you to be enslaved and in fact that is one of the curses he promised if you didn't worship Him, If you made anyone else a slave, you had to let them go after 7 years. The reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed was because the men were wicked and homosexual. The new testament specifically condems Homosexuality oh wait, thats right you're probably Jewish and they don't believe in the new testament boy I would hate to be Jewish on judgment day since they are taught that Jesus is not the messiah, even though he identified himself as such to the woman at the well and he said that final judgement is given to him and here you are going to stand and be judged by one whose authority you deny. And really, all this is sour grapes. The people had a chance to vote this crap down and they did. So you can spout Hebrew until the cows come home, God has spoken.