Reader Mail
The (Same) Sex Issue
Readers on SSM. Miss California, Miss Conservative. Bev Gunn’s Diary.
PART I: CARRIE
Re: George Neumayr ‘s
My Left Breast: The Carrie Prejean Story:
It is unbelievable how wretched and wormy the liberal media have been regarding Carrie Prejean ‘s comments regarding same sex marriage. Here she was expressing the views of probably over 90 percent of Americans, to wit (1) America is a great country because opposing views are allowed, protected even. (2) But for her, she was brought up as a Christian and guides her life on those precepts, and thus (3) She believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fortunately Donald Trump put it all in perspective by noting that she was saying nothing more that what President Obama has said about the same subject!
But no, the liberal media has demonized her and represented her views as not deserving of rational discourse and have relegated her to the back of the bus. Their viciousness and disgraceful criticism is indicative only of their total lack of fairness and balance, precepts which they claim to practice and possess in abundance.
Their meanness and nasty elitism bring to mind Lucious Malfoy ‘s ultimate putdown — she ‘s just a Mugblut, what would you expect?
Most of America has read about Malfoy, and his offspring, who
indeed do not reflect the inherent fairness of 90% of the
characters in Ms. Rowling ‘s books. Or, I daresay, of Americans
either.
— Larry M. Southwick
North Avondale, Ohio
The saddest outcome of this whole episode is that millions of
culturally-deprived Americans like me now know who Perez Hilton
is. I thought s/he was a celebrity bimbo famous for amateur
pornography. Imagine my shock and disappointment! To plagiarize
the MSNBC writers who script the words that David Shuster reads,
“Can I vomit right now?”
— Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
PART II: A BRAD ARGUMENT
Re: Brad Nelson ‘s letter (under “Give Me Marriage Equality, Or
Give Me Death”) in Reader Mail’s States’
Rights:
I am sure that Brad Nelson is being sincere when imploring conservatives to support gay marriage in the name of personal freedom. Unfortunately, he employs the recurring and dreary argumentation long suffering conservatives are all too familiar with: “if you were a REAL conservative, you would…”
Mr. Nelson ‘s overall point is that those conservatives who oppose gay marriage aren ‘t willing to face their own “ideological inconsistency.” Either one charges into the fray mounted on his mighty stead in under the flag of “personal freedom” or claim kinship with the same colorful folk who chop off the heads of uppity women and won ‘t let you check out a Playboy from your local library.
“I didn ‘t know that American conservatism was based on cranking out as many kids as you could. I thought it was based on freedom.”
Well, Mr. Nelson, two thoughts. Ok. Many thoughts.
First of all, most conservatives I know — especially the religiously observant — like babies. The more the merrier, by some lights. We would even go so far as to say that, however much one disapproves of promiscuity, children are the positive consequence from an otherwise illicit activity. There is even a spiritual benefit in having children. No matter what hot stuff you think you are, there is nothing so humbling and humiliating as raising a child who thinks they know better than you. (And eventually, every child does.) It is so good for one ‘s soul that we recommend it for everyone. Shaping tradition and public policy for the nourishment and multiplication of children is not necessarily such a bad thing.
Personal freedom is a Conservative principle — but it is hardly the only one. The preservation and construction of a humane social order is another. ( Note: humane — not perfect) Indeed, for any “conservative” society three principles must be pursued: order, justice and freedom. The balance of these principles is the stuff of self-government and moral creativity. Of these, (gasp!) order comes first for the simple reason that without order there can be no justice or freedom. Without order one only has a world of tooth and claw.
For humane order to be established and maintained, the state is never enough nor is it competent. In large areas of social community, state intervention and management is counter-productive. Free institutions with their own priorities and influence (sometimes at odds with the state) provide the accumulated wisdom from those who came before, an authority for moral courage, and protection from those who would wield raw, coercive power to have others to serve their aims.
SLG| 5.15.09 @ 8:11AM
That Perez Hilton thing...?
What was Donnie Trump thinking? Having that guy as a "judge" is kinda like having Stevie Wonder officiating the Super Bowl.... stupid.
Anastasia Mather| 5.15.09 @ 8:57AM
I really believe that Beverly Gunn needs to be a regular contributor to your magazine and website.
Please.
IMKessel| 5.15.09 @ 11:41AM
Mr. Dooley presents a clear, cogent and precise argument for the marriage. His point on marriage without children is a solid rebuff to the child free argument of those who wish to alter the very nature of marriage.
This is one of the most solid arguments I have read on this issue.
Jason Porter| 5.15.09 @ 1:24PM
"Marriage is not a vehicle for the collection of benefits. It is not a mere visible declaration of love. Marriage is for the procreation, protection, and nurture of children."
I stopped reading here. How can you argue that the true purpose of marriage is to procreate? There are thousands of married couples who never have children, and if the state of our economy and current employment rates aren't sure enough signs that we are OVER POPULATED, I don't know what its. Marriage IS about love, and two people who love each other should be able to get married. With your argument, then infertile women should not be granted marriage rights, and couples past child-bearing age shouldn't be able to wed either.
Not only will legalized gay marriage grant the basic happiness and legal stabilization that same-sex couples desire, but will open the door for gay adoption so the THOUSANDS of parentless children can enter households that will love them.
Regardless of what anybody thinks of this issue, legalized gay marriage is inevitable and within the next 20 years you can bet on a nation-wide acceptance of homosexual marriages as the conservative baby boomers die (inevitable) and the liberal, open minded youth obtain voting rights (also inevitable). Fight it as long as you wish, but you all KNOW you're fighting a losing battle.
PolishKnight| 5.15.09 @ 2:03PM
Jason, Mike specifically addressed the context of childless marriages: That even if they choose not to have children, the marital vows assure them that they won't be having children WITH SOMEONE ELSE. The marital structure is about creating a welcoming, nurturing environment for children even if the parents choose not to. By the same token, a child-friendly neighborhood also happens to be safe for normal people to live in.
I chuckled a bit at your claim that gay marriage would "grant the basic happiness and legal stabilization that same-sex couples have". I have long observed on this forum that 'same-sex' marrige is a mess due to divorce court policies that encourage marital discord. One of the few benefits of being gay is not having to put up with that nonsense.
I don't think of this as a losing battle so much as a diversion. The real issue is that our society is being undermined by create a third world socialist banana republic just so that socialists don't have to admit they were wrong. Like dictators being found in spider holes "I'm willing to negotiate!", they would rather take all of society down with them rather than admit that punishing the productive and rewarding the lazy is a bad idea.
jim rice| 5.15.09 @ 2:11PM
My God... I'm with Jason... that paragraph he referenced was just stupid. Marriage doesn't have dick to do with procreation except that humans have decided the children born out of wedlock somehow deserve less than those born to a married couple
The author was correct in that marriage is not, obviously, a creation of the state... at least not this state. But the following argument cannot be drawn from the premise at all. The state should have NO control over marriage. There should be a completely separate status for committed couples living together that has nothing to do with your religious sacrament, and it should apply to hetero and homo sexuals alike. Marriage is nothing. It is made up. It's quaint. And I don't care what you do with it. But when you start ascribing legal rights to it, denying those rights to others based on their gender is simply wrong.
As for Ms. Prejean? I am baffled as to why anyone cares. Isn't it more that she sounded like an idiot when she replied? "Opposite marriage??" Furthermore, she didn't even answer the question that was posed to her. She just gave her personal opinion about gay marriage. She did, however, lead off with, "I think it's great that Americans can choose." So what the hell - sounds like her head's in the right place even if she did do a piss-poor job of answering the question.
Also... Order is diametrically opposed to freedom. Complete freedom lacks all order. We sign away some of our freedoms when we enter into the social contract with the state... we desire some form of order, and we are required to give up some freedoms to gain it.
This article is fraught with inconsistencies, non sequitur commentary, and close-minded opinions. Just terrible. Thank you, Jason, for putting even the slightest bit of reason on this page.
baluc/ka| 5.15.09 @ 7:41PM
Let's say that same sex marriage becomes mainstream. Then what? Will there be protests over Mother's Day? Father's Day?
In a same sex marriage, the mother or father are personality / behavior types, but not identified by one's sex.
Will these days be stripped like Columbus day portends to be? And argued as
Mother's Day: submissive
Father's Day: dominant
Ergo do away with these and replace them with Parent's Day and Partner's Day.
Or create new days for these as well.
Can you imagine a day when a beauty contestant is asked whether she's for motherhood, and in saying yes, is reviled.
jim rice| 5.15.09 @ 7:51PM
really?? Mother's Day and Father's Day are what you're worried about? Some stupid made-up holidays designed to make more money for the purveyors of crap?
I'm all for getting rid of both of them.
And if that person is actually able to answer the direct question directly and without sounding like an idiot... and there's not some dumbass sitting on the judging panel... then she shouldn't be reviled no matter what she says.
Smitty| 5.16.09 @ 12:32AM
Jim Rice didn't have a mother or father--he was some mad scientist's experiment gone bad. Real bad.
Smitty| 5.16.09 @ 12:34AM
By your logic, the idiot Joe Biden should be reviled every time he opens his stupid mouth. And you voted for him, moron.
reads1| 5.16.09 @ 8:19AM
Jim Rice is obviously another pseudonym of David Matthews, produced by the moral decay that exists today. Of all the problems the U.S faces today, Homosexuality on its own will bring this Country to its knees. (No pun intended!)
jim rice| 5.16.09 @ 9:07AM
Don't people make fun of Joe every time he says something stupid too? All's fair.
@reads1: Bigotry like yours will bring this country to its knees.
Mike| 5.16.09 @ 10:05AM
Heterosexual only marriage is an ancient venerated institution with the power of every world religion behind it. Let us not allow it to pass away like other great institutions humanity once depended on for advancement that are now extinct but were also backed by every major religion. Slavery. (supported by Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox -Jewish and Christian - Islam, Hinduism, Taoism...) Pogroms against members of minority religions (supported by above list). And here in the USA... segregated schools and toilets (suported by our most populous denomination (if you count just the 'true' WHITE Americans of course) the illustrious The Southern Baptists.
Don't misunderstand me please. I believe in Jesus Christ as God Almighty. He is the savior of all mankind and the image of the invisible God. It just seems to me that his more just world advances in spite of his church not because of it. Yes I know that there were Christian groups opposing all of these things, but they did so in opposition to the dominate "Christian" institutions and were severly persecuted by the mainstream (read "90% of Americans agree...") church. Thank God for groups like the Quakers and Anabaptists. One day Soulforce will be counted among the number of courageous Christians who dared to say that the majority of Christians were serving tradition not Christ.
BTW The way Prejean was treated was terrible. No argument. David Duke was shown more respect when he ran for governor of LA. Not every person who thinks that this is an issue of social justice thinks its okay to treat the opposition so shabily; so lets avoid that straw man and stick to the issue shall we.
Big J| 5.16.09 @ 12:19PM
Mike Dooley makes several excellent points.
Jim Rice, as usual - not so much.
Another poster left a link to this article:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Please take the time to read it. It is very enlightening.
Of course there are many who don't care to be enlightened. Too bad.
Nice post, Mike. It's a shame that some refuse to "get it".
george| 5.16.09 @ 1:15PM
"Rightesnous exalteth a nation. But sin is a reproach to any people."
Mike Harding| 5.17.09 @ 4:25AM
george,
As a Christian I cannot possibly disagree with your quote. God's word is true. I am just not sure where you stand. What do you think God says is righteous and what do you think God calls sin? I will agree with God - I am just not sure I agree with you or your interpretation of what God said.
matt jones| 5.18.09 @ 1:53AM
it is unfortunate that many conservatives subscribe to Mr. Dooley's view of marriage. the fact is marraige has nothing to do with procreation. rather it is a device intended to allow the offspring thus generated to be protected and regarded as important. furthermore the basis of biology suports this view. human beings, traditional institutions or not, have decidly low amounts of children. the reason for that is simple: human beings subscribe to a survival stratagey that is based on producing an offsping and focusing a massive amount of energy in to raising that offspring as opposed to say, some sort of insect that favors, evolutionarily speaking, to have many offspring invest very little and hope for the best, that at least a few will survive to mate again. however as society has shown, humans have a very good track record with procreation, not so much with the protctection department however. so gay marriage is useful in remeding that situation, increase marriage, rather than focusing on decreasing sex will help children in the long run. by recognising stable partnerships, and well structured relationships with adoption benefits and the like, families will be created. in response to the commentor who provided the link to the blog: thank you so very much. the arguments found there were extremely refeshing, nearly as much as the commitment to remain non judgemental which was kept, i do believe. however the argument was flawed, even though exceptionally crafted. as pointed out, society is afffected by people, and vice versa. so when incentives affect society, people are affected. however in all the situations provided a 'what' was changed, not a 'who', as in gay marriage: welfare extended beyong strugggling families, divorce made easier to obtain and the tax was capped. however in gay marriage a 'who' is changed, and all the fears about the redefinition of marriage are also 'whats' : incest, extending marriage to be an addition to already exisiting blood ties; interspecies relationships- what can and can not get married, polyagamy, redefining that a marriage is between two people only, which is a 'what'. the difference thus takes many cultural underpinnings down to a specific one, which should be changed.
Conveyor Bearings | 5.18.09 @ 3:06AM
This article is fraught with inconsistencies, non sequitur commentary, and close-minded opinions. Just terrible. Thank you, Jason, for putting even the slightest bit of reason on this page.
Spray Gun | 5.18.09 @ 3:13AM
"Rightesnous exalteth a nation. But sin is a reproach to any people."
Bobby Bobsingerling| 4.15.10 @ 4:24AM
"Here she was expressing the views of probably over 90 percent of Americans, to wit (1) America is a great country because opposing views are allowed, protected even. (2) But for her, she was brought up as a Christian and guides her life on those precepts, and thus (3) She believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. "
- You are right! I am not a native american but I feel like one and I have the same thoughts as you mention in this article. But I have personal concerns about the same sex marriages which could lead to some problems according to my own opinion and to opinion of experts.
Bobby@mens health tips