The American Spectator

Bob| 12.19.08 @ 5:09PM

C'mon Antle, let me rephrase what you said:

Some opponents of same-sex do not merely wish to prevail in the battle over public policy and in the court of public opinion. They do not simply want to keep the beliefs of libertarians/liberals from affecting how government policy treats same-sex couples. They want to completely marginalize proponents of same-sex marriage and treat traditional libertarian/liberal beliefs about human sexuality as morally equivalent to nazis or fascists.

The truth here is that if a Republican President had the cajones to choose a pro-choice/pro-same sex marriage pastor, he'd get the same treatment as Warren is getting from the left. Since I am a Jew, Warren believes I'm going to hell along with the gays, lesbians, and pro-choice advocates.

Can we stop the vitriol from extremists on both sides? Can you guys start being intellectually honest about your positions? Republicans will never come out of the wilderness if they remain bigoted. When you start an argument by demeaning the other side, dialog never ensues. At least you should honor Obama for trying to reach across the isle. Bigots would never even try.

W. James Antle III| 12.19.08 @ 5:43PM

C'mon, Bobby -- 1.) I blogged about conservative criticism of Warren for accepting yesterday, 2.) Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell prayed at Bush's inaugurations, 3.) I'd like some mainstream examples to back up the third sentence of your paraphrase, and finally 4.) When will you take your own advice about starting an argument without demeaning the other side?

Mary| 12.19.08 @ 5:52PM

They want to completely marginalize opposition to same-sex marriage and treat traditional Christian beliefs about human sexuality as morally equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism.

This is exactly right. And the only way this can be accomplished is through indoctrination of the young, and opprobrium aimed at anyone who dissents.

Along w/gay marriage, it seems that don't ask, don't tell is likely to be repealed in the next few years. Hearing Powell say that he thought this policy/law should be looked at again prompted a little recall.

In high school, my gym teacher was a lesbian. I had the overwhelming sense that she was because I sensed an appreciation on her part that had nothing to do with my non-existent athletic ability. Several years later, and well beyond my high school years, what I 'd sensed became known.

This apposite -but counter- dynamic is probably not even considered, yet it's thoroughly protected.

NRO posted a piece today called the The Pragmatic Conceit: A new empty wave, and it's spot on.

An ideology is going to gain ascendancy, it's just a question of what that ideoloy is, and who it belongs to.

Jimmy| 12.19.08 @ 5:57PM

Warren's position on the eternal destiny of Jews who reject Jesus as the messiah is no different from the position of 1st century Jews named Jesus, Paul and Simon Peter. There's nothing bigoted about the assertion. I, for one, am sick of those who paint everyone they disagree with as a bigot.

Chris| 12.19.08 @ 6:02PM

Let's be clear: We are talking about a preacher who has repeatedly compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest and who will not let gay people be a member of his church unless they "repent" and promise to try to be celibate. If we were talking about someone who made similarly inflammatory comments about interracial marriage, there would be no invitation for him, and everyone would agree there shouldn't be. But when the issue is equal treatment before the law for gay people, suddenly it's a legitimate "difference of opinion " based on sincerely held beliefs. So you're darn right opinions like Warren's are rapidly becoming marginalized. They deserve a place on the ash heap of history right next to totalitarian Communism, white supremacism and sexism.

Bob| 12.19.08 @ 6:49PM

OK, Jimmy, your response was great -- I chuckled. And you actually scored on point 4. I deserved that. Reverend Caldwell, however, is anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage as far as I could tell. He did support Obama, but the situation is not the same since his beliefs were aligned with social conservatives.

That said, my point was that conservatives should praise Obama for working across the isle instead of demeaning the extremists on the left. And my point about a Republican president holds -- he would not choose a pro-choice, pro-gay rights pastor for his inauguration. Do you really disagree with that?

I want fiscal conservatism to be taken seriously. And I want to see the Republican party win elections. That's why I hit you and others here so hard. Instead of posting an intellectually honest response, you and others post red meat for social conservatives. When you do that, you weaken the Republican party be sending centrists and libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives (like me) to the other side. There is no definable logic that can argue that a move further to the right will gain more adherents. That's like trying to convert everyone to Buddhism. It may sound good to your audience, but it won't get results. Do you think if you ran a hard right candidate in NY or Connecticut or California you'd win? I don't think any of you would try it. But if you really believed in moving the party right, that would be exactly what you would do.

That said, Jimmy, your point regarding my posts is valid. I did get your attention, though.....

El Wayne| 12.19.08 @ 8:34PM

Communism, white supremacism and sexism.
Chris....While Warren as a man may be marginalized, the spiritual bedrock of the christian beliefs he espouses care not a twit about marginalization....in fact, from a dogmatic standpoint, it thrives on marginalization. Your three ism's are disingenious..no comparison...you sir, have been deceived.

Francis Beckwith| 12.20.08 @ 12:46AM

"We are talking about a preacher who has repeatedly compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest and who will not let gay people be a member of his church unless they `repent' and promise to try to be celibate. "

Because, as you claim, Warren "repeatedly" made these claims, perhaps you would kindly post the links to these numerous claims. Many of us would like to read them in their context.

Of course, sex outside of marriage is inconsistent with Christian moral theology. So, all of Warren's parishoners who are unmarried ought not to engage in sexual gratification.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument against the legalization of adult same-sex incest? And what, by chance, would be wrong with comparing homosexual acts with other sexual acts? Who made up that rule and why should anyone obey it?

If you are offended by such comparisons, why is your offense relevant? Apparently, many social conservatives are offended by the thought of same-sex liasons of any sort. And yet, you would not hesitate call such people "homophobic." But why is their offense less legitimate than yours? Perhaps you are analog-phobic (fear of comparing things).

Bob| 12.20.08 @ 7:06AM

Francis, I saw the interview where Warren compared gay marriage with pedophilia and incest. He sees no difference between the three as they are all morally wrong in his opinion. He does say that gay marriage does not hurt the institution of marriage but that divorce is the big problem, so he takes away the secular argument. He also says that he doesn't care if being gay is biological and that people don't have a choice. The bible says it's wrong -- so it's wrong. It is a St. Thomas Aquinas type of argument where the assumption is the logic.

Actually, you make a good point about same sex incest. The reason incest is wrong is because of inbred genetics and parent/child sex. I don't have an answer for you on this one. But what if 70 year old brother and sister want to marry? While it is not appealing to me, there is certainly no hereditary harm.

The argument that social conservatives are offended by the thought of same-sex liaisons is not logically consistent, however. I'm offended by you spouting off religion in the public square. I'm offended by you saying that I'm going to hell. The fact is that what you say has no effect on me unless you legislate against me. Let's say you pass a law that as a Jew I can't pray on Saturday since Christians represent the vast majority of the population. I have no problem with you being offended. But that should not restrict my activity and what I believe should not restrict yours.

Mary| 12.20.08 @ 12:40PM

One thing that that's been pointed out since we learned that Pastor Warren would be giving the invocation, is that by doing this Obama has refused to proscribe his views.

Ideally, you'd have more well known Pastors than Warren to be go-to-guys for social conservatism.

RCs have a lot of intellectual heft to offer, but they're marginalized because of their own pederasty scandal. No matter how good their arguments, and no matter how unfair to good, solid priests, that scandal did a lot of lasting damage to Rome. And don't expect a pity party any time too soon.

But, if gays continue to jump-ugly it's likely to hurt them and their cause more than anything else. Not many people are buying the civil rights analogy that a lot of gays are trying to push. Even the pastor who is giving the benediction at Obama's inauguration has stated that this attempt at parity doesn't cut it.

Powell said the same thing some years ago, don't know if his views remain the same. Another thing Powell said several years ago, is that it would be a good thing if a sense of shame could be reinvigorated.

If gays were smart, they'd realize that Obama's fidelity to their cause will begin to take shape in the courts.

I don't know much about Paul Weyrich, but when he advised Christians to separate themselves from a culture that no longer shared, and was even hostile to their values, you can see why.

Catholic and other Christians really need to double down, and make it easier for parents to yank their kids from public schools. Maybe Catholics should re-direct some of their charitable dollars to the cause of propagating the faith.

My parents never paid a dime for me to attend Catholic grade school. I know people say vouchers are the answer, and maybe they are, but we've had many school closings and maybe a few of those could have been avoided. A nearby school was closed and within a year its space had been rented to a charter school. That's hard for local families to look at and not despise. This is an area in which you could at least try to unleash the creativity and efforts of lay people.

I don't believe the State is capable of a piece-meal advance of ideas and attempt at bettering society. It's a power thing and as a piece-meal approach would bring the advantage of knowing if something was harmful and in need of abandoning, it's been rejected by social engineers who know or think that they've achieved something akin to science and repeatable results, but who also have the perpetual escape hatch of the unpredictabilty of human nature.

Burke wrote that "those who have been once intoxicated with power . . . never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power, but they will never look to anything but power for their relief."

FDR's most un-American attempt at stacking the Court is a great illustration of this aversion to a piece-meal approach. Maybe a lot of it can just be chalked-up to the laws of inertia. I don't know, but I know that I see Hegel's dictum that "all the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State" as part and parcel -unwittingly or not- of the movement that calls itself progressive.

I think it's really important to fight strongly against this.

Francis Beckwith| 12.20.08 @ 3:11PM

Bob:

Actually, you make my point rather nicely. Right now, any one can marry any one else under the auspices of any institution they want. Two gays can marry each other at the Metropolitan Community Church and the church can declare the union a "marriage," just as me and my friends can declare a roast beef sandwich a ham sandwich. There is no law to prevent such declarations. So, what precisely is being asked for by gay marriage proponents? Acquiescence by the rest of the community in all the institutions in which marriage is plays a role. So, for example, public schools will teach the equality of all unions and that opposition to such equality is bigotry. Homeowners will be prevented from making moral judgments about what sorts of couples may rent rooms from them. Business owners will be reticent to hire devout Christians and Jews who believe that homosexuality is immoral, for fear that such individuals could subject the firm to litigation if they happen to inadvertently disclose their beliefs in the midst of promotion and hiring. Someone like me, an academic, who has defended traditional views in academic journals will be treated as a pariah by state institutions that will see me as harboring opinions that are bigoted and if put in practice "illegal." Adoption agencies will be forced to not to discriminate against "gay couples," as is the case in Massachusetts. Parents that object to sex education curricula that extol the "benefits" of non-procreative sex will be treated no differently than parents who object to racial integration in the classroom.

Bob, I don't think you realize how the stakes are in this debate. What is at stake is nothing short of the liberty of devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims to conduct their lives and raise their children conducive to and supportive of what they believe is the common good. They are not asking for the government to invade "the bedroom." What they are requesting is that the state not offer itself as an instrument of ideological coercion for a narrow and unteachable segment of secular fanatics who see all difference as hatred and all dissenters as bigots. How ironic is that those who speak so often diversity and inclusiveness should be so ideologically rigid and unbending. But that's what happens when you a movement based on sentiment, emotion, feeling, and eros rather the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Paul E. More| 12.20.08 @ 5:15PM

The Left wing argument that it is “hate” or the thought crime of hate and intolerance to disapprove of homosexual conduct and or gay marriage is intellectually untenable.

First, one cannot tolerate something that one approves of, for if one approves of something then one has gone far beyond tolerance of it. This is because one can only be tolerant when one disapproves of something. But the Left defines the disapproval of anything that it, the Left, approves of as hate and intolerance. This is at best circular illogic and at worst a sign of the Left’s growing totalitarianism.

Note that the left is invoking terms associated with neutrality but is in fact using those terms in a very partisan and even Orwellian manner. This fact, and a fact it is, discredits the entire left wing position and not only on the issue of gay marriage and homosexual conduct.

Bob| 12.20.08 @ 5:36PM

Francis, your argument still lacks consistency. The schools should teach what is legal. If you want your children to have a religious education, you have the option of sending them to parochial school. Contraception is legal and it should be taught to age appropriate children. Abortion is legal and it should be offered to age appropriate children. Each community can decide "age appropriate". If gay marriage is legal, then the schools should offer it as an option. It does nothing to harm you as you have the alternative of sending your children to the religious school of your choice.

There is no harm in telling someone of your beliefs. In fact, I would encourage that behavior. However, if your beliefs interfere with what is legal in your job, then there is a problem.

Your liberty is NOT at stake here. You have parochial religious interests that your are free to pursue. Your insistence that you must place your belief on others defines intolerance. I could make the exact opposite argument for atheists. If you are allowed to bring your religious beliefs to the secular workplace, then you are limiting their liberty.

Since you are an academic, you surely know that the true test of any logic is to apply that logic to an opposite case. That is what makes your argument intellectually weak.

Evangelicals come from a history of trying to get others to believe what they believe -- so I understand the incarnation of your belief system. However, the argument that the actions of others that contradict your beliefs should be thwarted is not worthy of a true academic.

I'm a Jew. I don't think they should sell pork or shrimp at the market. By offering those items at the market, you are affecting my children who I've taught not to eat those items. I don't think they should be offered.

Do you see how silly the extension of your logic leads?

I don't hate you, but when you restrict the freedoms of others, then you are, indeed, bigoted to their belief systems.

Nava| 12.20.08 @ 9:14PM

I cannot comprehend how homosexual unions can be regarded as equal to heterosexual unions. Consider the following brief points.

Propagation of the species is a vital function of living things. The majority of animals and plants reproduce sexually. Among the higher animals, offspring are born only when a male and a female of the same (or compatible) species perform a sex act. This is true of human beings, too. Human beings have sexual organs that are there to make it possible for them to procreate new human beings. Procreation only happens when a male and a female have sexual intercourse. The male and female sexual organs are designed to match and complement each other so that sexual union is possible. They are linked to other organs of reproduction so that procreation may take place when all these organs are functioning properly and the circumstances are just right. So the purpose of the sexual organs is to make possible the propagation of the species. This is a biological fact. [It is also a pleasurable act because that provides an incentive to come together and procreate.]

The fact is that:
• Only heterosexual union has biological purpose – same-sex union doesn’t.
• Only in heterosexual union are the sexual organs used as befitting their function.
• Only in a heterosexual relationship is the fullness of humanity present, being represented by both types of sexes.
• Only heterosexual relationship has historically always been seen as a special relationship that warrants a special status in society and it has been so throughout human society.

Therefore, giving same-sex relationship the same status as heterosexual relationship is deceptive and dishonest because they are not the same.

I am looking at this objectively and logically.

Bob| 12.21.08 @ 7:20AM

Nava, you present a simplistic belief -- one that is devoid of objectivity and science. You can find similar simplistic beliefs on such topics as global warming propounded by such intellectual giants like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and, of course, Fox and Friends.

Objectively, you really must look at the body of science on the subject. A good summary can be found here:

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

There is an argument about what controls your nature -- your biological parts or your brain. With your brain, the issue is nature or nurture. There is no absolutely definitive research either way. Even if there were, evangelicals have never been science friendly believing in such things as intelligent design and people living at the same time a dinosaurs.

After reading the research, you must objectively question whether homosexuality can be controlled in all individuals. It seems to me that there is a range of causes across homosexuals and that some may be caused more by genes and others may be caused more by social development. How can you tell the difference? Certainly I don't know.

The people against homosexuality are primarily the religious sect where objectivity and science is significantly lacking. But you must ask yourself the question of happiness. If people are happier being homosexuals, why not? There is less suicide and a more productive society. Where, for example, would the fashion industry be without homosexuals? Even Pastor Warren has said that individuals may be more oriented to homosexuality by their biology but that fact should not make a difference.

The bottom line, is that when you do look at it objectively and logically, it is really none of our business.

El Wayne| 12.21.08 @ 9:16AM

Francis & Nava....you cannot argue to a succesful conclusion with Bob. Political ideaology wedded to twisted logic never spawns rational children. He said the true test of logic was to apply it against the opposite, yet he fails repeatedly to see that is exactly what you are both doing. He's spun a web that he can't get out of. Bob, your repeated acclamations of being a jew are of no moment except to say when was the last time you've been to your temple???(I know that's your business) and since you seem to revel in your statements that christians are "bigoted" the beloved children of Israel have been veiled for a long time to what has been revealed to them....by their own prophets and scripture. Why should you be any different? Keep believing in your own brand of poly(anna) science...leave rational thought to the rational. By the way, Christianity teaches a true love of all humankind...homosexuals definately included. You can analyze all you want around it in your silly little mental gymnastic playset. It is not bigotry to have a moral and/or spiritual difference of opinion against a lifestyle that the tide of societal history (and your beloved science) makes against it.

Bob| 12.21.08 @ 10:01AM

El, the real issue is NOT who is RIGHT. We certainly have a difference of opinion. However, when this kind of difference exists, neither of us should be able to outlaw the behavior of the other.

The difference between us is that you want to outlaw the SECULAR behavior of a segment of society and I don't. I am not outlawing your religious behavior in the slightest.

Regarding bigotry, here is the dictionary definition of "bigot":

"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own"

I may disagree with you, but I defend your right to think the way you do. You, Francis, and Nava fit the dictionary definition of "bigot".

Science is not a belief system, it is a group of theorems and proofs. Christianity is belief system. My scientific opinions can be changed by fact. Christianity cannot be changed by fact. Thus, people like Galileo were deemed to be heretics by the dominant religion of the time. Recently, Christians deemed slavery and interracial marriage as wrong.

And by the way, you should look up the history of marriage. It didn't become a sacrament until the 15th century.

parvus| 12.21.08 @ 12:24PM

To Bob there is no prohibition on non jews eating pork. so that comparison is wrong. And to the gentleman who thinks that parochial schools are the way to go I agree. BUT they are a fortune so middle class and poor parents are being taxed twice. It is a necessity but its hard.

Parvus| 12.21.08 @ 12:29PM

to El wayne. Dear Sir: I agree with you on the social issue discussed here however your knowledge of what the prophets did or did not say is nil. this is not the forum to discuss it. Not every place is the right time and place.

hopesome| 12.21.08 @ 1:26PM

a big church a big name doesnt mean a big HEART but a p lace to express it for many call me lord! but know not my name. mega bucks grand causes a platform to trumpet ones view, for many call me lord but know not my name. THE LORD DOES KNOW THAT PROITS AND PROPHETS SEEM TO WALK HAND IN HAND IN AMERICA, funny I thought there was only one prophet have I missed something!

El Wayne| 12.21.08 @ 2:24PM

Parvus,.......DUDE the topic is about the "Rick Warren" flap thingy. Don't ya think that a little old time religion might just slip in there....not the right time & place my hind hoof. God are we going to make it a 1st amend., discussion too?
Bob, the definition given of bigotry makes us all guilty of this I guess. Aren't you being a bigot by being intolerant of the anti- same sex crowd opinions on the issue? I definitely would not want a law that outlawed homosexual behavior occuring in the privacy of one's bedroom. Not many thinking people would...I just want a ham sandwhich to remain a ham sandwhich...no matter who calls for it to be baloney. And your right to speak and write freely...I too treasure that. O'Bama has really stood up and done something incredible....I have to agree with you on that.

Bob| 12.21.08 @ 2:37PM

Parvus -- you said this:

"there is no prohibition on non jews eating pork. so that comparison is wrong."

Actually, it is precisely correct. It was said that I was infringing on someone's rights if public schools were allowed to teach that homosexuality was legal. In other words, that his children would be exposed to that lifestyle. As an analogy, I was saying that Jewish children are exposed to pork and shrimp at the grocery store -- a public place. It is EXACTLY the same analogy.

To El -- I am not intolerant of the the anti-same sex crowd at all. That is their belief and they have a right to it as long as their belief does not infringe on my legal behavior. In fact, I believe precisely the reverse. I treasure my beliefs and treasure their right to their own beliefs. I will not infringe on their right to pray to Jesus. In fact, when I was in the Army I fought for their rights, and also the rights of atheists and homosexuals.

Nava| 12.21.08 @ 11:53PM

Bob, your twisted logic and your charge of "bigot" doesn't hold up. Regardless of what might go on in the mind of the homosexual, the points I stated are facts, namely,

• Only heterosexual union has biological purpose – same-sex union doesn’t.
• Only in heterosexual union are the sexual organs used as befitting their function.
• Only in a heterosexual relationship is the fullness of humanity present, being represented by both types of sexes.
• Only heterosexual relationship has historically always been seen as a special relationship that warrants a special status in society and it has been so throughout human society.

Therefore, there is a clear difference between heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship. Therefore, they cannot be regarded the same. Therefore, they cannot be called the same.

Let me illustrate this for you. I would like to be 6' 2" tall but I am only 5' 9" tall. If I declared myself to be 6' 2" tall when applying for a passport, it wouldn't be allowed and, if somehow it was, the document wouldn't help me because others wouldn't accept it as accurately representing me. They would be right and I would be in the wrong. One has to face up to the truth and not be deceptive. If I and some friends want to play a game that doesn't follow the rules of baseball, but want to call it baseball, I shouldn't be surprised if others don't call it baseball. They would be right not to call it baseball. It is a matter of truth.

The same reasoning holds with regard to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They are simply not the same and the latter shouldn't be called marriage. It is deceptive to do so.

Charles Martel| 12.22.08 @ 3:26AM

Put it to the people whether same-sex "marriage" should be banned in law, and it passes every time. The people have spoken: the state will not be available "as an instrument of ideological coercion" against observant Christians and Jews, and that is how it should be.

So finally this pestilential subject will be removed from the table, "make-believe" as proposed public policy will end, and we can all resume focusing on more important things.

Paul E. More| 12.22.08 @ 5:38AM

When Bob states that using the public schools to promote homosexuality is OK because it is legal (or abortion or birth control) he is really talking about the use of power to force people to approve of certain things of which he approves.

Note also that on all of these issues, the legality is due solely to a ruling of the Supreme Court, which has become a bureaucratic political institution instead of a legal one.

None of the Court’s rulings (whether on abortion, homosexuality or even birth control) are based on the Constitution or the rule of law.

Until the Lawrence vs. Texas case in 2003, states still could and did have laws on the books declaring homosexual conduct illegal. In fact, the US Supreme Court upheld one such law in 1986, where a Georgia law declared homosexual conduct to be illegal. At the same time, Georgia also had a law making sexual intercourse between unmarried heterosexuals illegal as well. So the 2003 or 2004 ruling in the Texas case by the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling in the 1986 Georgia case. Thus, the Court could revisit the Lawrence ruling and reverse it and return to the position it took in the Georgia case, allowing states to enact laws declaring homosexual conduct illegal. If that happened, Bob would have to come up with some other reason to force people to approve of that which he approves and then call such use of power to force approval, “tolerance.”

And let me repeat, one cannot tolerate something that one approves of, one can only tolerate that of which one disapproves. So, by definition, if one disapproves of something, one can be tolerant of it. Today, the Left seeks to force people to approve of something that they disapprove of and then call that “tolerance.” And if people resist approving of that which the Left approves of, they are called “bigots” and “intolerant.” It is an Orwellian distortion in the service of a power play bordering on the totalitarian.

hopesome| 12.22.08 @ 7:30AM

did Jesus dissaprove NO HE ACTED TO REMOVE THAT SPRIRIT THAT DID. whether you eat pork (the old testament! jesus brought a new testament!) or not. if we want to be at one with him then bigatory has to go it was the act of removal that jesus brought with him if you have a problem with muslims tell him and he will show you why you have a problem if you have a problem with eating pork or the fact that any one else does he will show why you have a problem in so doing you get redeemed from that place of not to put to finer point on it YOUR PROBLEM! redemption always begins with oneself once you understand that then you, on the continuing journey. with him begin to get re vived because you are 'leaving behind' all those things that wind you up and bring a war to your heart. the bible shows us what society there will be people pleasers ie pontious pilate money lenders' he threw them 0ut of the temple (wall street etc) rulers will be corrupt(kings) well look at britain and most world leaders for that one (every nation has starve-ing people so wrong rule!. Get the overall picture then nit pick the details

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 7:46AM

Nava -- I'm old enough to have heard your logic used against interracial marriage and equality for blacks. Religious people thought that BIOLOGICALLY, blacks could not mix with whites as the children would have been malformed. Blacks were seen as having inferior minds so they did not deserve equality.

These "biological" arguments change over time. There are already some mainstream Christian religions that allow gay marriage - Episcopal in particular. They are religious and believe in God. Is your religion "more right" than yours?

Charles -- the strength of our nation depends upon holding up the rights of minorities. Normally, this is done through the courts as the public changes slowly. This was true for slavery and the women's vote. Homosexual marriage is no different. You don't vote on liberty.

Paul, we live in a nation of laws. Your religious bigotry cannot stop me from doing what is legal. Also, as I stated to Paul, it is the courts that protect the rights of the minority. 30 years from now, gay marriage will be as normal as interracial marriage.

Personally, it is not something I'd promote to my children because of the bigotry that you and others would show towards them -- not because I think it is wrong.

This is a nation of both observant AND non-observant people. It is bigotry to restrict the rights of either group. For example, I think it is appropriate to have courses on the Bible and Quran (both of them) in public school literature. I think it is appropriate to let religious school clubs use public facilities. I think it is appropriate to use Merry Christmas in the public square and place the 10 commandments in public buildings as long as you don't restrict other major religions from doing the same. Just as you are bigoted against things like gay marriage, there are groups of people bigoted against religious people.

Again, bigotry attempts to reduce the rights of others. It is not justifiable because you believe differently. Stop interfering with other people's lives. Let them enjoy the pursuit of happiness.

Frank Drackman| 12.22.08 @ 8:37AM

Was doin my annual "Listen to a few minutes of NPR to see how my Tax $$ are bein spent" when I heard Massachussetts Represenative Barney Frank mention his Boyfriend.... got to taste my Sausage/Egg biscuit a second time.....

Armand| 12.22.08 @ 9:38AM

Bob,

Something being legal doesn't make it right in the eyes of your so-called "religious bigots." Your truth isn't necessarily mine. Your arguments are really left wanting when you attempt to justify something that has only recently in human history become "acceptable."

JR| 12.22.08 @ 10:51AM

Why is it so difficult to recognize the gay 'marriage' issue for what it really is, an attempt by the gay rights lobby to force mainstream religious acceptance? When you strip away the religious meaning of the term marriage and look solely at the legal implications what you have is a civil union. This is part of a 'slow march' through the system with the goal being to erode the rights of religious institutions to make moral decisions within themselves and outside the auspices of the State. The gay rights lobby does not want the rights and protections of marriage; they want the State to compel the Church to nullify the perceived ‘sin’ of homosexuality.

Once the gay rights lobby wins the semantic battle for the term 'marriage' how long will it take before activists start going churches that they know fundamentally disagree with gay marriage and then sue when the church refuses to 'marry' them. Once that occurs, the end result will ultimately be that a church can either perform a service that is fundamentally at odds with its dogma or lose its tax-exempt status. This is not about giving equal rights to a specific class of people; it is about stripping rights from the Church.

This is just one link in the chain of events that the secular progressive liberal left has set in motion with the ultimate goal of undermining the perceived moral authority of the church in favor of the judicially legislated moral authority of the State. Once the state has the power to force a religion to accept something as morally right, the state has effectively placed itself in the role of god, which anyone familiar with the fundamentals of the Enlightenment and the subsequent Progressive movement will tell you, is exactly their goal.

In a logical society with rational people, the solution is simple: civil unions for two (we’ll avoid the obvious slippery slope here for the sake of simplicity) consenting adults with all of the rights and protections therein. Marriage is a term granted by a given religious institution to the aforementioned civil union based on their internal dogma. If your particular religion fails to recognize your chosen lifestyle and union, perhaps you should either accept your status as a heretic and sinner within your belief structure, or simply find a new one that fits better.

Of course these days it is becoming en vogue to attend a church for 20+ years and either be oblivious or in complete denial to what they actually believe, but that’s a different conversation.

Merry Christmas all!

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 12:57PM

Armand -- Slavery was fine until the 1860's -- pretty late in the course of human history. No equal rights for women was fine until the 20th century. Being recent is not a valid argument. It makes not a whit of difference that we disagree as long as we don't infringe on each other's PERSONAL rights.

JR -- There are certainly both secular and religious definitions of marriage. Marriage did not become a sacrament until the 15th century. It was originally done for civil, not religious, reasons to pass on property rights and establish ownership. It was also a way for fathers to "sell" their daughters through dowry's. Many marriages were arranged, of course. From an historical perspective, there is virtually no difference, then, between civil unions and marriage. If it makes you happy to redefine and separate the two, that's also fine with me. I'm only interested in the secular/civil rights of the parties and not the definition.

Chris| 12.22.08 @ 2:35PM

Here is the link to the Rick Warren quotes about incest and pedophilia for those who are interested:

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2008/12/Rick-Warren-Transcript.aspx?p=7#gaymarriage

El Wayne| 12.22.08 @ 2:56PM

Bob said: I'm only interested in the secular/civil rights of the parties and not the definition.

Yes, Bob but one of JR's points was that that gay agenda is much more nefarious in the sense that they want to rewrite scriptual history and force religious bodies to accept it...which flys in the face of that particular religious entity's doctrine. That you're so magnanamous and conscientiously pure does not mean that the act up crowd is. As far as your assertion about marriage not becoming a sacrement until 15th century, thanks for the primer on the catholic church but OT scripture way long time ago speaks about the solemnity of the male female relationship....were talking thousands of years and not just the Christian faith but many others as well. Many cultures held homosexuality as an aberation abhorent to society. Can you show that somewhere in times past that man + man or woman + woman equaled a child. The gay agenda does not care about the issue of marriage really, they just want society to legalize and sanction their behavior...force it down or up some orifice of society's collective conscience. And enough of the bigotry stuff. Reasonable minds can differ on these issues w/o fear of being labled a bigot or homophobe.. Real bigotry occured in Germany at a time when being of certain ethnicity ended up in being made into a lampshade....or in america...at the end of a rope.

JR| 12.22.08 @ 3:08PM

Bob - that is the 2nd or 3rd time you have attempted to put historical references and context around the institution of marriage, specifically referring to when it was made a sacrament. I fail to understand how that’s germane to the conversation given that the religious institution of marriage has obviously been around much longer than that. As a self-identified Jew, I’m sure you must be at least marginally familiar with the strict details surrounding the institution of marriage laid down in the Torah (specifically that it was between a man and a woman), as well as the detailed listing of was/wasn’t morally acceptable regarding sexuality. While I claim absolutely zero expertise in the field of global religion (ancient or contemporary), I feel fairly confident in suggesting that, while accepted sexual practices may have widely differed, the institution of marriage was, for the most part, consistent across the board.

In response to your claim that it was originally done solely for civil reasons and as a fund-raising opportunity for fathers, I would invite you to revise to provide a basis for such a statement. While it there is obviously merit to the suggestion, such a wide sweeping postulate contains so many obvious fallacies that it cannot go unchecked. It is exactly that type of rhetoric that obscures the true merits of any valid points you may make.

Secondly…
In your initial response to Mr. Antle, you ask for him to be intellectually honest and admit that people (specifically Republicans) opposed to gay marriage are bigots. It would seem to me that this accusation does little more than prove the whole point of the article. I would like to invite you to be intellectually honest and admit that the gay marriage debate is about much more than the civil rights aspect.

The recent uproar from the gay community over Prop 8 in California and the subsequent plans by the secular progressive left to undermine it is a perfect testament to this fact. California already recognizes civil unions and is ever moving forward to bring them up to the exact legal equivalent of marriage. If the issue were simply civil rights, a stronger push to expand the rights of civil unions would be the logical and easier focus of political action. Instead the battle is being fought along the lines of attempting to legislatively hijack a religious institution.

Surely someone as astute as yourself can see that waging the battle in these terms is not about equal rights, but legislating morality. By framing their position in terms of civil liberty, the pro gay marriage lobby has managed to shield themselves from being accused of what they are actually doing, and that is asking the state to mandate that religious institutions place homosexual relationships on equal moral footing with the traditional concept of marriage. I’m sure, under the aegis of intellectual honesty, we can all agree that this is an arena that the authority of the state has no business being in, regardless of which side they take. Once the state, through legislation or judicial activism usurps the power to control what private religious organizations believe and recognize we will have much graver problems than arguing over semantics.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 4:02PM

JR/El -- You have a right to practice your religion as long as it does not infringe upon my religion/lack thereof. Civil institutions should have NO force on religious groups. I disagree with Obama, for example, that religious groups should be forced to hire people who have different religious/non-religious beliefs. On the other hand, if you are a pharmacist in a non-religious business, you should not be able to deny services based upon your religious belief.

Just as you should not force your beliefs on the civil community, the reverse is also true, IMO. I am certainly not in favor of gays forcing religious groups to a certain point of view. They can try to convince you, but not force you through law. The problem is that there are both religious and secular/civil definitions of marriage. They are not the same. One confers legal rights and the other confers sacraments. Why not just get rid of civil marriage completely and call all civil ceremonies "civil unions". That is certainly fine with me.

I couldn't give a rat's you know what about the words that are used. But the right to make decisions in a hospital about medical decisions and to pass on your property to a life partner and receive things like pensions should be available to all people. So let's get the semantics out of it.

And JR, I totally object to any group forcing their "morality" on a religious institution just as I object to the reverse. I am not at war with religion as long as those advocates don't try to force their morality on me.

El Wayne| 12.22.08 @ 4:26PM

And JR, I totally object to any group forcing their "morality" on a religious institution just as I object to the reverse. I am not at war with religion as long as those advocates don't try to force their morality on me.
Bob, this is precisely my point. And it seems to be the exact case that gay advocates/activists are trying to force their (im)morality on us (society at large). The status quo is 1man 1 woman. The change being asked is that equation. As far as civil unions and parity with marital rights, while I'm not in total agreement, its probably going to happen. But as JR suggests, we cannot contenance state usurpation of religious doctrine. That's probably the slipperiest of the slippys.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 4:57PM

El -- If we both agree to legal rights, there is nothing more to discuss. If you are saying that you, as a religious representative are equal to "society at large", then, Houston, we have a problem. If I think it is immoral that women cannot be priests, then aren't Catholics forcing their (im)morality on us?????? You can't have it both ways although you can continue to try.

Armand| 12.22.08 @ 5:58PM

Bob 11:57 - Your attempt to equate gay marriage with historical civil rights issues falls on deaf ears. Marriage was established in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve as far as I'm concerned, so don't waste your breath by talking about "sacraments."

BTW, are you Jewish or Catholic?

Paul E. More| 12.22.08 @ 6:42PM

Bob:

FYI, I’m not religious, so I can’t be a religious bigot as you most clearly are.

BTW, I find examples of the tyranny of the majority in history few and far between to the point of being almost non-existent, but examples of the tyranny of the minority are plentiful. Thus I conclude that the Constitution was designed to ensure majority rule and to protect the rights of the majority against the tyranny of the minority.

El Wayne| 12.22.08 @ 7:08PM

Bob-Not trying to have it both ways and not saying I'm "society at large" either. You, me...everyone represent but one aspect of society. The issue is, and its a control thing, who gets to have their way. We'll the most wonderful thing in a pluralistic society is we all get to have our way...to an extent. Our form of Govt., at least in theory and more than any, allows us all to play. But we don't get to have it all our way. We all have to get along. But we don't get to change the rules midstream. At least not w/o a fight. Catholics requiring men only priests is forcing nothing on anyone. Unless they are holding people hostage with guns at the doors & pulpit no one is being forced to do anything. It is their "right" to interpret and practice the scriptures anyway they want. People are only forced by habit and conscience. Govt., and here's the real issue, has no right in forcing religious institutions into doing anything save except if it is harmful to society at large. For example, some religious groups deny children medical care such as blood transfusions etc. But what is being asked here in our debate is a state imprimatur on what
is harmful to a society of Bible believing people...that is, disregard of scriptual admonitions to the contrary. I'm NOT saying the Bible believers are the only society, they are a large but not exclusive society. But society at large has agreed virtually exclusively (for thousands of years) that marriage was between a man and woman. I agree, my rights should not infringe on yours. We all have to tolerate a little discomfort. Discomfort is not always infringement. Houston, we have no problem, unless and until healthy rational debate becomes a problem. I'm over and out on this issue...Houston!

JR| 12.22.08 @ 7:37PM

Bob, your argument, ad absurdum, that hypothetically Catholics denying the cloth to women is offensive to you and therefor they are forcing their views on you wouldn't hold water in even the most elementary of debates. The whole point is that if one disagrees with a dogma to the point that it causes a schism between that person(s) and their chosen religion, then the options are to find a new religion, as all are free to do in America (for now) or accept the difference and live with it. The irony of your argument is that, for those of us that see religion being compelled by government to make changes contradictory to their beliefs as a threat, once the door is opened, who is not to say that we may see a day where the Catholic Church within America is forced to ordain women or lose their status and face penalties.

The simple fact that the gay rights lobby, and many other secular progressive movements, almost always revert to reductio ad Nazium (Godwin's Law, anyone) when making their case should be a huge red flag to anyone with a shred of common sense that their motives are not pure. Framing this as a simple civil rights issue is akin to wrapping a cow pie in puff pastry and calling it beef wellington. There is much more to it than outward appearances and it doesn't take much digging to find the bulls**t in the middle.

Lobby for equal rights all you want, but to label those that disagree with your point of view 'bigots' simply reveals the intellectual vacuum required for your argument to stand.

I would again invoke your appeal for intellectual honesty in admitting that this issue has little to do with actual civil rights and is a much more nefarious maneuver for the power to manipulate religious belief.

Lojo| 12.22.08 @ 8:39PM

I don't know JR you might be on ta sumpin-for all we know this Bob guy just might be a dagone Peter-Puffer himself-them smart intellectual types usually are. Just fomenting absurdities for the heck of it. There's already too much foam in this world,,,enough already.

Francis Beckwith| 12.22.08 @ 9:45PM

The "tolerance" canard offered by Bob is something I address in a recent piece I published on the First Things web site, which you can find here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1239

Here's an excerpt:
Following the Proposition 8 victory, thousands of its opponents protested in a number of California venues including in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County. The rage and anger exhibited toward the Latter-day Saint and Evangelical believers who were present during the protests was palpable. The protesters were clearly blaming their loss on the effort and organizational and financial support of LDS citizens as well as Pastor Warren’s vocal backing for Proposition 8.

There is a certain irony in seeing those who speak so often of tolerance and understanding using the occasion of a political loss to unleash a torrid of vitriol that no one would ever confuse with tolerance and understanding if the perpetrators were burning crosses or Dixie Chick CDs. And yet the perpetrators in this instance, the losers in the Prop 8 election, do not see it that way. They see the absence of same-sex marriage from our legal regime as a grave injustice that must be remedied by any means necessary. For them, tolerance does not extend to injustice.

But then the initial argument, offered to the general public several decades ago—the call for the wider society to be tolerant of homosexuality—was something of a ruse. Many of us were under the impression that the requirement of tolerance entailed that citizens were in fact permitted to offer negative or positive judgments about the objects of their toleration, and in some instances shape policy consistent with those judgments. After all, one does not tolerate that with which one agrees; one embraces it. One can only tolerate that with which one disagrees. This is why the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles is misnamed. One ought not to be merely tolerant of one’s fellow human beings; one ought to embrace them as persons with intrinsic dignity made in the image of God. Of course, what these persons believe and practice for a variety of subjects—including religion and human sexuality—are the proper objects of tolerance.

So, for example, as a Christian in a regime that requires religious liberty, I may reject my Muslim neighbor’s theology as mistaken, but I may not obstruct her religious freedom. If, however, her husband wants to acquire another wife, consistent with Islamic teaching, he may do so. But he may not require, as an entailment of his religious liberty, that the laws of our community recognize his polygamous union as a marriage that would require by the force of law that the institutions and members of that community recognize it as well. He could, if he wanted to, change the laws by the legislative mechanisms afforded to him by our system of government. But this would require that he secure the cooperation of his fellow citizens by means of argument and persuasion. And if he were to be successful, polygamy would no longer be an object of mere toleration, but a public good supported by the community and enshrined in its laws. Those who dissent from this point of view may harbor their dissent in private, just as racists may in their hearts remain racists. But they would have no right to practice their dissent in their public lives, including employment, education, housing, and public accommodations.

Lojo| 12.22.08 @ 10:51PM

The Friends of Dorothy are, like the minions of Satan, legion. I suspect we will hear little more from our dis-enlightened hero Bob. Its obvious that his creedo cannot stand in the light of reason. Darkness hates the day...and soon returns to its kind. But make no mistake, they will return. CLING, SWRING, SWOOSH (gawdy sword noises supplied)out sheath ye swords of truth christians and lovers of light. What the gay lobby has failed to understand is that common decent God fearing people, of all religions, are not of a mind to take this crud anymore. They have sucessfully removed God from almost every aspect of public society,,,now they're after our churches...our private places of worship. Forgetting that this country was founded upon a Judeo-Christian system of belief, enshrined in our constitution, they march on. And why shouldn't they? They have been largely sucessful. I think they have underestimated our resolve this time. We hoped they'd gone away. Let's not make that mistake again. Fight with reason, logic, truth and above all else...Christian love. They'll fall everytime.

Paul E. More| 12.23.08 @ 4:16AM

Thirty-one US States ban first cousin marriages. Those types of cousin marriages are commonplace in the Arab Muslim world. Should those laws be repealed because they “oppress” the Muslim Arab minority?

As we know, people like Bob think that the Constitution exists only to serve the interests of various “minorities”, minority being defined by Bob as someone outside the traditions that actually created Western civilization and all the benefits that go with it. So, under Bob’s view, the Constitution exists to grant privileges to self-defined “minorities”, those privileges being redefined as “rights” that are often given at the expense of the real rights of the majority. At this rate, once the majority has been stripped of its rights, eventually the civilization created by that particular majority will disappear and so will all of those benefits, so taken for granted by the likes of Leftists like Bob.

Nava| 12.23.08 @ 6:28AM

Bob,
I agree that people have used arguments to oppose interracial marriage and equality for blacks and that these arguments were wrong. However, you will find that the logic they used is NOT my logic.

Firstly, my reasoning is based on solid facts, not opinion. It is a fact that one of the most important functions of all living things is to reproduce themselves. It is a fact that the majority of animals and plants reproduce sexually. It is a fact that the purpose of the sexual organs is to make possible the propagation of the species. It is a fact that same-sex union cannot produce offspring. And I can go on to say the same about all the other points I made.

But, on the other hand, it is NOT a fact that black and white marriages create malformed children - that is a falsehood. So there is no similarity between my reasoning and the reasoning used against blacks. I use truth, they used falsehood.

Secondly, if my logic was applied to interracial marriage, it would correspond to a statement that a white and white marriage can produce children and so can a black and black marriage, but a white and black marriage cannot produce children. But that is not factually true and that was never an argument used by those against interracial marriage. So, there is no parallel there with my logic.

My argument in principle is that heteros and homos do things very differently and on average produce very different results and therefore their relationships have to be called by different names. That is the same reason why baseball is not called football and vice versa, or why white is not called black , and so on. But blacks and whites do the same thing whether they do it with their own kind or with the other kind and their results are the same - children. Of course, in interracial marriage, the children will have traits that are mixed, which will be governed by the laws of genetics. But that is also true with non-interracial marriages with regard to traits, such as height, eye color, hair color, baldness, skin pigmentation (which varies within whites as well as within blacks), etc., etc.

The argument that blacks shouldn't be given equal treatment because they supposedly had inferior minds, was based on falsehood and inconsistent argument. Here, too, there is no parallel with my arguments.

Even if whites, overall, through history have a better record of achievement, that is not necessarily an indication of superior minds. There are cultural and circumstantial factors and opportunity that all have a bearing on this matter. Some or most ancient Egyptian dynasties might have been black. Even within white nations, there are large disparities in achievements. There have been brilliant black people. This is the falsehood aspect.

The inconsistency lies in this. Whites were given equality regardless of their mental ability, therefore mental ability should not have been a criteria for giving equal civil rights. Most blacks were mentally superior to the worst whites. So the argument collapses.

My logic is very different to these false arguments.

With that I rest my case.

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 7:59AM

Francis, your polygamy argument is interesting, but extremely weak as homosexual marriages can be banned from polygamy as well. Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual preference.

Paul, your argument on "self-defined minorities" has the greatest merit of any made on this board. I've struggled with this one myself. When does a country "protect" a minority and when does it deem the minority to be outside of the societal norms? The only answer I can come up for this one is that these things change over time. There was a time when slavery and interracial marriage was considered wrong. But then a tipping point was reached and change was employed. I don't know if we've reached that tipping point on homosexual unions, but it is generally not a majority opinion when this occurs, but the emergence of a significant minority. As something becomes more common, more people tend to change their moral opinion about it. This option has been damaged, in my opinion, by militancy of the homosexual lobby. We will see when, and if, this tipping point is reached in our society. But again, kudos on a great argument!

Nava, your argument can be nullified by some of the scientific research that indicates homosexuality is genetic in nature. If it is, then your argument falls apart. Just as the argument that blacks were inferior was a falsehood of that time, so is the argument that homosexuality may not be of genetic origin and thus "natural".

To all -- I've taken this argument to its logical conclusion. As a blog, we've finally reached a rare occasion -- a discourse based on intelligence and logic from a group, primarily social conservatives, that generally eschews intellectual activity. I wanted to demonstrate that this was a more effective way to promote your point of view rather than the hate and vitriol of the other side that is generally seen here. This also brought out those who are generally silent here with academic prowess. In my opinion, the "anti-intellectual" bent of the Republican party is weakening it and putting fiscal conservatism in jeopardy. That's why I rail against social conservatives (and Palin) so much, because it is not about their beliefs, it is about their lack of reason.

I will continue to be a strong fiscal conservative, but more libertarian and secular in my social beliefs. More of us are becoming independents which is why the party is shrinking. Without our coalition, Republicans cannot win. I still do see the intolerance of social conservatives. I am willing to vote for an intelligent and highly educated social conservative, like Jindal, but you would not be willing to vote for a fiscal conservative with more libertarian religious views. That's why many of us voted for Obama. If Palin were the candidate, even more of us would have voted in the other direction.

On this specific issue, I think that time will increasingly show that non-social conservatives in favor of civil unions will force the country into the "minority" tipping point I mentioned above. Whether this will take 5 years or 50 years, I don't know, but it will happen as homosexuals continue to come out of the closet and become part of normal society rather than at the fringes. Normally, this is where fear operates.

Good day....

Nava| 12.24.08 @ 7:24AM

Bob, even if there was a genetic predisposition among some people to homosexual tendencies, heterosexual relationship is not the same as homosexual relationship because:
• Only heterosexual union has biological purpose (only it can reproduce) – same-sex union doesn’t.
• Only in heterosexual union are the sexual organs used as befitting their design (function).
• Only in a heterosexual relationship is the fullness of humanity present, being represented by both types of sexes.
and, also
• Only heterosexual relationship has historically always been seen as a special relationship that warrants a special status in society and it has been so throughout human society.

Therefore, only heterosexual relationship warrants the term, marriage.

Furthermore, when we look at the animal kingdom as a whole, we see no indication of homosexuality in any species other than man. It is also true, as I have shown earlier, that the purpose of the sexual organs is to make possible the propagation of the species. Therefore, there is no purpose served by homosexual tendencies, whether one looks at it "religiously" or "naturally", i.e. from a design point of view or from an evolutionary point of view. This rather makes one wonder whether this so-called research is not biased – made to order. You yourself used the term "if", because there is no certainty about it.