I've always been a rather open-minded person. I figure, you do your thing, I'll do mine, and if they don't mesh, so be it. I was so happy to get to college where other people like that existed. I immediately became friends with people who are into art and music and politics (none of which I've been traditionally involved with). They preached about personal freedom, acceptance, and pluralism, all things I strive for. Then you live with them. I don't listen to the same kind of music, so I'm ridiculed. I don't like the same, melodramatic movies, so I'm told I'm shallow. I don't really understand art in terms of paint on canvas. My artistic expression of choice is classical music and dance. This apparently means I'm not intelligent...
I'm sorry, but I think the fact that I can pull a deep life lesson out of silly movies rather than overdone drama means I'm more introspective, not less. The fact that I can analyze the emotion of an orchestra or body movements but not skinny boys wailing does not mean I'm not intuitive, it just means I have a different sense of things.
Ironic that people who say they are "fighting against the man" and hate "posers" are really the biggest posers of them all. They are just as worried about image, but the image they are going for is "original" which leads them all to be the same, intolerant, close-minded people. What a disappointment.
The Most "Open-Minded" are Unaccepting
By Pumpkin Baby - Posted on February 9th, 2008
Sums up my feelings at times.
haha. I know exactly what you mean.
Those really aren't the best people to hang around if you value your sanity and your individuality, to be honest.
when i figured that out. I became friendless and it has taken me awhile to adjust to people because i get so caugh up in anger with their obsessions, but i know if i want to be open and tolerant i am going to have to accept and understand their ignorance.
i have faith that i will grow up and so will they.
I thought this was going to be a Prop 8 blog. I heard on the news that in Hollywood they have started a McCarthy like blacklist of anybody who favored and gave money to Proposition 8. And the Gay protestors have assulted some Christians. And they are focusing a tremendous amount of rage and hatred at the Mormon Church. They have lost in the political arena so now they have decided to resort to social terrorism.
I guess the people who have long been asking for and preaching tolerance are only tolerant of those who agree with them. If you happen to have a deeply held moral and religious conviction that is in disagreement of what they believe, it earns you their scorn, rage, hatred, violence and intolerance. It sounds a lot like what you are talking about above.
Unfortunately, there have been assaults perpetuated by people on BOTH sides of this issue. That type of acting out is unacceptable in any context, IMHO. However, what you are calling a "McCarthy like blacklist" is really nothing more than a community boycott of businesses that donated money to the cause of taking away the fundamental rights of gay citizens. The mormon church is also getting its fair share of protests directed at it, due to the fact that entered the political debate by telling their members to support the initiative, and donated more than $25 million towards that end (something like 70% of the money raised in support of the issue). If the mormon church doesn't like being protested, maybe next time they will think twice before stepping across the line of separation between the church and the state to try to act like a political action committee instead of a church.
I would also suggest that it isn't the mormon church's "deeply held moral and religious convictions" that are earning them the "scorn" and ire of the gay community (and its allies), but rather its willingness to attack the fundamental rights of other citizens, which I would suggest is anything BUT a "moral" point-of-view (not to mention an extremely hypocritical one, considering the discrimination that mormons have faced in their own history).
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It is only a fundamental right IF you change the definition of marriage to something that the majoriity of Americans (30 states so far) don't think it means or has ever meant in our history or in the last 1000+ years of Western Civilization.
I'm sure gays would feel differently about this economic boycott if gays were being fired or not hired for having been against Prop 8. The blacklist is targeted against individuals, not businesses.
Mormans have specifically delt with the marriage issue in their history. They ended up changing their definition of marriage to the definition that was and is accepted by the vast majority of Americans. A few did not and they are no longer accepted as Mormans by the mainstream church and they are occassionally prosecuted.
Many black churches were also involved in opposing Proposition 8 but hyocritically the gay activists have been very selective about who they protested.
...or at the very least, disingenuous.
It is only a fundamental right IF you change the definition of marriage to something that the majoriity of Americans (30 states so far) don't think it means or has ever meant in our history or in the last 1000+ years of Western Civilization.
I notice how you keep trying to move the goal-posts regarding the history of marriage in our various conversations on this subject (every time I point out to you the numerous historical examples of same-sex marriage, you try to re-phrase your position in order to avoid having to face the reality of that history). Nevertheless, you are still incorrect. The existence of the "berdache" (or less offensively, "two-spirit people") among a large number of Native American tribal groups (including for example the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples) is well-documented in the sociological literature from the earliest incursions of European cultures into the New World.
Likewise per your error, the "freedom to marry" is a constitutionally protected, fundamental right of all U.S. citizen, per the Supreme Court of the United States. In terms of the California Constituion (which is more relevant to this particular discussion), the Supreme Court of California ruled plainly that the purpose of Proposition 8 was to elimitate the already-existing fundamental right of a specific minority group. The OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY of Prop 8 is very clear on this matter...
Its also interesting to note that when Loving v. Virginia was decided in the SCOTUS, a large number of states also had restrictions against interracial marriage. Tradition and numbers didn't save anti-miscegenation laws, and I predeict that they aren't going to save the anti-gay marriage laws, either. Having a large number of people on your side doesn't make the infringement of fundamental rights any more constitutional, nor any more palatable to those who have been wronged.
I'm sure gays would feel differently about this economic boycott if gays were being fired or not hired for having been against Prop 8. The blacklist is targeted against individuals, not businesses.
Tough. When one adopts the position that you have the right to abridge the fundamental rights of other citizens, it is difficult to illicit sympathy when those citizens turn around and refuse to do business with you. Boycotts are a perfectly legal method of political protest. Maybe next time, the fundies will think twice before stepping on the rights of other citizens.
Mormans have specifically delt with the marriage issue in their history. They ended up changing their definition of marriage to the definition that was and is accepted by the vast majority of Americans. A few did not and they are no longer accepted as Mormans by the mainstream church and they are occassionally prosecuted.
The difference, of course, is that the legal limitation of polygamy does not apply an invidious categorization to those being prevented from marrying. And, the mormon church actually hedged on the polygamy issue, and justified their official change in policy (though in reality the church tends to turn a blind eye to the practice) by stating that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." In any case, they donated a HUGE amount of money to Prop 8., and this isn't the first time that they've acted politically against the gay community.
Many black churches were also involved in opposing Proposition 8 but hyocritically the gay activists have been very selective about who they protested.
I don't think you've been paying close attention. The gay community has been pretty pissed off at the African-American community, too. The beef with the mormons was more or less expected, but the African-American opposition to same-sex marriage is just downright hypocritical. To some degree, however, I agree that the gay community is careful about whom we protest. Why? Because the point of a boycott or any other form of political protest is to put strategic pressure on a particular group. Sometimes a boycott is not the smartest strategy. Sometimes it is. Whether or not the latest round of boycotts and protests are strategically sound still remains to be seen.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I notice how you keep trying to move the goal-posts regarding the history of marriage in our various conversations on this subject (every time I point out to you the numerous historical examples of same-sex marriage, you try to re-phrase your position in order to avoid having to face the reality of that history).
I'm merely trying to be accurate and I think I have now achieved it. I am happy enough with the 1000+ years formulation and I plan to continue using it.
I concede that you were right about the Romans and the Greeks. i and most people don't generally consider aboriginal American culture to be part of what is generally considered to be Western Civiilaization. On the contrary, Western civilization made strong efforts to eradicate these American Indian cultures and to the extent that they have survived, most of them are insistent that they want to preserve their culture as something separate from what most of us would consider to be Western Civilization.
I disagree that anybody's civil rights are being violated. If, as the majority believes, a marriage is only between two people of the opposite sex, then nobody's civil rights are being violated if we don't recognize a union between two people of the same sex as marriage. By definition it is not a marriage and therefore a marriage is not being denied to anybody. Even if the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental right, they have not yet defined marriage to meant two people of the same sex and the people of 30 states now have said that marriage does NOT mean two people of the same sex.
Your whole analysis above falls apart unless the definition of marriage as it has long been understood by the American peope is changed. The American people have been clear in the ballot box that they don't want the definition of marriage changed.
I'm merely trying to be accurate and I think I have now achieved it. I am happy enough with the 1000+ years formulation and I plan to continue using it.
I would suggest that you are intentionally engaging in the fallacy of exclusion. And aside from the logic error, attempting to reframe your argument simply to avoid having to deal with evidence that conflicts with your point of view is a remarkably disingenuous tactic, to boot.
I concede that you were right about the Romans and the Greeks. i and most people don't generally consider aboriginal American culture to be part of what is generally considered to be Western Civiilaization.
I'll give you a tit-for-tat regarding and note that including "aboriginal American culture" in a discussion of Western Civilisation is far less of a leap than excluding the Ancient Greeks and Romans from the same.
I disagree that anybody's civil rights are being violated.
Well, it is a legal fact that those rights were real and were being abridged prior to Proposition 8, as ruled by the California Supreme Court In Re: Marriage Cases. As for Prop. 8 itself, the court has yet to rule but has taken up the case, and I would suggest that based on the history of marriage cases in the California Supreme Court, the duration of the Prop. 8 changes is likely to be rather short.
If, as the majority believes, a marriage is only between two people of the opposite sex, then nobody's civil rights are being violated if we don't recognize a union between two people of the same sex as marriage. By definition it is not a marriage and therefore a marriage is not being denied to anybody. Even if the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental right, they have not yet defined marriage to meant two people of the same sex and the people of 30 states now have said that marriage does NOT mean two people of the same sex.
Your whole analysis above falls apart unless the definition of marriage as it has long been understood by the American peope is changed. The American people have been clear in the ballot box that they don't want the definition of marriage changed.
Sigh. Since your memory is somewhat selective, I will recount to you again of a few excellent rebuttals to this flawwed argument. In regards to your insistence on definition, the reality is that Black's Law Dictionary already includes same-sex marriages in its list of valid legal definitions. But even if that was not the case...
Goodridge has already survived a Supreme Court Challenge, and I think its rationale provides an excellent counter to your argument, which might seem clever but is actually a rather weak, legally speaking.. Likewise, the more general theme of your argument is an appeal to tradition, which the Supreme Court of the United States addressed directly...
If these are your best arguments, then I encourage you to spread them far and wide throughout the conservative, anti-gay marriage movement. Despite what you suggest, the defintion of marriage is always changing (i.e. it changes every time we pass a new law or apply a new court ruling to the institution), and has already changed in a modern context to include same-sex couples in this country, thanks to the refusal of the SCOTUS to overturn Goodridge. In order for the California Supreme Court to allow Prop. 8 to stand, they will have vacate the elementary principles of the California State Constitution, and essentially overturn one of its own decisions and one most famous legal precedents in this country...Perex v. Sharpe. Somehow, I just don't think that's very likely.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If all of what you say is true, then Gay Marriage would already be an established fact. But so far, the definition of marriage stands as a union of one man and one woman.
At some point, the Supreme Court will probably make an extreme stretch of their Constitutional authority and, over the objections of the majority of the people will probably impose a new definition of marriage. Until that happens I don't really bother to read all that other stuff which I find impressive in its detail but essentially meaningless to the argument because the definition of marriage is what it currently is and everytime the American people have been given the opportunitiy to re-affirm that definition they have done so.
When the Court in its totalitarian wisdom imposes a new definition then you will have won. It will be a dubious victory because when the Constitution can be twisted, misread and re-interpreted and forced to say anything that a particular set of Jurors want it to say, then we are all in danger. Courts change and sooner or later there may be a Court stacked with people of a fascist leaning. I don't doubt that the same Constitution that can be "interpreted" to say whatever liberals want it to say can also be interpreted to say whatever a fascist wants it to say too. And if I were a member of any small minority that it is easy to demonize (like homosexuals) I would be pretty uncomfortable about setting that precedent.
If all of what you say is true, then Gay Marriage would already be an established fact. But so far, the definition of marriage stands as a union of one man and one woman.
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Ranging from common use dictionaries like Mirriam-Webster (see below) to the definititve legal source of Black's Law Dictionary (who added same-sex marriage to its 8th Edition definitions in 2004...sorry, but you'll have go to the Library to look at this one...they don't publish online), the legally recognized relationships of same-sex couples are already included in the common definition of marriage.
The definition argument is one that you cannot win. On the one hand, in the English Language definitions are based on usage, and the usage of the term "marriage" to include same-sex couples is already well-established in the modern legal vernacular. And on the other, the use of a definitional argument such as you propose is a conclusory, which I would suggest indicates a very weak argument on your part, and one that the Courts have already indicated that should be rejected in this debate.
At some point, the Supreme Court will probably make an extreme stretch of their Constitutional authority and, over the objections of the majority of the people will probably impose a new definition of marriage. Until that happens I don't really bother to read all that other stuff which I find impressive in its detail but essentially meaningless to the argument because the definition of marriage is what it currently is and everytime the American people have been given the opportunitiy to re-affirm that definition they have done so.
I would suggest that your unwillingness to read the relevant decisions can only mean one of two things...either: 1) You really don't understand the relevance of standing precedents to our system of jurisprudence, or 2) You're just trying to avoid having to discuss evidence that contradicts your point-of view.
When the Court in its totalitarian wisdom imposes a new definition then you will have won. It will be a dubious victory because when the Constitution can be twisted, misread and re-interpreted and forced to say anything that a particular set of Jurors want it to say, then we are all in danger. Courts change and sooner or later there may be a Court stacked with people of a fascist leaning. I don't doubt that the same Constitution that can be "interpreted" to say whatever liberals want it to say can also be interpreted to say whatever a fascist wants it to say too. And if I were a member of any small minority that it is easy to demonize (like homosexuals) I would be pretty uncomfortable about setting that precedent.
This entire counter-point is based on a rather spurious line of reasoning. The Judicial Branch is just as much a part of the checks-and-balance system as are the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. The functionalty that you're griping about IS a part of that system, and in fact is the primary means by which the Courts exercise their role in that system to inhibit the ability of Legislatures and yes even citizen-sponsored initiatives from abusing the rights of other citizens. I tend to trust in this process, because it has been sucessful in the past, such as in the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967). In reality, the Constitution is pretty plain on this issue...
It really doesn't matter how your "define" marriage. Whether you see it as a right or a privilege, the fact is that it must be offered to ALL citizens equally, and any restrictions which are placed on the institution must be free of any invidious categorizations. To single out a politically unpopular group and to change a law specifically to deprive that group from access to a basic civil right is a pretty cut-and-dried violation of this principle.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I really don't expect to win. But that won't keep me from continuing to fight. I am a cultural conservative. That is what I do. The longer I prolong this battle it causes all sorts of other negative (from my perspective) cultural change issues to stack up on the back burner. I'll eventually fight each and every one of them too for as long as I can. With luck and perseverence I may slow this down for a generation or more.
Interesting definition you posted. I had always assumed that the etymology of the word marriage was Latin or possibly Greek. I suppose if I had thought about the Spanish word "casar" which is completely different, I would have realized my mistake. Apparently our relatively modern word "marry or marriage" has nothing to do with whatever the Greeks or the Romans were doing just like it was totally different from what the American Indians were doing. We did not even base our word on their word. For the sake of accuracy, I will now say 700+ years.
Interesting that a few lawyers can get together a mere 4 years ago and write a new definition in a legal dictionary for a word that has had the same consistent meaning for 700+ years. And then they expect the rest of us to roll over and abandon our traditional definition and accept theirs. And we are all supposed to accept that this brand spanking new freshly minted definition somehow proves that there has been a civil rights violation that has been going on against gays since our founding and before. It gives rise to kind of a silly chicken or the egg paradox. Which came first, the new definition of marriage or the civil rights violation against people who were not allowed to do something that was never considered to be marriage.
Who gave Black's Law Dictionary authority to change the meaning of the word marriage? Did the American people vote on the new definition (actually yes they did about 30 times now). Is the new Black's definition Constitutionally binding?
I detect shades of "newspeak" from Orwell's "1984" where the meaning of words is changed in order to justify new policy and to condemn old ones.
All of your arguments above are predicated on the idea that marriage means something different the the union of one man and one woman. Until that change is made official either by an act of our elected representatives or by an act of judicial tyranny, most of what your wrote is impressive but irrelevant.
I really don't expect to win...With luck and perseverence I may slow this down for a generation or more.
Wow. That's really...disgusting.
Interesting definition you posted. I had always assumed that the etymology of the word marriage was Latin or possibly Greek.
If you really dig into the etymology, you will find that the term can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European roots, including the Sanskrit marya which means, "young man, suitor."
Interesting that a few lawyers can get together a mere 4 years ago and write a new definition in a legal dictionary for a word that has had the same consistent meaning for 700+ years.
Who gave Black's Law Dictionary authority to change the meaning of the word marriage?
Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used legal dictionary in the United States because of its impeccable reputation, and its definitions are regularly cited by the Supreme Court. You can pout and cry if you want, but it is still the definitive dictionary of choice regarding legal terminology in this country.
Did the American people vote on the new definition (actually yes they did about 30 times now). Is the new Black's definition Constitutionally binding?
As I pointed out to you above, in the English language definitions are determined by usage. Dictionaries publish new editions whenever there is a significant shift in the usage of terms to include new definitions. That's just the way the language works.
All of your arguments above are predicated on the idea that marriage means something different the the union of one man and one woman. Until that change is made official either by an act of our elected representatives or by an act of judicial tyranny, most of what your wrote is impressive but irrelevant.
Point of fact. The State of Massachusetts effectively changed that definition of marriage in a legal sense to include both same-sex as well as opposite-sex marriages. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. So, you loose again. And please, give us a break with the "judicial tyranny" crap. Anyone with half a mind to study the history of the Law knows that the power of Judicial Review is a cornerstone concept in American jurisprudence. The people calling it "Judicial Tyranny" are just losers with a few too many sour grapes.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I strongly oppose homosexual unions and I agree with a lot of the comments you've made.
However, I do believe that the homosexuals have a right to boycott. Mom and I were having a discussion. She said something about the gays boycotting a woman's business because she gave $100 to support Prop 8. I agree that since the woman's in a small town, it's dangerous for her business and for the community due to the jobs people receive through the business, however, boycotting is a fact of life.
You said something about the homosexuals might feel different if the situation was reversed...well, who says it can't be? You can boycott the people who support the homosexuals. McDonald's, for example, is a huge homosexual supporter. You can start by boycotting them (despite their awesome fries and amazing shakes).
Boycotting is difficult, so I doubt that the homosexual supporters are doing it for fun. As against the homosexual movement as I am, I do admire them for having the stamina to boycott. I hate boycotting. : P I LIKE my MickyD's fries and shakes.
BTW, let me also say that I'm really sad to see all of the violence (on both sides, I guess) over Prop 8. There's nothing wrong with peaceful boycotts and there's nothing wrong with peaceful prayer vigils. The wrong comes when violence or lack of charity is involved.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Good post, Pumpkin Baby! I agree with you. I have a friend who claims to be "open minded", and he tells me I'm prejudice because I don't like his screamo music. I just don't like it because I think it's obnoxious. I'm also sheltered because I don't like the movies he likes. I still love the kid to death, but I'm using him as an example for your point. Personal tastes are personal tastes and liking something or not liking something is not being open minded or closed minded...it's being yourself.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa