on gay “marriage” ::: part III of many
beckwith
francis beckwith pleads with social conservatives in california not to “attack” gay “marriage”. that’s what they want…to be the victims. they want to walk hand in hand with reformers that history has justified, like rosa parks and martin luther king, jr., and elizabeth cady stanton and susan b. anthony. it should be clear that this analogy cannot be drawn for several reasons. for example, the civil rights movement was morally justified because, for one thing, they were fighting for the enforcement of laws that were already on the books. they just wanted the equality that their laws promised them. homosexual activists want to create an entirely new right. beckwith contends the best way to get government to stand firm against gay “marriage” is to show what an absurd right it would be.
given present circumstances, the best strategy is to take the mayor at his word and employ “street theatre” in a provocative way in order to force the other side to defend their marital nihilism in all its glory. Here’s the plan: Have about 50 folks go to San Francisco city hall and request marriage licenses, but not for gay marriages, rather, for other sorts of “unions” that are also forbidden by the state: three bisexuals from two genders, one person who wants to marry himself (and have him accuse the mayor of “numberism,” the prejudice that marriage must include more than one person), two married couples who want a temporary “wife-swap lease,” a couple consisting of two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and a sister, an adult mother and son, and a man who wants to add a second wife and a first husband in order to have a “marital ensemble,” etc., etc. Let’s see if the mayor will give these people “marriage” licenses. If not, why not? If not, then the jig is up and the mayor actually has to explain the grounds on which he will not give licenses to these folks. But what could those grounds be? That it would break the law? That marriage has a nature, a purpose, that is not the result of social construction or state fiat? If so, then what is it and why?
The street theatre I am suggesting will show that once marriage is defined merely as a contract between consenting adults rather than as an institution grounded in our natures as men and women, recognized and honored by the wider community, then marriage simply does not exist. According to the mayor of San Francisco, marriage is not something we enter; it is something we create or undo by our willfulness. It is not part of the order and nature of things that we honor and preserve by subjecting ourselves to its moral grandeur; rather, it is like the colors of traffic signals, diplomatic immunity, or the dollar amount of parking fines, arbitrary rules created by governments in order to facilitate safe travel, economic transactions, international relations, state funding, and/or public peace. Ironically, that means that gays who are forbidden by the state to marry each other are not being treated unfairly or unjustly, since, according to their own view of things, marriage is a creation of the state and there is no standard of marriage with which the state’s definition must be consistent in order to be considered “just” or “unjust.” Consequently, the premises that ground same-sex marriage put in place ideas that are consistent with, and will likely lead to, the unraveling of marriage itself. [source]
see also steven plaut’s plea that necrophiliac “marriages” be recognized [here].
I don’t think those of us supporting gay marriage are asking for homosexuality itself to be “codified.” I don’t think we’re asking for approval of same-sex sexual acts, which you seem to have confused with actually being homosexual.
Among other partnership rights automatically afforded heterosexual marriages, I’m asking for the legal right to visit in the hospital the person I love, to qualify for his health insurance benefits, and to be a rightful heir upon his death.
I’m not asking anyone to say, “Go have gay sex! Hurray!”
You spoke earlier of my love of another man as a “social ill” and compared it to alcoholism and other lapses of self-control, as if I could stop having those feelings of love if I wanted to. The next time you feel twitter-pated and light-headed over an attractive woman you’ve met, I challenge you to deny the existence of those feelings and refocus them on someone - male or female - you find undesirable.
I happen to love a man and I can’t control that. I can be celibate and control my “homosexual tendencies” of wanting to engage in a sexual act with that man, but my feelings of love for him still make me homosexual.
The argument that gay marriage will open the doors to all kinds of other unions is illogical. Marriage should be defined as the legal union between two consenting adults. A corpse cannot consent. An animal cannot consent. A child is not an adult. Gay marriage would not affect incest laws. What supposed union have I forgotten to mention?
Belgium and the Netherlands have had gay marriage for over three years, and those countries have not reported any of the problems you mention.
The bottom line is, my marriage to another man would not affect anyone else’s life. It would not weaken “traditional” marriage, any more than all the married same-sex couples in Europe (and now parts of Canada) do right now, which is not at all. An external force cannot weaken the union between two people. That union can only be weakened from within, and only if allowed.
And thus the insanity reaches all-encompassingly.
“I’m asking for the legal right to visit in the hospital the person I love…”
I have never had trouble visiting anyone who wanted to see me in the hospital, relative or not. Have you?
“I’m asking for the legal right to…qualify for his health insurance benefits…”
Thousands of companies offer this already.
Nonetheless, I don’t view health insurance as a “right”. Whether a company is forced to provide healthcare to my family is something I will consider before attaining employment, not something to gripe about afterwards.
“I’m asking for the legal right…to be a rightful heir upon his death.”
I’m sure you’re aware of legal documents known as “wills”. I could be your rightful heir if you so chose. Have your partner write you into his will and **poof** You’re a rightful heir!
“The argument that gay marriage will open the doors to all kinds of other unions is illogical.”
Why?
“Marriage should be defined as the legal union between two consenting adults.”
Oh, the irony! It’s “illogical” because you want to exclude certain other classes of people! Why do you feel bigamists, polygamists, and other “consenting adults” should be excluded from marriage?
I have never had trouble visiting anyone who wanted to see me in the hospital, relative or not. Have you?
And if the person you’re visiting is unconscious, unable to give consent, and only legal family is allowed in certain wings? Then what? I’m still not legal family to him in 47 states. You know as well as I do that I’d probably have a difficult time making medical decisions for my spouse if he were injured while we were in a rural area of, say, the south. We could have legal paperwork drawn up naming each other as medical trustees, but why should we have the legal expense and the burden of carrying that paperwork around whenever we travel, just because we’re two men in a relationship instead of a man & a woman?
I’m sure you’re aware of legal documents known as “wills”. I could be your rightful heir if you so chose. Have your partner write you into his will and **poof** You’re a rightful heir!
Not everyone is able to afford the lawyers necessary to make those things happen. Heterosexual married couples are automatically afforded some of those inheritance rights with their marriage certificate, without having to pay additionally, out-of-pocket for a will.
Not to mention, what about my significant other’s social security benefits? Even if I went through the legal paperwork for our personal effects to go to each other, we still wouldn’t qualify for the federal government’s death benefits, despite paying into the sytem our entire lives, just like heterosexual couples.
“Marriage should be defined as the legal union between two consenting adults.”
Oh, the irony! It’s “illogical” because you want to exclude certain other classes of people! Why do you feel bigamists, polygamists, and other “consenting adults” should be excluded from marriage?
My fault: I should have said “Marriage COULD be defined as the legal union between two consenting adults.” I personally may or may not want to exclude “other classes.” It doesn’t matter. My point was that since you (and others) have mentioned these “other classes” wanting marriage rights as an eventual problem caused by gay marriage, that could be easily prevented by the above definition.
As for hospital visitation, you didn’t answer my question if you’d had trouble visiting your partner in the hospital, but you did admit:
“We could have legal paperwork drawn up naming each other as medical trustees…”
Indeed. Then why not do that?
“…why should we have the legal expense and the burden of carrying that paperwork around whenever we travel, just because we’re two men in a relationship instead of a man & a woman?”
You mean, instead of a married man and woman. There are thousands of men and women who live together who are not married. I wonder why they aren’t clamoring for “hospital visitation rights”….oh, maybe because it is a mute issue!
Moving on, you addressed my suggestion that you and your partner write a will. You responded:
“Not everyone is able to afford the lawyers necessary to make those things happen.”
Oh please. Click here for free help putting together a simple will. Or just search “wills” on Google.
As for Social Security, I echo my health care argument: get over it. It isn’t a right. That the government is letting any of us participate in the world’s largest Ponzi scheme is ludicrous (but that is for another post).
And finally…regarding your exclusion of bigamists and the like from marriage, you responded:
“My point was that since you (and others) have mentioned these “other classes” wanting marriage rights as an eventual problem caused by gay marriage, that could be easily prevented by the above definition [of two consenting adults].”
Your language is vague, but I assume you would agree that five consenting adults shouldn’t be able to marry one another. Nevertheless, you still haven’t answered my question: Why do you feel bigamists, polygamists, and other “consenting adults” should be excluded from marriage?
I anxiously await your reply.
You tell ‘em, Doug! Nice disection…are you going to be a biologist or an esquire?
As for hospital visitation, you didn’t answer my question if you’d had trouble visiting your partner in the hospital
Fortunately, neither of us has ever been in a hospital, period. But it would be nice to not have to worry about visitation if one of us does have an accident or illness of some kind.
You mean, instead of a married man and woman. There are thousands of men and women who live together who are not married. I wonder why they aren’t clamoring for “hospital visitation rights”….oh, maybe because it is a mute issue!
I suspect they’re not clamoring for those rights because if they want them they just have to go to their county clerk’s office, get a marriage license, and they’ve got them. My spouse and I want them, so how de we get them?
That the government is letting any of us participate in the world’s largest Ponzi scheme is ludicrous (but that is for another post).
Letting us? Gee, next time the IRS takes social security out of my paycheck, remind me to tell them I don’t want to participate in this voluntary-according-to-Doug program.
Nevertheless, you still haven’t answered my question: Why do you feel bigamists, polygamists, and other “consenting adults” should be excluded from marriage?
Note the above, I made a typo. “Should” was meant to read, “could.” My opinion on the status of those relationships does not matter. It’s a MOOT point. There’s no reason to think gay marraige would open a “Pandora’s box” of relationships, as it hasn’t in countries that do recognize gay marriage. If not there, why would it happen here?
If we had gay marriage in the U.S., would you even know? Would it alter society as a whole in such a way that you were aware? I doubt it. What impact have the 3-year-old civil unions in Vermont had on society? How have the San Francisco gay marriages affected anyone other than those getting married?
So many “conservatives” are worried about gay marraige weakening heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage regularly occurs in Amsterdam, and many citizens don’t even care (or know) what’s happening at that government clerk’s office. Those gay couples’ unions don’t affect anybody else.
One day, gay marriage will be as blase as inter-racial marriage, and with just as many problems created by its legalization; that is: none.
Consider:
The Marriage Quiz
This is a great argument, my only suggestion is that everyone drops the whole “I can’t go visit him/her in the hospital” bit. I was in the intensive care unit for about a week, I cannot even tell you how many non-relatives came in and visted me. Actually, what really happened was I gained about 50 brothers, 17 sisters and a few aunts, uncles and grandparents. I know that is deceitful, but as long as you are not carrying around an airborne illness I don’t think it is going to do any harm, I am suggesting lying to get in. They don’t require a marriage liscence or a birth certificate linking you to the patient. Hopefully you are on good enought terms with his family that they won’t mind the deception too much. Just remember, they don’t allow flowers or other live plants in the ICU or CCU, and certain types of balloons either.
I suspect they’re not clamoring for those rights because if they want them they just have to go to their county clerk’s office, get a marriage license, and they’ve got them. My spouse and I want them, so how de we get them?
Huh? What kind of logic is that? These people do not want to get married, yet they love their partners and are not worried about visiting them in a hospital. Do you wonder why? I don’t. It’s because it is a moot issue. (thanks for correcting my typo)
“Letting us? Gee, next time the IRS takes social security out of my paycheck, remind me to tell them I don’t want to participate in this voluntary-according-to-Doug program.”
Yes. They are letting us legally participate in a Ponzi scheme. I never said it wasn’t mandatory. The fact that participation is compulsive is part of it being ludicrous.
But back to my main point with Social Security: it is not a right.
Moving on to my third question, which still remains unanswered: Why do you feel bigamists, polygamists, and other “consenting adults” should be excluded from marriage?
“My opinion on the status of those relationships does not matter. It’s a MOOT point.”
It does matter and you know it, which is why you refuse to answer.
I continue to patiently await your answer.
If you insist on my person opinion, I do not think polygamists should be outlawed from marrying - as long as ALL involved are of legal marrying age and clearly consent to the circumstances of the relationship. The children born into polygamous relationships are another discussion altogether, as is multiple wives of a man receiving government aid because he cannot support them all. But, the union act alone of a person marrying more than one adult does not bother me.
I still do not think my opinion of polygamous marriage has any bearing on this discussion, but there’s your answer.
Now, why haven’t you responded to the lack of problems reported in countries that do already have same-sex marriage - and have for a few years?
OKAY CHILDREN… my 2 cents.
My partner and I have spent over $1500 to secure the same legal rights as a straight couple who paid $75 for a marriage license. And no, it is not all encompassing. I cannot confide in her and evoke spousal priviledge ina court of law. A will can be contested, and I cannot lay claim to her social security as her beneficiary. If I were to die, her daughter cannot collect mybenefits as my child, which, since I am raising her the same as a male, SHE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO. I cannot even adopt her in this State, so NO, I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS IN HER BEST INTEREST.
The harmful effects of polygamy have been well documented by thpose women who have left that lifestyle. As a resident of Utah, where a great many polygamists have their base, I can personal attend to the fact that “sharing” your spouse with a tribe of other women is damaging to the personal self esteem and self worth of these women. A lot of the women in this lifestyle DID NOT CHOOSE IT, IT WAS CHOSEN FOR THEM at ages as low as 13, and forced to marry biological relatives. A friend of mine is a daughter of a polygamist, and chose to leave the compound at age 11 and live with a distant cousin rather than subject herself to plural marriage.
Show me where a homosexual union has a great number of forced, minor unions, and I would concede the point.
The fact is that I am bestowed different rights as a woman marrying another woman than if I were to marry a man. I could some random man and marry him, and it would have more legal, and apparently moral, justification than to marry my partner of years, the mother of my child. That is what is morally bankrupt.
I pay my taxes as any other American. It should be my right to determine who my SS benefits go to - my child as a minor and my wife as an adult. Would they feel the financial loss any differently or more strongly if I were a man? That’s absurd.
Since I don’t carry an audience when I am alone with my partner, you have no idea what I do in my bedroom with her. Just as I have no idea what you do in your bedroom, either. And that’s how it should be. If that is your justification for a rightful marriage, then most heterosexuals I know have broken the law, and their marriages should be dissolved.
So should the marriages of those who don’t, or can’t, reproduce, if that is your basis for a marriage.
So should the deaf, blind and disabled, since they are genetically inferior, just as homosexuals, if that is your arguement.
The Plain Fact Is: Discrimination of homosexuals is not a protected right, and if a law has to require the changing of the United States Constitution to make it legal, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the law itself.
I want the right to claim my partner as my spouse. I don’t care if it is called a union or a marriage… or a joke. WE, consenting mature adults with committment and love for one another has CHOSEN to spend the rest of our lives together, raising our daughter. THAT is the example of what marriage should be.
WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY just because you think we should. Countries across the world have implimented same sex unions, and no riots, street looting or social unrest has occured. Amazing, no?
well, this certainly is an interesting forum. let me start by saying i really do want to get flamed for what i’m saying here, but i expect i will anyway. My opinions are just, well inflamitory.
It seems to me that the major issue we are dealing with here is being ignored. I really don’t care whether or not a gay couple gets the same rights as a straight one… that is the true moot issue here, because of something we all seem to be ingoring.
Homosexuality is wrong.
WRONG.
Let me ask for starters, why is it that cirtually every culture, when it sprung up from it’s barbarian roots to the first inklings of civilization, always seemed to identify marrage strictly as a heterosexual institution? Independent of their beliefs, all of these cultures had come to the same conclusion:
Men are supposed to have sex with women. Not other men. The analogue holds true for women as well.
But perhaps a more pertinent point is this:
Leviticus 20:13
” If a man also lie with mandkind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
I don’t care if Gays can’t get the same rights as straight couples. They shouldn’t. It shouldn’t even be an issue.
i’m sick of seeing gays get upset because they don’t get the same rights as straight couples. Flatly, they don’t deserve them.
And for people who are not of a faith believing in the bible? You’re ignoring that not everyone shares your beliefs.
I can just as easily claim that your point is moot because I may believe the Bible is wrong.
WRONG.
Now what? You’ve made no progress with your argument at all.
By the way, to you potential “hellfire” flamers, I don’t necessarily believe the Bible is wrong. I was just making a point.
Oh, and Ed: Since you seem to take what the Bible says absolutely literally, please keep the following in mind as you go about your life:
A) Polygamy is not only permitted, but encouraged (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B) Marriage does not need to impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to
his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21; Gen 25:1-6)
C) A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the
wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
Good luck!
Ahhh. How pleasently unsurprised I am at your response, Nick. In your response lies the most common (and fallacious) arguments that the homosexual community uses to defend it’s actions.
You say, “what if somone does not agree with your beliefs?” This is more of the common relativism that has caused our moral standards to decline so much. The thing is, disbelieving a truth does not make it untrue to you. Can you float by believing Gravity does not exists? no. Nor can you make the moral standards set forth by god inapplicable simply by disbelieving his existence. Your lack of belief is merely disobedience, not justification for your reprehensible behavior.
as for your point about not necessarily believing the Bible is wrong, you have hoisted yourself on your own petard—you obviously disbelieve the bible, or at least part of it. I certainly hope that you only disbelieve part of the bible, and not the bible in whole, for i’ve no desire to see you, nor anyone else, suffer for their sins. It is not the homosexuals i dislike, it is their homosexuality.
And as for your biblical references, why didn’t you post the actual scripture? No matter, i’ll do it myself.
Gen 29:17-28
Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.
21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
This is the story about Jacob, and how he was betrayed by laban into marrying a woman he bore no love. He then married again, this time to a woman he did love. The bible makes it apparent, in later chapters, through a great deal of strife, that this arrangment was less than ideal, in fact, it was downright horrible. This story is, if anything, a cautionary tale about polygamy.
now, for II Sam 3:2-5
2 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;
3 And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
5 And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.
Again, you have selected a cautionary tale about polgamy. In this one, David commits a great sin by sending the husband of a woman he loves to his death. Even more so than the last story, this is illustrative of why polygamy is wrong rather that right.
I find it highly amusing that you probably didn’t even read these, jsut took somone else’s word for it.
onto II Sam 5:13.
13 And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee: but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul’s daughter, when thou comest to see my face.
this has what to do with concubines? yeah. get your quotations right, please. the REST of the passage is not relevent either, except for that it talks about saul, who had a concubine. It does not comment on the morality of this at all.
now then, I kings 11:3
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
This is the story of a wise man falling out of grace with god. That he was polygamous has nothing to do with the bible’s stance on the issue, as he was not following the will of god.
II Chron. 11:21
21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)
…and you’ve done it again. Rehoboam was yet another evil king, who indluged in these practices that the bible chronicles. DO NOT assume that simply because the bible speaks of something, that it makes it a biblical moral!
Gen 25:1-6
1 ¶ Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
And, at this point, i’m out of room. i’ll continue in another post.
now, for my commentary about gen 25:1-6
Abraham was certainly not a sinful man, however, he did make mistakes. This passage chroncles one of them. As the passage says, he neglected his sons who were not of his wife. Again, etra-martial relationships are show to cause problems, not to be an alright institution.
now for Deut 22:13-21
13 ¶ If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
This last one is something of an interpretive challenge. The scriture is very clear-cut, If a man is displesed with his wife because she is not a virgin, then she is to be stoned to death.
That was then, this is now. It is no longer appropriate for a man to cry out about his wife in the way that this passage dictates.
Perhaps now we have a better way of dealing with the issue nowadays. Generally, the solution in modern times is to talk it over. Scripture does not say that the man is REQUIRED to cry out to the community.
In any case, i find it unlikely that you actually read this scripture before you cited it and then claimed it stated something. Next time you try to critcize the bible, read it first.
“Now, why haven’t you responded to the lack of problems reported in countries that do already have same-sex marriage - and have for a few years?”
I first wanted to hear your opinion on polygamy. You support its legalization, as your argument for same-sex marriage requires. And that was my point, a coherent legal argument for same-sex marriage requires the potential legalization of polygamy. There is no way around it.
Now, as to your query why same-sex marriage hasn’t brought on polygamy in countries where it (same-sex marriage) occurs…
I’m not familiar with the legal machinations of the Netherlands, are you? Whether it happens there is moot. It will occur here in the U.S. You know this, I know this, and anyone who has read Lawrence v. Texas knows this. To deny it is dishonest.
“OKAY CHILDREN… my 2 cents.”
Humble tone duly noted.
“The harmful effects of polygamy have been well documented by those women who have left that lifestyle.”
Huh? And the “harmful effects” of homosexuality have been documented be “ex-gays” also. What’s your point?
“A lot of the women in this lifestyle DID NOT CHOOSE IT, IT WAS CHOSEN FOR THEM at ages as low as 13, and forced to marry biological relatives.”
Ohh…ok. Your objection to polygamy is the forced marrying of minors.
Agreed. It is despicable.
But what about consenting adults? Why do you feel it so bad that four people, one man and three women, get together and are married? What is wrong with this?
“Show me where a homosexual union has a great number of forced, minor unions, and I would concede the point.”
Good grief woman. Homosexuals not trying to force minors into all sorts of nefarious relationships? Do you read the news? Click here.
Note that she said, “a homosexual UNION” and “a great number,” not homosexuality itself and not an isolated group of priests.
Furthermore, you might consider a source more objective than the admittedly conservative Washington Times.
According to the Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, (#12(4), pages 1-19), the majority of pedofiles are heterosexuals. In fact, M. R. Stevenson, who in 2000 conducted the most extensive survey of pedofiles in history (Titled “Public policy, homosexuality, and the sexual coercion of children”), homosexuals are LESS likley to molest children, with fewer than 1% of convicted men being homosexual. He also said, “cases of perpetration of sexual behavior with a pre-pubescent child by an adult lesbian are virtually nonexistent.”
Get some facts yourself before you lazily quote a biased source.
By the way, USA Today, a far more reputable newspaper than the Washington Times, researched the gay priest issue themselves.
Regardless, I’m sticking with the opinion of the most objective source: the medical journal quoted above.
I’m not familiar with the legal machinations of the Netherlands, are you? Whether it happens there is moot. It will occur here in the U.S. You know this, I know this, and anyone who has read Lawrence v. Texas knows this. To deny it is dishonest.
Not extensively, but I AM familiar with the Canadian legal system, and they have had none of the ramifications you claim are imminent. Even if you believe consequences in Europe are moot (seems rather xenocentric to me), Canada’s social culture is similar enough to the United States. Your claim that it WILL happen is presumptuous and arrogant. I don’t know for a fact it won’t, but I don’t believe it will, especially since our nearest and quite similar neighbor to the north did NOT experience the things you claim.
Note that she said, “a homosexual UNION” and “a great number,” not homosexuality itself and not an isolated group of priests.”
Well, a priest molesting someone is just as close to a legally valid “union” as some polygamist 40 year-old “marrying” a 14 year-old. And do you really consider 4,000 to be an “isolated group”?
“Furthermore, you might consider a source more objective than the admittedly conservative Washington Times.”
How about the admittedly liberal Bob Bennett?
There are “many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives,” Mr. Bennett said, “but … more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.”
And now for the legal argument…
I asked if you were familiar with the legal machinations of the Netherlands.
“Not extensively, but I AM familiar with the Canadian legal system”
Again, I am not talking about any other country. I am talking about the United States of America. not Canada, not the Netherlands, but the USA.
It does not matter what country you are talking about. You (in part V)and others have claimed that gay marriage will have detrimental effects on the “institute of marriage,” period. That institution of marriage exists in the Netherlands, too - before and after gay marriage. The USA is obviously not unique in heterosexual union, so why treat this country as an island of marriage? When those other countries also have the long-held tradition of heterosexual marriage, I am perfectly valid in my comparison of the effects on heterosexual marriage. I never suggested you compare legal systems - just the supposed social effects on heterosexual marriage.
Discounting Canada is even more absurd. Not only have they had a “traditional” marriage system as long as we have, but their culture as a whole is so similar to ours. It’s not like lifestyles and “society” are instantly altered the moment you cross the 49th parallel. Any detrimental effects they see would translate to the USA.
I have to say, it seems you are attempting to invalidate my points regarding our neighboring nation because you have no valid response.
Have you been to Canada???
http://www.barrychamish.com
REVENGE OF THE CFR by Barry Chamish
Here is a short list of CFR members who have shoved the Oslo/Roadmap processes down Israel’s throat, resulting in thousands of dead Israelis and Arabs in barely ten years, not to mention the total demoralization of Israel and the mass insanity of its Islamic neighbors:
Clinton, Christopher, Baker, Albright, Zinni, Powell, Rice, Kurtzer, Seigman, Bronfman, Tenet, Haass, Friedman, Stephen Cohen, Carter, Armitage, Burns, Wolfowitz, Berger, etc. etc.
Oh yes, and Pipes, but he’s pretending otherwise for the time being. That is why he spends much of his waking hours plotting to eliminate my voice. Imagine the nerve of me pointing out that he is a proud member of the little think tank that could wreck Israel and is leaving a trail of blood throughout the Middle East.
Now let us look at just how tied up he is to the CFR establishment:
**
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/mef.php
The Middle East Forum has existed since 1990, but in 1994 it became a nonprofit organization with Daniel Pipes as its director.
MEF is closely linked to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where Pipes is an adjunct scholar. Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is senior editor of MEF’s Middle East Quarterly, and the institute’s Robert Satloff and Samuel Lewis sit on the Quarterly’s editorial board, along with Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation, and Steven Plaut of the University of Haifa.
** I have thoughtfully provided a list of CFR members. Visit the site and confirm the facts. Now we all know that the Washington Institute For Near East Policy is the Martin Indyk - run monstrosity that became the locomotive for Oslo, so considering his public stance on Israel, Pipes’ chair there is suspicious enough, but let’s look at his own board:
From the 2001, Membership Roster Of The Council On Foreign Relations **
http://www.stanley2002.org/pfiles/a_f.htm
Robert B. Satloff - CFR
Samuel W. Lewis - CFR
Anthony H. Cordesman - CFR
** Continuing… **
“Virtually all 31 signatories of the MEF report, which was used to persuade Congress to introduce and pass the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act in 2003, were USCFL members, and several became high officials or advisers in the Bush foreign policy team, including Elliott Abrams, Paula Dobriansky, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser.”
Elliot Abrams - CFR
Paula J. Dobriansky - CFR
Richard Perle - CFR
Douglas J. Feith - CFR
** Now look at the final name on Pipe’s MEF board: why it’s that pesky economics teacher from Haifa! Could that mean that the big fish and little minnow are coordinating their attacks against me? And what does the little minnow get for his effort?
You can be sure, there is a reward but it’s not membership in the CFR. Searching his name
I came across one other namesake:
Peter Plaut, Managing Director and Head of European Credit Research, BANK OF AMERICA SECURITIES LTD.
He is not merely on the CFR members’ list, he is also one of its biggest donors.
http://www.cfr.org/about/pdf/ar_2003/termmember.pdf.
I tried but couldn’t prove a family tie to the minnow, But I’ll bet you there is and it’s close. But even if not, the story of Peter Plaut bears telling. Here’s who he is: **
http://www.euromoney.com/?Page=792&P=/creditresearchpoll2004/hyOVERALL
In addition, he was responsible for helping the Korean and Malaysian governments re-establish capital markets access through their highly successful global debt offerings during this difficult time. He was also credited with anticipating the debt and currency crisis in Brazil and other Latin American sovereigns in late 1998.
Mr. Plaut worked at UBS Securities Inc. from 1992 to 1994, as a U.S. and international corporate and bank credit analyst and prior to that was an associate at JP Morgan Securities, Inc.
Mr. Plaut has been in Institutional Investor ranked analyst. In June 1998, he was elected as a term member to The Council on Foreign Relations and currently serves as an active participant in issues concerning U.S. and international economic and foreign policy.
** Lucky old Pete, he gets to bail out countries after the IMF has bankrupted them. And since JP Morgan was a founder of the CFR, naturally he gets to manipulate currencies for his bank while he’s at it. But that’s not all, look who was in Singapore, Malaysia’s financial headquarters, when Pete was sorting out their World Bank debts. Why it was old Tom Plaut. And need we say that he also works for a JP Morgan affiliate?**
http://www.4-paragon.com/forex/key_executives.htm
Thomas F. Plaut
Mr. Plaut brings sixteen years of foreign exchange trading experience to F.X. Solutions. He is a former Member of Senior Management at Credit Suisse A.G. and Global Head of Proprietary Trading at Dresdner Bank A.G. While at Credit Suisse and stationed in Singapore, Mr. Plaut was in charge of all foreign exchange trading activities in the Asian region.
http://www.4-paragon.com/forex/company_profile.htm
FX Solutions currently holds client funds at JP Morgan Chase bank.
** How the Plauts diddle with the tills of nations while their peoples starve. Yes, Peter must be a very important component of the CFR’s global economics plan. But then, so is Pipes, diplomatically. Look how the CFR funnels him the money he needs to carry on. **
Funding
Between 1996 and 1998, the Middle East Forum received $130,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of the top right wing foundations. (9)
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm
Mark O’Keefe
Newhouse News Service
VALUES AND PHILANTHROPY
September 18, 2003
Foundation Excels at Fueling Conservative Agenda
Name a conservative idea — whether it’s school vouchers, faith-based initiatives or the premise that there’s a worldwide clash of civilizations — and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is apt to have its fingerprints on it.
Milwukee Journal Sentinel
April 3, 2003
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
A comprehensive new report makes clear the foundation’s import in the feeding and nurturing of the Neoconservative Movement that has led the US to war in the Middle East.
It directly ascribes the war on Iraq to the “playbook” of the neocons, a group of “mostly Republicans,” “many of whom have gotten funding from Milwaukee’s Bradley Foundation.”
A Newly Enriched Foundation Hires Chairman
Things changed dramatically in 1985, when the Allen-Bradley Company was sold to Rockwell International, a leading defense and aerospace conglomerate, for a whopping $1.651 billion. The Foundation benefited heavily from the sale, seeing its assets shoot up overnight from less than $14 million to more than $290 million, catapulting it into the ranks of the country’s largest foundations. At that point its name was changed to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, to publicly separate it from the company. Flush with new money and an understanding that they were now poised to play a more national role, foundation trustees decided it was time to hire a professional to run the organization. They found their man in New York at the John M. Olin Foundation.
** Now I flip to page 106 of my 2000 CFR Annual Report which lists foundations that offered generous grants to the CFR and right after The Norwegian Ministry Of Foreign Affairs comes, surprise, surprise The John M. Olin Foundation. I said previously that I’d prove Pipes gets his money directly or indirectly from the CFR and I just did.
Now would you trust him with YOUR country? **
end