Thursday, November 22, 2007

WWJD?

Matthew 25:37:40

'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

In the GLBT community one of the things that frustrates us is the astounding hypocrisy displayed by so called "Christian" leaders and followers. Christ was all about generosity, peace, compassion, and joy. So many people have fallen from these principles, yet still refer to themselves as followers of "The Way" as it was called in Christ's time. The cold rejection of a stranger for his differences to me sounds more like the work of something far short of God's divine plan. It's time we set the record straight (pardon the pun).

Christianity is not the ability to blindly follow. The religion teaches to be a loving, caring, compassionate contribution to society that makes the world a better place. As the living example Christ left us, Christians are to fill His shoes with their actions. So why do we find society having such trouble dealing with it's homosexual population? My personal observations lead me to conclude that there are a few bad people who understand the human dynamics of both fear and control, and they know how to use their understandings for their own benefit against those who trust them. There is an old saying I like to refer to;

God said to man, "I give you religion", to which the Devil replied, "Here, let me organize this for you".


Yes, I am no fan of organized religion, and I have found no burning desire to give up my individuality or self-expression at the direction of someone who is neither acting in my best interests nor by the true will of God.

If you can't understand the word of God is peace through reading the Bible, then put it down. Christianity did fine without it in it's early years. In fact, people were once condemned by the Church for possessing one. Open instead your heart and mind to unconditional love. I am told readily by my critics that God did not intend for all sins to be forgiven (even though God tells us so implicitly), and that some sins like homosexuality cross a line that calls for them to act harshly against their neighbor. Now we could bury this argument in a Bible quote slap fight like most arguments on this subject end up in, but let's for a moment suspend the usual prattle and go for the end game. What does this action accomplish? In no way does it spread any of the aspects of Christianity by acting this way (love, peace, joy), so how could this be God's will? The answer is simple, and you can find it in your heart; it is not His will.

Time and time again people have used God as an excuse to do terrible things, and as the age of information makes knowledge more wide spread we are able to see the scope of such actions. Where modern Christians fit into this picture remains to be seen. It is high time for the flock to lead their Church back to it's rightful path; one of peace, love, and joy through labors of love, not fear. Listen to your hearts and hear what it says when you walk past a man on the corner who is down on his luck. Does it tell you to fear him? Does it tell you not to trust him, or not to help him? Do you think these feelings come from God? When the Good Samaritan came across the injured man in his path, he thought not of himself, but rather the the stranger.

The ironic thing for me about all this is that the foundations of Christianity can make for a wonderful society WHEN ACTUALLY PRACTICED. The idea of living with love in your heart works for anyone regardless of their religious beliefs. There is nothing supernatural needed to be as kind to your neighbor as you would want them to be to you. There is nothing mysterious about the wisdom of finding previously overlooked flaws in how we live, and desiring to change those flaws for the betterment of all. Our country is founded on the idea that we can be as equals, and although we may be vastly different we can all live in peaceful harmony with mutual respect.

You get the respect you give, and therein lies part of the problem. Use your brains and think for yourselves. People should not be judged by things they have no control over, like their sex, the color of their skin, or their sexual orientation. Yet for some reason people are having the darnedest time understanding right from wrong because of those who would capitalize on someone else's suffering. Does that sound like something you want to be a part of, creating suffering for someone you've never met? Do you have all the understanding and compassion of an IRS auditor? No, most people are simply skimming over the facts on this issue, and have never really brought home the true impact of their actions and inaction.

It is in the spirit of unconditional love that I keep my efforts alive to reach out to those who have lost their way from that path. My life is filled with love and joy, and all I want for my neighbors is to feel that same way, and I don't mind going out of my way to help them reach this goal. That's not to say it is easy, nor that the effort to be graceful is always successful. We are human, and we need to first forgive ourselves of our own short-comings, then forgive others as we would want to be forgiven. I see those who would turn their backs on someone they consider a sinner to be as much a sinner as those they accuse. Judgmental people need to be saved from themselves.

In my opinion, the fight for equality has already been won through the next generation. In their eyes I see the wisdom needed to separate the wheat from the chafe when it comes to what values that will remain instilled. Values will stand on their own merit, or not at all. We will see an end to widespread thinking along the lines of "All black people are "_______", or "All gay people are "______". Instead, they will judge people by their actions and intents, which is the way of the just. The war against all forms of unjust discrimination will be ended by those who walk the Earth today. My new goal is the attempt to reach the lost ones, and bring them back to the Shepherd.

"...preaching love and peace, yet practicing hatred and violence, claiming fidelity to the Constitution, yet systematically abrogating the rights of other citizens. Their record seems one of moral bankruptcy and staggering hypocrisy." -Congressional report on the KKK circa 1973


In 1987 Mobile Alabama, while before the judge and jury, Tiger Noles begged the grieving mother of Micheal Donald to forgive him for his hate. The old woman stared silently at the young white man who had killed her son in a violent and torturous way, rocking back and forth in her seat gently until she spoke. "I already have" was all she said. That loving act produced a ripple effect of good will that radiated out from the ugliness of evil, and there was not a dry eye in that courtroom according the the testimony. Of all places, it was a Southern jury that awarded Mrs. Donald more than seven million dollars at the expense of the KKK, taking the legs out from under the most powerful form of organized hate in America.

The principle of using fear and hatred to control others will never fade, so we have to be vigilant to recognize hate when we see it, no matter what form it comes in. For those of you who will never be convinced that LGBT people can be a healthy and productive part of society because it goes against the Bible, I say stick to the basics first, and learn to live with peace, love, and joy in your own hearts before you come to take the splinter out of my eye. You also might want to consider the ramifications God gave you for being wilfully negligent in your duties to spread His true will;

Matthew 25

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'


Where the effort in my opinion has been sorely lacking, I hope that more than a few of you out there start asking yourself what your Christian responsibility is to spread peace, love, joy, and compassion to those whom with you disagree.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Ghandi


It is by the love of our parents and God almighty we are born into this world, and it is through love that the devisive issues put before us are solved. Love conquers all, and it is about time that people start spreading it more readily.

57 comments:

John said...

I wouldn't have the balls to try to add anything of value to this outstanding post.

On Lawn said...

John,

Thanks for the religious message.

I ask you to think about this very carefully and answer after deliberation on the pure message of charity that you offer...

I really want you to take more careful consideration of the message you wrote for yourself, and lets make peace from it.

I have more on this at Opine..

Chairm said...

That blogpost is not an appeal for mutual respect.

It is, however, yet another example of the sort of identity politics that produced the very hypocrisy which you, John Hosty, have just claimed to stand against.

In your remarks you have namecalled and sneered and misrepresented. But let's put that aside.

If you would hope to engender mutual respect, then, put aside the emotivism, if you can, of gay identity politics. Add something of value to your invitation.

You left a comment with your link to this blogpost, over at Opine, after making a series of comments there. So I am here and I am not the KKK nor the hateful bigot you might imagine. I assume you can rise above your own prejudices, since you just issued an invitation of the kind to those with whom you disagree.

Let's stick to the knitting. What is the nature of the type of relationship you want society to add to waht is called "marriage"?

What are the definitive characteristics of that type of relationship?

And on that basis, then distinguish the conjugal relationship from other types of relationships.

John Hosty said...

On Lawn, your comment is a little too nebulous for me to understand.

Chairm, I'll be glad to talk to you, but remember to be as respectful to me as you would like me to be to you. This forum is not a free-for-all where you can throw about caustic rhetoric with wild abandon. Don't personalize the message unless you find my accusations to be true about yourself.

You have some criticizm of what I wrote, so why not be specific with what you have issues with and we can go from there.

In the past we have not made an issue of who wants to get married. We allowed people to decide for themselves what was best.

Chairm, you said:

"Let's stick to the knitting. What is the nature of the type of relationship you want society to add to waht is called "marriage"?

I don't see marriage equality as effecting what other people believe or practice as marriage, and I don't see it as an addition to marriage. I offered my life for discussion in order to give you the opportunity to show me how my life choices have directly effected others on Opine Ed. Purhaps you can use this opportunity to show me what dangerous actions I should avoid?

I ask as a respectful neighbor that cares enough to ask, yet is unsure of the factual accuracies behind people's fears.

On Lawn said...

Nebulous, Hum?

I don't know how to help you understand it better. You followed the link, right?

There are very specific questions included in that link. Very specific recognition that the next step seems to both come to the table and bring peace and closure to the debate. You know what to do...

You are invited to be a participant in the message you brought here. I welcome your dialog.

John Hosty said...

I'm embarrassed to say that I did not follow the link at first. Chalk it up to being overworked? ;)

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

I just read Opine's steaming pile of horsehit and I can honestly say I have never heard of stupider bunch of son of bitches than those populate that hate site.

On Lawn said...

Well, Mr Hosty.

What can I say. Comments like John's are too be expected, I'm not going to pretend there still isn't quite a ways to go.

Thats okay, it is too be expected. This has been a culture war for quite some time now. Harsh feelings can be hard to set aside sometimes.

But we will move forward, I hope. I await your reply.

John Hosty said...

There are a lot of hard feelings, and the road to healing is long. However, no matter how long or short a journey is, it is always started by making a first step.

I have sent you a reply to all your questions on your website.

John said...

I'll make only one more comment on this thread.

After reading John Hosty-Grinnell's response to On Lawn and On Lawn and Renee's comments, my mind is reeling.

I am so thoroughly disgusted by the hateful comments that I have to wonder whether JHG deserves a medal for putting up with likes of you disgusting pigs, or whether he would benefit from some time in a padded cell.

John Hosty said...

John, what gets me is how often we talk AT each other and not WITH each other. Renee is all about children and a man's responsibility to women and children. I think she forgets that some people (even straight) can't or don't want to have children. Trying to get her to move off of her comfort zone to talk about other matters is almost as impossible as trying to get John Howard to talk about anything besides Eggs&Sperm.

In the end it may be an act of futility, but someone has to at least try. Perhaps if I keep talking someone over there will wonder why it is that they don't have any solutions to the needs of their neighbors.

On Lawn said...

John Hosty,

Just a quick question. Have you shown John Howard the respect to consider his concern? At Opine we given him guests posts at his will so he can express his concerns with us and we can consider them. I share much of John Howards concern.

Have you shown Renee respect? Renee is a very wonderful addition to Opine, and she brings a very motherly view (in a good motherly way) to put a white hot spotlight on the power that marriage and procreation has in society. Her evidence is found weekly in scientific studies and their releases. Her evidence is found in the commentary of people who have found for themselves the importance of being a father and mother, and grown children who more instinctively know that importance.

If anyone sets down a logical, clear case, It's Renee. It is an erudite case, a brilliant and consistent case.

I will lodge a complaint that coming back here to do some backbiting is a less effective way of handling her concerns. I would suggest, instead, you try showing her mutual respect?

John said...

John H., talking to opines is less effective than talking to a bag of cement.

These are the stupidest people on the planet.

That don't even know what most simple English words mean.

Chairm said...

John Hosty, you presumed that you know what marriage is. I asked you to explain, and you dodged.

It is apparent that you disagree with the universal man-woman criterion of marriage.

You'd take your disagreement and turn it into an attempt to equate Opiners (and others with whom you disagree on SSM) with the KKK.

Was that not your intended meaning? It certainly makes a mockery of your call for peace when you insult and dodge the central issue.

* * *

What is your association with KnowTheyNeighbor?

Chairm said...

And to John: what does the word, marriage, mean?

John Hosty said...

On Lawn, you've been heard.

Chairm, I presume to know what my marriage is. Relationships are like fingerprints; no two are the same. This thread is in no way about Opine Ed, it is about our responsibility to each other as citizens and neighbors. My focus on the KKK is to show how terrible things can be if we are not careful.

Since you asked, let's get a definition of marriage going:

Merriam-Webster's dictionary

mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage) b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union (the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross)

John said...

"John Hosty, you presumed that you know what marriage is. I asked you to explain, and you dodged.

It is apparent that you disagree with the universal man-woman criterion of marriage"

I also know what marriage is, and obviously, I disagree with your stupid half-assed Neanderthal thinking.

As to Renee, she simply is too stupid to bother with.

John Hosty said...

With all due respect Chairm, I'll decide what is appropriate on this website. If you wish to continue here please remember that.

Chairm said...

Well, John Hosty, I did indeed assume that you decided what is an is not appropriate, in light of your blogpost in which you called for mutual respect.

I did not ask you to take any other action regarding John or anyone else. You have stated your intent and I asked a question about John's remarks, in that same context.

John Hosty, do you commend John for his comments under your blogpost about mutual respect?

You may presume to know much about your relationship, of course, but you have not answered the question as asked.

So you now point to a recent addition to that dictionary's entry for marriage.

Even that dictionary provides the first entry and then compares the second as "like" marriage.

Also, in effect, you provided, at most, a nod to the SSM campaign's attempt at redefinition.

Even Justice Marshall knew that marriage was not SSM and that she had to replace the definition to achieve your predrawn conclusion.

In any case, your comment above failed to answer the question as asked.

To wit: What is the nature of the type of relationship you want society to add to what is called "marriage"?

And in direct connection: What are the definitive characteristics of that type of relationship?

Draw the boundary around it and explain the basis for eligibility so that folks can assess and compare against relationship types that your opinion would exclude.

John said...

"John Hosty, do you commend John for his comments under your blogpost about mutual respect?

No, he called me a belligerent son of a bitch.

John Hosty said...

John is an equal on this website, and I will not attempt to moderate his comments. If you have an issue with John, talk directly to him, not through me. All I ask is for you to remember you are a guest, just like you reminded me on your blog. That being said, let us sort a few things out.

Elevating the level of rights given to one group in no way diminishes or even changes the rights of another group. Example:

You have a driver's license. When I get my driver's license, does it diminish your ability to drive? Does it inconvenience you in any way? Certainly not.

The great thing about logic is that it is transferable. If the concept is based in truth we should be able to transpose the philosophy into another example and have in remain true. Example:

Good manners are their own reward.

There is no exception to this rule, it holds true always.

I can guarrantee that we can both come up with examples of who should and should not be married from both heteosexual and GLBT people. I would never presume to say that ALL heterosexual people should not get married, that would be too discriminatory. People are defined by their actions. Example:

A man who drinks away his paycheck and beats his girlfriend/boyfriend should not consider marriage.

On the other hand a child psychologist might very well be a great person to get married and raise children, be they gay or not. Or they could simply marry out of love and be there for each other when they get old.

When I continue to ask what troubles people see in the GLBT community that makes them say unilaterally none of us are worthy, this is an example of the specifics I am looking for.

We really are still at square one, identify the problem.

Jane Know said...

John Hosty,
thank you so much for this wonderful article. I've been waiting and looking for someone to write on just this topic, and you captured it perfectly.

you say, "Where the effort in my opinion has been sorely lacking, I hope that more than a few of you out there start asking yourself what your Christian responsibility is to spread peace, love, joy, and compassion to those whom with you disagree."

I agree completely. It's scary when religion is misused to hurt certain groups of people, as is done with the AFA and Watchmen on the Walls. Nothing of those groups speaks of loving thy neighbor. Nothing. The only things they "preach" is to hate.

Keep up the great work.

John Hosty said...

Thanks for the kind words Jane. We live in a world where hypocrisy rules, and it is so out of control it is getting insane.

If people want to say they are following the path of peace, love, and joy, let them walk the talk.

I don't know if you have been following the thread over at Opine, but it is worth a read. I am trying to get down to the basics, but it seems that rhetoric seems to keep getting in the way. We have had diversion after diversion instead of meaningful dialog. I'm not about to give up on them though. God tells us to have patience with sinners, and He does not tell us we can give up on the ones we have issues with. ;)

On Lawn said...

Mr Hosty,

You are asking a lot for charity, and I can see why. For to call what you are doing at Opine, "getting to the basics" would be not only charitable, but naive.

You have a current question as to whether homosexuals have been oppressed. I expect that is the basics you refer. But you have neglected, and even demeaned the concerns others have had. Even here you call concerns about children's rights, and the concerns of others who are in committed loving relationships outside of the GLBT as distractions.

Do you really think that is a charitable outlook? It looks, now you can correct me, that you are risking a rather selfish focus. The basics of "me-me-me". Even in this article you call for charity, not to be extended to others but just your own self (and others who might identify with you).

You have offered no correction of John's heinous remarks, though they are no doubt warranted in a push for mutual respect.

Chairm said...

John Hosty, I still ask if you commend John's comments.

I am not interested in discussion with John, who has add zero substance to the discussion.

You blogged a plea for mutual respect. Is John's example something you commend as exemplifying what you hoped to achieve? This is relevant to the purpose of your blogpost, surely.

In answer to the question about boundaries, and relationship types, you neglected to set a boundary around "marriage" such that "marriage" can be identified.

You still haven't stated the problem that you think the SSM reform would solve.

It is not this or that relationship that is at issue, John, but a relationship type, at law, which you seem very reluctant to clarify.

John Howard said...

JHG, Opine is on your side. Their "defense of marriage" is a charade, an act. Their only mission is to absorb all your blows and stifle the debate rom the likes of me, until genetic engineering slides into homeplate and scores the winning run. They're toying with us both.

They think you and ray should have conception rights, even as they insult and degrade your relationship and insist that you shouldn't have equal protections. They aren't just stupid and bigoted, they are stupid, evil, and using you for their own political eugenic purposes. Please don't work with such evil people by supporting their goals, please tell then that you only want equal protections for your relationship, including federal recognition and 50-state recognition, and you are offended by them telling you to be their guinea pigs for them to sneak their Nazi eugenic government takeover of reproduction onto the world. Please respect natural conception and our shared mother-father progenation.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

On Lawn, I am not going to spend my time defending myself from imaginary wrongs that you wish to divert people's attention to. If you have something constructive to say, bring it to the table. I also do not answer for John, you can talk to him directly.

On Lawn said...

Mr Hosty,

Perhaps you can point to what you feel has been imagined. Lets move forward with specifics, and not arrogantly generalized dismissals.

As for John, I am dismayed that in your outward reach to correct people who are lacking charity and understanding, you have neglected John. You have no need to answer for him, no one is asking you to. But I do expect better of you, after all you have appealed to charity and love conquering all. Do you feel John would not benefit from such a message, considering the acrid and hateful remarks he has made here?

You are on a good message to spread love and understanding. Don't neglect your fellows at this site.

John said...

Those of us who were raised in moderate Christian traditions, don't often reflect upon the dark side of our faith.

The majority of people with whom I work are Buddhists ,and I find it shocking to hear them sometimes recoil in horror at the very mention of Jesus' name.

But this is not Jesus' fault.

It is the fault of his followers that his message is lost.

John said...

"Do you feel John would not benefit from such a message, considering the acrid and hateful remarks he has made here?"

I suppose it is true that I would benefit from John Hosty-Grinnell's message of love and tolerance.

John Hosty-Grinnell is simply a better man than I am; I fully concede that point.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Chairm, marriage equality solves the problem of inequality. GLBT people should be able to marry if they so choose, just like any other happy couple. The union gives the participants many important rights.

I was at a meeting in Beverly Farms, MA where a woman from New Hampshire was saying that she lost her house and most of her belongings to the family of her deceased partner. Although she had paid equaly for their possesions the couple had not thought about what might happen in the end, and they had no legal protection on their side.

I myself am a recovering cancer survivor who is still battling some issues, and I used to have to say that Ray was my brother in order to get him in to see me.

I think we can agree that no one's best interest were served by allowing either instance to occur.

John said...

The main reason why I can't maintain civility with the likes of the Opiners is that I feel stupid just contemplating their ignorance.

I can honestly say I have never heard a bigger pile of horseshit that that which comes from the Opiners.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

John, I hate to do this, but I have to ask you to tone it down. If we only throw insults at each other there will be no progress. Please keep the comments constructive if you post any more.

I have never seen you like this, I expect you have your reasons, but for the sake of this exercise I am asking for your co-operation.

John said...

I will defer to your judgment and shut up.

And after your "civil discussion" drives you to the loony bin, I'll come to visit.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

On Lawn, here is your first question:

Why do you think that society is irreparably ruined if gay people are allowed to marry each other?

On Lawn said...

Good question. But wouldnt you first want to find out what I think will happen if "gay people are allowed to marry each other"?

Then you can ask why I think that will happen. Deal?

Ryan Charisma said...

Oh, that's easy.

It's not.

Fannie said...

Great article John Hosty. It is amazing to me that some would characterize your plea for treating each other kindly as "selfish."

And secondly, that On Lawn would say this about Renee's ramblings says much to me:

"If anyone sets down a logical, clear case, It's Renee. It is an erudite case, a brilliant and consistent case."

Renee's postings consist largely of her linking to other peoples' articles and studies with no commentary or analysis of her own. When she does provide commentary her arguments pretty much all boil down to "man + woman + 'coitus' = baby" and much of her commentary is really weird bits of personal information that do not follow or add to her main point.

Yes, she's a mother and she's speaking from that perspective. We ALL get it. Neat. Looks to me like "identity politics" or at least that she (and others) are using her status as "mother" to try to lend more validity to their anti-gay positions. Renee, in other words, is the token conservative mother voice.

I'm not intending my comment here to be an attack on Renee and, indeed, I sometimes I agree with the points she is making. I just think it's pretty clear to many people that Renee does not exemplify many of the characteristics that On Lawn says she does. Knowing that On Lawn believes those things about her, or is trying to convince others of these things, really reduces his own credibility. It reduces his credibility as a judge of reason, logic, and possibly honesty.

As for the "mutual respect" that On Lawn asks for. Sure, I respect them as human beings, but I will not respect the celebration of faulty logic.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

On Lawn, you are free to post what you will, answer what you will, etc...

Do me one favor though. Stop telling people I am withholding your comments when all it is only that I haven't had time to read and approve the message. Not once have I blocked your comments here, yet every time I take more than a couple of hours to get to it I see accusations flying over on your own site.

I await what you have to say next.

John said...

"But wouldnt you first want to find out what I think will happen if "gay people are allowed to marry each other"?"

Those of us who care about equality care little for what hypothetical ramifications there might be.

It is simply not possible for any bad to come from equality, but even if equality could somehow cause something undesirable to happen, I don't care.

Those of us who believe in Freedom understand that "society" is always best serve by individuals all pursuing their own best interest.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

What I think I have learned from the Opiners basically comes down to this:

1. They don't like gay marriage because it changes their image of what marriage should be.

2. They are not concerned for the needs GLBT people.

3. They want to make sure that their offspring don't have any distractions from what they find sacred or of value.


This smacks of hypocrisy when I read then saying that WE are the selfish ones.

On Lawn said...

Thanks John for releasing it from the queue. I will offer an addendum to the posts on Opine when I am available to post and review the discussion there.

Fannie,

Renee is a great addition. Her case is not only logical, but succinct. It is born out in how consistently it shines over a great breadth of material and resources quoted. She is much, much more than a "token mother". I am happy that you do appreciate her message to some degree. I think as you continue to review it, its importance will become more obvious. It is like sunlight, it is so obvious and so consistent that sometimes forget just how important it really is.

What I feel Renee really wants is for people to understand themselves, who they are. She wants people to understand who women are, and who mothers are. And what men can do for them. I can see nothing more pivotal, consistent, and obvious -- except maybe the sun -- in warming our lives than a mother who understands herself and her motherhood.

We all have mothers. We all want our mothers to be in many ways super-heros, and in other ways we just want them to be happy. In many ways they are super-heros (I remember Bill Cosby routine to that effect), and in many ways they are happy. I believe that is the part of her message you understand, and I appreciate that.

I bet you would make a good mother too. I see your desire to help people understand things, in your profession you seek conflict resolution. Those are crucial mothering skills. Any child would be happy to have a mother like that, but I dont mean to patronize. I just wish show the value we all have in appreciating the message Renee shares with us. And I believe you when you say you do appreciate it.

On Lawn said...

Mr Hosty, some corrections. You are close, and I only offer simple but key items.

1. We do not want marriage to be moved from its stance on equality -- equal gender representation. Because socially, and specifically, it has value which is compelling to the state interests for social welfare and concern. It would be the equivalent of saying that school integration is really oppressive to white supremacists, and that real equality would be to allow white supremacists to have their own publicly funded school. The problem is not so much that they want to have their own school, but that they want to re-define what equality is away from the basis that was so hard fought for by the civil rights movement. To re-define marriage equality to mean something other than respect for the hard fought fight of equal gender participation in marriage, is throwing away something of great social value.

I also agree with many commenters, like Michael at Opine, who say that your views of marriage will not impact mine. But if it convinces one person that equal-gender participation is evil, oppressive, and bigoted, then it has done damage for that individual.

2) If you mean that because we consider the mutual needs of all involved with marriage we do not submit to every GLBT demand, and that is not being concerned at all, then I cannot help you. That is a rather totalitarian approach that is not a path to peace. Imagine if Israel, or Palestine suggested their way to peace was complete submission and removal of the others nation. Nothing less totalitarian would be accepted as anything but inconsiderate and not caring *at all*.

3. I am not concerned about the children who are being raised in homes with the strong marriage ideals of equal gender representation and procreation responsibility. Statistics show they do rather well, even with all the distractions.

John Howard said...

I can honestly say I have never heard a bigger pile of horseshit that that which comes from the Opiners.

That's their mission. I'm telling you guys, they aren't what they claim to be, they're eugenicists, using you even as they insult you. They are just trying to waste our time by tying us up in fruitless arguments. Their trying to shape the debate so that genetic engineering arrives without anyone noticing. Horseshit is their stock in trade.

Jane Know said...

Yet the more they try to waste our time, the better we get at shaping our own arguments.

I think John Hosty-Grinnell and Fannie have both had some outstanding recent articles on same-sex marriage and related issues, for example.

The more they push their same, tired, old recycled arguments, the more ammo we keep coming up with.

But...perhaps I am missing the point about genetic engineering, though.

Fannie said...

On Lawn,

My interpretation of Renee's posts is largely different than yours. That's okay. Agree to disagree.

The real issue is your constant equivocation of the word "equal." You have defined the word "equal" to mean "equal gender representation" in marriage
which subsequently means an "equal" marriage consists of one man and one woman. You then go on to say that gay rights advocates are against "equality" and then liken us to white supremacists who were against racial integration.

This analysis is faulty on at least the following count:

For one, gay rights advocates aren't "against" equal gender representation in marriage. Like you, we see the value that 1 man and 1 woman can bring to marriage. Yet we also see the value that two loving people of the same-sex can bring to a marriage. I don't see many people claiming that "equal gender representation" in marriage is "evil, bigoted, etc" as you suggest. I do, however, see people claiming that those who believe that equal gender representation in marriage is the only suitable marriage are bigots.

And secondly, your analogy to school segregation does not stand. Same-sex couples are not seeking to create a separate marital institution. We are seeking entry to the institution that already exists. The only attempted marital "segregation" I see occurring is when some on "your" side say that marriage is only for heterosexuals and civil unions are for gay people. Separate but equal, you know.

Let's tighten up the arguments and word usage here and acknowledge the reality that you and we (meaning gay rights advocates) are using the word "equality" in two different ways. Your usage, as I have outlined above. And "our" usage, "equal" meaning equal access to marriage for heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Thinking about the word "equality" and the two ways it is being used in this debate, aren't both sides both for and against "equality"?


As for your claims about children being raised in homes with "the strong marriage ideals of equal gender representation" I will never accept that that quality alone is a good enough justification for the premise that "1 man and 1 woman" automatically make better parents than same-sex couples just because there is equal gender representation. Gender is one part of who we are as people, and being a good parent has more to do with other characteristics (major ones being sanity, maturity, and financial responsibility) than it does with gender alone.

On Lawn said...

Jane,

The more they push their same, tired, old recycled arguments, the more ammo we keep coming up with.

While I'm dismayed at the adversarial tone of that comment, I have to say I applaud that you are learning and living and hopefully loving better because of this discussion.

Between you and me, they could use some more sharpening too ;)

Fannie,

The real issue is your constant equivocation of the word "equal." You have defined the word "equal" to mean "equal gender representation" in marriage which subsequently means an "equal" marriage consists of one man and one woman.

Perhaps I have a different word for that. To me an equivocation is where you play on difference definitions of a word. But here the word "equal" whether to mean equal gender representation, or representation from homosexual couples, is the same definition. The difference is the context, either equality of gender or in your case equality of sexual orientation.

Thought experiment, what kind of marriage would be able to claim both equality of gender and sexual orientation at the same time?

You then go on to say that gay rights advocates are against "equality" and then liken us to white supremacists who were against racial integration.

Not true, they were for racial integration for everyone else but them. For instance in the Loving decision, it was noted that only whites were not to be married to blacks, but other racial mixtures were allowed.

But I do not say that homosexuals suffer from gender superiority, I actually offer no support or theory behind any claim such as to explain why they cannot integrate with someone of the opposite sex in any meaningfully marital way.

The comparison is basic though, they are both segregationists. For these purposes a segregationist is anyone who wants to separate themselves from people who are not like them in a particular quality. For whatever reason.

Besides, Mr Hosty brought out the KKK in his article and I am not afraid of his attempted associations. I know I'm no KKK member. I don't think you are a white supremacist either.

For one, gay rights advocates aren't "against" equal gender representation in marriage.

Mr Hosty balked that Renee was trying to inject women and children into his marriage. He sounds very much against equal gender representation in his chosen relationship.

But to your more general point, I never said they were against others having equal gender representation. Not once, no where. But what is happening is that they are removing recognition of the value that equal gender representation has in marriage at the government level. By removing the expectation of equal gender representation in marriage. Do you disagree with that statement, perchance?


We are seeking entry to the institution that already exists.

I whole heartedly agree with your call for truth. Lets look at the truth here. Marriage requiring a man and a woman means that you need to be a man or a woman to enter. Are gays neither man nor women? No. So it is untrue to say they are gaining entry.

Can gays get married now? I know of gay marriages back in the '70's maybe before that. No change in law was required. Yet it wasn't until the Goodridge decision that we really mark same-sex marriage adoption in the US. That is because, underwritten in the statement same-sex marriage is recognition by the state. And as Goodridge noted, that required re-writing what marriage was and what it was about.

I have no problem with admitting gays in marriage, that has happened all through the ages either in private interpretation or in their ability to love honor and cherish someone of the other gender. What is re-written, however, goes against basic humanitarian concerns for equal gender representation and responsible procreation. Goodridge looked at the fact that men and women create babies, and saw a divisive argument tantamount to white supremacy. Thats just wrong.

I do, however, see people claiming that those who believe that equal gender representation in marriage is the only suitable marriage are bigots.

Which, oddly enough, brings up more similarities with the arguments that white supremacists lobbied against school integration.

Why couldn't they have a publicly supported whites-only school, even if every other school was integrated? Mississippi had such schools until the 1980s, IIRC.

I do resist, and I hope you can too, the inference that segregation is the new integration. I support freedom of association, and probably more than you do because I see the need for government support to situations well beyond the GLBT affiliations. But marriage is an institution of integration, probably the oldest on the planet. Marriage equality is something to fight for because men and women deserve to be equal in marriage, and their children have a right to them committing to love honor and cherish each other for their own safety and well being.

The greatest harm done in same-sex marriage is probably done within the couple itself, in that they will probably never know the real joy of marriage. The ability to unite with someone, and the children who become the literal incarnations of your love and devotion for someone of the other sex. The overcoming of differences, the supporting each others weakness and vulnerability. Sure these things can be had to some degree in many other relationships, but in its entirety it can be found no other way.

Next in harm goes to the child who is robbed of a mother or father due to the prejudice of the heads of the household. And after that to the people who believe the unfortunate rhetoric offered by so many, that their children don't care if they leave them as long as anyone loves them, or that gender equality has no unique value to society and that household as a whole.

Its not so much that one man and one woman automatically make better parents. But that when the two genders unite to love honor and cherish each other, they do become the parents that those children need. They are the parents best suited through the identity they all share, to show the value of their identity and the value of their relationship. They aren't automatically great parents, but they will be if they do love and honor and cherish each other. They don't automatically know great parenting skills, but they will be in the best position to use them as they are able to tell the children they had the first chance to take care of them, and they loved them and would never part with them for anything.

How is that message, oh whats the phrase to use, metaphorically lynching gays? How is that affirmation and the recognition of it specifically by government, oppressive to homosexuals? Like I said, no one ever enters a homosexual relationship to have these things. The expectation isn't there. Its like saying Lawyers are oppressed because for their (in many cases) equal years of study they don't get Doctors degrees.

John said...

Fannie, paraphrasing On Lawn says:

"The real issue is your constant equivocation of the word "equal." You have defined the word "equal" to mean "equal gender representation" in marriage
which subsequently means an "equal" marriage consists of one man and one woman. You then go on to say "that gay rights advocates are against "equality" and then liken us to white supremacists who were against racial integration."

Fanny then concludes:

"This analysis is faulty on at least the following count:"

Fannie is way too nice a person.

The analogy is not so much faulty as it is utter horeshit.

Every reasonable person knows full well what marriage equality means. In fact, most us of here have a fair command of Standard English.

I don't not appreciate having our clear concise statements and demands deliberately misconstrued for propaganda value.

John said...

"The greatest harm done in same-sex marriage is probably done within the couple itself, in that they will probably never know the real joy of marriage"

That may well be the most ignorant statement on this thread.

I realize that, as a straight man, I am talking out of school, but give me a break.

The real joy of marriage is having children? And if you don't have kids, there is no real joy?

The mind reels.

Fannie said...

On Lawn says:

"The greatest harm done in same-sex marriage is probably done within the couple itself, in that they will probably never know the real joy of marriage. The ability to unite with someone, and the children who become the literal incarnations of your love and devotion for someone of the other sex. The overcoming of differences, the supporting each others weakness and vulnerability. Sure these things can be had to some degree in many other relationships, but in its entirety it can be found no other way.

Next in harm goes to the child who is robbed of a mother or father due to the prejudice of the heads of the household. And after that to the people who believe the unfortunate rhetoric offered by so many, that their children don't care if they leave them as long as anyone loves them, or that gender equality has no unique value to society and that household as a whole."


That you believe these things presents how utterly drastically different our two worldviews are.

It's unfortunate that you believe same-sex couples "probably" do not experience the real joy of marriage- which from everything that follows your statement- is caused by producing children from esach of your own loins. (Do married heterosexuals who do not have children never experience the real joy of marriage?). The rest of that paragraph is a vague, entirely subjective, statement that is your opinion and could probably never be supported by evidence. How can you prove that the real joys of marriage cannot be found "in its entirety" in any way other than a male-female marriage? And what does that even mean, "in its entirety"?

Secondly, it is unfortunate that you use inflammatory phrases like "child who is robbed of a mother and father" when you could simply say "a child grow up without a mother or a father." Your use of the passive voice to imply that gay people are out there robbing children or robbing mothers and fathers says a lot about how you view gay people.

As you then go on to passively say that children are robbed of a mother and father "due to the prejudice" of "the heads of household"- meaning of course, gay people. To be accurate and fair you do better to say "sexual orientation" instead of "prejudice." Last time I checked "prejudice" meant a preconceived judgment or opinion, or an irrational hostility directed against a group. Are you characterizing gay people as having irrational hostility against members of the opposite sex because we do not want to marry those of the opposite sex? Is that how you define "irrational"?

Your use of these inflammatory words and passive-aggressive tactics reveal your feelings about gay people that lie beneath the suface of your "nice-guy" demeanor.

Jane Know said...

Yeah, that is actually a very ignorant comment. Did On Lawn say that? I usually expect more from him in THAT regard.

"Like I said, no one ever enters a homosexual relationship to have these things. The expectation isn't there. Its like saying Lawyers are oppressed because for their (in many cases) equal years of study they don't get Doctors degrees."

Not true. People enter into same-sex relationships for the exact same reasons as heterosexual relationships. Oh, and heterosexuals don't have to study and train to get married. They just get to get married because they happen to be attracted to the opposite sex. Your "doctor/lawyer" analogy holds no weight. People can't help being gay or straight, and they can't help who they fall in love with. Not so with a profession. Lucky you for being heterosexual and having the privilege and legal benefits of marriage with the one you love. But do me a favor and think about your neighbor. It's called empathy. Your lack of it is frightening.

Molly said...

on lawn, you said, "Like I said, no one ever enters a homosexual relationship to have these things."

"These things" is unclear to me. Are you saying that nobody enters a homosexual relationship to form a lifelong partnership with someone they love? That gay people don't want to get married and raise children? Because if so, I can assure you, that's patently untrue. I can name several gay couples I know personally who are married and either have or are preparing to have children and who chose their partners in part because the partner shared a similar life vision.

Sure, not every gay person wants the heteronormativity of marriage and kids, but neither do lots of straight people.

The idea that the only joy in marriage is found through children also leaves out those straight folks who either don't want or cannot have children. Are you going to tell them that their marriage doesn't really count for much, since they haven't had kids?

You asked, "Thought experiment, what kind of marriage would be able to claim both equality of gender and sexual orientation at the same time?"

One bisexual male bisexual and one bisexual female. There ya go.

There's a lot of talk about how important equal gender representation is to marriage and to kids. Here's a thought experiment for you:

Person A and Person B are married, no kids.

Person A works a full-time job, brings home a regular paycheck, handles the car and the odd jobs around the house, does most of the cooking and a few cleaning duties, can tell you how things work and why, works out regularly, prefers to read non-fiction, interacts well with any age children on their level.

Person B works as a freelance educator and performer, brings home sporadic paychecks, does most of the cleaning, disposes of the dead mice the cats sometimes show up with, thinks most things work by magic, prefers to read just about anything, is anxious around any small human that can't talk to express its needs.

What gender is each person?

Fannie said...

I find it extremely interesting that Opine Editorials have now closed comments on 3 articles today alone.

Yet they accuse John Hosty of "censhorship" (when he wasn't even censoring them).

They are ALWAYS the first to cry foul when other people supposedly "censor" "moderate" or "delete" their comments.

John Howard said...

But...perhaps I am missing the point about genetic engineering, though.

They're not opposed to genetic engineering children for same-sex couples at Opine. They also don't think that marriages should be guaranteed the right to attempt to conceive using their own gametes. But for some reason they oppose civil unions and equal protections for same-sex couples, mainly I think just to have something to argue about, so that everyone thinks that the anti-gay-marriage argument is just about a bunch of bigoted idiots making fools of themselves.iffkqn

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

I find it extremely interesting that Opine Editorials have now closed comments on 3 articles today alone.

Everybody needs a little time away
I've heard her say
From each other

Even bloggers need a holiday
Far away from each other

Those threads are re-opened as promised.

Yet they accuse John Hosty of "censhorship" (when he wasn't even censoring them).

Correction, I warn John against the dangers of censorship. We've warned you too, but I have to hand it to Mr Hosty, he has listened. You should listen too ... :)

From here on in this post, I just answer the questions not the accusations, animosity, and allegations(tm) emanating from the hidden, hateful, harmful(tm) attitudes of people I won't name in this thread.

Oh wait, I forgot which side I was on. I take that all back, and will humbly move on in the conversation then since I am on this side of the debate without the j'accuse side show. In all seriousness, I think it will save you about 10-40% in keystrokes and improve the quality of your posts. Just saying...

How can you prove that the real joys of marriage cannot be found "in its entirety" in any way other than a male-female marriage? And what does that even mean, "in its entirety"?

The real joy of marriage was described poetically by my friend who was proposing (for the fourth time) to his future wife...

"When I'm holding hands with our child, I want you to be the one holding the other hand".

It comes from loving, honoring, and cherishing not only the relationship you have but the children who are incarnations of your relationship. It means because you respect them, you respect the mother or father of those children, and help them be the mother or father those children need.

There is no incarnation of a same-sex relationship (unless maybe if you count the rather morbid homosexual cults spreading diseases as a strange sort of gift to each other, but I don't count that). They know they are simply missing out, and the children they raise know it. I'm all for helping them make the best of the situation with support and benefits, but I don't think tearing down marriage will fill that void. And a strong marriage ideal will help that void from forming for more people.

However, as I said many elements of these relationships can still be had. Unfortunately only through breaking off from the former, but there are situations where that has happened and needs repairing as best as someone can. And if you think about it, helping repair the fractures caused by breaking those bonds has its own joy.

But that does bring up another danger of neutering marriage for the sake of someone's sexual lifestyle. It is explained in this post.

The real joy of marriage is having children? And if you don't have kids, there is no real joy?

Now there is a good example of an equivocation. The first answer is the real joy of marriage is found through responsible procreation. The second answer is that there are other real joys that exist, but the real joy of marriage (as opposed to the real joy of life long romantic commitment) is found in life -- the bonds that happen through procreation.

Do married heterosexuals who do not have children never experience the real joy of marriage?

Are you going to tell them that their marriage doesn't really count for much, since they haven't had kids?

Infertility is a lamentable condition, one that is very hard on those suffering from it. I don't think, after all the money spent on fertility and having children, that anyone knows the heartache of not participating in the entirety of the real joy of marriage than they do. If anyone in this discussion about marriage benefits needs our help and attention it is them. I see, though I am happy that it isn't as prevalent here, many homosexuals who would try to vindictively tear up marriage certificates of the disabled (infertile) if they and their partner are denied theirs. How awful to contemplate such inhumanity. Its like someone asking to tear up handicapped parking if they can't park there either.

But no one enters into a homosexual relationship to have children between each other. Yet most infertile couples try their hardest.

Are you characterizing gay people as having irrational hostility against members of the opposite sex because we do not want to marry those of the opposite sex? Is that how you define "irrational"?

I call it neither irrational nor hostile, which takes care of the second question. I simply don't try to explain it, because I am not someone who refuses to integrate with the other gender in any meaningful marital way. It would be like me explaining why people put big holes in their earlobes. Nothing wrong with it, I don't imagine some mental ailment behind it, I just don't know. I'm not going to pretend I do.

Fair enough?

Are you saying that nobody enters a homosexual relationship to form a lifelong partnership with someone they love?

To be blunt, I am saying nothing of the kind. Perhaps you read "lifelong partnership with someone they love" as the real joy of marriage? That is something that is a real joy, and something found in marriages. But marriage is something much, much more. And much more an incarnation of love than can really be certified by the state. But it can be recognized. And it should be.

Who really has something against a government program designed specifically and explicitly to promote responsible procreation, and the equal gender representation that nature built into the procreation relationship? Who really has complaint about that government support program being marriage?

One doesn't even need to think that means homosexual relationships are left in the cold either. No more than Lawyers are left destitute because they can't practice medicine without a medical degree.

What they should be answering is this one. I can't answer it for you, and I am waiting for someone to really explain it to me.

That gay people don't want to get married and raise children?

I know couples who do. I'm not against that. I'm not against corporations and religious institutions raising children (orphanages), or single mothers raising children, or even surrogate fostering of children (foster parenting).

As I said, there is a real joy in that too.

Did On Lawn say that?

LOL. I am shocked, shocked I say to find On Lawn sees value in fostering the loving in-tact family relationship that are naturally formed through responsible procreation!

Just kidding... ;) You probably aren't that shocked, though you seemed something like that in your response.

What gender is each person?

I love 10 questions! Okay, just answer me this, are they capable of having children between them? If not, is there a disability getting in the way?

Answer those two questions and I bet I can give you the answer.

And that is an important point, marriage builds commitment, love, honor, and cherishing into the foundation of the union. People are encouraged to get married before they have children together, so they can adequately prepare for that additional commitment. Marriages that are after-the-fact are not as successful, and sometimes compromise the free will and choice of the participants (i.e. shot-gun weddings).

That is why marriage is before the fact, commitment to an uncertain future is a crucial part of home, and as it takes most of the load of the stresses and problems, it is best used as the foundation. And if you ask me, it simply is the foundation.

People banding together to help out after these safe-guarded bonds are broken, are also in need of consideration. I find many cases of this, and of which homosexuals are a minority. Unfortunately, programs for those banding together such as CU's and DP's are exclusive to homosexuals. Why they are so exclusive, especially when they were built in the name of equality, has never been explained to me.

John said...

"Why they are so exclusive, especially when they were built in the name of equality, has never been explained to me."

Ummm, maybe it is because people like you run the legislatures and you don't like equality?