Posts
A young man who calls himself "J.S." seeks to challenge, The Heteroseparatist's Internet Manifesto. We have been chatting for some time now and I want to face his challenges to my manifesto. Okay J.S., you're up...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for the invitation to challenge your manifesto. Will try for a comment per day, with each addressing a single point of contention.
ReplyDelete[Marriage] “should be between [1] one man and one woman who, [2] love each other, [3] share the same religion and/or values, and [4] aren’t blood relatives.”
ReplyDeleteActually, not all of these items in your list of criteria are required by law either. In any state in the country, a man and woman who don’t love each other and don’t share the same religion and/or values will still be granted a marriage license. I’m talking about who can legally get married, which is a power that states grant. Items 2 and 3 as above are more subjective, moral issue not regulated by government institutions. Also, it’s only in fairly recent western history that consanguinity laws were universally applied. Before that, it was very common for the European aristocracy to marry blood relatives. Viewing these criteria as necessary for an "appropriate joining" are subjective, which isn’t going to hold up in a court of law. Redefining marriage is something that society has done again and again. At one point, a marriage was defined as a transfer of property (the woman) and associated responsibility of care from father to her new husband. Thus, a dowry was necessary as payment.
From a legal standpoint, marriage is a secular institution granted by the man and government. Now, it’s completely fine if an individual or a church only wants to recognize the unions of certain individuals in the eyes of God. Gay marriage advocates are only interested in equal rights before the law, not God. The mainstreams gay rights movement has not expressed that laws should force private religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies for gays or take away tax exempt status of those who don’t. No mainstreams politician or activist has suggested this. Churches today are allowed to decide to whom they provide services (e.g. no court ever forced LDS Church to accept black members or perform interracial marriages). There are additional protections for other, non-religious private institutions to discriminate against individuals as they see fit as well (e.g. courts have repeatedly held up Augusta National Golf Course’s discrimination of women). However, not secularly recognizing the unions of members of the LGBT community who are living their lives as a married couple (e.g. long term relationship, living together, sharing expenses, possibly raising children together) violates one of the tenants of the heteroseperatist manifesto, which states that it is not appropriate to use “economic oppression” against LGBT people (i.e. denying them the benefits of marriage including shared health benefits, property rights, next of kin status, etc).
“What about the inevitability of two people pretending to be gay to [receive marriage benefits including] pay[ing] lower taxes or cheaper healthcare?”
ReplyDeleteAs discussed in my post yesterday, except in extreme cases (e.g. one party is under duress) states do not make qualitative judgments on the reasons that parties enter into a marriage contract. In all states, a couple can enter into a marriage for any reason they see fit.
The above quoted argument suggests that it would be best to deny the benefits of marriage to all of LGBT couples who want to get married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together so as to also ensure that the few people trying to game the system are unable to. By this rational, it would be best for society to outlaw all marriage; after all, it is inevitable that some heterosexual couples have entered into marriage contracts solely for tax purposes or healthcare.
The "State" has already decided, 31 out of 31 times where the people are still allowed to vote on the issue, that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. The glbt community in my state is now trying to overturn this with a gay judge in San Francisco court!
ReplyDeleteIn Maine, where homosexual "marriage" is legal, a Christian photographer was sued for over $6,000 when she refused to photograph a lesbian wedding. And a mormon couple was defeated in Maine's supreme court when they went up against their school district because they simply wanted to be notified when their daughter was being taught pro-homosexuality lessons in her gradeschool class. These weren't, don't-harrass-homosexuals classes. These were, being-homosexual-is-normal classes. As secular parents have the right to object to religious teachings being forced on their children, Christians should also have the right to object to pro-homosexual teachings being forced upon their children. The Maine Supreme Court denied the mormons their parental rights saying that since homosexual "marriage" was now legal in their state, the school district was not obligated to notify them when their daughter was being taught about the normalcy of homosexuality. This tells me that homosexual "marriage" and parental-rights can't coexist.
My denouncement of economic oppression towards the glbt community was clearly in the arena of employement which I made clear by my stated example, "...like firing or not hiring a gay person..." I still take a non-violent stand against homosexual "marriage" because of it's immorality. It's just plain wrong for a human being to be sexually attracted to someone of their same gender, BUT...people have the right to be wrong. As I have the right to separate from anyone I choose to seperate from.
Just because a majority believes something, doesn't make it right. 70% of Americans want DADT repealed, so by your logic the policy should be repealed then? Anti-gay activists only use popular opinion when it suits their argument.
ReplyDeleteThe DADT issue is a military issue to be decided by the military, it's not the same as a State's Constitution. And, I'm pro-hetero not "anti-gay."
ReplyDeleteHa, if you say so.
ReplyDeleteAnd the military doesn't decide the law, Congress and the President does, per the Constitution, and the 1993 DADT law, which stipulates only Congress can repeal it.
1) The photographers was actually in New Mexico, a state where same sex marriage is not legal anyway. The incident was over a commitment ceremony, not a wedding. This suggests that recognition of same sex marriage and the application of anti-discriminatory laws against homosexuals are mutually exclusive.
ReplyDelete2) Also, looks like there were some facts wrong in the Mormon parents story as well. The incident took place in Massachusetts, not Maine, and they sued in federal court. The suit was over lessons that showed the diversity of families, including same sex couples, which their son had classmates whose parents were such couples. The issue was over the fact that Massachusetts does not have school lesson opt out laws like other states (e.g. California) do. The Supreme Court refused to hear their case. Again, this does not have to do specifically with the issue of same sex marriage.
3) The policy that would become DADT stemmed from a President Clinton amendment to a Congressional military funding bill, it was not conceived by military leaders as some internal policy.
4) Your claim to “not be anti-gay” is suspect considering statements like “"It's just plain wrong to be attracted to someone of your same gender." Your use of the term “pro-hetero” is a euphemism.
Furthermore, the issue of the photographer brings up a whole host of other questions regarding religious freedom, perhaps you would like to address as a comment or as part of your manifesto, including:
• Are there other things that one can discriminate against on the basic of religious freedom? Should the photographers have also been able to deny services to a black or interracial couple if that was part of their religious belief? Disabled, elderly, etc? If not, why should religious freedom be limited for these other reasons?
• I commend you for including that it is not appropriate to economically oppress gay people as part of your manifesto, including not hiring or firing. However, you’ve indicated that it’s okay to deny services to a gay couple getting married, which could be argued as economic oppression. There’s a lot of room in between here. Is it okay for a landscaper to not cut a gay person’s lawn? Is it okay for a teacher to not teach a gay couple’s child? Is it okay for a supplier to provide products to a gay store owner? Is it okay for a firefighter to refuse to extinguish a fire at a gay person’s home? Perhaps you could provide some clarity on where the line is?
J.S., just because marriage is abused by some straight people, it doesn't mean that the definition of marriage should be changed. As it is wrong for people who don't love each other to marry, it is also wrong to change the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to your 9:37am, 06 Mar. post...
ReplyDelete1. Despite the unintentional mistakes in my comment, these Christian photographers WERE sued for refusing to participate in a sinful activity. Instead of simply finding another photographer, the lesbians decided to sue the Christians. My point is that religious freedom and homosexual "marriage" cannot coexist.
2. The fact that the Mormon parents were not allowed to exclude their child were homosexual couples were normalized is my point, again, despite my unintentional misquotes. Homosexuality is behavior, not race.
3. Okay.
4. "Anti-gay" is a euphemism for "homophobe," I am pro-hetero.
Also, you're wrong to equate homosexuality to race because homosexuality is behavior, not a racial identifier or classification. I can see that you've been through word-replacement-brainwashing,(replacing the word "gay" with the word "Black" whenever it comes to a question concerning the treatment of homosexuals)in high school and/or college. But I'm not trying to provoke or offend you by saying that. Walking away from someone because they have white skin would be wrong because a person's skin color is morally benign, neither good or bad. But a persons sexual actions aren't morally benign like skin color. For instance...cheating on one's spouse is wrong and being faithful to one's spouse is right.
In response to your questions, it would be wrong for a landscaper to deny cutting someone's lawn because they were homosexual, but it wouldn't be wrong if the landscaper left because the homosexual sat and stared at the landscaper's behind while he cut the lawn. It would be wrong for a teacher to refuse to teach a homosexual's child. It is okay for a store supplier to supply a homosexual's store. It's not okay for a fireman to refuse to put out a fire at a homosexual's house. (I only answer these questions because you asked them!)
You’ll notice that I did not ask in my question about the photographers as to whether they SHOULD discriminate against the gay couple, but whether they legally CAN. The question isn’t about what’s moral, because morality is subjective, but who can one be legally allowed to discriminate against? I personal don’t think and didn’t mean to imply that race and sexual orientation are perfect substitutes. However, keep in mind that while you, in 2010, say that it’s wrong to discriminate by skin color because it is “morally benign.” This isn’t the way people felt at the time of our Founding Fathers. They applied their own morality to their situation; and in their society, being black wasn’t morally benign, and they used it to justify striping blacks of their civil liberties. The important comparison is the fact that in both cases, the majority seeks to deny rights to a minority based on claiming some moral high ground.
ReplyDeleteI’ve noticed a very interesting trend in our emails and posts. I keep trying to frame the argument around logical applications of accepted legal principles. On the other hand continue to bring up what’s right and wrong based on your own personal application of what is “moral.”
However, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that there are no social or legal parallels between race and sexual orientation whatsoever because the former is innate and acting on the latter is (whether or not the actual orientation is innate) is a choice. Given this, is it alright then to discriminate on other things that are also a choice? For example, should those same photographer’s be legally allowed to deny services to a straight couple that was having a non-religious marriage ceremony outside that didn’t invoke God, Jesus, etc? Should a Catholic or Atheist photographer be legally allowed to discriminate against a Baptist couple’s wedding? What about if it’s against one’s moral codes to overeat, smoke, or drink? Is it within the photographers’ legal rights to not photograph the wedding of people that are severely obese, smokers, or featuring an open bar?
If your answer to any of these questions is no, then you need to recognize that you’re creating a special circumstance for gays in which their civil liberties are worth less than those of others because you personally don’t agree with their lifestyle. If you’re answer is yes, then your issue with this case is the how the courts should consider the application of anti-discrimination laws in view of the First Amendment, not gay marriage in particular, and I would presume you would support removing religion and other lifestyle choices from the list of things one can’t discriminate against along with sexual orientation.
Hold on a minute. I'll address your Mar.9,6:59pm post if you can answer my following sceanario...
ReplyDeleteWhat would you do if, fifteen years from now, you left the Earth on a advanced spacecraft, but when you returned to Earth after a year on the ship, thirty years had passed on Earth. Just days after your welcome home ceremony you discover, to your horror, that it is now common-place for a young boy to loose his virginity to his mother because birth control was now hyper-advanced. Would you accept, in your heart, that this "new" morality was normal?
Technically, by definition, if it were common-place, it would be "normal." So as odd and personally repulsive as that behavior would seem to me, yes, I would accept it as normal.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what I assume you're really trying to get at is whether or not I'd be as unaccepting of the new morality as you are of homosexuality. Before I can answer this, I'll have to quantify this on what you mean by a "young boy." If the boy is 10 years old, then its not a fair comparison, because we're not talking about 2 consenting adults, but instead taking advantage of a child. Try as you might to equate homosexuality to child molestation, they are not the same thing.
However, say it was common place for 18 yr old boys to give up their to moms. I'd still think it was incredibly weird, but if I looked around and saw that it was common place, that both mom and boy were into it and it wasn't an abusive relationship (which might be unlikely due to the power imbalance inherent in a parent child relationship), then who am I to say its wrong, as long as these hypothetical future people didn't infringe on my right to NOT participate in such a practice.
"...as long as...infringe on my right NOT to participate in such a practice." This is what heteroseparatism is mostly about. My desire to protect my right to disagree with the glbt and walk away from homofascism.
ReplyDeleteNice try. Right to not participate in such a practice means that I'm not coerced to engage in any of this theoretical hyper-birth control incest. Just like I'm not coerced into participating in any homosexual activity. Just like you're not coerced into any homosexual activity.
ReplyDeleteNot coerced into, but persecuted for disagreeing. Would you tolerate being persecuted if you refused to agree with those who thought that sex with their mothers was okay?
ReplyDeleteUnless at some point we transitioned to an Orwellian society recently and I missed it, there’s no such thing as thought crime. The homosexual community doesn’t seek to persecute people who disagree with it, just ensure that your dissenting opinion doesn’t infringe upon their rights. While it’s my right to disagree with the hypothetical incestuous mother-son relationship (HIMSR), it’s not my right to deny them of theirs or insist that my morality dictate their choices.
ReplyDelete"...The homosexual community doesn't seek to persecute people who disagree with it..." Now it's my turn to fall off of my chair laughing. Look what the gays did to Carrie Prejean when she APOLOGETICALLY disagreed with homosexual marriage.
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't answered my question though. Would you tolerate being called a "matriphobe" for disagreeing with men who thought that childproofed sex with their mothers was an acceptable thing?
Carrie Prejean was a public figure who was criticized by Perez Hilton, while many gay rights activists defended her right to what she said (e.g. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Newsom-Defends-Miss-California.html). And while many same-sex marriage supporters believed Hilton was out of line, all he did was disagree with her answer. At no point did he attempt to take away any of her rights. Part of being a public figure is having what you say criticized. On the other hand, this is persecution ((http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000321-504083.html).
ReplyDeleteI never said that I disagreed with the choices that these matriphobes were making for themselves, only that it wasn’t a choice that I would not make for myself. That’s the point. I wouldn’t be a matriphobe because I think that these people should be able to make the choice for themselves, and I’m not in a position to tell them otherwise. I wouldn’t try to repress these people of their rights, like say that no one that admitted to matriphobia could serve in the military.
Would you tolerate being called a "matriphobe" for disagreeing with men who thought that childproofed sex with their mothers was an acceptable thing?
ReplyDeleteIf I held the opinion that they should not be afforded similar rights to me, yes, I would be a "matriphobe." Seeing as how this whole hypothetical scenario is a straw man argument, it's difficult to answer whether or not I'd tolerate the term, but hopefully I'd own up to it.
ReplyDeleteOnce again you dodge a yes/no question with "mabye." My question is an Achilles' question, not a strawman argument. Your, "similar right's" response is a distraction tactic, and not what I asked, so I'm going to ask you a third time.
ReplyDeleteYou and I aren't going any further until you give me a straight answer to THIS question on THIS string. I will only post your DIRECT answer to this question...
Would you tolerate being called a "matriphobe" for disagreeing with men who thought that childproofed sex with their mothers was an acceptable thing?
There's a number of things that confuse me regarding your last post, particularly why you're so adamant to receive a simple yes/no response to such a complex and hypothetical question. That being the case, for the sake of getting past your obsession with it, YES, I would tolerate being a labeled a anything-phobe if I thought that the rights of men who choose to do any non-society burdening, consensual, things with any other member of society was against some universal moral code. Homophobia isn’t based on one’s personal disagreement of a lifestyle, but the actions they take in how they think society should treat homosexuals. If this response isn’t direct enough for you, feel free to let the thread die here.
ReplyDeleteMy question was simple, hence my insistence for a simple answer. I object to being called a homophobe because the slanderous label is inaccurate. I am a heteroseparatist. I exercise my right to walk away from the glbt community. Homosexuality describes behavior, not race. Comparing race to sexual behavior is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI knew that you would never accept the concept of heteroseparatism, which is why I agreed to disagree with you long ago. I don't wish to change your thinking, I simply wish to clarify my seperation from the glbt community AND the homophobes of this world.