Stallion's Special Comment on Keith Olbermann
Third day in a row I’m harping on the whole Prop. 8 thing. I apologize. But I think this issue is a pivotal one, and it may well be a turning point in how our nation and our world define bedrock principles that matter a lot more than union rules or the minimum wage. I think it’s worth a post or two.
Let me preface this by saying I have 352 Facebook friends. About ten of those are fake names created to expand my MobWars mafia, but the rest are real people from every corner of my life – from family, high school, college, church, my mission in Scotland, graduate school, and my professional world. The election has been a very awkward time to visit Facebook, because by my rough estimate, 75% or so of my friends are on the left side of the political spectrum, and the things they write and post on the site reflect that strongly. For the most part, unless it’s PJG who I enjoy getting into scraps with, I leave politics on Facebook alone. I don’t want to pick fights or pick friends based on how they vote.
Yesterday, Keith Olbermann produced one of his trademark “Special Comments” on the subject of Prop. 8 and gay marriage. At last count, 6 of my Facebook friends posted a link or referenced the video. Probably more to come. Most of those friends are gay themselves, and the comments they add to support the video are heartfelt and intense.
“This is the heart of the matter,” writes the first. “Stop listening to all the ‘noise’ and BS and listen to this.”
Here’s another: “Thank you, Keith Olbermann, for speaking up so eloquently about Proposition 8 - and its ilk - and for expressing my feelings 100%. Well done and well said.”
Another writes “WATCH THIS VIDEO IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS AT ALL ABOUT PROP 8!!!! Please view this no matter what side of the Prop 8 debate you fall on. Please see this video to understand where many of us are coming from. This is not about hating. This is an issue about allowing love in a scary, cold world. I thank you for your time.”
I usually break out in hives while watching Olbermann, but I felt it my duty to honor my friends enough to see what the guy had to say. So I watched it. You probably should, too, especially since I want to review at length what he said.
I’m not sure where to begin. I cannot question Olbermann’s sincerity on this issue, which is beyond dispute. Indeed, that’s really the whole point here. Olbermann effectively reframes the underlying question so that the emotional authenticity of his position is the only thing that matters. “You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight,” he says, his voice trembling, near to tears. “You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.”
Oh that it were that simple.
Because if that really were the only question here, then the response would be unanimous. There isn’t a human being on the face of the earth hardened enough to say, “Love sucks. It must be stopped at all costs.” That’s the sentiment of comic book villains, not real people. And by squarely siding with the Forces of Love, Olbermann implies that anyone on the opposite side of Prop. 8 is Anti-Love. And honestly, who wants to be Anti-Love? Who is opposed to “allowing love in a scary, cold world?”
Everyone who hates love, please raise your hand.
“If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand,” Olbermann begins. “Why does this matter to you? What is it to you?”
These are rhetorical questions. Olbermann doesn’t believe there is any valid answer to them, nor does he want anyone to attempt to provide one. He is correct in that he does not understand those on the other side; he is being artfully disingenuous by implying that he wants to understand them. After 9/11, those who wanted to “understand” the terrorists were rightfully dismissed as namby pambies. Understanding evil is not nearly as important as defeating it. Olbermann, who would reject that kind of reasoning when applied to detainees at Guantanamo, has finally found a villain worthy of such scorn – the Proposition 8 supporter.
It is apparent, then, that Olbermann is being emotionally authentic at the expense of intellectual honesty. By painting himself as the angel, I must, as one who opposes him, necessarily be a demon. You don’t have to understand demons. You have to kill them. Burn them. Exorcise them. I’ve never been to an exorcism, but I’d be willing to bet big money that most of them are emotionally authentic affairs. Indeed, I’d bet that bigots who think black people are subhuman can summon up a wellspring of genuine passion in support of their racist cause.
Can we not, in the clear, cold light of day, recognize that depth or sincerity of feeling do not automatically make one right?
The racism example is pertinent in light of Olbermann’s comments, which rely heavy on an analogy drawn between Proposition 8 and interracial marriage.
“I keep hearing this term: ‘re-defining’ marriage,” Olbermann says. “If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967.”
Olbermann milks this for all it’s worth, reaching back to slavery days when marriages between slaves were until “death or distance do us part.” This is the one part of his argument that appeals to reason instead of solely to emotion, yet it’s still fallacious.
The issue in interracial marriage was race, not marriage itself.
Think about it. In 1967, a black person may not have been able to marry a white person in certain backward pockets of the country, but if they married another black person, nobody suggested that the black couple wasn’t married. The same is true for anyone of any ethnicity. Asian marriages and black marriages and Arabic marriages and Eskimo marriages were all still marriages, even in the eyes of bigots. Regardless of race, the nature of the institution always called for one man and one woman. Society has now wisely determined that the color of that one man or one woman’s skin has no impact on the institution of marriage.
Yet Olbermann, perhaps without realizing it, is using a flawed analogy to persuade us to discard the institution of marriage itself.
He certainly goes to great lengths to avoid defining it on those terms.
“They don't want to deny you [your marriage],” he says. “They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.”
You see? All he’s asking is for people to have “a chance to be a little less alone in the world.” I can think of a number of ways to make that happen legally. Should we throw a big party? Or send a singing telegram? Does someone need a hug? Such sophistry. Marriage is far more than just “a chance to be a little less alone in the world.” It is the fundamental unit of society, the basic building block of civilization. It is far weightier than just an expression of love, and it should not be altered lightly.
Olbermann is right, however, when he says, “they want what you want.” They want us to say that a loving relationship between two men and two women is exactly the same as one between a man and a woman, when it isn’t.
That’s not a moral judgment. It’s a statement of fact.
If that fact offends you, then consider this one: men and women are not exactly the same. Does anyone really disagree with that? You can argue that men and women have equal value in society, or that women should have the same opportunities men have, or even that one gender is superior to the other. But you can’t possibly maintain that a woman is indistinguishable from a man. Some political movements have tried to make that case, but you can only go so far in pretending that everyone has a penis. Pretty soon, the facts – among other things – get in the way.
So please understand that I’m not trying, at this point, to argue the relative merits in the differences between same-sex couples and heterosexual ones. What I’m saying is that there is a difference. Once we recognize that, we have to determine whether or not that difference matters.
Going back to Olbermann’s interracial example, one must concede that there is a difference between a white man and a white woman getting married and a white man and a black woman getting married. But does the difference matter? How will varieties in skin pigmentation affect the ability to be a wife or a mother, a husband or a father? There are often difficult cultural differences in marriages, but those arise regardless of race. If the only differential is the color of your skin, then I have yet to see persuasive evidence that the differential has any bearing on the institution itself.
Olbermann is saying, however, that removing a mother from the marriage equation and replacing them with a second father will yield an identical sum. He’s saying that gender in marriage is as irrelevant as race. And I think he’s probably right to a point. I can think of no significant difference between gay and heterosexual couples who choose to build a life together that should matter to society at large, provided that the equation is always one plus one.
But marriage usually isn’t one plus one. Baby makes three. Marriage is the first step toward the creation of a family. That’s where this becomes far more problematic than just a “question of love. “
Thousands of years of human history have demonstrated that the best way to raise children is with a mommy and a daddy. To ask my own rhetorical questions - How can anyone believe that this is not true? That the only difference between a mom and a dad is what’s in their pants? That removing a dad from the equation and putting another mom in his place will make no difference, or at least, no difference that matters?
If you have answers, I actually would like to hear them.
I’m all for love. Sex is pretty good, too. I’m a big fan. I don’t want the government to stand in the way of grown-ups who choose to do with themselves and each other whatever they will. In this, I agree with Mr. Olbermann, who said, “You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it.” I agree when the antecedent to Olbermann’s “it” is “love.” But to appeal to the better angels of our nature, Olbermann is blurring as many lines here as he possibly can. He’s saying “it” is “love” is “marriage” is “two gay people who insist what they have is exactly the same as a marriage and want the state to recognize it as such.” That last line doesn’t fit Olbermann’s romantic template, but it’s what he’s really trying to say.
Never before in human history, even in times and places where homosexuality has been widely accepted and embraced, has society tried to pretend that homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual ones. What kind of consequences will that have? Once you begin to dismantle the foundation of civilization, what will be left standing when you’re finished?
We are playing with fire here.
I conclude with a story by Dennis Prager, who got a call on his radio show from a single woman named Susan who wanted to be artificially inseminated and have a child without a husband. (This story can be found in the book Think a Second Time, beginning on page 50.) Prager told her that he believed that children deserve the benefit of having both a father and a mother, and deciding to have a child with no father was not in the child’s best interests.
“The issue is,” Prager says, “why start a child out in the world without a father?”
“I don’t have an answer for that,” Susan says, “but I’m not comfortable accepting your answer that because I haven’t had found a husband, I can’t have a child.”
“I know,” responds Prager, “and I appreciate it, and I’m not comfortable saying it.”
This comes as a surprise to Susan, who states that the first time she’s heard Prager express that kind of discomfort.
I now quote Prager at length:
That’s where I find myself on the gay marriage issue. I admit that Olbermann’s case pulls hard at my heartstrings. How could it not? I am not comfortable telling 75% of my friends that I think they’re wrong, that love, no matter how genuine or committed, does not justify remaking marriage. I don’t enjoy being presumed to be a bigot by people I love and respect and admire. I would like nothing more than to go with the flow, live and let live, to let the issue go away.
But the issue won’t go away. And Olbermann, as heartfelt, sincere, and compassionate as he is, is also wrong, as are 75% of my Facebook friends. They're, hopefully, still my friends after reading this, but that doesn't make them right.
Good night, and good luck.
Let me preface this by saying I have 352 Facebook friends. About ten of those are fake names created to expand my MobWars mafia, but the rest are real people from every corner of my life – from family, high school, college, church, my mission in Scotland, graduate school, and my professional world. The election has been a very awkward time to visit Facebook, because by my rough estimate, 75% or so of my friends are on the left side of the political spectrum, and the things they write and post on the site reflect that strongly. For the most part, unless it’s PJG who I enjoy getting into scraps with, I leave politics on Facebook alone. I don’t want to pick fights or pick friends based on how they vote.
Yesterday, Keith Olbermann produced one of his trademark “Special Comments” on the subject of Prop. 8 and gay marriage. At last count, 6 of my Facebook friends posted a link or referenced the video. Probably more to come. Most of those friends are gay themselves, and the comments they add to support the video are heartfelt and intense.
“This is the heart of the matter,” writes the first. “Stop listening to all the ‘noise’ and BS and listen to this.”
Here’s another: “Thank you, Keith Olbermann, for speaking up so eloquently about Proposition 8 - and its ilk - and for expressing my feelings 100%. Well done and well said.”
Another writes “WATCH THIS VIDEO IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS AT ALL ABOUT PROP 8!!!! Please view this no matter what side of the Prop 8 debate you fall on. Please see this video to understand where many of us are coming from. This is not about hating. This is an issue about allowing love in a scary, cold world. I thank you for your time.”
I usually break out in hives while watching Olbermann, but I felt it my duty to honor my friends enough to see what the guy had to say. So I watched it. You probably should, too, especially since I want to review at length what he said.
I’m not sure where to begin. I cannot question Olbermann’s sincerity on this issue, which is beyond dispute. Indeed, that’s really the whole point here. Olbermann effectively reframes the underlying question so that the emotional authenticity of his position is the only thing that matters. “You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight,” he says, his voice trembling, near to tears. “You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.”
Oh that it were that simple.
Because if that really were the only question here, then the response would be unanimous. There isn’t a human being on the face of the earth hardened enough to say, “Love sucks. It must be stopped at all costs.” That’s the sentiment of comic book villains, not real people. And by squarely siding with the Forces of Love, Olbermann implies that anyone on the opposite side of Prop. 8 is Anti-Love. And honestly, who wants to be Anti-Love? Who is opposed to “allowing love in a scary, cold world?”
Everyone who hates love, please raise your hand.
“If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand,” Olbermann begins. “Why does this matter to you? What is it to you?”
These are rhetorical questions. Olbermann doesn’t believe there is any valid answer to them, nor does he want anyone to attempt to provide one. He is correct in that he does not understand those on the other side; he is being artfully disingenuous by implying that he wants to understand them. After 9/11, those who wanted to “understand” the terrorists were rightfully dismissed as namby pambies. Understanding evil is not nearly as important as defeating it. Olbermann, who would reject that kind of reasoning when applied to detainees at Guantanamo, has finally found a villain worthy of such scorn – the Proposition 8 supporter.
It is apparent, then, that Olbermann is being emotionally authentic at the expense of intellectual honesty. By painting himself as the angel, I must, as one who opposes him, necessarily be a demon. You don’t have to understand demons. You have to kill them. Burn them. Exorcise them. I’ve never been to an exorcism, but I’d be willing to bet big money that most of them are emotionally authentic affairs. Indeed, I’d bet that bigots who think black people are subhuman can summon up a wellspring of genuine passion in support of their racist cause.
Can we not, in the clear, cold light of day, recognize that depth or sincerity of feeling do not automatically make one right?
The racism example is pertinent in light of Olbermann’s comments, which rely heavy on an analogy drawn between Proposition 8 and interracial marriage.
“I keep hearing this term: ‘re-defining’ marriage,” Olbermann says. “If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967.”
Olbermann milks this for all it’s worth, reaching back to slavery days when marriages between slaves were until “death or distance do us part.” This is the one part of his argument that appeals to reason instead of solely to emotion, yet it’s still fallacious.
The issue in interracial marriage was race, not marriage itself.
Think about it. In 1967, a black person may not have been able to marry a white person in certain backward pockets of the country, but if they married another black person, nobody suggested that the black couple wasn’t married. The same is true for anyone of any ethnicity. Asian marriages and black marriages and Arabic marriages and Eskimo marriages were all still marriages, even in the eyes of bigots. Regardless of race, the nature of the institution always called for one man and one woman. Society has now wisely determined that the color of that one man or one woman’s skin has no impact on the institution of marriage.
Yet Olbermann, perhaps without realizing it, is using a flawed analogy to persuade us to discard the institution of marriage itself.
He certainly goes to great lengths to avoid defining it on those terms.
“They don't want to deny you [your marriage],” he says. “They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.”
You see? All he’s asking is for people to have “a chance to be a little less alone in the world.” I can think of a number of ways to make that happen legally. Should we throw a big party? Or send a singing telegram? Does someone need a hug? Such sophistry. Marriage is far more than just “a chance to be a little less alone in the world.” It is the fundamental unit of society, the basic building block of civilization. It is far weightier than just an expression of love, and it should not be altered lightly.
Olbermann is right, however, when he says, “they want what you want.” They want us to say that a loving relationship between two men and two women is exactly the same as one between a man and a woman, when it isn’t.
That’s not a moral judgment. It’s a statement of fact.
If that fact offends you, then consider this one: men and women are not exactly the same. Does anyone really disagree with that? You can argue that men and women have equal value in society, or that women should have the same opportunities men have, or even that one gender is superior to the other. But you can’t possibly maintain that a woman is indistinguishable from a man. Some political movements have tried to make that case, but you can only go so far in pretending that everyone has a penis. Pretty soon, the facts – among other things – get in the way.
So please understand that I’m not trying, at this point, to argue the relative merits in the differences between same-sex couples and heterosexual ones. What I’m saying is that there is a difference. Once we recognize that, we have to determine whether or not that difference matters.
Going back to Olbermann’s interracial example, one must concede that there is a difference between a white man and a white woman getting married and a white man and a black woman getting married. But does the difference matter? How will varieties in skin pigmentation affect the ability to be a wife or a mother, a husband or a father? There are often difficult cultural differences in marriages, but those arise regardless of race. If the only differential is the color of your skin, then I have yet to see persuasive evidence that the differential has any bearing on the institution itself.
Olbermann is saying, however, that removing a mother from the marriage equation and replacing them with a second father will yield an identical sum. He’s saying that gender in marriage is as irrelevant as race. And I think he’s probably right to a point. I can think of no significant difference between gay and heterosexual couples who choose to build a life together that should matter to society at large, provided that the equation is always one plus one.
But marriage usually isn’t one plus one. Baby makes three. Marriage is the first step toward the creation of a family. That’s where this becomes far more problematic than just a “question of love. “
Thousands of years of human history have demonstrated that the best way to raise children is with a mommy and a daddy. To ask my own rhetorical questions - How can anyone believe that this is not true? That the only difference between a mom and a dad is what’s in their pants? That removing a dad from the equation and putting another mom in his place will make no difference, or at least, no difference that matters?
If you have answers, I actually would like to hear them.
I’m all for love. Sex is pretty good, too. I’m a big fan. I don’t want the government to stand in the way of grown-ups who choose to do with themselves and each other whatever they will. In this, I agree with Mr. Olbermann, who said, “You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it.” I agree when the antecedent to Olbermann’s “it” is “love.” But to appeal to the better angels of our nature, Olbermann is blurring as many lines here as he possibly can. He’s saying “it” is “love” is “marriage” is “two gay people who insist what they have is exactly the same as a marriage and want the state to recognize it as such.” That last line doesn’t fit Olbermann’s romantic template, but it’s what he’s really trying to say.
Never before in human history, even in times and places where homosexuality has been widely accepted and embraced, has society tried to pretend that homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual ones. What kind of consequences will that have? Once you begin to dismantle the foundation of civilization, what will be left standing when you’re finished?
We are playing with fire here.
I conclude with a story by Dennis Prager, who got a call on his radio show from a single woman named Susan who wanted to be artificially inseminated and have a child without a husband. (This story can be found in the book Think a Second Time, beginning on page 50.) Prager told her that he believed that children deserve the benefit of having both a father and a mother, and deciding to have a child with no father was not in the child’s best interests.
“The issue is,” Prager says, “why start a child out in the world without a father?”
“I don’t have an answer for that,” Susan says, “but I’m not comfortable accepting your answer that because I haven’t had found a husband, I can’t have a child.”
“I know,” responds Prager, “and I appreciate it, and I’m not comfortable saying it.”
This comes as a surprise to Susan, who states that the first time she’s heard Prager express that kind of discomfort.
I now quote Prager at length:
But the fact is it’s not easy for me to say to a perfectly decent woman, “Don’t have a baby.” I would have to be a rock, to have a heart of stone, to say that with comfort… The fact is that it kills me to say that to her. Every ounce of me wants to say to Susan, “I hear you - I hear your pain. I know you wanted to find the right guy, and you just couldn’t; and God knows, I know the desire to have a child. It is, for some of us, the deepest desire in life. So go to it.”
Every part of me wants to say that. What stops me is not my heart or my feelings. What stops me are values. When I talk to kids around the country about values, I define a value as that which you consider more important than your feelings. My feelings are, “Susan, go to it.” My values are, “Kids need daddies.” They’re in conflict. So, of course, I wasn’t comfortable…
There is nothing easier than to say, “Oh, yes. I hear your pain. Go to it.” Then the person likes you, but it’s not right.
That’s where I find myself on the gay marriage issue. I admit that Olbermann’s case pulls hard at my heartstrings. How could it not? I am not comfortable telling 75% of my friends that I think they’re wrong, that love, no matter how genuine or committed, does not justify remaking marriage. I don’t enjoy being presumed to be a bigot by people I love and respect and admire. I would like nothing more than to go with the flow, live and let live, to let the issue go away.
But the issue won’t go away. And Olbermann, as heartfelt, sincere, and compassionate as he is, is also wrong, as are 75% of my Facebook friends. They're, hopefully, still my friends after reading this, but that doesn't make them right.
Good night, and good luck.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 9:42 AM
19 Comments:
Excellent blog, Stallion. I have definitely been torn on this issue because of my friends who were opposed to Prop. 8. And because I believe in love and being loving to all. Prager's comments were extremely helpful in sorting it all out. I KNOW my children are benefitting from having a mommy AND a daddy. I see it in their behavior with each of us individually. I see it in how they relate to other adults. It is making them more well-rounded individuals. And I am NOT remotely the cliche father. I don't hunt, fish, wrestle, play sports, scratch, or spit. I am a nurturer--I'm much more interested in the arts and propriety. I'm finicky and neat. My wife is also a nurturer but I suspect she's going to have to teach my kids how to throw a football. But these "surface" gender identifiers are so unimportant compared to our actual gender. I don't now if that makes sense, but in essence, the reason I was for Prop 8 was NOT necessarily because I wanted to defend MARRIAGE. I was for Prop 8 to defend CHILDREN!
Not to be heartless, but I sensed Olbermann's emotions were manufactured. No one who insists they are so objective to the issue can also in the same breath be so emotionally involved in it.
Maybe Keith is gay.
I guess I was wrong in thinking that this issue would die down after the election. I'm pretty dang sick of hearing about it, at least.
Can't stand Olbermann, I think he's the US political spectrum's obesity counter weight to Bill O'Reilly.
Although one is more obsessed with the other.
I don't really have an opinion on either side of the debate, only that it highlights a flaw in the defined definition of legal status of partnership. It's more interesting to voyeur in on both sides point of view, in that one side thinks that their religious and social definition is under attack, the other stamping their feet for social equilibrium.
What I think is really under attack here, is the fore knowledge of your founding fathers accommodating a principled Christian value, into an unforeseen social change of acceptance. Which in reality is a non-issue if legal status of partnership is defined by a certificate, not a church.
The points about single sex parenting is more of a debate. I whole heartedly agree with mum and pa influence, but is single parent upbringing any worse than same sex husbandry? I guess that depends on whether or not you agree that science may have a say.
By a respectable margin, it looks like blacks and Latinos voted in large numbers on behalf of Prop 8... and then they pulled the lever for Barack Obama!
At Saddleback, you will recall, that enemy of love, Candidate Obama, defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A point that seems to be lost on Melissa Etheridge who bashes those who voted for Prop 8 and is enthused for Obama.
Anyway, so who are the Leftie Blogs blaming for the passing of Prop 8? You guessed it: Mormons. I guess it's a backhanded way to stick it to a group that were largely white and mostly Republican.
The hypocrisy is amusing.
BO's position on same-gender marriage is akin to John Kerry's position on abortion; that is to say that he is personally against it but does not want to tell others they can't do it, apparently. He did not support Prop 8 in CA despite his statement to Rick Warren. Gov Schwarzenbummer has staked out a similar spineless position.
As a practicing Catholic, I'm embarrassed when the likes of Pelosi, Kerry and Joe Biden get to define what the Church believes on abortion. (Say, Arnie is Catholic too...) Different issue, same thing. Some Catholic bishops endorse the policy that politicians who vote for abortion can't receive Communion.
If people thought the LDS church went thermo on Prop 8, wait until the Catholic church starts threatening to close their hospitals rather, then perform federally-mandated abortions under the Obama "Freedom of Choice Act".
The Catholic hierarchy today (including the bishops of Chicago and Scranton) have gone full-out against FOCA. Harder to pick on Catholics though, there's more of them.
So, as a Catholic, does your opinion on political social issues, specifically abortion, come from your church or your own personal judgment?
Well, I can't answer for John but I'm a catholic, too. Admittedly the Mrs. is more Catholic than I am, but neither of us necessarily let the Church dictate and/or forum our opinions on social issues like abortion.
Or gay marriage, for that matter.
"Marriage is the first step toward the creation of a family. That’s where this becomes far more problematic than just a “question of love. “
I have to disagree with this statement. Specifically, I know lots of people who get married but are not getting married specifically to have children.
When I got married I realized we would eventually try to have a family; I know it wasn't the direct aim of getting married. I knew I wanted to be with her most of the time, and for the rest of my life. I know she felt the same way. Kids were a plus to the marriage and the relationship, not the goal.
So I don't feel that one can say "marriage can only be for men and women because married is only for producing children".
Maybe the answer is to have "civil unions" by the state which would allow same gender partnerships and let marriage be strictly a religion union.
Remind me why I should care about what a sportscaster has to say about Prop 8.....or anything, for that matter.....
(only kidding)
Like whiteeyebrows, I'm not totally convinced Olbermann's emotion was unfeigned. But that really doesn't matter. There are undoubtedly many who are genuinely hurt by the failure of Prop 8. And I understand their grief.
Olbermann's plea was like most I have heard on that side of the issue....lots of emotion, but little substance and critical thinking. Almost an attempt to guilt people into doing the "right thing" while being light on analysis that goes more than an inch deep. Of course I'm biased....
What I really want is for an advocate of same-sex marriage to explain to me why two men should be able to marry eachother because their love is real (and I have no doubt their love is real), when, say, a group of 2 women and 3 men cannot marry eachother. Or 1 man and 4 woman? Cannot their love be equally real? Cannot they also have the same longings for companionship, love, and commitment? If we are free to love anyone we want and demand recognition as "marriage," why the restriction to only two individuals? I'm genuinely seeking an answer to that question.
I just don't understand how proponents of same-sex marriage can complain about being discriminated against, when even their own proposed definition of marriage would discriminate against others on the basis of who THEY are committed to.
Good post, Stallion. And Prager's comments provide a nice perspective.
I'd love to read a post about this issue and the conflict that occurs with religious liberty since both government and religion share the same word. One side (religion or gov't) Changing the understood definition of that word is bound to have some conflict on the other side of the issue. I think it is this conflict that we are really seeing the begining of. Your thoughts?
http://www.becketfund.org/files/70e6d.pdf
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191&sc=emaf
The issue, as my father points out, should be that the State should have nothing to do with marraige at all, but rather allow all consenting adults the chance to enter into a union that is recognized by the state. This avoids letting possum eaters in Arkansas pull legislative flimflammery to dis-allow gay couples from raising children, etc. The State has no business in the matters of religion and religion has no business in matters of the State. To further this, people in other states (UT) should stay out of the business of other states (CA), if you want to be consistent in righty philosophy about states rights trumping federal, etc.
That's all. Good night and good luck.
P.S., thursowick, whoever you are, you consistently make me sick.
And no, Mr. Stallion, your argument doesn't follow and doesn't stick, per usual.
1. People who believe that marriage is by definition all wrapped up in religious mumbo jumbo do not believe that my marriage by a judge is a "real" marriage, much less that interracial couples were "married." This contradicts all sorts of Bronze Age nonsense, and is therfore invalid.
Furthermore, this supposed argument that you keep trotting out that because culture has never before done something it means that there is some sort of positive ontology ascribed is absolute malarky. There is no argument here. It's not even a classic strawman. Just nonsense said authoritatively. You're wrong, as always. Wrong about everything.
Okay, I'm having a hard time stopping here. My previous post points out why Olberman's (and, clearly, this is not an original thesis) points are salient and relevant to this case. Inter-racial marriage was attacked on same grounds. Never in the history of humankind have we allowed. blah blah blah nonsense. I'm a non religious Jew married to a non religous Catholic. We also wouldn't have been allowed to marry with same arguments against, not that long ago.
Wake UP! Our society evolves. That's the point. We grow better over time. Slowly, but better. We learn that all sorts of things, like human sacrifice isn't so cool. We learn that wearing garments of mixed fabrics doesn't damn one to the bad graces of a strangely jealous and petty deity.Eathing shellfish neither. WAKE UP
Thank you very much, SC, for this post. Though I agree with most of what you said, I appreciate the post more because I knew that I wasn't alone in being moved, almost to shame it would seem, by the video. Yet I remain unchanged in my stance, because I agree with you about the seriousness of this issue and how dire the consequences could become in the future to any organization unwilling to accommodate homosexuality in their doctrines.
My husband came home from a church responsibility late on Sunday night, quite exhausted and almost in mourning. I wanted no details on the event he'd been required to attend, but I could tell that it was draining for him. I asked, "How are you? Okay?" He answered that he was grateful for the kids and me, and that he never wanted to do anything to lose it. He also expressed that, unpleasant as the experience was, he was deeply impressed by the outpouring of love he witnessed in the room.
It's fascinating how the elements of conviction and compassion can co-exist. There's no way not to feel uncomfortable, though.
Also, as a pessimist, I appreciated your honesty that the church will probably lose it's tax exempt status someday. Maybe it will lower the defecit or something.
Mrs. Cornell was cute for the Twilight reference in her last comment. I like the book okay, but I have no hopes for the movie.
PJG - it's about the family, not religion. The state has an intrinsic responsibility to promote the nuclear family as the ideal unit. Changing what marriage is changes what a family is. Even modern psychological studies support the position that the best, healthiest, most successful environment in which to raise children is in a family with a father and mother. It is part of our DNA. You can't buck mother nature, BRO!
Regarding separating the act of marriage from the state... it has been attempted in several states, through civil unions and domestic partnership laws. Without exception, every "progressive" blog I occasionally read (such as Daily Kos) will not accept this because they consider it akin to separate but equal, which is unequal. Prop 8 did not attempt to touch civil unions or domestic partnership privileges.
PJG,
Please don't stoop to personal attacks (see your comments re: Thursowick). It is beneath you and diminishes your arguments. Healthy debate is just that -- healthy. Let's have debate without personal attacks.
is 343 8Buspar generic9 force 148feet; this keeps the feet constantly cold even in the warmest weather no matter how well they are 91 9Discount Buspar657 drunk 7not 9 155Snorting Buspar7 stretching 511When the skin is at a certain temperature and fresh clothes are put on they feel cold because they are at 1 451Order Ashwagandha Uk9 It can be over 6 hours-24 hours-48 hours-6 days-16 days or even around the world www.worldrun.org 209to a 566 7Buspar Posologia8 does 5Some 1 8Buspar For Free9 People with movement restriction are usually cold most of the time from immobility 400
massage-lite 419 9Buspar Prezzo5 edge' 340(150.07 69 9Where To Buy Ashwagandha Online241 muscles are beginning to feel like before the start back in Greenwich, London!! 1Michael's methods of massage and blister care helped me to stay mobile throughout the race and to 8 185Buy Ashwagandha Diet Pills6 more 489Have oil applied-warm oil goes cold and sticky if not removed properly-to take it off needs friction 5 668Ashwagandha Buy Cod8 is 31treatment 155 0Buy Cheap Purchase Uk Buspar0 strong 0relief 8 1Ashwagandha Effects3 to 601
I should be going home, but am going to stay to say one thing, J:
How does this alleged "required" daddy have to be one that is married to the mother? I, for one, was raised by three daddies and for a good portion of my upbringing by only one mommy. Yet, I turned out relatively well. In fact, many would say they think rather highly of me as an individual.
You say that research has shown that children need both a mommy and a daddy and that children have said as much, but how does one know unless they've experienced it first hand?
I'm betting you grew up in a family with a mommy and a daddy and they never divorced. Some would count you lucky. I just count you as a statistic. There are many children who grow up in amazingly loving homes and learn to become valuable members of society without such an upbringing as I'm assuming you've had.
You're defining this issue purely on what YOU believe makes a family and limiting your beliefs to only that definition. And that makes me incredibly sad for you.
And it also makes me think that your views somehow devalue my life and upbringing. It makes me think that because you are raising children in a family with a man and woman as husband and wife that anyone else raising a child without that construct is somehow less a valuable human. And that too makes me incredibly sad.
I have to stop now because just thinking about this is giving me a headache. And my heart hurts (literally) in my chest right now from the quote you shared too:
My mom had me out of wedlock. She had me on her own. And looking back I'm so glad she did.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home