It’s Not a Question of Inclusion

In the battle between tradition

"Here I stand...like a fiddler on the roof..."

Tradition Vs. Change

It’s Not About Inclusion.  It’s About Replacement.

Most people just want to get along, but for some, getting along is not enough.  One of the deceptive ideas in the culture wars is “So what if you’re apples and we’re oranges, can’t we all share the fruit bowl together?”  In the battle of ideas, two diametrically opposing views of society cannot co-exist peacefully side by side….  Or can they?  In my mind I picture Tevye, the Jewish dairyman from the play “Fiddler on the Roof”, standing in the middle of the road, cow in hand, pondering these diverging moral paths.

Where is the Traditional Family?

Where is the Traditional Family?

On the one hand, we have traditionally proven societal models, based on the basic principles of the ten commandments.  Don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your father and mother, don’t lie…do unto others, and so on….basic Judeo-Christian values, handed down from Heaven for the stability of man.

On the other hand is the belief that morality doesn’t matter, that religious values are passé. There is no morality but the morality of convenience.  Society determines it’s own morality, subject to change.

I’ve been considering the idea put forth by some that the apples and oranges should just get along.  There’s room in the bowl for all.  Physically, that is true.  All different races and kinds of people live together and get along, even different religions can get along, because at heart, they have common morals and ideals.  They ultimately strive for the same goals.  What if there is no common moral ground?  Is morality different than race? Is morality a zero sum game? or is there really room for all?

At first, there may appear to be room for all, but over time, the reality shows that there is not.  For one side to gain ground morally, the other has to lose.

In looking over the globe, the obvious evidence is that there are no cultures who have successfully incorporated multiple sets of moral ideals, especially when it comes to marriage.  Surely in all those independently evolving societies, there must be some reason for this.  Perhaps it is because it is human nature for some fringe elements to constantly push against the barriers of society.  Civilized society is called “civil” because we control our impulsive natures in order to be better people.  There are always some who believe it is an imposition on them to require civil behavior in a civil society.  The boundaries of civility can move, but only at the loss to the greater civility of the whole.  Zero sum game.  I believe that is happening here.

To illustrate this point, I point to Massachusetts and the curriculum changes being made there since same sex marriage was introduced. I just got a good look at the book, “King and King“, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, that was read by a second grade school teacher to her entire class in a segment teaching about marriage.  This book’s inclusion in the Massachusetts elementary school curriculum is shocking not just for the obviously inflammatory ending where the prince marries another prince instead of the princess, but in the way that it tears down and denigrates traditional marriage and women.

By the time I was your age, I’d been married TWICE!” a horrible looking, overweight, crooked toothed figure tells her son.

How is this portraying marriage to our little ones?  Dirty, Cheap?  Meaningless?  One by one, the princesses are brought in, “No!” the prince says and goes on to comment about how one princess is too fat, one has crooked teeth, one is black and her arms are too long….and the prince ends up marrying another prince.  The book sends a message that replaces traditional marriage, it’s not just including, it’s tearing down and replacing.

“Who’s in a Family?” by Robert Skutch is another book used by Massachusetts schools to teach about the family.  Not only does it deal with gay families, but it does NOT include traditional, nuclear families on it’s cover.  A quick glance illustrates the main point of the book.  There are no pictures of what most of us would consider a family.  As I look at the arguments of the opposition I have to ask, why the exclusion if there is no anti-traditional agenda?

In the battle of ideas can two opposing views of society co-exist peacefully side by side?  No.  Not when the views of society are based on completely diametrically opposite moral views, because for some, and there are ALWAYS some…inclusion is not enough.  By spreading their version of the core societal values, they reject and replace the time proven, traditional values that made our nation free.

Marriage is the basic element of society.  Destroy it or change it, the end is the same.  Marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined.  Which version of society do you believe?  Is marriage pre-defined? or open to definition?  Is morality pre-defined, or open to definition?  Which do you want?  Both versions can’t live together.  One version must dominate. This November, we are being asked to choose.

There are those who say it’s all the same, fire won’t rain from Heaven, the birds will still sing in the morning.  No need to worry!  Yet all we need to do is take a look at the fight in Canada or Massachusetts to peek into our future.  The tables are turning in those societies.  These are places that are on the front lines fighting in the culture war.  If we allow prop 8 to fail, their fight will be our fight.

See the battle of replacement raging:  www.massresistance.org

Hillside YES!  Thousand Oaks speaks with a BIG voice!

Hillside YES! Thousand Oaks speaks with a BIG voice!


32 Comments

  1. prop8discussion said,

    October 22, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    this is an awesome post.

    i love the details from the books. i had no idea. i don’t think very many people have an idea either.

    yes on 8.

  2. busywithconviction said,

    October 22, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    First I love the way your recogonize traditional marriage needs to be strengthened. This is very true and as you noted redefining marriage will not strengthen it.

    Also, isn’t this book “Who’s in a Family?” by Robert Skutch an example of where the minority is given more consideration then the majority. This is a trend in our society. They don’t address the traditional family because they have to make sure to cover all the other definitions out there.

    http://busywithconviction.wordpress.com/

  3. Sherry said,

    October 22, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Great job! I feel totally motivated! Yay prop 8!

  4. jeremy said,

    October 22, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Really great blog! I like the original thought and in-depth perspective of prop 8. I don’t have an established blog but am trying to help increase great blogs rankings on the search engines.

    Does Proposition 8 take existing rights away from same-sex couples?

    No. All the rights gay couples have in current civil unions will still be in force.

    What is Prop 8? Check out http://www.whatisprop8.com for Articles, Research, and Viewpoints

  5. Khristine said,

    October 22, 2008 at 11:07 pm

    Thanks for all you are doing! Now, everyone, please join with Californians everywhere by joining a donation blitz to the Yes on 8 campaign. If only half of the 600,000 people who already donated money gave an additional $10, we would raise $3 million and effectively negate the No campaign’s efforts. Imagine what would happen if they donated $20 each. Or $100? To donate, go to http://protectmarriage.com/ and follow the link Donate Now.

  6. jeremy said,

    October 22, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Just wanted to get your opinion on an idea that may or may not be a good approach. I have heard about people searching for proposition 8 in google and then clicking on the “yes on prop 8″ or “no on prop8″ paid ad links that appear at the top of the search results in google. Each time someone clicks on these links it is costing that campaign money. I guess clicking on the “no on prop 8″ ad is costing Hollywood stars like Ellen money they donated to the no on 8 campaign. I imagine if you were to break out the donations made to each campaign that the yes on 8 campaign’s donations have been made by at least twice as many people as the amount of people contributing to the “no on 8 campaign”. The majority of donations made to the “no on 8″ campaign have been made by Hollywood starts like Brad Pitt, Ellen Degeneres, and Steven Spielberg. Don’t forget the CTA, is it a bad idea for people who feel betrayed by the $1.2 million donation made by the CTA to fight back by clicking on the “no on prop 8″ paid search link multiple times each day? What do you think……

  7. Paula Brooks said,

    October 22, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Vote No on 8….

  8. beetlebabee said,

    October 23, 2008 at 12:01 am

    Come on now Paula…I wrote at least six paragraphs–Holycow, twelve! I got kind of wordy on this one…. “Vote no?” that’s it?

  9. beetlebabee said,

    October 23, 2008 at 12:03 am

    Jeremy, I’m not sure about that. I have those things blocked on my browser. There must be some reason for them doing it though. If you find out, let me know.

  10. Paula Brooks said,

    October 23, 2008 at 12:09 am

    Sorry I have been typing all day ..my fingers are sort of tired… just go to my blog… says it all

  11. beetlebabee said,

    October 23, 2008 at 7:22 am

    No worries, I understand. Doing mighty battle eh? Posting furiously in a plethora of places? been there too.

  12. californiacrusader said,

    October 23, 2008 at 11:09 am

    I really enjoy reading your posts. You express many of my thoughts better than I could myself! As a father and elementary school teacher, one of my biggest concerns is the unintended consequences of supporting same-sex marriage, meaning voting against Prop 8. At first, it sounds harmless. Why shouldn’t we allow any two individuals who love each other to marry? But, it’s larger than that. In redefining marriage to be between any two people who love each other, we are rewriting school curriculum. Many of my colleagues will argue that Prop 8 will have no consequences for schools, and they are partially correct. I don’t see any major curricular changes happening in the next year or two. But, eventually, it will. This is a Pandora’s Box I’m not willing to open. See the rest of my thoughts at http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com

  13. beetlebabee said,

    October 23, 2008 at 11:52 am

    A note on the opening symbolism of this post for those who haven’t had the awesome power of exposure to the great musical-turned-movie “Fiddler on the Roof” in a while:

    Tevye, the main character (played by the actor Topol), explains the significance of the Fiddler:

    “But here, in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy.”

    The entire movie is a huge internal struggle for Tevye between sticking to Tradition and relenting to the changing social landscape and values of the world, while at the same time trying to keep it all together…and the actor Topol brings it out really well.

    This summary is from: http://jeremyyew.com/2006/11/18/fiddler-on-the-roof-the-movie

  14. beetlebabee said,

    October 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    They did it again! Gay Day in Kindergarten Today! and the parents were NOT notified or given an opportunity to opt out.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829

  15. Dianna from Carmichael said,

    October 24, 2008 at 8:29 am

    I believe in Children’s rights over Adult Preference. Kids come first. Which parent would you deprive a kid of? Mother or Father? It shouldn’t even be a question. Kids are entitled to both a father and a mother. I was so glad to hear even our politicians agree on that. Even France rejected same sex marriage because they recognized a child’s human rights. They’re not just trophies, they’re people.

  16. October 24, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    [...] This is an analysis from my friend at beetlebabee: [...]

  17. Fire Mike said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    So here I am, Beetlebabee. I initially read your post on Wending’s blog, and didn’t realize you had posted it earlier here. I also didn’t realize that what you posted at Wending wasn’t the complete essay. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, can we dispense with the “clock cleaning” and “takin’ it outside” for a few minutes, and just talk about the issues?

    My take on your position is that your opposition to gay marriage stems from your belief that allowing gays to marry not only devalues traditional marriage, but is immoral in that it defies religious prohibitions on homosexuality. Am I close? Please let me know if I’ve misread you.

    What bothers me is that you’ve created a false opposition in worldviews, with one side believing that moral values are “handed down from heaven,” and the other side believing that “morality doesn’t matter.” So the heart of my question – what I’ve been trying to get clarification on – is this: Do you really believe that (1) moral values are supernatural in their origin, and that (2) people who do not subscribe to this belief are amoral (at best), or (as is your implication) immoral?

    I have a couple other ideas I’d like to bounce off you, but I’d like to know where you stand on this question first. Sound reasonable?

  18. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Glad to see you have a sense of humor, and happy that you showed up. I hoped seeing the entire essay would help.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    My opposition to gay marriage is based on the idea that gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, yes. I believe that the religious arguments have nothing to do with personal choice of gays to practice gay sexual behavior. I may believe it is wrong, but I don’t say you can’t act that way…there is a difference. You can choose what you want (you being generic here, I know nothing about you personally) and that is your choice. I believe very much in free agency. The area where my free agency and the gay community’s free agency seems to meet is currently at the hotpoint of this marriage discussion.

    Central to my views is that God is a god of truth. That being the case, there are evidences of this truth all around us. Many people I speak with on this issue reject the religious facets of my belief, and I respect their differences. Because these things are based on a universal truth, there is physical evidence that backs up the truth. I have read studies, papers, other tangible evidences that I use in connection with my spiritual views.

    I believe based on my personal research into this subject that the gay lifestyle is not as stable, loving, kind and beneficial as the gay activists would have us believe. That this is a false premise that the equality argument rests on. I also believe it’s not as physically healthy. I believe that it is detrimental to children for a few reasons, some being that the cause of gay behavior, while not completely understood is known to have societal factors. The more gay influence permeates our society, the more widespread gay lifestyles become through societal influence. The common idea is that being gay isn’t catching, but in some respects that is not true. Societal influence does have an effect on impressionable children. I also believe that gender matters in parenting. Each gender is beautiful and has a gift to give the next generation in modeling societal roles. This builds strength and stability into children and into society. Creating motherless or fatherless homes by design would deprive children of that modeling by design and I think that is a major strike against the equality of the two types of unions. I also believe that traditional marriage adds stability to society in the stabilizing complimentary roles wives and husbands play in a marriage. Many gay activists promote open marriages. I think this is detrimental to the fabric of society and I desire to keep this from becoming accepted behavior.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Do you really believe that (1) moral values are supernatural in their origin, and that (2) people who do not subscribe to this belief are amoral (at best), or (as is your implication) immoral?

    About the world views. I think you’ve misunderstood, let me clarify and you can tell me if that helps at all. It seems to me that there are two world views. I believe that God is interested in the happiness of man, for many theological reasons I’d be happy to share if you’re interested, it’s fascinating to me, but suffice it to say that this desire for our happiness comes because we are his children. He gave us laws to live by, a few times. Many are recorded in the Bible. The ten commandments are some of them. It’s a general moral code to help us to be happy. (there are so many voices telling us do this! do that! be happy, buy this! well, in my experience, this god given law brings happiness and the others don’t.) Ok, so that’s one side.

    I believe there is another philosophy that dominates in varieties that says that morality is not handed to man from God, it is something we all choose for ourselves. WE decide amongst ourselves what is right. A common thread of this thinking is, “this is right for me.” “do what is right, for you” and whatever you decide is right. Morality is peer driven, not that it doesn’t exist, but that it may change and the lines of acceptability can move. Ultimately taken to an extreme, it would mean the suspension of any recognizable morality, but I didn’t take it there.

    Does that clarify?

  21. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    The ultimate point of this essay is to say that both of these ideas cannot coexist simultaneously because they fundamentally conflict. Unlike skin or culture differences, extreme moral differences cannot be overcome in the long term. For one side to gain influence is for the other side to lose.

  22. Fire Mike said,

    November 18, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    So – did I catch you thinking I wasn’t coming back? Sorry to disappoint. You ever see “Zorba the Greek”? Remember when he is asked if he is married and replies, “Wife, children, house, everything – the full catastrophe.” Well, let’s just say I’ve been busy . . .

    First, thank you for the clarification. It’s nice to hear from someone who doesn’t resort to “God hates fags and you all should just move somewhere else!” I’ve had about enough of that . . .

    I wanted to respond to a couple points you made, first about the clash of world views, and then about how that relates to the current discussion of gay marriage.

    It’s pretty clear that there is a division between the view that God is interested in our happiness – and so gave us rules to live by – and the view that whatever we decide is right, implying that “anything goes.” I can’t disagree. These two views are diametrically opposed, and differences between them probably cannot be overcome in the long run.

    But there is another possibility that I hope you will consider. I subscribe to the notion that ethical principles are neither divine in origin, nor subject to the whims of the moment. That is to say, firm, fair universal ethical principles do exist without guidance from (anyone’s) god, and without being subject to the “whatever feels good – do it” mentality. Those principles include (but are not limited to) empathy (and closely related, compassion), responsibility, fairness (and equality), respect, dignity, and sovereignty. Of course there are others, but this is a good starting point. I think that regardless of religious background, people can (almost) universally agree that we should bear these principles in mind when determining how to behave toward others.

    (As an aside, it always strikes me as a little creepy when someone tells me that he gets his moral guidance solely from Biblical or religious inspiration. I’m not putting you in this category, but my question to such a person is always along the lines of, “Do you really mean that you wouldn’t know that murder (or theft, or rape, etc.) is wrong unless you read it somewhere?” I’ve had a number of responses to that question, ranging from inchorrent stuttering, to (really, I’m not joking) “Damn right. I’d kill you where you stand if God didn’t tell me I shouldn’t.” And, thankfully, most people respond thoughtfully, and ask themselves just how it is that they seem to know what’s right. Anyway, moving on . . . .)

    So what does this imply for gay marriage? First, I think a little more clarification is in order. Many people (on both sides of this issue, I’m sorry to say) refer to a “gay lifestyle,” or “gay behavior.” I noticed you do so, too. But one of the things we’ve learned recently is that homosexuality is part of a broad continuum of normal human sexual orientations. It is less common than heterosexuality, but normal nonetheless. So referring to a “behavior” or “lifestyle” is inaccurate, and leads to some faulty assumptions.

    To get a flavor of what I mean about sexual orientation not being a behavior or lifestyle, just think about your own identity (I’m taking the liberty of making the assumption that we both fall into the “normal” spectrum of heterosexuality. I know what they say about assuming . . . please forgive me if I’ve overstepped here). Without going into gory details, I can tell you that I’m straight all the time. Not just when I’m sharing an intimate moment with my wife or perusing the Victoria’s Secret catalog, but all the time. Mowing the lawn, buying groceries, taking the kids to the orthodontist – straight all the time. In fact, the actual “behaviors” that would designate me as straight (if orientation were reducible to behavior) comprise just a small part of the ways I am bonded to my wife, and take up a small fraction of our time (which, of course, is the lament of many married men, but that’s another story altogether . . .). My point here is that I hope you will at least entertain the idea that being gay is just as normal (if not as common) as being straight.

    So for me, the question becomes: How can we justify treating gays differently under the law if (a) equality is an ethical principle we espouse, and (b) gays are just as “normal” as the rest of us? Since I hold both those things to be true, I cannot justify treating them unequally – whether in marriage, housing, employment or any other area. It seems to me that in order to argue against gay marriage, we must (a) assert that equality is not a principle we espouse, (b) assert that gays are not normal, and therefore not deserving of equal treatment, (c) reduce sexual orientation to a “behavior”, and attempt to regulate the behavior, or (d) come up with other reasons that gay marriage is (or would be) inferior or detrimental to “traditional” marriage.

    You mention a few of these “other reasons,” and I have just a few comments about them. You mention that “the gay lifestyle is not as stable, loving, kind and beneficial as the gay activists would have us believe.” I’ve addressed the “lifestyle” issue, so can we agree to talk about gay relationships instead? I will grant that gay relationships have historically been less stable than straight relationships. However, it seems reasonable to believe that in a culture that has historically been hostile to gays – a culture in which gays are still beaten and killed for who they are; a culture in which gays have never had institutional support for their relationships; a culture in which letting other people know you are gay could mean the difference between a job or unemployment, a roof over your head or homelessness – relationship stability might suffer. Heck, in a system designed by and for straight people, half of our marriages fail. Can you imagine how hard it might be to have a stable relationship with the added pressure of being gay?

    As to being less “loving, kind and beneficial,” I’d be interested to know just how that might be measured. I really don’t know what sort of research you’ve done in this area, but my own experience (albeit limited) is that gay couples have about the same ups and downs as straight couples.

    So, finally. (If you haven’t fallen asleep yet, congratulations, and thanks.) Your original point was that such deeply conflicted world views cannot coexist. I hope you can see that our world views are not as far apart as you might have thought. I think we can coexist if our morals are firm and principled, and not dogmatic, and if we strive to assure that the ethical treatment of all people is the ultimate determinant of what is right and what is wrong.

  23. beetlebabee said,

    November 18, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    one of the things we’ve learned recently is that homosexuality is part of a broad continuum of normal human sexual orientations. It is less common than heterosexuality, but normal nonetheless. So referring to a “behavior” or “lifestyle” is inaccurate, and leads to some faulty assumptions.

    I agree that if this was the case, we’d see the subject in a different light, the civil rights argument WOULD apply and everything would be different, however, there is no proof of this, in fact, I believe there is evidence that just the opposite is true.

    Before we jump off the bridge of “gay is normal”, let me ask why you think this is true fact beyond personal opinion?

  24. beetlebabee said,

    November 18, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Also, there is a lot of research out there, some conflicting to be sure, but other research is not so conflicting. Here is a summary of articles and papers that I’ve come across.

    http://troysmsxp.blogspot.com/2008/10/off-topic-but-important-proposition-8.html

  25. Fire Mike said,

    November 24, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Hi Beetle – Please allow me to be your guide as we jump of the “gay is normal” bridge.

    First, some terminology house-cleaning. When I use the term “normal,” I do so with the same intent as the American Psychological Association. I do not use the term to infer that being gay is “the norm,” or that it is “typical.” Similarly, I would not use the term “abnormal” to describe gays, due to the pathological connotation of that word. Homosexuality is atypical in human populations, but not abnormal in the pathological sense.

    So, what is the current understanding of homosexuality in the scientific community? There are a few points here that are worth considering:

    First, according to the American Psychological Association, “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.” Furthermore, the APA has found that, “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

    I’ve read the articles on troysmsxp blog, and I have to say that most of them are a re-hash of worn out stereotypes regarding gays. In fact, that APA addresses some of them directly:

    “Stereotypes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have persisted, even though studies have found them to be misleading. For instance, one stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional and unhappy. However, studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.

    A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.

    A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples.”

    That’s the current scientific understanding of homosexuality. I like to think of myself as a pretty rational guy, so I find the accepted opinion of “all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country” to be compelling.

    However, equally compelling for me are the stories of real gay and lesbian couples. I don’t know how open you are to changing your mind – I can see you’ve got quite a bit of time and energy invested in trying to preserve marriage inequality. But if you are at all open to the possibility of changing your mind, I would encourage you to seek out gays where you live, or even here online, and learn about their lives. You will find that they are every bit as “normal” as you or I. They have the same hopes and dreams, the same tragedies and disappointments, the same worries about the mortgage and how they just got f*&#*ed in the stock market – they are just sadly, painfully “normal.” (OK, you might find a slightly increased tendency to belt out a show tune, but that’s not a bad thing.)

    So in the end, it’s pretty simple for me. Gays deserve the same treatment as anyone else is entitled to. In fact, it seems silly to me that people would even consider doing otherwise. But, in the world we live in, people do silly things, and gays are denied simple, basic rights.

    I really do hope that you’re just a teensie-weensie bit open to considering the other side on this issue. If you are, then maybe you’ll think about these questions:

    Why would you exclude a whole segment of society – millions of people – from the rights and benefits that you enjoy?

    How do you look another human being in the eye and tell him that he shouldn’t have the same protections under the law that you have?

  26. beetlebabee said,

    November 24, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    Your argument is based on a fallacy unfortunately. All people already have the same rights and protections under the law. Any man can marry any woman. They all have that right. Any woman can marry any man. There are basic rules surrounding these marriages, one of them being that everyone has to be of age, another is you can’t be too closely related and there are others, like you can only marry ONE wife or ONE husband.

    Not only that, but there are provisions in California law that give all the benefits the state of California gives Man/Woman marriages, to Domestic Partnerships. They are equal under CA law already.

    I see no discrimination here. I see a difference in verbiage, nothing else.

    I understand that my brothers and sisters who have same sex tendencies can be great people, very kind, very wonderful, and I love each of them as the brothers and sisters they are. We’re all part of the same human family. Everyone deserves to be loved unconditionally. Loving someone doesn’t mean agreeing with them.

    That’s where we differ.

  27. Fire Mike said,

    November 24, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    Hold it a second, Beetle. Last week you said, “I agree that if this was the case, (that being gay was normal) we’d see the subject in a different light, the civil rights argument WOULD apply and everything would be different.” Well, every national health and mental health organization agrees that being gay is normal. There is no controversy. But now you’re changing your tune (and truthfully, I’m more than a little disappointed). The fact of the matter is that this is a civil rights issue. Separate is not equal. And domestic partnerships, while a step in the right direction, do not afford the same rights as marriage.

    We have reached a point where there is no longer any rational justification for the unequal treatment of gays. There is simply no rational argument in favor of such discrimination. And I think you’re being a little disingenuous when you claim that this is merely a difference in verbiage. If this were merely about a word, I doubt you’d be spending so much energy defending your position. This is a much deeper issue than “verbiage” for you.

    I hope some day you’ll apply your energies to defending equality, because you really are pretty good at this.

    It’s been fun.

    Peace out, brother –

    Fire Mike

  28. November 25, 2008 at 2:17 am

    Mike,
    There is actually quite a bit of controversy about whether or not homosexuality is part of genetics or a choice. According to JM Bailey, “Environmental influences play a significant role in the development of gender identity and sexual behavior.” (Bailey JM. “Biological perspectives on sexual orientation”. In: Garnets LD and Kimmel DC: Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences. Columbia University Press, New York. 2003)

    From William Rice,
    “We know that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) can be caused by simple genetic changes in fruit flies, and since so many reproductive and neurological genes are shared by flies and humans, it seems highly likely that there are major genes influencing homosexuality in humans,” said Rice. “However, we also have firm evidence for a birth-order effect on male homosexuality, and discordance in the expression of homosexuality of identical twins, so clearly there is also an environmental influence on the trait.”
    Gavrilets, Sergey and Rice, William R. “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038.

    From Science, 1994:
    Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. “Unfortunately,” says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, “it’s hard to come up with many” findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. “…All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.”
    Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

    In regards the APA, they hint that they may have studies to support their point of view but in my research, I was unable to find the actual studies. Can you find them and post them? The reason is that the APA studies seem to contradict what others have found in their studies (see several links in my blog).

  29. Fire Mike said,

    November 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Beetle – I fail to see why the cause of homosexuality is a concern. The fact remains that, despite our not understanding the particular mechanism, we do understand that it is an expected, non-pathological, normal part of the continuum of human sexuality. Whether homosexuality is purely genetic, purely conditioned, or a combination of the two is irrelevant to the argument. Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.

  30. beetlebabee said,

    November 25, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Mike, the cause is irrelevant, unless you are trying to say that homosexuality is normal and right. In that case it makes sense to give all rights and all moral equivalence to everyone all else being equal. –same as we do with races. All races are equal in rights and are not categorized by morality because actions are separate from identity.

    In homosexuality, actions are identity, that’s where the confusion is. Regardless, you have not proven to me why you continue to claim that homosexuals have fewer rights.

  31. beetlebabee said,

    December 3, 2008 at 4:35 pm

    aaand Fire Mike Falls to the Floor….Flat.

  32. Ad YC said,

    July 10, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Hi, thanks for your blog on this. Gay agenda is very much isolated but alive in Singapore. Many are either indifferent or do not think ‘it’ will touch us. Many are also silent because it has become politically incorrect to speak out their opinions for various reasons.

    Let the gay agenda change legislation once it naivety, let it happen twice is stupidity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: