Olbermann Answered

Keith Olbermann: High on Emotion—Low on Facts

If anyone hasn’t seen this clip, you should.  The implication of hate here is unconscionable.  It is the epitome of slant in this arena of old media.  Emotion, outrage, questions—all left unanswered but pointing in a certain direction, leaving the viewer with ideas that mirror his own.  Without touching on the answers that are readily available, Olbermann’s viewers are left with a sense of righteous anger at pro family voters who opposed gay marriage, and the idea firmly planted that hate is all the motivation there is.

High on emotion, low on facts, all the questions Olbermann asks have answers that are not hate as he implies.

From 20 Reasons to Support Traditional Marriage:

Marriage is an essential institution of society. Marriage is an institution which pre-exists both church and government, and is the foundation of all known civilizations and societies. History shows us that marriage is an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself – which is why the state has a compelling interest in preserving and protecting it. Central to the state’s interest in marriage is the procreation and rearing of children. Marriage advances the state’s interest in ensuring the birth and rearing of children in the setting most likely to ensure their well-being and protection, and providing the next generation the training and attributes necessary to sustain a civilized society. Hence, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges and have been held to important obligations, by force of law, all aimed at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared.

Advocates of gay marriage tend to see marriage as a ceremony between individuals, primarily to ratify their affections. Contrary to what gay activists assume, the state does not endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn for society. Society gets no benefit from redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships — only harm. Legalizing gay marriage will transform the meaning, expectations and practices of marriage as a social institution – in essence destroying marriage as we know it – in a reckless social experiment with numerous destructive consequences.

There already are disturbing social impacts where gay marriage has been legalized. The experience of European countries that have legalized gay marriage demonstrates that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage erodes the already weakened stability of marriage, family and children. Research shows that marriage is weakest, in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest, and that there is a direct connection between gay marriage and illegitimacy. As scholar Stanley Kurtz concluded, “If gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic [European] pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution. In the American context, this would be a disaster.” (The Weekly Standard 9, No. 20 (February 2, 2004): 26-33.)

The rest of this article is posted here: https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/why-preserve-man-woman-marriage/

Facts Facts and More Facts:
Need more facts?  Skip the summaries, get straight to the sources: http://troysmsxp.blogspot.com/2008/10/off-topic-but-important-proposition-8.html


  1. M said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Just how is the language in this article any less inflammatory than Olbermann’s? You’re criticizing his emotional plea and then showing another article that uses language of destruction to reference the results of same-sex marriage; this dramatizes the consequences beyond the reality. I won’t bother wasting time in direct reply to this article, because bias makes it clear my answer won’t be considered logically. I just hope some realism might enter arguments about these issues.

  2. MommyCatz said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:51 am

    They forgot to dub in the sappy violins in the background…

  3. MommyCatz said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:54 am

    The article is absolutely true, and I agree 100%. This Olbermann guy is sadly uninformed. It is ridiculous to claim that the article dramatizes the consequences of same sex marriage beyond reality, when everything is entirely based on fact. The consequences spoken of are real, Everywhere else SSM has passed these consequences have come in hard & fast. and simply claiming they’re not is deceitful & ignorant.

  4. Duane said,

    November 12, 2008 at 11:43 am

    I agree with the article in that a central interest in marriage by the government is procreation and the rearing of children. But it’s not it’s only interest. If it was it would not allow marriage between infertile or elderly couples. No one has answered the question of how? How does marriage between two people in love and wanting to commit to each other, albeit the same sex, would “destroy marriage as we know it.”. If loving, committed gay people were allowed to marry, would in any way make your marriage less significant? Would it make it any less sacred in the eyes of the church and of God? Any less meaningful to your friends, family and society? Any less special to you and your spouse? I keep asking but no one answers how marriage between two loving, committed same sex people erodes your marriage.

  5. WaltzInExile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Completely by accident, I’m acceptably married by your definition, and I have kids. So y’all better hurry up and pass a law that says I can’t teach my kids that homosexuality is normal and natural and homosexuals are loving individuals deserving of equal rights in this country and how important it is for people, especially the majority, to stand up for the rights of ALL citizens, not just the ones that we like.

    Good luck with that.

  6. WaltzInExile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 11:57 am

    P.S. Duane? Here’s my answer: It enriches my marriage when other people respect and aspire to committed loving relationships and don’t have their rights taken from them by the voice of the majority. The people who keep ranting about protecting marriage need to check their own foundations and worry less about the rest of us.

  7. Duane said,

    November 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Thanks Waltzinexile.

  8. lahona said,

    November 12, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Duane, the comment that nobody has answered the question of how same sex marriage harms traditional marriage has been answered over and over again. Please pay attention, you will not agree with this response, but it is what we and 52% of Californians who voted on prop 8 believe.

    Practicing homosexuality is a sin. It has clearly been defined that way by scripture. To say that same sex marriage and traditional marriage are the same would be to give moral acceptance to homosexuality. That is whats wrong with it. We wish to presurve the sanctity of marriage for our children, grand children and all of thier posterity. The gay community is trying to force moral and social acceptance on the people of California, and infringing on thier freedom of religion by doing so.

    Waltinexile, if you want to teach your children that homosexuality is ok, that is your right to do so. I disagree with you, but you have that right to teach your children as you see fit. But dont teach it to my children in our public schools. Just as you have the right to teach your children what you believe to be right and wrong, I have the right to teach my children the difference between right and wrong. We are not trying to take that away from you. Those who push teaching homosexuality in schools are doing exactly that to us, and that is wrong.

  9. Emissary said,

    November 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    I’ve heard a lot of people want to know how same-sex marriage would damage current marriages. The opposition even cries, “If you don’t want same-sex marriage, don’t get one!”

    While current marriages might not be destroyed, it will have a notable, negative effect on the future generation. The argument that it only affects those directly involved could also have been used to justify no-fault divorce at its inception. People didn’t see how it would affect current marriages unless the couple was already struggling and wanted to get divorced.

    Now, a generation later, we can clearly see the multitude of harmful effects to society and children that divorce produces. Probably the most insidious is that children grow up believing that marriage is no longer a life-long commitment. Instead, it is seen as an extension of dating; if it doesn’t work out, they have the right to “break up”.

    It is the rising generation that I’m worried about. If no-fault divorce carries with it the idea that marriage is not a life-long commitment, what does same-sex marriage teach? It teaches that marriage and children are not linked. Looking at the Dutch experience, this is pretty apparent.

    “Today, marriage is in trouble in the Netherlands. In the mid-1990s, out-of-wedlock births, already rising, began a steeper increase, nearly doubling to 31 percent of births in 2003. These were the very years when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands, culminating in the legalization of full same-sex marriage in 2000. The conjunction is no coincidence.

    “A careful look at the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands shows that one of its principal themes was the effort to dislodge the conviction that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked. Even as proponents of gay marriage argued vigorously–and ultimately successfully–that marriage should be just one of many relationship options, fewer Dutch parents were choosing marriage over cohabitation.” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp)

    That article was in 2003. What about today? I’m afraid it’s even more sad.

    “[In 2007], 40 percent of all children in the Netherlands were born to unmarried mothers, i.e. half of all first-born children. The proportion has doubled over the past decade.” In other words, in the past four years, there’s been almost a 10% increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although there may be other factors, the same-sex marriage campaign has definitely played a big part.

  10. Duane said,

    November 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Thanks for responding lahona. But you still do not answers how it destoys and eroded your marriage. At least you did answer that you feel me lifestyle is immoral and that you base that on scripture. I will gladly discuss the scripture passages you say so clearly define homosexuality as a sin and show you how it’s not so clear when one studies scripture in light of the original language, the context, the culture it was written to and the purpose it was written. But your interpretation of scripture and the teachings of your church should not be brought into the equation when deciding civil rights for a minority. The separation of church and state must be set in place to protect not only the freedom to worship as one believes but also to protect the rights of minorities. Following your logic, one could conclude that the majority could take away the rights of Bhuddists to worship as they believe because our scripture clearly says they are wrong. Or the evangelical Christians could ban the LDS church because the book of Revelations clearly states that God will not inspire scripture until Christ comes again and that the canon is closed. You cannot take away my rights because your interpretation of scripture says I am immoral when the standards set by our government say otherwise. I obey the law. I pay my taxes. I love my family. I support education and believe children are our future. I give tithe and time to my church. I give time and money to causes that make my community better. I reach out to people less fortunate than I. I help my neighbors every chance I get. My neighborhood is better because my partner and I live there. Yet you interpret scripture in such a way and say I am immoral and claim you have the right to take away my right to marry? Marriage is a legal right given by our government, albeit a very special right. A majority should not be able to take away that right based on the teachings of a church and their interpretation of it’s scriptures. Thanks for reading. Peace.

  11. waltzinexile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Lahona, I want you to consider for just a second, please, the idea that public schools do not exist to promote only that which you deem acceptable. If public schools fail to address the reality of the world around us, they are doing our children a disservice. The idea that my child would somehow learn in school that the only valid families, the only families worth celebrating or respecting, consist of a mother, father, and children, is pretty distasteful to me. Children of single mothers, of two mothers, of two fathers, should not be made to feel like second-class citizens in their classrooms. So limiting public school discussions and teaching opportunities to your worldview is an imposition I’m not willing to accept for my children.

  12. Duane said,

    November 12, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Emmisary, you have gien no proof that the marriage between a same-sex couple endangers the institution of marriage. Because we ser marriage as something very special and want to move our relationship to that level of commitment has no bearing on the decline of marriage in the Netherlands. The cause of that decline could be several things. It is wrong to say it’s obviously due to gay marriage.

  13. debbie said,

    November 12, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    No one can give evidence right now that same-sex marriage will absolutely harm traditional marriage. Just like when no-fault divorce came into play, no one then could “see” the damage that it would do today. So, using the scientific method and information available today, including that of past civilizations, I believe that it can safely be stated that same-sex marriage is just not a great idea.
    Are we all being asked to participate in an experiment, and can I opt out?

    It seems like this is one of those refusing to learn from history moments.

  14. prop8discussion said,

    November 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    from the american college of pediatricians (who yes, disagree with the american academy of pediatricians…which means…there is disagreement on arguments many people state as facts):


    Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

    go to the original article for the references

  15. WaltzInExile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    You’re equating correlation and causation, which can lead to bad conclusions. Additionally, it would seem that the American College of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatricians coexist, yet neither one is trying to revoke the rights or privileges of the other group. Huh. How ’bout that.

  16. Troyrock said,

    November 12, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Waltz and Debbie,
    The fact is that for whatever cause, violence is higher, relationships are shorter, mental illness is more likely as is substance abuse and suicide for homosexuals. “Marriage” is taught in schools. Teaching children that same sex couples are equal to married couples is just as wrong as teaching that 2+2 = 5. If same sex couples were given the title of marriage, it would be discriminatory to teach about one type of marriage and not another. The solution is, therefore to not include same sex couples into “marriage” until they can resolve these problems.

  17. lahona said,

    November 12, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    I was in the middle of writing my response when Troy posted and said everything I was trying to say…. thanks Troy. My point was going to be that my stance on gay marriage is not only based on my religious beliefs, but researched based on statistical fact. Again thankyou troy for your post.

  18. WaltzInExile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    I didn’t dispute the statistics you cited. I merely said you cannot show they are causal. Murder rates escalate when ice cream sales go up; should we outlaw ice cream? We would using your logic.
    Additionally, 2+25 is a FACT. “Teaching children that same sex couple are equal to married couples is….wrong” IS AN OPINION BASED ON YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. And while you’re entitled to it, that doesn’t mean you can cram it down my kids’ throats in public school. And I think we’ve already covered the ground that I’m teaching my children exactly what you claim is wrong. I’m also teaching them that it’s their responsibility, as part of the privileged white middle class, to vote to protect the rights of minorities.
    Finally, I’m confused that allowing same sex couples to marry would then prevent schools from teaching about heterosexual marriage; I’m pretty sure the curriculum would simply expand to include both unions.

  19. WaltzInExile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Uh, oh, wordpress didn’t like my “” (not equal sign.) That should read “2 + 2 [does not equal] 5”.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Waltz, I have not seen a single bible verse go by here, what are you talking morals for? We’re talking facts here. If there’s even a question about what the effect of same sex marriage is on a society, we should hold back and give it further study. We are not lemmings, to throw ourselves off a cliff just because it’s PC to follow the political whim of the day.

    If we were talking about tampering with the biological ecosystems of the spotted owl we’d take more precaution, why should our children be used as lab rats for social experimentation that has no sure outcome?

    Gays want us to believe that same sex relationships are equal in every way to hetero relationships. Factually, there are differences. We ought not run headlong into that sort of human experiment.

    France sent delegations to the countries where same sex marriages were legal, they found that the result was something they didn’t want to try. France rejected same sex marriage two years ago. At least they studied it out before inflicting it on their population. They made an informed decision. We owe it to our children to do the same.

  21. WaltzInExile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Premiere, nous n’habitons pas en France. Second, if you are genuinely worried about unleashing uncertain effects on citizens of America, you really need to be lobbying the FDA for stricter drug trials. Third, no one said anyone was a lemming. Fourth, while this may be a whim for you, it most certainly is NOT for me. Fifth, it’s not an experiment if it has a sure outcome; experiments by definition are used to find results or confirm them. Sixth, it’s not just gays who are fighting for same sex marriage; some of us are straight people who believe in equality. Seventh, I don’t care if you believe the relationships are equal or not; I care that you think it’s appropriate to force people who don’t subscribe to your worldview to accept that belief as law. Huitieme, regarde le premier encore, s’il vous plait.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    None of those points have anything to do with the topic. English or French. I’m so sorry. I don’t argue just for the sake of arguing, even though the responses were cute, they lacked substance. My points were sincerely made under the impression you truly wanted to understand. My apologies.

  23. Troyrock said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    It is certainly more difficult to establish causes in so called social sciences. We can, however, look at some items and see that they are facts. It is a fact that same sex couples and marriage are different both in a legal sense now with proposition 8 and also in a real sense because, for instance, the incidence of violence is greater. To teach that they are the same is incorrect. This has nothing to do with my opinion, it’s a fact that they are different, we don’t have to know why they are different to see that they are different and that the differences are undesirable.
    I would like to ask what you think same sex couples would gain through the acquisition of the marriage title?

  24. waltzinexile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    I should rely less on syllogism, it would appear. I should clarify: I completely understand your viewpoint. I simply don’t agree, and thought I would put forth the reasons why I don’t. That said, I’ll try to be more clear here.
    First, I’m very confused by your statement (at 20): “Waltz, I have not seen a single bible verse go by here, what are you talking morals for?” Not only do I know what statement you’re referring to, I fail to understand why one cannot discuss morals without discussing the bible?
    Second, yes, I was being a smart aleck with the French.
    Third, my point still stands, we don’t live in France. Being a different country (and really, a unique country, in terms of our government and charter) means we can do things differently.
    Fourth, I still don’t understand about the lemmings.
    Fifth, your use of the word “whim” is not arguing, it is belittling. I find nothing insignificant about the erosion of civil rights, so I find that your word choice IS substantive to the argument. Calling this a whim makes it seem inconsequential.
    Sixth, as near as I can tell, one of your biggest problems with same sex unions is that it offends your sense of the word “marriage.” I understand how attached one can get to the meaning of words. And as a science student, I get upset when people use the word “experiment” wrong. If this seems silly to you, imagine how silly it seems to me that you think marriage means what your bible says it means.
    Seventh, and again, quite substantial: it is not just gays who are fighting to overturn prop 8. This is fundamental to the argument because it negates your “straights vs. gays” frame.
    Eighth, I’ll rephrase. I was trying to avoid sounding as if I spoke for anyone but myself. You said (at 20) “Gays want us to believe that same sex relationships are equal in every way to hetero relationships.” I already covered that it is not just gays, so let me get to the next point: No, we don’t. (Nope. Can’t say it. Hate the royal “we”.) *I* don’t want you to believe anything. I do not care what you believe. So it’s inaccurate of you to state that your opposition wants you to change your beliefs. All I want is for you to stop legislating those beliefs on to me at the expense of the civil rights of a small minority.
    Ninth, I said to refer back to point 1 again, re: France.
    Tenth, this is an informed decision on my part.
    Eleventh, it would really help me if you would tell me specifically who “our children” are. Is this all children in America? All children in California? All LDS children?
    Twelfth, your comment at 22 might as well read “You have such a sweet spirit.” Really.

  25. waltzinexile said,

    November 12, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Did you seriously just argue that “it is a fact that same sex couples and marriage are different both in a legal sense now with proposition 8” as if the 52% majority obtained “legal difference” carries weight with me?
    Also, you lost me with the idea that they’re different because there’s more violence. Additionally, you’ve switched from “equal” in your comment at 16 to “same” in your comment at 23. I said I was teaching my children that they were equal; I never said they were the same. There is an important difference. When I say I am teaching my children that same sex marriages are equal to heterosexual unions, I am teaching my child that neither is morally superior and also that both are deserving of the civil rights provided all citizens.

  26. November 13, 2008 at 3:56 am

    waltzinexile: RE: Your post #24.

    First, It was Duane in post #10 who mentioned scriptural interpretations. You both seem to be tag-teaming your arguments through this post, so I can understand where beetlebabee might have been confused.

    Second, pass.

    Third, you are an idiot if you do not look at the effects things have ALREADY had on other parts of the world before making your own decision.

    Fourth, the lemmings (correct me if I’m wrong, beetlebabee) comment was in reference to the fact that so many people have jumped on this gay marriage/anti-Mormon/anti-prop8 bandwagon without doing any personal research. You may have noticed that many of us who supported Prop 8 HAVE done our research, and posted it online for the world to see. (BTW, mine is at http://prop8voterinfo.blogspot.com).

    Fifth, the word “whim” is entirely appropriate here given the nature of the opposition, especially in light of the lemmings that are running through the streets with angry faces, screaming about things that are completely false. (IE, “Mormons bought this election!” (Untrue.) “Prop 8 used kids to unfairly steal this election!” (Untrue.) Ad nauseam.) A whim is when you do things without much thought. You know, like pull a hate slogan out of your butt, scribble it on a sign, and threaten to murder Mormons and burn their churches down. At least, you’d better hope it was a whim. After all, if it wasn’t a whim, I believe the correct legal terminology is “premeditated.” That one’s harder to shake.

    Sixth, you stated “..imagine how silly it seems to me that you think marriage means what your bible says it means.” If that is the only place marriage has been defined as “one man-one woman” I wonder why everyone from every other religion and non-religion around the entire world has used the same construct for (at least) several thousand years??? Marriages have been found in existence in all primitive cultures we have come in contact with (for example, aboriginal tribes, Native Americans, etc)… and they have all been heterosexual! What biblically-based homophobes everyone on earth has been, regardless of their religious affiliation, without their even knowing it!

    Seventh, your response to this one was completely unrelated to beetlebabee’s comment. Let me help you: Regardless of their sexual orientation, no one should be forcing their worldviews on anyone else. Marriage, as I have already shown, is an ancient institution, held steadfastly to by millions of people from many different worldviews. This is not open to redefinition.

    Eighth, your response here was: “it’s inaccurate of you to state that your opposition wants you to change your beliefs. All I want is for you to stop legislating those beliefs on to me at the expense of the civil rights of a small minority.” That’s a pretty loaded couple of sentences, there. First of all, while it may be sorta true that the opposition is not trying to change OUR beliefs, it has already been stated, openly, that the only way to normalize homosexuality in our society will be to “re-educate” the children, the way all fascists do. Kids haven’t been around long enough to understand the risks such behavior will pose to their lives. That’s why we oppose this so vehemently. Second, it was a small number of supreme court judges who DID the legislation here; Prop 8 simply reversed that legislation. This is another example of the catchy, albeit false, slogans the lemming-kids are running around the Mormon temples with. WE didn’t legislate anything! Third and last, and let me be as clear as possible here: NO CIVIL RIGHTS WERE HARMED DURING THE MAKING OF THIS AMENDMENT!!! This is NOT a civil rights issue – gays have for years now been afforded every right the same as straight couples in CA. (Another slogan, I might point out.) Why, then, are they rioting in the streets across the country? Key word: “rights!” They have all the same “rights” already!!!!! What has been taken away from, or denied, them except the ability to force everyone in society to think of homosexuality as normal? Science surely doesn’t show this as the case, so why are we ALREADY teaching it in our schools (the “marriage” thing would have only streamlined the process)? It is mandatory instruction in CA schools that children be taught that tobacco use is harmful to their health, and, BASED ON THAT CONCLUSION, is an undesirable habit to be avoided at all costs. Why would we then, BASED ON THE EXACT SAME SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND CONCLUSION, teach them that homosexuality is acceptable?

    Fact: you are more likely to get AIDS from one homosexual encounter than you are to get cancer from one cigarette.

    You see, although this proposition was indeed in line with many people’s religious beliefs, to imply that it was entirely religiously-motivated is completely incorrect.

  27. November 13, 2008 at 4:09 am

    To the mysterious “M” in post #1:

    While Mr. Olbermann’s plea may have been heartfelt and emotional, what it lacked was SUBSTANCE, just like your pithy comments. Since this was obviously NOT about anyone’s “rights” being taken away, it seems like quite a jump to accuse Prop 8 supporters of being hateful, etc. Even though you lack the foresight that the author of the other article has, you should at least acknowledge that the have done their homework, and are not simplistically labeling people.

    Next time, PLEASE “bother wasting time in direct reply” so that you can actually discover the logic and realism that you are missing out on by simply stopping by for a quick hit-and-run. For example, my comment in post #26, immediately prior to this one, is rife with logic and realism, and I would beg you to call me out on any alleged illogical or unrealistic statement.

  28. WaltzInExile said,

    November 13, 2008 at 8:50 am

    We’re never going to agree on this, but name-calling (“you’re an idiot”) isn’t making me care more about your view of things at all. I absolutely believe that this is an equal rights issue, and no amount of you repeating “it is not” is going to change my mind. Additionally, I was absolutely correct to argue (speaking only for myself) that this is not a whim. I said it before, but maybe rephrasing will help: I am not speaking “for the opposition” here; I am speaking IN opposition. Finally, see Comment 5. Because I’m interested in hearing what you think the schools should say if the day comes that my son asks during story time about “families that don’t have one mommy and one daddy.”

  29. MommyCatz said,

    November 13, 2008 at 11:34 am

    I am amazed to see both Waltz & Duane vehemently accuse prop 8 supporters of hate & bigotry, when it seems the entire gay community is out rioting, threatening to burn down temples & spraying graffiti on walls and gates. Glancing through pictures & watching video taken at these riots, I see horrid twisted faces of hate, anger, & frankly, intolerant bigotry. I see innocent, non violent people being beaten and screamed at for simply standing & declaring what they believe to be true. I see Property Vandalized. All this from the group screaming that WE are inolerant. The blatant hypocrisy is head-shakingly pathetic, and borders on hilarious. Apparently your idea of ‘ethics’ can change if you happen to be in a riotous mood.

    And although you may or may not truly believe the twisted statements & bald faced lies you’ve been spouting in this blog, You are wrong. However, I believe in pure tolerance of others beliefs. To tolerate someone does not require one to surrender his own beliefs and convictions. The majority of society has decided to tolerate, not surrender. You have all the rights & privileges of a married couple. You gain nothing by being married, other than to steal a chance for a healthy happy life from future generations, in order to salve your own insecurity and need to feel more accepted.

    We support prop 8 to help maintain the fabric of society. The family has always been the base structure of the future, because children are the stock of future generations. To tear down the family unit is to undermine society. Facts prove it, and ignoring them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. The facts prove again & again that gay ‘families’ are dysfunctional, unhealthy, and unhappy. Impose this on society, and society will be dysfunctional, unhealthy, and unhappy. Impose this on our children, and you are stacking against them their chances (proven by facts & statistics) of leading a healthy happy life.

  30. WaltzInExile said,

    November 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Vehement though Duane and I might be, please utilize the “Ctrl+F” keyboard shortcut and show me where Duane or I used the words “hate” or “bigotry” or even “bigot.” My browser is obviously failing in some way because I don’t see it. My single instance of using the word “hate” was when I declined to speak as a “royal we” because I do not, in fact, speak for anyone but myself. However, the original post uses “hate” three times, DRK uses it twice in separate comments, and you used it twice above. In addition, no instance of “bigot” occurs at all except in your comment.
    I cannot speak for Duane, but I promise you you don’t see me in any of the riot videos of which you speak. First, I don’t live in California, and commuting for a protest is outside my budget right now. Additionally, I don’t promote or advocate using violence or scare tactics in protest or debate. As such, I reject your implication that my idea of ethics includes this.
    You state (with a nice but completely unnecessary upper-case pronoun) “Although you may or may not truly believe the twisted statements & bald faced lies you’ve been spouting in this blog, You are wrong.” Let’s set aside for a second the distracting idea that I would bother to take so much time to set forth arguments as a purely academic exercise in devil’s advocacy, and instead address two things: 1) your use of “bald faced lies” to describe statements made by me, and 2) your assertion that I am wrong. Please be more specific about these alleged lies so that I can correct them; I don’t lie if I can help it, so this grieves me quite a bit, however, I am unable to find any lies in my statements. As to me being “wrong” well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. You believe I am wrong. I believe I am not. This is a fundamental conflict in belief systems that cannot be resolved.
    Oh, look. I just respected your right to your belief system. Strangely, I managed to avoid asking you to surrender it completely. I have actually stated repeatedly that I am in no way asking anyone to surrender their belief system. So your point that we who are fighting for equality are demanding you surrender does not apply to me. I’m sure there are other “No on 8” proponents who might ask this, but (once again, I say) I am not speaking for a group of people, I am stating my position only.
    Next, we’re back to the conflicting belief systems again. You claim (from belief, I am sure) that gay families are dysfunctional, unhealthy and unhappy. I believe differently. The great thing about America is, we’re both entitled to believe this. The other great thing about America is, in order to accomodate all belief systems and not some at the expense of others, we have the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides for all citizens to enjoy equal protection under the law. I believe that those who support Prop 8 are going to be sorry (and probably rather soon) that they invited the government into this conflict, because it’s going to force a Constitutional ruling again, and you didn’t much like that last time.
    Finally, when you say “you have all the rights & privileges of a married couple” you are actually correct if you are speaking only to me. My completely legal heterosexual marriage is recognized by all levels of US government. However – it is factually untrue that civil unions are granted “all rights and privileges of a married couple”; please stop saying so. This is not a statement that can be excused as a simple difference of opinion, this is an example of untruth and cannot properly be employed to support your argument.

  31. MommyCatz said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Dear Waltz,

    Please pardon my mistake. When I said ‘you’ I should have said ‘the gay community and their followers’.
    As for the rest:
    ” As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
    * Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
    * Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
    * Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
    * Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
    * Sick care and similar family leave
    * Stepparent adoption procedures
    * Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
    * Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
    * Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
    * The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
    * Access to some survivor pension benefits
    * Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
    * The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
    * The right for either partner to take the other partner’s surname after registration
    * Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
    * The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
    * The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

    This is what same sex couples domestic partnership have already. Untruth? This is not a matter of disagreement. It’s a matter of facts.

    There are good reasons that children need parents of both sexes. The sexes are different. Because gender is a real phenomenon, it should come as no surprise that men and women parent differently. Men & women bring different, complementary skills to childrearing. Mothers tend to emphasize the emotional security of their children, while fathers tend to stress competition and risk taking. Mothers tend to seek the immediate well-being of the child, while fathers tend to foster long-term autonomy and independence. Children need both parents, because they learn different lessons from each. Neither fathers nor mothers are expendable. The presence of a father is critical to a male child’s learning self control and appropriate male behavior, especially learning to respect women. Similarly, the presence of a father is vital for a female child’s self-respect and eventual development of a healthy adult sexuality. Children need mothers just as much. The presence of both parents is necessary for ideally balanced emotional and mental development.

    Put in technical psychological jargon, the social science evidence suggests that women teach children communion (drive toward inclusion, connectedness, and relationship) and that men teach children agency (drive toward independence, individuality, and self-fulfillment). Further, children of both sexes appear to learn self-control and responsibility from their father. They fail to learn them when he’s not involved in their lives. Our national epidemic of fatherless-ness has spawned an epidemic of antisocial children.

    Marriage, for all these reasons, is a major public health issue and not just a private affair. marriages that are exclusive, permanent & unconditional contribute much to public health and longevity; marriages that fail & end in divorce create an enormous social, emotional, and health care burden for the couple, their children, and society.

    One study in San Francisco showed that 43% of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. 79% of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.

    Homosexuals of both sexes remain 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide successfully. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. Life expectancy of homosexual men was only 48 before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to 38. Only 2% of homosexual men live past age 65.

    The Statistics speak for themselves. If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.

    The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call ‘bourgeois respectability.’ But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their “marriages” will have little meaning.

    So what do Homosexuals hope to gain from legalizing their marriages? Motives probably vary, depending on the activist. Many are seeking societal acceptance. Some probably want society to say that what they are doing is morally right. But you don’t have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person’s longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right. You don’t have to be the pope to see that. A thoughtful atheist can discover easily a completely secular natural morality that says: This behavior kills people. People should live. But homosexual behavior kills homosexuals. That’s not right. Homosexuals need to live just like everyone else.

    Legalization of homosexual marriage will not bring absolution nor deliver inner peace. Homosexuals will continue to suffer from the problems their ‘lifestyle’ creates, even if every state legislature and both houses of Congress were to pass bills extolling homosexual behavior and privileging their relationships over those of heterosexuals. Active homosexuals will continue seeking something that they will never find through the things they do with strangers. They will still be tragically unhappy people. Such behavior will never offer the basis for marriage nor satisfy their relationship needs as persons. Homosexuals need compassion, but since they will not benefit by homosexual ‘marriage,’ there is no reason for society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In fact, recognition of this intrinsically disordered behavior can have only bad effects on society.

  32. WaltzInExile said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Apology accepted. Of course, I prefer to refer to it as “The Equal Rights Community” since I think that more accurately reflects the inclusion of people who are neither gay, nor followers, but who believe as I do. We can agree to disagree on this, as well, however.
    That is an impressive list of rights accorded to civil unions under California. However, I was taking a much broader approach to the application of rights, and when I say it is untrue that civil unions are granted “all rights and privileges of a married couple”, I actually meant ALL rights. There are over 1,000 federal benefits/rights accorded to married people that are not given to civil unions. Rather than cut and paste them all here, I shall provide the single necessary example to prove my point: surviving spouses of a civil union cannot receive social security death benefits. These benefits are denied to them. Which is why I say your statement is untrue.
    Additionally, you state that “gender is a real phenomenon.” I don’t recall saying it wasn’t. However, since I see gender as a societal construct, I don’t accord it the weight that you do. Feel free to put another proposition on the ballot next year defining “family.” That would be interesting.
    I’d love to go point by point through the rest of your argument, but I have a meeting. Perhaps later. Maybe when I’m done reading my kids a bedtime story about a prince who marries another prince and how they live happily ever after. But I probably won’t have time, because after that we do a “celebrate diversity” dance, followed by a long prayer for all of our loved ones.

  33. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Waltz, your posts ooze disrespect of other’s genuine beliefs. I think Catz has a valid point. Duane is the same as far as disrespectful comments, I’ve noticed a trend. Actually, I have to confess that there was so much of a trend I looked into it and discovered that Duane was posting as about ten people to back himself up and make himself look better. Unfortunately, this means he’s currently doing time running around the Patented “Beetle Spam” Filter.

  34. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    If the gay community wants those extra thousand rights, why not fight for them without trying to redefine marriage with all the morass of legal implications that accompanies such a language change?

  35. November 13, 2008 at 7:14 pm


    I never said YOU were an idiot, I used it as a generic term. Go back and look. Comment #26, beginning with “Third.”

    Secondly, your phrase, “I see gender as a societal construct” is extremely interesting. Oh wait, I remember it now. That one time in anthropology class when we learned how the androgynous cavemonkeys sat around their fires and determined genders before setting off on their gradual evolutionary decline via the subsequent discrimination against those who were thereafter “male” or “female” against their will.

    Maybe you should think things through, huh?

    BTW, whether or not YOU used the terms bigotry or hatred is really a moot point considering that is what everyone else in the so-called Equal Rights Community is saying about Prop 8 supporters. You did watch the video above, right? I can’t remember if he used the exact words since I watched it yesterday, but that was definitely what Mr. Olbermann was implying.

    MommyCatz, excellent points. Thank you for your insights :)

  36. waltzinexile said,

    November 13, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    I’ve been directly called an idiot here, and indirectly called a fascist, but I’m the one oozing disrespect. Wow. The thing is, I don’t have to respect other’s genuine beliefs, I only have to respect their right to them. And I do.
    That said, I wondered why we hadn’t seen Duane in a while.

  37. November 13, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Oh, and those 1000 things civil unions don’t have…? Well, in CA, the law, as pointed out above, specifically gives ALL OF THE SAME RIGHTS to gays in those relationships as in a marriage. That means everything. And Prop 8 supporters will fight for your/their rights to be granted those rights, if they are not.

  38. waltzinexile said,

    November 13, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    California doesn’t have the authority to dispense federal rights and privileges. Which is why, since federal law employs the term “marriage” in its criteria for dispensation, we’re protesting. This also answers beetlebabee’s question at 34, I think.

  39. rubyeliot said,

    December 2, 2008 at 6:40 pm


    i love it when people say that gender is a social construct. when i say, gender matters, I’m not talking about taking out the trash and makeup and who cooks dinner.

    i’m sorry, but most people live in the real word, where gender matters. where marriage is awesome because it combines both. people who refute their gender or are conflicted about gender do not prove that gender doesn’t matter. likewise with any social theory. it’s a theory. and one that is not helpful to society.

    how can you say gender is a social construct, when it’s been shown in study after study, that children do poorly without at father?

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

%d bloggers like this: