Monday, November 10, 2008

The Bigotry-Driven Life

Rick Warren -- shown here misreading the signs and closing in for a mouth-kiss from someone who doesn't swing that way -- worked hard to ensure that his flock joined the many faith-based communities that helped pass California's proposition 8. They did so in the name of their favorite god's cramped, hateful view of his supposed creation, but not every church joined in the bigotry:

The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing."

The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions.

"It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," the Rev. Ed Bacon said after his sermon.
Kudos to Ed Bacon for acknowledging the obvious. Perhaps there were people who supported prop 8 for non-religious reasons, but I don't know what those reasons would be. There could be, I suppose, people who so strongly oppose state entanglement with marriage that they're willing to abridge one group at a time. Or people who don't themselves believe in gods but have been bamboozled by any of several myths that gay-obsessed god fans can't seem to stop perpetuating.


Sis B said...

I'm fairly certain there were a few with middle-school maturity whose sole reasoning consisted of: "Ewwww.... Gaaarooooosss."

Zennalathas said...

The most common non-god reasoning I hear is: there's never been a civilization that has supported homosexual marriages (not true) and, in history, homosexuality has never been accepted, thus it's not natural and there's no reason to start allowing it now.

Marriage is a state made for procreation and homosexuals don't fit in there, etc...

So, really, there's no real argument against it...just bigots being bigots.

Anonymous said...

what people forget is that in the constitution gay right are protected, but in the bible they will be judged for their decision by GOD not us I DONNOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE. IT IS SOMETHING SACRED FOR 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN but it is protected under law of man.

Anonymous said...

why stop at same sex marriage? Let's go for polygamy marriage as well. Otherwise, you're discriminating against bi-sexual folks who wants to marry both male and female partners. If all three parties love each other it should be good to go just like gays and lesbian couples. You can not say no to polygamist based on some moral grounds cause there is no standard for morals.

Anonymous said...

is there really something wrong with being a bigot if you just don't agree with what others accept? i guess as long as you are not hurting anyone physically then one is entitled to his/her opinion for whatever reason. Marriage has always been about a man and a woman and a segment of society is redifining it. Why not just call it civil union and give the same rights?

Dale said...

anonymous, you are almost entirely wrong. Your favorite god does hate the gays and their marriages. This is yet more evidence that your favorite god is a bigot.

As for "law of man," people like you have canceled the right of gay people to marry in California, as you've previously done in several other states, including but not limited to Oregon and Colorado.

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut & Massachussetts (as well as a handful of foreign countries, including Canada and Spain).

Some US states permit same sex unions but these lack the status of marriage.

If you had any confidence in your favorite god and his views of gays, you wouldn't need state legislatures and courts to back you up. I would expect that full-on omnipotence would be enough for anyone. But not for you. You need the county clerk to nod along with you.

Dale said...

anon., I've previously addressed your points about polygamy and about civil unions (as distinct from "marriages") in this post.

Basically, I would be very happy if all governments got completely out of the business of "marriage," which is, to me, a religious distinction that's attached to a religious rite. I would prefer to let states handle the terms of the contract and let churches and other religious bodies officiate the rites.

So on that narrow point, we may agree more than you may suspect.

But as it stands, states and governments DO get involved in people's marriages, assigning rights and responsibilities based on it. That being so, the law should apply equally, without regard to gay/straight.


Anonymous said...

Well the government can get out of it but the people still will say no to gay marriages. The people spoke loug and clear they dont want it.

Anonymous said...

Dale just admit it the people in CA dont want it

Dale said...

Anonymous, obviously, yes, people have voted against gay marriage in multiple states, including liberal California. So what? That doesn't make it just or right. The people of southern states in the 1960s would have voted overwhelmingly against interracial marriage. (Heck, I'm not certain interracial marriage would pass in every state today.)

Basic rights are not and should not be subject to the wishes of the majority.

Zennalathas said...

The majority of Americans don't get to decide their own rights, so why should they get to decide the rights of others?

Zennalathas said...

Furthermore, plenty of civilizations have allowed homosexual marriage to persist. Example: THE ANCIENT GREEKS FROM WHICH YOU GLEENED YOUR IDEAS OF DEMOCRACY!

Hey, if they were on the right track with democracy...maybe they were on the right track with marriage too?

Anonymous said...

We are missing a great opportunity to practice the only civil exercise that will truly work and protect a real and vigorously pluralistic society. I believe that the gay activist zealots have lost sight of the real goal. And, the real goal is attainable today! They have wrongly decided to mix the goals of equality with a lesser and different societal goal of defeating a cultural and religious history which they disdain. This goal,however, denies diverstiy and forces the cookie cutter to operate. This misdirected zeal has led them to overlook the elephant in the room which has nothing to do with religion of any kind or culture wars. Everyone alive today owes their very existence to the special biology that exists between a man and a woman. Every human advancement, every form of art, every invention, every great teacher has owed its origin to the special biology that nature has bestowed upon a very distinct and easily quantifiable human relationship. Every legislator as well as every writer on this blog owes the same debt. There is a fallacy (perhaps fatal) to our logic when in our zeal to win philosophical temporal battles we have to train our minds to overlook the most obvious points (and solutions) because we find them inconvenient. I think the passion within the gay movement to redefine marriage is their need to find personal legitamcy and to "feel" liberated, but it is being sought in the wrong arena. All the angst...all the anger...all the planned political intimidation...all the millions of words are being wasted when, in fact, almost every single reasonable person I know is willing to accept full legal recognition of gay rights while maintaining the definition of marriage which celebrates the unequaled, undeniable special relationship and potentialilty that it holds for the very existence and renewal of our species. The difference is testable, quantifiable, and repeatable. We live in a time when we understand the dangers that modern life offers to the snail darter and the spotted owl habitat, let us, as a society rise up high enough to see backwards and forwards to realize that a man and a woman united are, in fact, different by the very evolution of nature that our society embraces. Then, let us move on to coin the appropriate labels (which already exist) and laws that protect the freedoms that all people are due under our constitution. The linguistic debate is a red herring aimed at overturning what is considered to be the inordinate influence of a certain history that is disdained/disrespected by the modern progressive. But, this zeal has brought the gay activists to the wrong battle with the wrong equipment and that only continues the unnecessary disruption of a society that has the opportunity to move forward with its diversity if the diverse could only accept their own distinctions and be gay (old definition here!) According to what we know of human evolution, we can be sure that every possible kind of human relational organization was experimented with far before any of the present world religions came on the scene. The modern world religions only blessed what appeared to bring a certain stability and protection to the community. Let us have the wisdom to do the same. Let's move forward adding diversity to stability and protection for our communities. Let's have marriage which does indeed define a very distinct, fragile organization loaded with great biological possibilities which deserves protection and celebration. And, let's have civil unions which anyone can chose to cement their commitment and legal protections. To do less is simply to chose not diversity, but conquest. And, to chose conquest is to chose conflict. Pity, unnecessarily. That is not the high road. The solution is not found in the defeat of a religious tradition and liberation does not lie in a linguistic victory. This is the war of absolutists and culture manipulators who have turned the "lofty pursuit" of legal rights and justice into a "lesser tool" to defeat, unnecessarily, an ideological opponent who is also constitutionally protected. Let reason prevail!!!

Dale said...

So many anonymous commenters on this! Neat, that.

Most recent anonymous commenter: somewhere in all that brush I think I found the point, and I think that point is that "marriage" per se should remain the province or religion and tradition. I agree. Which is to say, I would be fine with that, as I've expressed previously (here).

I want the government to treat people with complete equality vis-a-vis their pair bonding choices. With that in place, the terminology and labels can vary and stray without bothering me.

You do place a curious emphasis on breeding. Doesn't it follow from this line of argument that infertile people are ineligible for marriage? The old? The medically disabled? The voluntarily neutered?

If breeding is so much the linchpin of it, I don't see how two people who love each other but happen to be in their sixties or seventies can possibly "marry" per se.

And what follows about marriages (per se) in which the parties have taken steps to ensure no more children will be had, even if they remain biologically capable? Are they doing something within the marriage (per se) that the state should interfere in? If so, what?

In closing, gays don't threaten you or your marriage(s), present or future.

Anonymous said...

I wrote the "brush" above. (Yes, I am verbose.) And, Dale, I wish you would reread what I wrote. Specially, the first few lines. I did make it clear that gay zealots are not primarily seeking equality...are not seeking fairness...are not seeking liberty...are not seeking rights...are not seeking to establish new legally recognized relationships. That, we know, could be obtained almost overnight with overwhelming support. The zealots have, tragically, subsumed/demoted/diminished all that to another less worthy cultural, linguistic, religious battle which is misguided and has other unfortunate corruptive effects upon an enlightened pluralistic society. The attempt to change the definition of marriage from recognizing the union of a man and woman to simply recognizing committed love between any sentient adult persons is unnecessary becaue it will eventually only lead to other sets of labels and sub labels that people will use to self identify their lives. So, the conflict is a brutal clash that does not move us in a constructive direction for a society that says it wishes to learn to live in tolerant pluralistic peace. As an academic exercise, "forget tradition...forget religious texts...forget history...Even if we begin the discussion today, this minute, right now anew, we will have to admit that the union of one man and one woman is different (measureably, actually, potentially) from one man and one man or one woman and one woman or etc. Even if the battle is pressed until judges everywhere are intimidated/convinced/dragged into submission, we would soon develop all kinds of terms to delineate these distinctions anyway...after the battles. That is why I am saying that the civil rights aspect of the gay movement has been hijacked by a philosophical/cultural movement to defeat a certain historical religious movement which it considers an ideological antagonist. Well, it is. And it doesn't matter. It may be understandable to wish to eradicate it by definitional malpractice. But, it is the wrong battle. It is not even complimentary to the worthy ideal of real diversity and pluralism. Maybe no one actually believes in that. It is only window dressing or camouflage. Recognizing distinctions and differences and then labeling them is one of the ways we humans progress/advance and develop knowledge. We make greater and finer distinctions to gain benefits, data, solutions, new awareness. The whole battle to change the definition of marriage is to take on a battle that is unwise and unnecessary. The term already exists and is well defined and owned. To steal it has to be, as I have said, motivated by other less noble energies than the pursuit of justice. Even, if our history began just this morning, we would realize that we need a way to celebrate and recognize the wonderful distinctions and benefits that belong to the male-female union.
The oft used argument that you put forth again about infertile couples and old people is irrelevant sophistry. It is the narrow mind that wishes to ignore the elephant that I pointed out. We owe our damned existence and every human achievement to this special biology. (ah, and pass the biscuits please.) Just because some of us do not like the fact that the world's great religions have wrapped their dogmas around it doesn't change the undiluted reality. This battle is one that is not liberating, but building walls. Progress doesn't mean we have to overturn every word and tradition. That is a trait of adolescence, not wisdom and maturity. I know that gays want to get married so they can say, "me too." We're the same, BUT DIFFERENT. And, it is the BUT DIFFERENT that I am talking about. There is a difference. It is there. We have to restrain our brains and close our eyes and harden our hearts to our fellows who share the same society in order to continue to try to pretend otherwise. So, name it, claim it, live it and grow in happiness, fulfillment, and maturity.
I will not trouble this blog again. I stumbled upon it looking for something else at CNN.
I know my plea will not be heard. I am like that lonely individual standing in front of the already rolling tank in Tienanmen Square during the uprising, but I thought I would state it. All causes have their pat answers/responses prepared, so enjoy. I'm done with it. Thank you for reading my thoughts. I can assure you I mean no harm and wish the best for all.