Stephanopoulos called Brownback "pro-family" because he is "a true conservative"
On the January 20 edition of ABC's World News Saturday, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos equated being "pro-family" with being "a true conservative, true social conservative." Discussing Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) January 20 announcement that he is planning to run for president in 2008, Stephanopoulos asserted that "there is a bit of an opening for [Brownback] on the Republican side" to "try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family values." Brownback opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
Stephanopoulos is not the first media figure to suggest that "pro-family" positions are those espoused by conservatives. For instance, as Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), CNN chief national correspondent John King has repeatedly equated Christian, conservative voters and "pro-family voters."
From the January 20 edition of ABC News' World News Saturday:
JOHN BERMAN (correspondent): Now, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was not the only one to jump into the race today. Republican Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas also got in. Where does he stand right now among the Republicans?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Way back. You look at this poll we've got coming out just today. [Sen.] John McCain [AZ] and [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani way ahead on the Republican field.
Senator Brownback down at around 1 percent. But he's gonna try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family principles. And there is a bit of an opening there for him on the Republican side.
Okay I need a bucket to throw up in now.
Come on ABC, being anti-gay and hating everyone who is not a WASP is not "pro-family." Its called being a bigot.
This whole "family values" kick the neo-cons are on makes me sick. Its like the whole, "if your against the war in Iraq, than your pro-terrorist" argument.
Yes, I too am sick of it.
Being "pro-family" in the current climate apparently means:
- Oppose legislation to let mothers and/or fathers be home with their newborn for 1 year without losing their jobs and income
- Oppose legislation that would make it easier to allow families more time together for vacations and holidays
- Oppose legislation that would give all children and all families health care insurance
- Oppose all measures to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies
Those are the basic rules for being "pro-family". I'm sure there are other examples of this Orwellian doublespeak.
I favor legislation that says gttntoobed doesn't have to work anymore, is given a $200,000 yearly salary, free health care and 12 vacations per year. And FawltyLogic has to pay for it.
Nobody wants your damn handouts, people are looking for fair recompense for their labor. Go ahead and look down on the good people of our country who work hard and struggle everyday with the high cost of living and healthcare. In marginalizing honest appeals for family values you show no self-respect. It's that basic lack of self-respect that makes for bad neighbors. It creates the kind of neighor that is more concerned about their stock portfolio than the health and welfare of the family next door.
The high cost of living and healthcare? Try being self-employed in California and paying $1,504 / month out of pocket for your family's health insurance. Oh, and paying Socialist Security twice (12.5%) for the unmitigated gaul to work for yourself and your family. The difference between you and me is that I DO have self respect. That's why I'd never work in a union job. How do people like that look themselves in the mirror? Oh, and I'd bet that more of my income goes to helping the needy than most of the self-absorbed Lefties on this site.
I'm sorry for your situation and I admire your gumption. But the rest of your post is typical conservative. ME ME ME ME ME ME! Look at how bad I have it. Nobody is as bad off as me.
You're just the kind of person who would benefit the most from the progressive principles of shared responsibilty yet you reject such notions out of some prideful moral superiority complex.
We're all in this together, tubed. This nation is like a family and we need to help one another.
Peace.
Ah, yes...the ultimate Troglodyte talking point.
The Right-Wing liars have been spoonfeeding this myth into the collective consciousness since Dan Quayle saddled us with the meaningless bromide "Family Values". Of course, the lazy millionaires who make up the press corps have lapped it up like dogs eating their own vomit. In the context of political propaganda, "Pro Family" is shorthand for White Christian Male Fascist Troglodyte.
Hey, I value my family.
I value the families of lower privilege, and I hope that the new congress, through raising the minimum wage and other endeavors, will do more to help them.
I value the families of our soldiers in Iraq... which is why I want them home, safe.
I also value the families in Iraq... which is why I wish GW had never stirred up that hornet's nest to begin with.
Frankly, I think "Family Values" is a canard, because everyone values his family (with the notable exception of a bunch of politicians--mostly Republicans--who are on their second or third marriage). The important point is, do they value other people's families?
Did Karl Rove eat the Stephanopoulos who was part of the Clinton team in 1992?
yea, talk about dogs eating their own vomit. course, they'll eat other dog vomit too.
Brownback? Seriously? Can the Republican pool be that shallow?
Once again. Media Matters lies. Steph did not "call Brownback "pro-family" because he is "a true conservative"" as MMFA falsely puts it in the title. What he said was "he's gonna try to carve out his place as a true conservative...the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family principles." In other words, Steph is saying that Brownback is going to try to portray himself that way, as conservatives have been doing for many years. Either media matters is too intellectually lazy to understand the distinction between calling someone "pro-family" and saying that he is going to try to carve out his place as "pro-family" (which I highly doubt) or they prefer using sensationalist headlines to get people to read their articles in contradiction to what their own articles actually reveal. MMFA is certainly not unique in this regard--I just expect more from a group that thinks of itself as a media watchdog.
So where in the article did they distort what GS said? Nowhere.
Did I ever say they distorted what GS said? No, of course not and you know it. MMFA does not distort what people say: instead, they use misleading article headlines which put a false spin on what people say and then they proceed to, in the article, quote the person correctly. It's not the posting of these comments that is objectionable; it is the use of misleading headilnes to introduce them.
I'm sorry, but if you state Media Matters lied (which you did, second sentence), then you are saying that Media Matters said something untrue (i.e. distorted the facts).
Correct--they distorted the facts in the headline--GS did not call Brownback "pro-family." That is a distortion of facts. The actual quote MMFA used in the article, however, was not distorted. If you're still having trouble understanding this I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do to help you. Understanding adult arguments requires having an adult mind.
OK, I see what you are saying. A bit of wordparsing but a legitimate point. Steph wasnt saying he WAS those things only that he would try to portray himself that way. I still dont see it as a lie, it was pretty close to calling him those things and certainly implied them. I will give you MMFA being sloppy.
i could see this being read either way.
In the SAME sentence George EQUATES true consevatism with pro-family...what' do you not get?
Absolutly no lie here this is what was said
"there is a bit of an opening for [Brownback] on the Republican side" to "try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family values."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nothing here about trying anything. He said there WAS an opening to portray himself as a conservative the man most committed to family values now that clearly conflates being a conservative with being most committed to family values.
I misread it DOES say he will try to carve out a niche, however it still clearly conflates being a conservative with being most committed to family values, which is the misinformation. Certainly no lie.
Fair enough Solon--perhaps my phrasology was too strong. I should have written "misled" or "falsely suggested" but not "lied."
I wouldnt argue with either
That being said, I would also like to see the term "pro-family" eliminated from public discourse. It's utterly meaningless and whatever meaning it's intended to have, conservatives CERTAINLY do not embody it.
Pro-family conjures up a negative conotation for me. I feel it is just code for homophobic or anti-gay. After all what else does pro-family really stand for in the political world but htat you are against gay rights and in favor of anti-gay rights legislation. It is like pro-life...in the political sence the only life they are pro is in the context of abortion. A politician in favor of the death penalty but not in favor of legalized abortions is labeled pro-life...seems to be pretty limited in meaning.
While it is true that Pro-Family often equals anti-gay marriage, it also is a strong belief that the mother-father dynamic is superior to the single parent household, for everyone involved. This would be the Dr. Laura sermon. All factors being equal, I think this is mostly true for the simplest reason being the monetary hardship that most single parents endure.
I'll play. What legislation has the pro-families value candidates pushed to address the problem you described of single parent housholds. We know they pushed to make sure children of gay parents only have a single parent...I guess the single parent issue changes when we talk about gay parents...then apparently it is a positive. I may be mistaken but the only pro-family legislation pushed I am aware of is anti-gay legislation. If a politician says they are pro-family values I rarely think they are going to be pushing legislation that is truly pro-family. My assumtion is they are going to push anti-gay legislation. My take...maybe it means something different to those that buy into the pro-family labels.
I agree with you on the legislation part. My only point was that most people who would use the pro-family label on themselves do so because they feel that a certain type of family is better than another type. And that certain type is a mother-father-child family. They would strongly discourage single women from having children because it has (in their opinion) a negative cost to society. Our society has become much more tolerant of that choice for single women to have children and the pro-family stance is that society has moved in the wrong direction. IMHO.
"They would strongly discourage single women from having children because it has (in their opinion) a negative cost to society."
So they would back a woman's right to choose an abortion?
Honestly, I understand what you are saying. I just couldn't resist inverting your statement. But, as Americans we are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not a 2.5 child nuclear family.
Furthermore, I would argue that more mothers are abandoned by their children's father than choose to have a single parent pregnancy.
Should we make divorce illegal? Should we make premarital sex illegal? Abstinence hasn't solved anything.
Very valid points. The problem with the pro-family model is that it is very idealistic. Ideally, we would all choose the perfect mate that would last forever. Ideally, we would all be responsible. Ideally, we would think with our heads instead of our...
Of course, also relevent is that a percentage of the population wants nothing to do with that lifestyle.
The family unit so last century.
Maybe the greatest help to families would be to start with investment in education. Pay teachers better, much better (100,000/yr?). Give them more control over their classroom and demand more accountability from them. Put the art of teaching on par with the art of practicing medicine.
Universal health coverage would settle much unease in the household, too. Alas, the last congress didn't have health coverage or education front and center on their pro-family agenda. What was their primary concern? Oh yeah, the very anti-family, anti-human pursuit of war.
War on Iraq. War on gays. War on the New Deal. War war war.
Does the fact that it was so "last century" make it wrong?
No. That was a failed attempt at humor on my part.
Yeah, but "pro-family" also implies that whoever doesn't fall into the speaker's vision of "pro-family" is "anti-family."
Nobody is against mother-father households; that would be ridiculous. But framing issues like gay marriage/adoption and abortion in this way makes it seem like people who take the liberal view of those issues are somehow "anti-family." It's deeply dishonest Gingrichian language-twisting.
I don't think you can take any of these political labels for their literal meaning. If you are pro-choice...no one thinks you are for choosing whateveer you want...everyone knows it means you are for the right to make a choice about abortion. if you are pro-life we don't think you are going to hold any and all life sacred...we don't think you are a pacifist...everyone knows it means you are for making abortion illegal. if you tout yourself as the family values guy...who really thinks they are going to fight for true family values...we know that means you will support anti-gay legislation. These are political constructs. The labesl need to be taken within their frame work which is their political meaning.
I agree. Candidates who tout themselves as "pro family" do so to frame the debate and the issue their way. Then if you oppose any of what they consider are important components of being "pro family", then you must be somehow "anti family", or someone who rejects the traditional family and is pushing for something more radical in our society.
It's just another political slogan that has taken hold for some and has become the benchmark for how many vote. It is sickening how some on the right seem to think that the have the corner on good quality families. There is nothing wrong with promoting strong families and encouraging them, but to use it politically to beat down your opponent who is a decent and honorable person is sad.
awww....can't you just feel the love. Its been awhile since we were on the same side of an issue Tommy. Nice to see there is still a meeting ground. (-:
OK Bruce, then I suppose we all should be "Pro Rich", if we take into account the hardships of being poor.
Maybe somebody can start a political party that will do everything it can to protect the institution of wealthiness, and get poor people to vote for them for the betterment of society. Oh, wait, we've got that.
It is a misleading headline for Stephanapolous did not call Brownback "pro family" at all. He merely summarized and pontificated what his strategy would be.
He didn't? It seems to me that he called him pro family and pro life in the little blurb in there.
No, he said he was going to "carve himself out that way". Very different.
Not exactly as I see it. See below:
"Senator Brownback down at around 1 percent. But he's gonna try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family principles. And there is a bit of an opening there for him on the Republican side."
In that quote, from the story above, he says that he is going to try and carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life pro family values and such. He's calling him pro-family/pro-life.
Mag, We see it differently then. I see it as his take on Brownback's strategy, he did not editorialize.
I saw "air quotes" around the terms, but I do agree it was a pundit using one party's framing non-critically.
I agree with you on this one Tommy. Seems he wasn't oferring his comments up as the truth but rather how he would try and portray himself. Although, one of the good things about MM is they print the actual comments so even if we don't think the slant of the headline is accurate we can evaluate the actual comments ourselves.
Lost, Then why the misleading headline? It should say something like "Stephanopolous offered his take on Brownback's strategy by asserting he would present himself as the pro-family candidate"
You are not going to get an argument from me on this one. I agree with you...I think the headline and intro were misleading. My point about MM was they print the actual comments unlike many so I was able to evaluate the words myself and come to the conclusion that I don't agree with MM's take on his comments.
I am happy to say I am on Tommy's side as well. If I wanted spin, I'd go to TownHall.com.
Yeah, Tommy and Interesting Observer are right on this one. MMFA was sloppy with this headline
Given Stephanopoulos's previously perceived political leanings, I wonder if he'd publicly state that he is not pro-family.
I think Steph was just being lazy and I think MMFA is capitalizing on it a little.
Steph should have said "pro social conservative/republican family values", not just "pro-family values".
I think we can infer he meant that, but I'll leave that up to you.
I agree with this. I would like MMFA to try to be a little more "just the facts, please." We don't need to give the other side ammunition.
Okay, for all you finger-waggers, try this.
If George had used "Anti-Gay " or "Anti-Choice" instead of "pro family", would your assessment of his objectivity be the same?
I'd say his objectivity would have been better, although I'd substitute "anti-abortion" for "anti-choice." "Anti-gay" and "anti-abortion," which are specific, are more meaningful labels than "pro-family," which is ambiguous .
Good point...I think some people on this site are being obtuse on purpose...It's hard to disseminate one word from the next when they appear in the same friggin' sentence...
It would certainly be refreshing. i would love to see them drop the code words, labels and catchy phrases whose real meaning has been corrupted by PR campaigns. I would love to hear him described for what he is the anti-gay rights and for making abortion illegal candidate...at least then there won't be any confusion about what you are really voting for. If those two issues are important to you and you agree with his take then he gets your vote...but it is time that people stopped lying to themselves and drop the code words and acknowledge what they really are voting for. If they believe in it then they shouldn't shy away from the brutal reality of what they are for...IMO
"CNN chief national correspondent John King has repeatedly equated Christian, conservative voters and "pro-family voters."
As well he should. Pro Family politicians like Brownback support policies that protect the traditional family. He supports the sactity of marriage and believes that children are better off with both a mother and a father. He is probably the most pro-family politican in the Senate. He's about as good as they get. It's great that he's from my home state as well.
The liberal philosphy is very anti-family as well. They support policies that weaken the traditional family, like gay marriage and no parental consent for teenage abortions. The family will now be under attack with the Dems in the majority, and luckily we still have a few strong pro-family advocates like Brownback on our side.
So what has your honorable senator done to "protect the traditional family"?
Here's one example:
http://brownback.senate.gov/english/legissues/culturalpolicy/mediaviolence.htm
Rep. Wing, thanks for the link. I agree with Sen. Brownback on this issue. Do I qualify for "pro-family"?
Well you should ask your pro-family Sen Brownback were our Federal judge is. In Michigan we have many cases backing up because Brownback will not allow one of our judges to be appointed.
The reason? She attended the commitment ceremony of her neighbor's lesbian daughter. He believes that makes her pro-gay marriage and that she should not be appointed (even though she is a Bush appointee) or she should sign a document stating that she will reculse herself from any case involving gay marriage (which is illegal for her to do). And he dosn't even know what she believes about gay marriage, he's just using it to make a point.
Please kind pro-family senator brownback can we have our judge?
From the Brownback link;
"...articulating the public health consensus on the impact of violent entertainment on kids.
The development of our nation's children is vital and the way in which media impacts their ability to grow and develop is imperative."
Does this violent entertainment include cheering for victory in countries we've invaded?
And is there a fear that kids suffering "violence burnout" by the time they're 18 might lose interest in signing up for the next "escalation"?
So I guess we can expect Brownbeck to come forward with legislation to make divorce illegal. If he truly want to preserve the family then I guess that would be a good place to start. If the best thing for society is to have mom and dad stay together to raise and support the children then I guess anti-divorce laws are the way to go. Get back to us when he goes public with that campaign.
Rep, Specifically - how do two gay men, or women, living quietly and honorably in a committed monogomous relationship, paying their taxes, and contributing to their community threaten the sanctity or traditional marriage?
It's all about the children, Tommy. Didn't you know that gay rubs off?
Good luck getting an answer to that question. Its been asked many times, in many different ways, and by many, people...all you ever get in response is a dodge or absolute silence.
That's because there can be no answer. Republican Wing's post was nothing but vacuities. I wonder if he/she understands that?
I agree with the sentiment in your post but there is a clear answer to the question. The answer is it doesn't in any way effect the sanctitity of marriage. But if they answer the question they would be forced to face the truth and acknowledg that they are just anti-gay homophobes.
My bad - you were talking about Tommy's question. You're right; the correct answer is "recognizing gay rights does not affect heterosexual relationships in the least."
I have an answer--it's because it you allow homosexual couples to be legally married, militant heterosexuals (or their UK equivalent--British soccer hooligans) will take up arms to stop the gay advance, thus spending less time with their own families, which will cause them to fall apart. That's why homosexual marriages destroy traditonal families. Duh.
Now that's a theory! Did Dr. Weiner come up with that one?
How about this one? If you don't allow gay couples the same rights as heterosexuals then they will just be promiscuous and hang out at rest stops and straight clubs, trying to pick up straight men and when the wife finds out their will be one helluva divorce - and the crumbling of that traditional family.
Actually its simple, I ahve asked many neo-cons the same question, "how does my partner and I getting married harm heterosexual marriages?"
With one very bad debater, he finally gave me and the audiance an answer. According to his form of logic, there are only a finite number of marriages that can exist in the world at one time. If gay people get married, there are less marriages for heterosexual couples, see? (BTW he also thought Leave It To Beaver was an accurate representation of life in the 50's)
"According to his form of logic, there are only a finite number of marriages that can exist in the world at one time. If gay people get married, there are less marriages for heterosexual couples, see?"
That's literally dangerous thinking. If someone said that to me as a serious argument, I would probably injure myself laughing at them. Wow!
Well it was more like, he was throwing out various lists of items. I did the mental math, added them all together and in the middle of the conversation said, "so what your saying is......." I can't remember all of it but I got a 4.0 in the class and the tape of the debate was added to my professor's employement file as an example of her work.
OK, thats funny IO.
Interesting, indeed
I have an answer
A dumb one, but an answer nevertheless.
it's because it [sic] you allow homosexual couples to be legally married, militant heterosexuals (or their UK equivalent--British soccer hooligans) will take up arms to stop the gay advance,
Sounds like a good argument for gun control, if nothing else.
thus spending less time with their own families, which will cause them to fall apart.
Hmmm. If this is true, then it's equally true that marriages are falling apart when one of a married couple is serving in Iraq. Supporters of the war are, ipso facto, anti-family! Thanks for giving us yet another reason to oppose the war.
That's why homosexual marriages destroy traditonal families. Duh.
It's great to see someone present pure idiocy and then go "Duh," as if we were the ones too stupid to see it for ourselves.
If this was an exercise in sarcastic comedy, "Interesting," it didn't work. If it was what you really think, it failed even worse.
Actually PLeft, RRight
He's refering to a article about Savage (a couple of days ago), if you have not read it, you might want to.
"Rep, Specifically - how do two gay men, or women, living quietly and honorably in a committed monogomous relationship, paying their taxes, and contributing to their community threaten the sanctity or traditional marriage?"
This is the answer from conservatives that I tend to come across. (not all)
Yes Rep, that's what Tommy asked, whats your point?
"Rep, Specifically - how do two gay men, or women, living quietly and honorably in a committed monogomous relationship, paying their taxes, and contributing to their community threaten the sanctity or traditional marriage?"
Sorry, that didn't work the first time. Actually, it doesn't threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage. I don't want to make homosexual relationships illegal in any way. I simply believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman as it has been the past 2000 years. I think that if you allow special rights for one group of people, then you will have to allow special rights for other groups of people as well. If you give gays the right to marry, then you will have to give polygamists the right to marry as well, and so on. Pretty soon marriage will not be sacred anymore, as every group of people will get the priveledge. That's just my opinion, and apparently you disagree.
Sincerely,
TTD
Rep,
I understand, however I have always advocated that the term "marriage" be taken out of government alogether and used only for religious purposes within one's church. The government could sanction civil unions for two consenting adults with the exact rights and responsibilities for each couple. No more marriage, let the churches perform those ceremonies as they see fit.
Would you be in favor of this?
That's exactly the way I think thigs should be.
"Would you be in favor of this?"
No. I consider myself to be a traditionalist, and I would rather just keep things the way they have been throughout the history of our country. I simply believe that the government should recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman. At the same time, I don't believe that the government should actively discriminate against gays. I don't think that they should make laws making gay sex illegal or trying to criminalize homosexuality in any other way. I think that two consenting adults should be able to live as they wish, but I want the tradition of marriage to stay the same.
Well as soon as "marriage" between a man and a women entitled them to special rights, "Pandora's Box" was already opened.
I think that if you allow special rights for one group of people, then you will have to allow special rights for other groups of people as well. - Rep. Wing
Exactly. Right now, straights have a special right - the right to marry. Gays just want the same right.
"Gays just want the same right."
Should polygamists have the same right as well? What about a man who wants to marry a child? Why should we intrude on his right? What about a man who wants to marry his dog? Where exactly do we draw the line?
Can a child legally consent to marriage? Can a dog? How about a cat?
I have a dog & cat that want to marry and adopt some rabbits. They'll be disappointed :-/
Under the Equal Protection provided by the Constitution, the first line is drawn at "rational basis." That is, the government can divide citizens into classes - with one class being denied a right that other classes have - as long as there is a "rational basis" to do so. The rational basis cannot be simply moral prejudice towards a particular group; there has to be more.
A man can't marry a child because the child can't consent to the legal relationship. Neither can a dog.
With polygamy, there are many "rational bases" that can be cooked up and presented with a straight face (inheritance difficulties, tendency towards unstable patriarchies, etc.), although I suspect moral disapproval is still the real reason it's illegal.
For homosexuals, the only reason anybody can come up with is mere moral disapproval. That's not enough.
Could you make the argument that homosexuals are not being discriminated against because they are not being denied any rights heterosexuals have, in the fact that they are able to marry persons of the opposite sex if they so choose?
Well, no. It's about marrying someone you want to marry, not just a person of the opposite sex. It seems pretty obvious that if two men want to marry each other, it's silly to say they're not being discriminated against because "you can both get married...to women!".
I was asking as a legal argument, certainly not a practical one.
I think my answer applies to the legal arena. The right we're talking about is not about marrying someone of the opposite sex, it's about marrying a person of your own choice.
Bruce, of course you can argue anything but in court I don't think that argument would be successful. In layman's terms, it doesn't pass the "straight face" test.
I agree with both of you.
I dunno, Bruce-
Could you make the argument that blacks used to have the same rights as whites because they could eat in a restaurant with people who were the same color as them?
Two consenting adults. Repeat. Two consenting ADULTS.
And just is so wrong with polygamy? We're talking consenting adults, right?
Exactly!
"Right now, straights have a special right - the right to marry. Gays just want the same right. "
The definition of "special rights" as it has been explained to me is one group having a right another does not have. I too oppose special rights. If we descriminate against gay and lesbian couples, heterosexual marriage should be ended, its only fair.
You're not going to start talking about it leading to man on dog sex now are you? That's usually the next step in the evolution of the discussion. (opps I mentioned another topic that's a hot button issue for Sam).
I know Sen. Brownback's buddy Rick Samtorum feels it will and he and Sam do see eye to eye on a lot of things.
very perceptive worrierking!
It's about equal rights. If you want to deny American cititzens equal rights under the Constitution then you probably shouldn't live in America.
As for your slippery slope argument, we allow eighteen year olds to fight in war. Why not allow ten year olds to fight in war?
Actually as pointed out by people far wiser and better prepared than me. Marriage between one man and one woman has not existed for 2000 years, as you claim. Our concept of marriage only began to develop in the past 200 years at most. I mean it was still common in the 1700's for many royals and wealthy to marry for power, but actually only have "relations" with comcubines (in fact in many cases the childern of these out-of-wedlock encounters were given the power to the throne, etc.).
The argument of polygimist relationships is a little over used (although if you are religious, you should know that in the bible, these relationships were very common, including very respected people in christian history). Its has to do with harm to the individuals involved. Polygimist relationships have been shown to cause harm to (mainly) the women involved in them. A loving relationship between two men causes no harm to anyone, except those who dislike homosexuals.
Well hello TruthDetector. Why the name change?
What "special rights"? It's the exact same right as heterosexual people have. As for the lamebrained "polygamy" slippery slope, give us all a break. Polygamy is an illegal act, homosexuality is a natural orientation. Because naturally homosexual people want the same acceptance as naturally heterosexual people, we're going to end up having to accept people who choose an illegal act? That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. Any two adults who want to form a lasting, legal relationship should be able to do so. That's the position. It doesn't lend itself to polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia or anything else.
"homosexuality is a natural orientation"
That's where we disagree. I don't believe that it is a natural orientation. I think that it's unnatural. God created us with different body parts for a reason. He made man and woman to fit into each other. Excuse me if I'm getting too graphic here, but I'm just trying to explain my position here. I simply don't think that the federal government should recognize any unnatural relationships. And before you call me homophobic or whatever, let me just say that I don't have a problem with gay people personally. I just don't agree with the lifestyle that they choose to live. I know a few people who are gay, and I get along with them just fine. The same goes for a few of my friends who's main goal in life seems to be to have sex with as many women as possible. I disagree with their lifestyle, but they are still my friends and I still get along with them.
It's a shame you've never actually talked to your gay friends. I've never heard a gay person say that it was a "choice". What I have heard from them is that they always knew they were different, even from childhood. That it didn't feel "natural" to be with women.
You can say the earth is flat, it doesn't make a basis for you to discriminate against people. It's obviously natural, whether you choose to open your eyes to that or not. It occurs in nature, among animals. How do you explain a gay penguin, someone left a TV with 24-hour "Will and Grace" running at the South Pole, or what? Do you really think that people that are ostracized from their families and friends, disowned, disrespected and sometimes murdered, just make this choice and stick to it on a whim?
If it's really purely a choice, when did you choose to be straight? Do you remember? And if it's really purely a choice, like buying Chevy vs. Ford (assuming the choices are equally good), if you lived around people who would mock you, hate you, say you're going to go to hell, or even threaten your life for buying a Chevy truck...would you then buy a Chevy? Or would you more likely say "Well damn, whatever everyone" and succumb to the pressure?
So the bottom line is, you don't hate people for being gay, but you must think they're out of their minds. Or else, you just haven't thought about it for more than a couple of seconds in your entire life, which seems more likely.
Brabantio, I think the whole "it's a choice" stance is pretty interesting.
Sexuality is such a personal thing, I think we have to agree that each person's understanding of sexuality comes from inside;that is, what you know about yourself.
Long before I knew anything about sex, I knew I liked girls in a whole different way than I liked boys.I got all goofy around that cute girl in the 1st grade, I dug the little blonde on the Barbara Ann bakery truck, I think I about snapped watching an Elvis movie with Ann-margret on TV one night.
I'm heterosexual, and can say without a doubt, that I had absolutely no choice in the matter.For this reason, I have to assume that homosexuals had as little choice in their orientation.
Which brings up the part that's interesting to me; If somebody who claims to be straight insists that sexual orientation is a choice,I have to assume they chose to be straight, meaning they made a deliberate effort to be straight.
Sexuality is one of the most natural and effortless aspects of living things. If you've had to make an effort to have a certain sexual orientation, it's probably because it's not who you are.
So, anybody who thinks sexuality is chosen, in my humble, has "accidentally"wandered into the wrong dugout.
"God created us with different body parts for a reason. He made man and woman to fit into each other."
As to this nonsense, first off God's intentions are obviously an assumption, even to the degree of that there may be no God at all. Your take on divine plans does not trump common sense or science. Secondly, just because we have complimentary body parts for reproduction does not mean that everyone is born with the brain chemistry to use their parts that way. That's just plain silly. If we didn't have complimentary body parts...what would we have? What's the other option, exactly? Because we have the same genital patterns as all other mammals, that's supposed to prove something?
actually if AA, if you are talking about nature. Here is a sources for you to look at. Its a list of animals that display homosexual mating behaviors (I believe the actual list is currently at 175 different animal species that have displayed same sex sexual behavior. But I last looked at the research a couple of years ago so it may be larger than that.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Sorry not AA, but Rep. Its been a long day already, sigh.....
First of all marriage hasnt been only between one man and one woman for the past two thousand years. Gay marriages were being done in China a thousand years ago and in Europe until the middle ages. There was no marriage per say among the Native Americans but they did union cermonies among gay people who they called those of the third spirit. Second it isnt giving anyone a special right to allow them to do what others are already doing. You can marry Cynthia if you want its only special rights if only SOME people can marry Cynthia. Its not giving anyone special rights to say ANYONE can marry Cynthia including Anne.
Your post is ridiculous. No one is anti family. Being for gay people having rights isnt against families. Thats dumb. I say the GOP is antifamily for their war on the poor. Their hatred of single mothers and their zeal to get brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers killed in Iraq. A take at with at least as much legitimacy as yours.
I am so happy Brownback is going to run for President. One can only hope that Newt Gingrich will get into the fray as well because neither one of these guys is going to get elected.
I think I actually heard Hannity within the last year state that Dick Cheney would be a strong candidate for president. That's how desperate these guys are getting.
When I think of a "Pro-Fmaily", I think of a Mother and Father that will last through the test of time. Ones that will raise thier kids to the best of thier ability. I do not equate it to anti-gay, or anti-abortion. That is just how I see it.
Evil, That may be the traditional definition but in the realm of political douplespeak, it is used as a wedge issue to marginalize one's opponent.
Evil, I will ask you what I asked another poster earlier. If that is what pro-family means in the political sphere then tell me what legislation those touting themselves as pro-family have passed or even pushed that would speak to that issue. The only thing I know of is anti-gay legislation tageted at denying or limiting the rights of gay people. Could you explain how denying or limiting the rights of gay people help the family or achieve what you believe family values means.
He can't. There is no logic behind the argument. Its that simple. The only person to try and create an argument was James Dobson and he's now being attacked for using false research and misusing the research of real scientist (many of whom were not saying anything about gay marriage at all).
Also I still think its funny: Pro-Family, but its okay to attack Mary Cheney and her partner for having a baby together, not allow them to get married to provide a stable enviroment, not allow the Mary's partner to adopt the child (in case something bad were to happen to the child, he/she would still be protected). But hey we're still pro-family!
It is not an argument that Evil is putting forth here, it is simply his opinion as he sees the definition.
I am not prejudging evils opinion I simply ask how he formed it. If when a candidate says they are pro-family does he look at what legislative positions they have they taken or intend to take. Do those positons back up his definition? I am wondering what would have given evil the opinion that is what they meant by pro-family. Seems a fair question to me.
Lost,
Your question was absolutely fair, I was responding to ADifferentMcCain's assertion that Evil was making some argument when it appears he was just stating his definition.
Our love continues.................
Sorry Tommy,
I'm just getting tired of evil (and others like him) popping in and throwing out statements, without facts or actual discussion to back it up. I would settle for a "I believe this way because...".
Ok, How about, " I feel" bla bla bla
I formed my opinion on what I know. How I grew up. What I admired growing up the most >>> The Love between my Grandparents and thier Children.
"I do not equate it to anti-gay, or anti-abortion."
You may have just gotten yourself kicked out of the Pro-Family club for that statement.
I am in no club! LOLOL
EVILLIB1727 - I think your definition of pro-family is a evidence of a big problem we have in America. We lock on to one definition of a word and have a hard time broadening our thought process.
After a realization, and some editing of my personal dictionary, I think of "family" as a whole lot of possible combinations.
Americans have to figure out we can't remake our country into the 1950 version. We have "traditional families", families of divorce, bi-racial families, single parent families and gay/lesbian headed families. Pro-family needs to mean being supportive of all the kinds we have.
(Brownback looks too much like a grown-up Greg Brady. He gives me the creeps.)
I really wish the "Pro-Family" (wink wink) posters here would go back and read the entire thread, including their own posts.
It illustrates perfectly what the issue is.
"Pro-Family" is pablum, meaningless jaw flapping, code for bigotry. This was pointed out by many posters, then responded to by Republicanwingof.. and others with meaningless pablum about liberal ideas hurting families.
No backup. no attempt to define it as meaning ANYTHING, just a comfortable catch phrase to denigrate anyone different, while sounding positive and upbeat.
BS- Pro Family is about as valid as pro-puppy or anti- pain.
I see what you mean now. Does the phrase, "Family Values" sounds better?
I'd love to take an Honest poll of "Pro-Family" and gets some stats on the follwing:
Have you had sex outside of mariage?
Have you ever had an affair?
Have you ever been divorce?
Etc....
Maybe I'm wrong, but when ever I here a Conservative talk about Pro family the only thing I can think of is "hypocrite".
Monk,
Even though many use the "pro family" mantra as a political bludgeon, it does not mean that those who promote this term are somehow morally bankrupt or engage in extra marital affairs.
No, it doesn't, I agree (again!) with you Tommy. However, Monk's point is valid (I am just going to be Mr Me Too today...) in that "pro-family" is usually narrowly defined as being anti-abortions-for-poor-women and anti-gay-marriage. This is ironic, because infidelity is the most common cause of divorce. You would think that if they were truly "pro-family" these guys would be using their bully pulpits to exhort men to keep it in their pants. The fact that they're not does lead one to wonder...
Val,
I don't want some politician spending his time on my dime telling me to "keep it in my pants" or not. Personal lectures on my moral behavior is none of their business. What they do in their personal life, as long it's not illegal, is irrelevant to me as well.
Men and Woman are equally at fault when it comes to cheating. Do be a MAN hater.
I offered up my personal opinion. You do make a point though. I take issue with the fact people who don't abide by the Neo-conservative definition of "PRo-Family" are considered "anti-Family". I know not every is like that, but the people who scream the loudest about are. I have family value, but I have no issue with gay rights. THe pro-family movement politics has been extreemly anit-gay. (as you and several others have mentioned.
Tommy
You are absolutely right, however, over the past 6-12 years it hasn't been uncommon for some high profile conservatives who were touting being pro-family or preaching about the sanctity of marriage being big time hypocrits. (GOP Rep. Don Sherwood and mistress and Ted Haggard married closeted gay, leap to mind.)
Monknj80 may be engaging in some hyperbole, but I see her point.
....his...:)....
There are many people who feel that marriage between a man and a woman is a natural institution as evidenced by its history in Western Culture for 4,000 years.
Many Christians believe marriage between a man and ane a woman is a sacrament and a special vocation ordained by Jesus. That being said, gay marriage was not included in that sacrament.
Marriage between a man and woman is seen as benefiting society in the raising of children.
The demise of marriage between a man and a woman is one of the leading reasons for poverty in America.
the demise of marriage between a man and a woman has been shown to lead to higher incidents of juvenile problems.
There is a substntial subset of homosexuality who prey on male children. How does society protect the child of that possibility if one approves gay marriage?
Many gay relationships include open extramarital relations. There is not the societal pressure placed on gays as traditional marriage. How will that affect the children of the gay couple? Many traditionalists worry about that.
Many people do not think of pro-family as anti-gay discrimination.
These are just a few of the reasons off the top of my head regarding many people's objection to gay marriage. I'm sure there are more, and I'm sure some will argue the validity of these arguments.
I think most traditionalists are okay with gays living with gays in committed relationships. However they feel that the term 'marriage' should be reserved for the formal union and commitment of a man and a woman to live together as man and wife.
You could not be more wrong. Homosexuality has nothing to do with child molestation. People who prey on children are not homosexual.
You should do your homework before you show how uninformed you actually are..
If I am wrong, I'm always ready to learn. If you could provide me with some reference that'll enlighten me, I'll be happy to go look it up.
That being said, mMy question is, how do you account for all the priests who preyed on young males? What about the child molesters you see on the news? What about the guy in Colorado? What about Mark Foley? I am of the opinion that any man who molests a boy is in fact a homosexual. (please see a looksmart article at www.findarticles.com. Search on gay molestation boys)
Again, I may be wrong. I appreciate any help correcting my impression.
ps. I realize there are molestors who prey on young girls too. It too is very sad.
AA,
Priests who prey on young males are lawbreakers and pedophiles. They should be prosecuted as any other lawbreaker. What relevance do your examples have to anything?
Are you saying that gay people are too risky around children? If so, then just say it.
No Homosexuals do not molest childern, that is a myth.
Okay, first the "guy in Colorado?" to you mean Haggard? He was just gay, no boys involved.
Foley, was a sexual predator, (and an a$$), his vicitms were older teens, actually age of consent in DC is 16. His victims were over that age, not that I will defend him sense he still abused those pages. Also do you know who informed the blogger that broke the Mark Foley case? It was a gay man named Lane Hudson, who worked at the gay rights orginization the Human Rights Campaign.
Here are some statistics from the (highly liberal) FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec5.pdf
Here is a brief statment by the American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/perpetrators.html
Basically some things to understand.
A. Heterosexual child abuse (usually male, female child) is far more common, based on number of cases reported and population size.
B. Many of the cases where you do hear about adult men abusing boys, the adult male is usually what would be classified as heterosexual. Married or dating a woman. The most common type of male/male child sexual abuse is found in households.
C. The attraction of male adults to male childern is not homosexuality, it is pedophilia. Ask the vast majority of homosexuals, they would be happy to report any child abuse situation they became aware of.
You know AC, as much as you do not like my posts, I like yours above. Well said.
AC? did you mean me? if so thank you.
Thanks McCain. You saved me the trouble of researching and then responding to AA.
Just doing my job, as token gay of MMFA.
And thanks to everyone helping me educate some of our conservative counterparts. Nice calm posts, no yelling, great.
"Many Christians believe marriage between a man and ane a woman is a sacrament and a special vocation ordained by Jesus. That being said, gay marriage was not included in that sacrament. "
Religious cermony, so why does marriage entitle "anyone" to special government granted rights?
"Marriage between a man and woman is seen as benefiting society in the raising of children."
Affluence is also an benefit to raising children, so what.
"The demise of marriage between a man and a woman is one of the leading reasons for poverty in America."
Prove it. Actually you are talking more about single parents as a whole. How does the demise os marriage beteewn specifically a man and women contribute to poverty in America?
"the demise of marriage between a man and a woman has been shown to lead to higher incidents of juvenile problems."
How is the lack of married parents any more influential to juvenile problems than any other issue on that luandry list?
"There is a substntial subset of homosexuality who prey on male children. How does society protect the child of that possibility if one approves gay marriage?"
If this subset exists, how will gay marriage make any difference? How does banning gay marriage protect against predators? Aren't they out there anyway?
"Many gay relationships include open extramarital relations. There is not the societal pressure placed on gays as traditional marriage. How will that affect the children of the gay couple? Many traditionalists worry about that."
Many Hetero relationships include open extramarital relations. Look at the divorce rate and adultry rate of heterosexuals. What's your point?
"Many people do not think of pro-family as anti-gay discrimination."
Many do.
AA,
First off, the reason "marriage" should be removed from government and replaced with civil unions. There should be no religious references where the stste is concerned.
As for the demise of marriage, recognizing gay couples with equal civil unions has no bearings on the breakdown of marriage in this country. Those reasons belong to the cavalier way that many couples treat marriage, as some social function to be discarded when inconvenient. Don't blame gay people for this.
As for your statements regarding the way you view many gay relationships as promiscuous or some other such blanket, unfair characterization - what is your point? There are countless gay couples who do not engage in these types of lifestyles, for you to use some extreme example to deny decent people certain rights is ridiculous.
As I say, get the term marriage out of it.....replace it with civil unions between two consenting adults.
There are many people who feel that marriage between a man and a woman is a natural institution as evidenced by its history in Western Culture for 4,000 years.
Neat, but not legally relevant.
Many Christians believe marriage between a man and ane a woman is a sacrament and a special vocation ordained by Jesus. That being said, gay marriage was not included in that sacrament.
Legally irrelevant.
Marriage between a man and woman is seen as benefiting society in the raising of children.
As it will continue to do if gays are allowed to marry.
The demise of marriage between a man and a woman is one of the leading reasons for poverty in America.
Not gays' fault.
the demise of marriage between a man and a woman has been shown to lead to higher incidents of juvenile problems.
Not gays' fault.
There is a substntial subset of homosexuality who prey on male children. How does society protect the child of that possibility if one approves gay marriage?
You could substitute "heterosexuality" and "female children" and "straight marriage" and have an equally valid question.
Many gay relationships include open extramarital relations.
Actually they almost all do, because gays can't get married anywhere but Massachusetts. Maybe if they could get married that would change. Also, many straight relationships include open extramarital relationships.
There is not the societal pressure placed on gays as traditional marriage.
Right. Because they can't get married.
How will that affect the children of the gay couple? Many traditionalists worry about that.
Why? Any real reason?
I think most traditionalists are okay with gays living with gays in committed relationships.
I'm sure the gays appreciate your magnanimity.
Actually, a question that I have struggled with is the following: if the Supreme Court were to find a constitutional right to marriage for gay couples, how could it then consistently deny that right to incestual marriages or polygamist marriages? The typical response is that members of the same family cannot possibly consent to marriage(there's always a psychological intimidation factor) but that just does not seem plausible to me. One can certainly imagine a scenario in which a brother and sister truly want to get married and how can the the Court, consistent with Equal Protection, not find a right for them to do so as well if the state has a law prohibiting it? So while I support the right of gay couples to be legally married, I can't because of the concerns I just listed, support the Supreme Court finding a constitutional right to do so if it does not also find a right to incestual and polygamist marriages. If it finds a right to all such marriages, I am fully on board. If it picks and chooses, that's where I have a problem. If someone would be so kind as to enlighten me as to where I am going wrong, I might very well switch my position. Anyone care to try?
Good question, IO. I think the answer boils down to the two words I quoted above: "rational basis" (that isn't based on mere moral disapproval, per Romer v. Evans).
Can a state come up with a rational basis to deny siblings the right to marry? Yes: inbreeding. That one's easy.
Can a state come up with a rational basis to prohibit multiple marriages? Probably.
Can a state come up with a rational basis to deny homosexuals the right to marry?
I don't know. Can it?
Rusty,
Well said. The "slippery slope" argument is always thrown out there and it just doesn't stick, in my opinion. There is a societal benefit to promoting monogomous and committed relationships between two consenting adults. It is good for the community, the family and the country.
Those that throw out these extreme examples and then expect them to be some reason to deny gay couples the same rights is a straw argument.
Rusty,
Your first response begs the question: what's wrong with inbreeding? Societal disapproval? Harm to the potential child? If it's the latter, then the Court should also not strike down laws that prohibit people with genetic diseases from marriage. Your second response is just incomplete. "Probably" finding a rational basis for not allowing polygamous marriages doesn't help me find the principle that can stop the "slippery slope" as Tommy puts it. In short, your response needs a lot more meat.
"If it's the latter, then the Court should also not strike down laws that prohibit people with genetic diseases from marriage."
Like what? What kind of percentages are we talking about? Because inbreeding, as a general practice, harms more than just the child. If done on a widespread basis, you're bringing out a much higher occurance of submissive genetic traits, which obviously means more sick people (both mentally and physically). That's bad for society, at a risk of roughly 100%.
Of course you're assuming that finding a right to marry someone within your immediate family means that more people will actually have inbred children. This is not the case. I contend there is no "rational basis" to deny the right to marry within one's family, just as there is no rational basis to deny homosexuals the right to marry and to deny someone to marry more than one person. My broader point is that these things are a package deal; you cannot consistently allow one but deny the others. I, for one, am for total openness within the principle of consent--all diverse forms of marriage should be found to be a right so long as there is genuine consent. This would eliminate, for example, animal-person marriages or adult-child marriages. What I'm looking for is a principle that would limit the right of marriage to monogamous heterosexual or homosexual marriages outside of one's family. If anyone can tell me one, I would be very grateful.
"Of course you're assuming that finding a right to marry someone within your immediate family means that more people will actually have inbred children. This is not the case."
Um...what? Having legal incestual marriage would not mean more inbred children? You seem to be assuming that none of these marriages would result in children. Or, if absolutely nobody would take up this option to marry a member of their immediate family, then why address it at all? Your assertion here seems very odd, to say the least.
As for polygamy, it's not exactly psychologically healthy. It amplifies the natural instinct for territorialism and jealousy among the multiple partners, and/or dictates one gender as clearly dominant and controlling in the relationship(s). So I'm failing to see the "package deal" you're talking about. You certainly can deny one thing and allow another. Incest and polygamy both have obvious concerns that monogomous homosexual relationships simply do not. There certainly is a rational basis for denying those things, where there is none for gay marriage.
You seemed to list the principle you're looking for yourself. I'm not sure what else you need to find, exactly.
"Um...what? Having legal incestual marriage would not mean more inbred children? You seem to be assuming that none of these marriages would result in children. "
No, I'm actually assuming that most inbred children would continue to be born out of wedlock, as most people I imagine would be too ashamed to marry a member of their immediate family. As for its increasing gender dominance or territorialism--those are nifty opinions, but in the absence of empirical evidence, I'm afraid they remain baseless.
Sorry--I see that the gender dominance thing and the territorialism was referring to polygamy. Either way, cough up the evidence or I'm afraid I'm still going to have to search for that elusive principle!
It's not a matter of evidence, it's common sense and basic psychology. A very basic understanding of human nature should make my comments obvious. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we have two women and one man married. People are territorial by nature, and that leads to jealousy. At the very least, both women would surely want to be the "favorite", which leads to competition. Besides this obvious aspect, there's any number of things that two women can disagree over living together (same as two men). Now, in a monogomous relationship, a couple can compromise with neither person being necessarily dominant. But in this scenario, any conflict between two women that's not solved between themselves must be decided by...guess who? The man. So unless you want to believe that two women married to the same man are unlikely to clash, then obviously the man controls the household.
The very best scenario (regarding conflicts) is that the two women are completely subservient to the man, which is gender domination by definition. Any other scenario is almost certain to result in conflict which must be resolved by one party over the other two. And that's just for three people. Polygamy can mean any number of wives, and that just magnifies the dysfunction exponentially.
Are you seriously disputing any of this? Or just being stubborn?
IO: you have the "elusive principle" - rational basis. A rational basis doesn't have to be a perfect rationale. It just has to have some objective basis in reality. If the government is going to deny rights to a class of its citizens it needs to be able to cite something objective to support its decision.
Brabantio has cited several objective reasons for denying polygamous and incestuous marriages that, in my opinion, would easily pass a court's "rational basis" review. You're trying to make it more complicated than it is, I think.
I have yet to see anyone cite a rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry - some objective harm to society that isn't merely moral opposition or wild conjecture.
"No, I'm actually assuming that most inbred children would continue to be born out of wedlock, as most people I imagine would be too ashamed to marry a member of their immediate family."
No, you're not. You said that the assumption was that more people would have inbred children, and that assumption was false. Now you're saying they would be born, therefore more inbred children. The issue is that they're inbred, not whether they're born in or out of wedlock. And now that you've admitted it would lead to more inbred children, obviously that is a valid basis to disallow incest.
Would you like to clarify your earlier comments? They don't make a damn bit of sense, and you're contradicting yourself.
Upon re-reading, I misunderstood your point...you're talking about the current level of inbred births (whatever that is). In this case, the question of "more" is irrelevant. The evidence of inbreeding in and of itself is the reason we frown on incest. Whether legalizing incestual marriage would lead to more of that is completely beside the point as to why it's not allowed to begin with.
As to the argument that most people would be ashamed to get married, why is that? Why would people prefer to have inbred children out of wedlock when they can get legally married? Isn't that more shameful behavior? Besides, anytime people talk about drug legalization the basic counterargument is "that would be approving of drugs", or "it would send that message". Some people oppose sex education because that supposedly motivates or inspires teens to have sex. But we're supposed to believe that legalizing incest would not send any such message? For drugs I can understand how a different way of treating the problem (as a health issue) would allow us to decriminalize it, and the sex education argument is clearly just silly. But for incest, I don't see any other way of looking at it. What other solution to the problem is there to warrant legalization? Since we're obviously dealing with people who are not interested in social mores, what else is there to discourage them from committing incest? I think you're living in a dream world here, where taking away a group's only obstacle to an activity would not lead to more of those people doing it.
If this is really something that a sizable number of people want to do, then the reasons for keeping it illegal are obvious. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be a factor in any "package deal" that applies to gay marriage.
Actually IO (and as usual, I have to do the research here) heres some stuff about polygamy:
Okay as far as I can tell from my research, there are a number of reasons why our society thinks polygamy is wrong.
A. Our social structure is not designed to handle polygamy. Although in the past we did have these types of relationships, currently we don’t have the structure to do so. In current western polygamous situations there is typically an unbalance in the relationship, with the male having complete power and the female individuals having almost none. In many of the cultures that do have these types of relationships, it is a need based circumstance, i.e. a woman with a child loses her husband, is than now allowed to marry into an existing marriage for support.
B. Here is the religious view of polygamy. (Okay, keep in mind as you read this, in the only state that allows gay marriage the churches are fighting it, trying to ban it). Okay as you may or may not know, Martin Luther was asked for scriptural evidence that banned polygamy, he could not (in fact the opposite is true). So the current argument against these relationships is: God gave civil authorities the moral power to create laws, therefore if civil authorities declare polygamy illegal, the church must follow the laws of the civil authorities. A little funny (i.e. hypocritical) if you ask me. There is no scriptural evidence of God establishing marriage as one man and one woman, that is simply dogma. In fact many individuals in the bible are considered to be good, holy men and prophets, and have multiple wives.
C. Economically the financial strain caused by many of these polygamous families is huge. Because in almost all of these cases the individuals believe in the “traditional” role of women, allowing only the husband to work and earn money. Therefore the government is required to pick up the slack, the government does not want this responsibility.
D. Social science teaches us that people are greedy and many times cruel (I’m paraphrasing there). Look at the communes in the 60’s and 70’s, many of these group living conditions were destroyed by one or more individuals within the group itself. No imagine a situation, one man, and three wives, the wives cook, clean and raise the kids. But for some reason two of the wives believe the third does not do the same amount of work as they do. If left unchecked the situation could soon explode, leaving unskilled women and helpless children without a home or even a family.
E. Polygamist also has along streak or incest and underage marriages. That is their history and has tainted them throughout history. As has been stated in previous posts, adult/child relationships are not acceptable because children are unable to consent to them.
McCain,
Just as you caricatured polygamists, I can do the same with homosexuals. Watch: homosexuals tend to be night prowlers who go out on the town looking for "holes" in bathroom walls. That's why society disapproves of homosexual marriages: we do not want America's children raised in such an environment. Now of course I'm not saying homosexuals do these things, but that is a caricature of them, just as the ruthless competition and underage marriage descriptions are a caricature of polygamists. Yes, these are features of some polygamist marriages, just as some homosexuals do the dirty in holes in bathroom walls, but most do not. Given your statements, I take it that you have never met a polygamist in your life, nor have you ever been to a community where the practice is common. Just as I can guarantee if someone were to say that homosexuals are night prowlers who go out on the town looking for holes in bathroom walls, that person never really got to know a homosexual. Always try to avoid the logical fallacy of ascribing to a group the characteristics of a few (or even most in that group).
My above comment is in response to McCain's Point E.
Just as you caricatured polygamists, I can do the same with homosexuals. Watch: homosexuals tend to be night prowlers who go out on the town looking for "holes" in bathroom walls.
You've established the caricature well. Then you say:
That's why society disapproves of homosexual marriages: we do not want America's children raised in such an environment.
That is, the caricature is society's rationale for disapproving of homosexual marriages. If it's a caricature, as you admit, then do you agree that societal disapproval based on that caricature is wrong?
Of course it's wrong for society to disapprove based upon a caricature: you'll get no argument from me on that.
Okay, so if caricatures are out, what's the rational basis for denying gays the right to marry?
sorry, my bad. I forgot to include the original source material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Also I'm not saying all polygamist relationships are that way. I'm just saying that popular cutlure (i.e. media) portrays these relationships in this many, thus creating negative sterotypes (i.e. the taint). Once again sorry, and actually I have talked with and known a group, but they were actually what is called polyandry, one woman, multiple men.
(note: Some of the information in the post I made was shared by a number of professors at lunch break. I asked about polygamy and they shared what information they had (I double checked what I could, in my limited time)
Then I misunderstood your intention McCain. So my question for you is: do you agree with my point that if a constitutional right to homosexual marriage is found based on equal protection, then the same right must be found for polygamist marriages?
To be honest, yes and no.
Actually if all things are fair I do not believe Polygamy in a healthy situation should be banned. That if all conditions are met and all parties are of sound mind and body there is any reason to ban it.
Actually I would like to do more research before I say yes 100%, because there is surface evidence that there is harm caused to the "wives" in these marriages.I would like to have non-biased research done on this, unlike gay marriage (which we can study in other western cultures, and even in our own now), legal polygamy is harder to find and study.
Let me leave it at maybe, for right now
The activist in me want to argue though, because I'm afraid that allowing polygamy will automatically cause my husban and I to never have the right to marry legally.
IO: one point here. It wouldn't be about a "constitutional right to homosexual marriage"; it would be about the constitutional right to equal protection of the (marriage) laws.
Point well-acknowledged Rusty but it seems you are not really in favor of applying the marriage laws equally, but only for certain limited types of marriages (mongomous heterosexual and homosexual marriages based on genuine consent) whereas I am in favor of upholding all marriages based on genuine consent (therefore no chicken-person or adult-child). However reasonable people can disagree (and they apparently do in this case).
...it seems you are not really in favor of applying the marriage laws equally, but only for certain limited types of marriages...
Why do you say that? I haven't spoken out for or against polygamy or incestuous marriages because those aren't the point here. We're talking about gay marriage, and I still haven't seen the rational basis yet for denial of marriage rights to gays.
You did say that there is a rational basis not to uphold polygamous or incestuous marriages, did you not?
I said the state could probably come up with one if it had to. That doesn't mean I personally am advocating one way or the other, as you asserted. Polygamy/incest aren't the issue.
They're not the issue because you are deciding to exclude them from the issue. If equal protection were used to extend marriage rights to gay couples, then do you honestly think polygamists would sit silently by? Of course not--it is the job of us intellectuals to ancipiate that move and either derive a principled support or objection to it. That's all I'm saying.
No, you're using an artificial slippery slope argument to stifle debate on gay marriage. I've already shown you why recognizing gay marriage will not necessarily result in recognizing polygamous/incestuous marriages.
Anyway, it's not some kind of linear domino reaction. Potential polygamists don't need gay marriages to be legalized first. They can (and do, I believe) advocate for their rights now. They don't need the homosexuals to win their battle first. The battles are unrelated.
Anyway, even if your statement WAS valid, why should gays be denied their rights because of what potential polygamists might do?
When did I say gays should be denied their rights? It seems that you're in a bit of a touchy mood. Maybe I should just step back and wait for you to calm down a bit before I re-engage you.
My bad, I thought you were advocating against gay marriage but I confused you with AA. I see that you said earlier you support marriage rights for homosexuals. Sorry.
My answer is still the same, though: if forced to, a state can probably cobble together a "rational basis" to deny recognition of polygamous or incestuous marriages that is based on some demonstrable, objective harm to society that such marriages would create. I don't think the same can be said for homosexual marriages.
I will say one other thing 'fore I let the old kettle let of more steam (or young kettle--I honestly don't know!) States have, and can easily, find a rational basis for denying polygamists the right to marry. But what I'm looking for is a principled reason that would allow (in the broadest sense of the word) the same state to grant that right to homosexuals while consistently denying it to polygamists. So far, I haven't heard an answer beyond mere speculation on your part, Rusty.
Okay, I get it. You're not looking for a legal argument, but more of a philosophical one. I apologize for misunderstanding your gist all along.
I don't think there is such a principled reason. States would like to (and currently do) deny marriage rights to homosexuals and polygamists. The real reason for that is moral disapproval, as we all know. In theory the Constitution provides for equal protection of the laws; in the real world, it is very easy for the majority to use laws to discriminate against minorities it doesn't like.
So, IF the purported objective rationales for banning polygamy are just a sham cover for simple moral disapproval, then I don't think there is a principled reason.
Gotcha-and no problem about getting me confused with AA--these posts can get rather long and it's tough to keep up! On a somewhat related note, I would love to have a feature where I could just automatically scroll to the very last page rather than having to go through page after page.
George, you amaze me… You tell us that Sam Brownback is “gonna try to carve out his place as a true conservative, true social conservative, the man most committed to pro-life, pro-family principles.” The best way to show you how foolish this type of rhetoric is, is to ask you a question: Do you ever refer to Democrats as “Pro-Family?” and do you ever refer to a Democratic as “A man of deep moral conviction, with a plan to face the abortion issue head-on, and a plan to truly reach out and reduce abortions?” I would bet that you never do. Isn’t there more to being pro-life and pro-family than just saying the words. And as a journalist, aren’t you responsible for more than just mindlessly spouting the preferred phrases of Republicans?
This was one I e-mailed to Stephy.
Studies from Scandanavia, where gay unions have been legal for over 10 years show that most gays eschew marriage and civil unions. If I remember correctly, studies suggest less than 1% of gays actually enter into these committed unions.
The studies also found that as many as half of those unions were simply to acquire legal benefits.
A third of all gays who entered into these same-sex unions involved one partner who was a non-citizen suggesting that the union was used as a pretext to immigrate into the country.
(Many of you will be happy to note my browser does not allow me to paste. I wanted to give you the link to the statistics I provided. Look for Stanly Kurtz and his article in National Review called, "Why so few".
AA,
That is their choice to eschew the institution offered them by the state, or not. Just as it is now for straight couples who choose to opt instead for living together instead of marriage. But is that a valid reason to say "Oh well, if you're not going to do it, then what is the point?"
No, gay couples who wish to enjoy the benefits should have the opportunity. Those that do not, are free not to.
Studies from Scandanavia, where gay unions have been legal for over 10 years show that most gays eschew marriage and civil unions. If I remember correctly, studies suggest less than 1% of gays actually enter into these committed unions.
Looks like you have little to worry about, then.
The studies also found that as many as half of those unions were simply to acquire legal benefits.
Unlike straight marriages, which are always entered into because two starry-eyed kids have found their soulmates.
A third of all gays who entered into these same-sex unions involved one partner who was a non-citizen suggesting that the union was used as a pretext to immigrate into the country.
That figure is meaningless without context. How many straight marriages involved a non-citizen?
You're good...........
Actually, if you just took out the word "gay" in AA's post, it would apply to everybody and would have to be considered valid reasons to oppose marriage for one and all.
Thanks, Tommy. But credit to AA, who makes it so easy.
YOu like James Dobson don't you? He made that statement. Actually Scandanavia is not a country. Also It was shown that his "facts" were wrong. Only two countries in "Scandanavia" have gay marriage (or something close to it).
"According to provisional figures from Statistics Netherlands, for the first six months, same-sex marriages made up 3.6% of the total number of marriages: a peak of around 6% in the first month followed by around 3% in the remaining months: about 2,100 men and 1,700 women in total. By June 2004, more than 6,000 same-sex couples had married.[1] In March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex marriages each year - 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.[2]"
More on gay marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage
The true information about gay marriage shows that in countries that provide this, there is an initial jump the day the legislation is past, afterwards it slows down to a more normal rate. This is the figure they claim proves that only 1% of gay people get married. Well when you have 55% of the gay population already married, unless you support multiple marriages, those numbers can not be continued (i.e. there are not an infinate number of gay men and women alive at any one time.)
Thanks for the discussion. Your statistics are interesting and I think are similar to Kurtz's. It looks to me that comparing Hetero marriages and gay marriages, Kurtz's point about very few gays getting 'married' holds up. Here is the relevant paragraph.
According to Andersson and Noack, the incidence of same-sex marriage in Norway and Sweden is “not particularly impressive.” As Eskridge and Spedale put it, the number of same-sex couples in legal unions is “at best, modest.” Given the numbers, even these characterizations border on understatement. Andersson and Noack’s data on Norway run from 1993 through 2001. In that time, a mere1,293 same-sex partnerships were contracted. During the same period, 196,000 heterosexual marriages were entered into in Norway. That indicates a ratio of about 7 new same-sex marriages for every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages. The Swedish numbers are starker still. Andersson and Noack show a mere 1,526 same-sex partnerships registered in Sweden between 1995 and 2002. Given the 280,000 heterosexual marriages recorded during the same period, we are talking about 5 same-sex partnerships per thousand heterosexual marriages. These ratios of same-sex partnerships to opposite-sex marriages are considerably lower than various estimates of the proportion of gays in the population.
(this is from Kurtz article called "why so few"
Are we to understand that your argument against gay marriage is that not enough people will engage in it?
Actually AA in Sweden, homosexuals do not have an equal right to marry. There is a type of civil partnership that two same sex individuals can undergo.
Because of a lack of non-gender specific laws in that country, many homosexual couples are not marrying. It is beleived that in the next few years Sweden may enact gender neutral laws, at that point we will then see what happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Sweden
Buit actually my main arguement with using figures from Sweden, Belgium, etc. is population size.
How many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people do you believe to be living in any one of these countries? Here are some numbers:
Current population of Sweden: 9,016,596
Residents 60-76: 2,189,923
Children 17 and younger: 1,805,492
Basically married/unmarried pool of: 3,995,415 est.
That leaves a group 17-59: 5,021,181
Now if we use the often quoted, right wing claim that only 1% of the population is gay (a fabrication by the way, current estimates in the US are 3-5%, I think its much too low I'e seen nearly that many LGBT people in the bars arround my tri state area.)
Anyways right wing estimated gay Swedish population: 50,212
http://www.scb.se/templates/Product____25799.asp
Also take into account that the Swedish comprise nearly 50,000 different indiginous groups (a few do not even mix).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
I lost part of the original thread, but you and the neo-cons are saying that Sweden needs to increase its number of homosexuals for gay marriage to be okay? When you are dealing with such small demographics, even a 0.05% change can equal a large number of people (in Sweden's case 450,830 people.). So if you have in one time frame 1,000 partnerships out of 50,000.
BTW: numbers are fun. you can get numbers to say almost anything. Like did you know that 35% of all statistics are incorrect?
(I pulled that number out of my back end, but by just stating it and givining the impression I know what I am talking about can make it true.)
If you want, we can pull apart the population of Belgium and Norway too?
Sorry AA
I don't trust contributors to the neo-con National Review for rfeporting and analysis, nor folks, like Kurtz, from the conservative Hoover Institute.
Try this http://www.aclu.org/getequal/ffm/section1/1c14badgett.pdf for rebuttal.
Not that this has a lot to do with sen. Brownback, except thta he opposes gay marriage for reasons he still can't explain.
But just an interesting observation about the whole gay marriage debate. Who started this?
If we were to build a time machine and go back to before 2000, you would know what I mean. Ask any gay man back then for a top ten list of things he thinks we can achieve (get legislation passed) or are really important, you would find a different picture.
We (the gay rights movement) have never had an agenda as it is claimed (my husband jokes, "if you could get five gay men to agree on an actual list of goals that would be a miracle"). Before 2000 our main goals though were hate crime laws, anti-discrimination legislation, school anti-bully laws, ending Don't ask Don't tell etc. If you asked about marriage on the list it would have been maybe number 10.
But now, the neo-cons have made it THE issue of the gay rights movement. If I have anything to thank the neo-cons for, there are now more than ever more and more gay men who want stable committed relaionships.
BTW you will noticed I only said men, not lesbians, they have historically always "nested" or at least been more prone to stable relationships.
Good points all, AD McCain-
I think you're right that the anti-gay forces have outwitted themselves by pushing an issue that was probably stilln not being fought for by many gay people.
Unfortunately for them, by bringing it into the light, they've forced the arguments as a civil rights issue, and I believe will "lose" more quickly than they feared.
Too much in this thread to respond to, great posts, but the slippery slope arguments are always fascinating to me. While only the most unprepared resort to the adult/child or man/chicken scenarios, I think most liberals lose at the polygamy/incest point.
By lose, I mean don't decisively body slam their opponents, which most cons consider a win for themselves.
I've gotten in discussions that got to that point, and tried to frame it in a way that conservatives would understand;The ol' "Biig Government" thing.
If the laws against incest and polygamy are in place to stop the sex in those relationships, isn't that a waste of tax money? If Joe wants to have 5 wives, or Billy wants to hook up with his sister, do we think that the law is going to stop them?
And if it is, how much are you willing to pay in taxes for the incest police and the polygamy squad? Or divert from catching robbers, murderers and rapists?
It's one of those grey areas that cons hate. In between being enthusiastically supportive of something, or viciously condemning it, there's that no-man's land that rightys rarely visit; None of my business, and I don't care.
I have four sisters, all nice, intelligent charming and attractive women.The idea of anything besides a brother.\/sister relationship with any of them makes my stomach churn. Not for me, probably not an issue for anyone I know.But I'm not stoopid enough to think that the police are going to stop that tiny number of people who might be into it.
so yes, I wouldn't protest getting rid of any laws prohibiting who can legally be united with the person they love.
**(for the non-rational, before you post) the last line pertains only to consenting adult humans,as it does with any legal contract.
Well, yes I agree with you.
Actually check out my post regarding Polygamy somewhere earlier in this thread. I especially enjoy the religious arguement against polygamy (to sum it up, basically: Because the bible does not condemn Polygamy, the argument is "God has given the civil authorities the moral right to create laws and we as christians must follow the laws of the civil authorities, the authorities declare polygamy illegal therefore its wrong." Kinda hypocritical when you place it next to Massacuttes, were the civil authorities have declared gay marriage legal and the church is fighting it tooth and nail (what happened to the Civil Authoritie's God given moral right to create law?)
Not that I am defending polygamy, I'm not an expert on the issue and have not formed an opinion either way. Just throwing out some facts.
Brownback is the textbook example of what is wrong with conservatives.
Take his re-election in 2004. He paid a man to win a 2004 Democratic primary against a legitimate candidate, Lee Jones. Jones lost the primary, and the NEXT DAY, the guy who did win STEPPED DOWN! This created months of chaos for the Democratic Party to get Jones back on the ballot and, by the time they did so, it was already too late and Jones got creamed in November.
If this man is ever allowed to become President, we ALL need to think about renouncing our citizenships and becoming Canadians. I'm already stuck with him as a Senator that I didn't vote for, and that's bad enough.
Okay, here is a post that has little to do with the topic, except in regards to gay marriage and some questions I have for the neo-cons on the board.
Background: My husband, a friend of ours and I were going out lunch one day. A woman turned in front of us, huge accident (imagine a Ford explorer, but with the front nearly even with the windsheild.)
I was taken away at the hospital (the seatbelt cracked my sternum), my husband was gushing blood and there was something wrong with his right arm (he was driving). After they checked me out I was released into the waiting room. I asked to see Jim (my husband) and they asked my relationship. I told them and they informed me that only family was allowed to visit.
While I sat there, the woman's hsband showed up, they asked and then allowed him in. Next my husband's mother and father showed up, they looked at me and then went in (yes like many heterosexual men I can also say that my mother-in-law is a b$%#). I had Medical Power of Attorny, but since I did not know we were going to be in an accident that day, it was locked in the firesafe in my office at home. Also I had no way to get home and pick it up, than return.
I finally got in, after I told a fib to the new nurse "I'm his brother."
Question 1: Why did the woman's husband get in to see her, when he provided no proof to support his claim?
Question 2: Ditto for my husband's family?
Question 3: Why is it okay to make my husband and I second class citizens in this country? Because by definition we are, simply due to the fact that others have rights and privledges we do not.
Question 4: One of the arguements made against gay marriage is: "because legallly a gay couple can have all the same rights as a heterosexual couple by working with an attorney." Why is this claim made, when any rational human being knows this not to be true? Lets start: taxes, credit, surviver benefits, pensions, right not to testify in court against your married partner, automatic inheritence
Question 5: Why are so many neo-cons terrified by the image of two men kissing? This really interests me because, although I am not a biy fan of public diplays of affection, I have no issue seeing a heterosexual couple kissing. But somehow the image of my husband and I kissing causes hetero men to go crazy (and unless my husband and I were to ask you to join us, it physically has nothing to do with you at all.) (BTW that's a joke, we would never ask people to join us)
McCain, I find it interesting that you address many of your posts to the "neo-cons." Are you suggesting that old-school conservatives (e.g. Pat Buchanan) are more tolerant towards homosexual rights than are neo-cons? That is a fascinating thesis that I would love to see you back up. In response to one of your questions: I don't like to see public displays of intimacy from either hetero or homosexual couples. I find it equally repulsive: find a room for Pete's sake!
IO, can you give ADM an honest answer to his Question 3?
Yeah Rusty, to answer his question there is no good reason. I believe my previous posts should make that evident.
Thanks IO.
Actually it is my (and I beleive the Southern Poverty Law Center's) definition of neo-con. It has nothing to do with age, simply philosophy. And good old boy Pat certainly fits in that group.
Actually Pat may go beyond that group. Many of the neo-cons go to great lengths to hide any hint of racism or interaction with racists. Pat speaks publically to groups that hold events with tables for the KKK and Neo-Nazis.
But also you need to understand the birth of the neo-con movement, it didn't start with Bush, its been around a little over 30 years. Ever hear of Orange County "we're not racist, we just don't want blacks or asians living here" Republicans or even later the Moral Majority?
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=522
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=523
Both of the above links provide usefull info and not too hard to understand (for any Neo-Cons who wish to read them).
Also for another good read I sugest:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=717
McCain, For all the research that you have done, and I sincerely appreciate it, you seem to be pretty misinformed. Neoconservatives refer to people such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol (and others who have hijacked American foreign policy in the post 9/11 era). Pat Buchanan CERTAINLY does not fit the group--he is an old school conservative (not in terms of age, but in terms of thought). There are many strains of thought (and strainted thinking I might also add) within the conservative movement today and you would do well to research it before throwing around terms like "neocon" haphazardly and incorrectly. My goal is not to chide you but to save you from future embarassment.
"Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
Although Pat has been called a "paleoconservative" actually on many of his views, he would more likely be considered a neo-conservative. Or let me state it like this, the various forms of far right conservatism in the united states are growing closer in philosophy then ever before.
Also the current administration and many of the republican party choose to label themselves neo-conservatives, although yes I agree they do not fit the old meaning of that term.
And actually to give you some background info.
I actually did do a paper on the current trends in the conservative movement (it was my professor's response to what he called my know-it-allism, also my current majors are political science and US History)
In all reality if you asked Cheney, Bush, Perel, etc. what they called themselves they would not call themselves neo-conservatives, especially if they know the history of that movement (it was started by democrats who left the party.) I actually apply the term not to a specific philosophy but a wide grouping of ideas.
In a previous thread we debated the terminology of what to call those who share a specific set of typical far right republican ideals. As part of a joke I believe Holly (possibly) and I decided on neo-con. As many outside the group use that term as an insult.
Also DON"T argue with me, I'm on day number 5 without cigerettes, and am about to put my fist thru the monitor to see if that makes me forget the sweet wonderful feeling of a cigerette in my hand.....
OK--fair enough. Good luck with quitting smoking and your continued university studies.
Um...I really, really appreciate everything MM does, but sometimes you're getting a little nit-picky, I think. While I admit that G.S. could've been more thorough in providing context - even just using a phrase like "so-called pro family" , the context was pretty clear to me at least. He's using the term as a sort of political grouping title, not a literal adjective. If there is a wing of the democratic party calling itself "pro-family" I'm not familiar with it.
Still, I'd prefer if the MSM would make it standard practice to use a qualifier like "so-called" before it, just as they say "alleged" whenever talking about a crime or a criminal, even when the criminal has confessed to the crime.