Can I Own a Canadian?

[eno]

This thread is a study in contradiction of definitions; it evidences the effort to distort, then abandon definitions altogether: to go "progressively" (pun intended) from political correctness to the destruction of language, so that debate can be quashed, opposition marginalized, dissent silenced.

The latest brutality visited upon our language is the fast & loose use of the word "homophobe". Republicans are homophobes, right? Judge Vaughn Walker (a Republican); a homophobe, right? Attorney Ted Olson (a Republican); a homophobe, right? Billyjean pointing out the obvious: that two women or two men cannot conceive a child (whether they're gay, straight, married or just having pre-marital sex); she's a homophobe for that, right?

Then we are asked to watch a video on the "Tolerant" Taliban (featured in Slate, a liberal outlet) and what do we get? The proposition that man on boy pedophilia is conclusive evidence of the existence of homosexuality among the Taliban! Homophobic? I can't think of a better example of "homophobia"!

Alice (upside down in this utopian Wonderland)

[markberwyn]

At Mark, for how many years has it been acceptable in the Muslim world?  What about parts of Canada? 

Assuming that by "it," you mean polygamy, no idea. But unless you're trying to tell me that Saudi Arabia has legalized gay marriage without anybody noticing, and that such legalization has in turn led to some increase in polygamy, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[Mimi]

The latest brutality visited upon our language is the fast & loose use of the word "homophobe". Republicans are homophobes, right? Judge Vaughn Walker (a Republican); a homophobe, right? Attorney Ted Olson (a Republican); a homophobe, right? Billyjean pointing out the obvious: that two women or two men cannot conceive a child (whether they're gay, straight, married or just having pre-marital sex); she's a homophobe for that, right?

Sorry, I don't post here often but felt the need to clarify on this. Homophobes are people who hate/fear gays. 'Republican' does not equal 'Homophobe'. I know (and am related to) many Republicans who support marriage rights for same sex couples. I also know a few gay Republicans (gasp!) 

Life goes on.

[rbain]

This thread is a study in contradiction of definitions; it evidences the effort to distort, then abandon definitions altogether: to go "progressively" (pun intended) from political correctness to the destruction of language, so that debate can be quashed, opposition marginalized, dissent silenced.

The latest brutality visited upon our language is the fast & loose use of the word "homophobe". Republicans are homophobes, right? Judge Vaughn Walker (a Republican); a homophobe, right? Attorney Ted Olson (a Republican); a homophobe, right? Billyjean pointing out the obvious: that two women or two men cannot conceive a child (whether they're gay, straight, married or just having pre-marital sex); she's a homophobe for that, right?

Then we are asked to watch a video on the "Tolerant" Taliban (featured in Slate, a liberal outlet) and what do we get? The proposition that man on boy pedophilia is conclusive evidence of the existence of homosexuality among the Taliban! Homophobic? I can't think of a better example of "homophobia"!

Alice (upside down in this utopian Wonderland)

eno, YOU are the first person to use the word "REPUBLICAN" in this thread. YOU are conflating criticism of homophobia with criticism of Republicans.

[billyjean]

One thing I do know for certain ... a gay couple cannot create a child together.  A couple must turn to a third party so to speak to create.  A gay couple can never experience the combining of their own individual genes together to create a child.  Of course, they both can produce their OWN children, but not with each other.

All I am saying with this statement is that NO, they are not exactly like heterosexuals who marry and have children together in the true sense of the word "together".  The distinction is clear.

Now, we know the gay community can be quite creative in their thinking and it would not be surprising that they might try to work around this by, in the case of a lesbian couple, brother of one donates sperm to the other partner.  Or in the case of a gay couple, a sister of one donates her eggs to be fertilized by the other partner, and placed in the womb of a another woman, or the sister even having the children for them.  This assumes first that they have all these sibling willing to participate.  It's starting to get a lil wild.  Of course, we have heterosexuals that go to great lengths to have kids too ...


OctoMom
 

...spoken like a true homophobe.

Your point is absolutely meaningless. Absolutely. Meaningless.

(...and of course, we have heterosexuals like me, who go to great lengths to avoid kids at all costs)

and in your case, I am thankful for that.

[watcher]

eno, YOU are the first person to use the word "REPUBLICAN" in this thread. YOU are conflating criticism of homophobia with criticism of Republicans.

Only 1 Republican congresscritter voted AGAINST DOMA in the house. He was outed by Rep. Dornan and chose not to run for re-election.
His district then elected a Democrat.

NO Republican senators opposed DOMA.

So while certainly some of the rank and file republicans do hold differing views, the Party and it's elected have promoted and advanced a consistently anti-GLBT agenda.

How can the more tolerant R's described stand with their party's platform when they continue to court votes of the racists, homophobes CCRWRSWAMs and whackos?

[jake]

Interesting stats there, watcher.  Can you tell us how many democrats voted for it?  How did Joe Biden vote?  How about Reid?  I think they were both in the senate back then.   

And with control of congress and the presidency, what have the Dems done now?

[rbain]

This is from the 2008 Republican Party Platform:
"Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it."

And:

"A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex "marriages" licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter."

[eno]

Interesting stats there, watcher.  Can you tell us how many democrats voted for it?  How did Joe Biden vote?  How about Reid?  I think they were both in the senate back then.    

And with control of congress and the presidency, what have the Dems done now?

Why, Obama repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" immediately (on 1/21/09) with the stroke of his presidential pen! Don't tell me you missed the news!!   And who was it that implemented DADT (as the acrid acronymists here would call it) in the first place..... W.J. Clinton, a Democrat, if I remember correctly.

The dirty little secret is this: a good portion of the Democrat base (i.e. African Americans) are staunch opponents of "Gay Marriage" and are staunch opponents of the Gay life-style (with or without marriage), because so many African-Americans are Right-Wing Christian Conservatives when it comes to social issues. Democrats are essentially treating the Gay community like they treat their loyal African-American base: i.e. taking them for granted (thumbs up to get yer votes, then they give you the middle-finger and keep you chained on the plantation).

eno  

[eno]

Well, this piece just nails it!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/looking_for_love_in_all_the_wr.html

Written by Robert Klein Engler (an Oak Parker, Gay, Christian Conservative).

The entire piece deserves to be posted; Engler masterfully "outs" Democrats and Progressives and the minority of Conservatives whom are myopic!

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: Gay Conservatives in 2010
By Robert Klein Engler


As the nation gears up for another election cycle, some gay conservatives are wondering about their role in the body politic. These conservatives often live in a closet within a closet. They have to take the risk of coming out not only socially, but also politically. Unwilling to be rejected twice, many just stay in the background.

Gay conservatives are also a rare species for political watchers. Pam Chamberlain thinks gay conservatives are the "unwanted allies on the Right." Yet many gay conservatives vote Republican, own businesses, want lower taxes and a strong national defense.

Events that happened in the 1950s still reverberate in the lives of gay conservatives. It was in 1958 that the word "homosexual" was first used in an English translation of the Bible. Also, in the '50s, the first gay liberation group in the United States, the Mattachine Society, was formed.

When Harry Hay, along with a group of Los Angeles friends, decided to form the Mattachine Society in 1950, he did so to protect and improve the rights of homosexuals. John D'Emilio, in his book Sexual Politics, suggests that because of concerns for secrecy and Hay's leftist ideology, the Mattachine Society adopted the cell organization of the Communist Party.

Ironically, for Hay's group, many Marxists consider homosexuality a product of capitalism. Their view is that when capitalism disappears, so will homosexuality. The Communist Party in Hay's day wanted nothing to do with homosexuals. They threw Hay out of the party -- not for being gay, but because he was a "security risk."

Gary Leupp demonstrates this same homophobia among communists today when he writes, "The Communist Party of Nepal [Maoist], leading what many have considered the most advanced Maoist movement in the world for the last decade, has recently been accused of attacks on gay people and of indulging in antigay rhetoric."

Gay people in America should know that Marxist politicians and progressives are not "on the right side of history" when it comes to gay causes. Marxists support the gay agenda until they get power, and then they dump their gay allies. This rejection happened with Hitler and National Socialism. It happened in Russia with Stalin and in Cuba with Castro.

The lesson from the real side of history is that Marxists, socialists, and leftists are interested not in social justice for gays, but only in using gays to secure political power. Wherever gays have aligned themselves with the left or National Socialism or Marxism, they have been the losers. Gays are safe only where a constitutional conservatism prevails.

Likewise, the goal of freedom for gays that queer theory offers, dressed as it is in the feathers and sequins of Marxism-lite, is really an illusion. Instead of opening up being gay to multiple meanings, queer theory straps gays into another straitjacket, this time worn in an alternative universe of gender Gnosticism.

Today, many conservatives and gays look at one another with acrimony across the divide of same-sex marriage and wonder what to do. The task of gay conservatives is to help bridge that gap with policies that take steps towards reconciliation. The first step is a move back from the same-sex marriage debate.

In a calculated way, Marxists will support same-sex marriage because they know it will help undermine all marriage. Gays who support same-sex marriage should be aware of this duplicity. As Toronto writer Marusya Bociurkiw understands it, "Marx and Engels were decidedly gloomy on the topic of marriage. According to them, marriage is a property relation, with its roots in slavery. It's perfectly designed to work with capitalism."

The lesson here is that Marxists will support same-sex marriage until they get it. Then they will abolish all marriage because of its purported roots in slavery. Gay progressives who sign on to this agenda in good faith can expect to be betrayed.

Merle Miller knew something of that betrayal mixed with resentment that many who have an affair with liberalism and Marxism-lite feel. In his influential essay, "On Being Different," published in the New York Times in 1971, he wrote, "homosexuals, unlike blacks, will not benefit from any guilt feelings on the part of liberals."

George Orwell likewise knew about political betrayal. He once described himself as a Democratic Socialist. He was wounded when he fought alongside the United Workers Marxist Party in the Spanish Civil War. He later had a political change of heart.

Orwell claimed that his novel 1984 was written to point out the perversions of Communism and Fascism. "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power," Orwell stated of the Communists.

Thomas Sowell, writing about Barack Obama, hits upon what many of today's liberals also think of gay people. Sowell claims, "Obama is also part of a long tradition on the Left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the Left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings."

Gays and lesbians are useful to the left, but privately, many leftists have disdain for them. If we think progressives will love us for who we are and not as cannon fodder for their revolution -- a revolution that will eat its children -- then we are looking for love in all the wrong places.

Even with this caveat against the communists and progressives, gays must not ignore the minority of fellow conservatives who have a tendency to homophobia. Hemmed in by their myopia, these homophobic conservatives allow their prejudices to decide who suffers and who does not.

Stated bluntly, some conservatives practice bigotry-lite. In any homophobic view, gays cannot suffer injustice. Homosexuals simply get what they deserve.

Perhaps same-sex marriage will sweep into the world like the wave of Bolsheviks who swept over Russia. In time, the illusion of the new is replaced by the reality of the old. Imagine the disappointment that came, for the millions of progressives who saw Communism as the salvation of mankind, when the red star of the Soviet Union ended up as a trinket in some hip London resale shop.

Russell Kirk was correct when he wrote that conservatism is "the negation of ideology." Gay conservatives are a witness to this negation when they lead exemplary lives. Gay conservatives may incur the scorn of Democrats and be ignored by Republicans, but that's tolerable if they keep their integrity.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Oak Park and Des Plaines, Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His many articles can be found online. His book, CONTRA OBAMA, is available from Lulu.com.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Amen & God Bless, Brother Bob!

eno

[markberwyn]

More slippery-slope eyewash. Gays couldn't possibly want the right to marry because they want the right to marry---they must want something else, something more nefarious, down the line. Like legalized bigamy, or legalized pedophilia, or, in the case of this silly article, the abolition of marriage. Is somebody saying "Marxism" and complaining about Obama truly enough to convince you that an argument is valid?

[buzz]

So, if we're on this old argument-- shall we also argue the moral horrors of premarital sex? I mean - if you are having premarital sex-- what's to stop you from having sex with your dog- right?

Have you ever had interest in having sex with an animal?  I'm guessing that is a big, loud NO.  Not quite the same as premarital sex.

I am suspect of all those posters who want chickens   

[Ted]

  This thread is like deja vu all over again.  We had a discussion like this about 5 years ago (in the Renquist Dies thread).

 The issue is this - Why does the government need to document and recognize marriage?  Why does it do that at all?   In today's world, with people living together and having babies without being married, what is the purpose of the government recording marriage with publicly available documents and recognizing marriage as an institution for policy purposes?

 It used to be that one of the primary reason for the government documenting marriage was to automatically recognize and assume the parentage of children.  But, in today's world with DNA testing and children being born out of wedlock, that is no longer the case.

 So, what is the reason in today's world for government documenting and recognizing marriage for social policy.  What is the reason and benefit for the government recognizing a "domestic contract" between two people who create a household and life together?

The biggest benefit of the marriage certificate to the people in the marriage is the legal recognition of "next of kin" status. "Next of kin" status is a legal recognition of an exclusive relationship between two people that involves sickness decisions and inheritance of common property.

For a gay couple to obtain "next of kin" status inherent in a marriage certificate, they would have to get 5 legal documents, including a will, power of attorney document and a "living will" document that specifies who should have control in cases of sickness.

 The second benefit is government social policy that favors marriage as an institution to enable and secure stability.

 A third, as I said above, was automatic recognition of who the parents were of a child. But, in today's world of DNA testing and children born to people who are not wedded to each other, that automatic recognition means less and less.

One difference between gay marriage and polygamy is the exclusivity of the marriage contract.  "Next of kin" implies an exclusive relationship where one and only one person is the next of kin and makes the "next of kin" decisions.

 In polygamy, who is the deciding party?  Where is the exclusive relationship?  Is it a relationship equally between three people? Or is it really two binary relationships?

If a man is married to two women and one of the women dies, does the other wife have next of kin rights?  Or is it only the man who has next of kin rights?

 If a man is married to a one woman and then decides to marry another woman, must he get permission and legal signoff from his first wife?  If not, why not?  Doesn't marrying a second woman break the exclusivity of the marriage contract?

One final question (the "separate but equal" idea)  - Why use the word "marriage" for gay marriage?  Why isn't using a term called "domestic partnership" just as good for gays and lesbians. One reason may be all the places that the word "marriage" is used in the law.

 I think the ultimate answer is this - The government should stop documenting and recognizing marriages.  Instead, the government should document and recognize only domestic partnerships, regardless of whether the domestic partnership is homosexual or heterosexual.  I think the domestic partnership contract that the government documents and recognizes should be an exclusive contract and that all government policies should be about domestic partnerships.  Leave the word "marriage" to the religious realm.

 Ted

[psychomom]

+1

[Ted]

...  . Also, in the '50s, the first gay liberation group in the United States, the Mattachine Society, was formed....

 FYI, one of the founders of the Mattachine Society chapter in Chicago in the 1950s lives right here in Berwyn. He's a WWII veteran who is approaching 90.

  Contrary to what the article stated, it was NOT a Communist organization.  The Berwyn resident who helped form the Mattachine society in Chicago bleeds red, white and blue.

[Ted]

Eno,

  There is still a big difference between Republicans and Democrats on gay issues. 

I have known moderate Republicans in Springfield who have told me privately that they supported the Illinois bill that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation but could not vote for it because they feared the wrath of the right wing on the Republican party in the primary.

  Because of that, it is often better to elect a Democrat so that the Democrats can control the state house or the Congress than let Republicans control a chamber and let the right wing then put through bills that are not in the best interests of gays and lesbians.

As much as I detest Dan Lipinski (and, I have never voted for him), I would rather have him in the Congress giving the Democrats control of the Congress than letting a Republican win and having the Republicans control the Congress or the state legislature.

Ted

[billyjean]

Ted:  "For a gay couple to obtain "next of kin" status inherent in a marriage certificate, they would have to get 5 legal documents, including a will, power of attorney document and a "living will" document that specifies who should have control in cases of sickness."

Today, anyone can arrange who they want as "next of kin".

Let's say 15 years into marriage your partner is in the full throngs of Alzheimers.  Do you want your partner now to make decisions should your life be on the line?  I don't think so.  You probably would turn to a direct family member, and absent any family, another trusted friend.

Today, one of the first things you are urged to do if you want your wishes followed to the letter, is do the will, the power, and the living will.  You, ANYBODY, can have who they wish designated to make life/death decision, married or not.  So in the case of Polygamy, you could have 15 ppl and they all are empowered to make those decisions for themselves.  I can only assume absent any wishes documented by wives, that the so-called husband would be next of kin.

Absent these documents ... then there have to be guidelines (something must exist in order to proceed).  The government (state by state) says how it goes down if you have not made these decisions for yourself.

Ted, this is a vast topic, and I'm not sure what exactly you are saying.  What is it that you would like to see done?

P.S.  How come you never see one WIFE with 15 husbands.  Now there is something I could sink my teeth into.  One a mechanic, one a doctor, one to mow the lawn and clean out gutters, one to do grocery shopping, one a "good" lawyer, one a gourmet chef, all great lovers, of course.  Oh, I could go on and on.  I can only dream.

[Bonster]

P.S.  How come you never see one WIFE with 15 husbands.  

Cause you're afraid of being labeled a slut.

And I don't necessarily want to taste another man's cum while eating you out.

[billyjean]

...  . Also, in the '50s, the first gay liberation group in the United States, the Mattachine Society, was formed....

 FYI, one of the founders of the Mattachine Society chapter in Chicago in the 1950s lives right here in Berwyn. He's a WWII veteran who is approaching 90.

  Contrary to what the article stated, it was NOT a Communist organization.  The Berwyn resident who helped form the Mattachine society in Chicago bleeds red, white and blue.

"Most of the Mattachine founders were affiliated with Communism and based their organization on the cell structure of the Communist Party USA (i.e., democratic centralism)."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

[billyjean]

P.S.  How come you never see one WIFE with 15 husbands.  

Cause you're afraid of being labeled a slut.

Not afraid of labels.