Fundamental Fear and Rage
September 7th, 2005 | by Dr. Forbush |This piece was written on Friday; maybe it was written a few days before its time. That was before the California legislature passed a new law that would allow homosexual marriages. Of course there is one obstacle that could prevent this from becoming law – Arnold "the Governator" Schwarzenegger. When he ran for election, he told the voters that he was a fiscal conservative. He down played any support for the social reforms of the radical right. This is the only way that a Republican can get elected in California. But, the fear of the Religious Right can put political pressure on the man who said that he would not bow down to special interests.
So, Arnold has three options.
1) He can bow down to the "special interest" of the Religious Right and veto the legislation.
2) He can be a man and stand up for civil rights and sign the bill into law.
3) He can be a wimp and do nothing allowing the bill to become law after 30 days.
So, here is my piece on why the fundamentalists of the religious right are fueled by fear and rage. It may give us some insight into what Arnold might do, and why. After all, these fundamentalists now control the Republican Party.
We have often heard that fundamentalists are a major problem. Fundamentalist Muslims have gone to the extreme of sending suicide bombers out to attack their enemies. Fundamentalist Jews are unbending on their in their belief in the expansion of Israel and are willing to kill for that land. Americans often site these groups when discussing Christian fundamentalists, saying that these folks aren’t so bad, because they aren’t killing anyone.
Actually there are Christian fundamentalists that have resorted to murder, but they are less common that the Muslim or Jewish groups. So, why is this the case? Should we be so concerned about Christian Fundamentalists if they aren’t so bad?
In order to understand these questions we need to examine how and why a fundamentalist movement takes hold and what motivates it to grow.
Fundamentalist movements of every kind are based in fear. When society changes segments of the society become fearful of change. This is human nature and we expect this to happen. Fear then creates a reaction to this change. Large changes in society are reflected by large reactions to that change. People who fear the changes find each other and react with a common fear of the change.
If we look at the Twentieth Century, there isn’t any question that there were very large changes in society that not only effected America, but every country around the globe. The largest changes to our society have been in science, technology and human rights. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that these are the issues that fundamentalists are concerned about. In fact, they are not only concerned with these issues, but they are fearful of the changes these things have affected on society.
When a group of fearful people gather together they express their concerns over the changes they have been experiencing. And, when these people are religious they search for answers in their religion. When the goal is to fight change by finding solutions in religion these people will take whatever threads of hope that they find and magnify the importance of these threads in order to prove their point. We see this in all fundamentalist movements.
Fundamentalist movements grow more extreme over time. This is because fundamentalists begin their movement by using scripture to prove that change should not happen. In these early movements they believe that other people will realize that they have God on their side and therefore they are right. They feel as if just telling people that God doesn’t want change will be enough to stop that change. But, fundamentalist movements are usually the minority in a society and there is little chance that the general population will swarm to the fundamentalist cause. In fact most people actually like and appreciate the changes to society so support for the fundamentalist reaction to change never happens.
Well, lack of success doesn’t halt any fundamentalist group. This is because they have always been a minority and they believe that they have God on their side. Reaction to their cause fosters even more fear. They fear that their religious ideas will be expunged by the changes in society. At this point fear turns to rage and violence becomes an action sanctioned by God. Christian Fundamentalists in the USA haven’t reached this point yet, but if the history of other fundamentalist movements is a predictor, when the Christian Fundamentalists feel fear because of a reaction to their movement violence will become inevitable.
So, this leaves us with a conundrum. How do we react to Christian Fundamentalists in the USA? If we react to them with the vile revulsion that their ideas provoke, they are bound to become fearful and rage in violence against our society. If we do nothing their luddite ideas and hatred will turn our society back a hundred years. The only action that seems to make sense is the one that goes against our natural compulsion. We need to alleviate the fear of the Christian Fundamentalists and assure them that their religion is not doomed, even if we all wish that it were. By reducing this fear the most extreme individuals will feel assured and not react in violence like every other fundamentalist movement has done.
We just need to be aware that this isn’t as clear cut as some may believe.
41 Responses to “Fundamental Fear and Rage”
By FeldFunker on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
Speaking of Schwarzenegger - being a German, I can’t stop wondering why Austrians tend to make political careers in other countries… *g*
By Political Pie on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
I wrote about this same issue on my blog this morning. Arnold needs to not bow to the extreme right he needs to act for the will of the people. A proposition already failed by 60% of the Californian Voters which told the Californian Legislature that the vast majority of Californians do not want to legalize Gay Marriage!
I do not know if you are from around California but 60% of the people here are not extreme right. The legislature is dominated 2-1 democrat to republican and our republican govenator is not very conservative.
This is not an issue of the extremes this is the will of the masses. The people of California do not want to change the institution of marriage so 41 members of the 80 in the California legislature should not sway the vote of the people!
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
Oh shit here we go again, I’m gona bet:
the Bush administration has a massive failure so their going to play out the gay marriage card again cause you know getting biblical with the nation always distractions them from the real dangers and failings of the administration. In fact uniting families was never a problem until the admin had bungled the Iraq war so bad that they needed to threaten to ammend the constitution to limit civil rights to get re-elected. The White House forced the issue to distract the people the first time and there probably going to have a second go at. In essence they will try to avoid the consequences of New Orleans by scaring people into believing that it is better to have leadership that allows uncountable dead poor mostly african American and elderly, than it is to have leadership that might allow homsexuals to commit to family life.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
Political Pie,
I live in California and I was here for the proposition you are talking about. The polling was against the the proposition until the radical right started the scare tactic advertising. When the campaign became The “Save Marriage” proposition the polls began to turn. But, right now the majority of Californians favor homosexual marriage, especially after all the gay weddings in San Francisco last year. Obviously when the Fundamentalist Christian fad fades into the past gay marriage will become a reality.
By vmparker on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
Arnold will veto; he is for the fameely in Caleefornia.
By MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
I attended a 60th birthday party for a gay friend of mine. This party was given by his life partner. As I was saying goodbye to my friend at the door, I advised him that the California State Legislature just passed a Gay Marriage bill and sent it to the Governor for signature, and that he and his partner can get married once the Governor signs the bill. His response was “I don’t wish to get married. Marriage is between a man and a woman. All we want are the legal rights of married people.”
Based on that comment, and comments from other gays, it appears to me that there will not be a rush for gays to marry as the religious right “wrongly” state. If they want to get married, that is OK with me. If they just want the legal rights of married people that is also OK with me.
This is not a FUNDAMENTALIST issue, it is a PEOPLE issue. The FUNDAMENTALISTS don’t understand PEOPLE issues, they just think they understand STEM CELLS BEING LIFE. Stem Cells are not people despite the cells’ “intelligent design”.
Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.
http://www.freedompost.typepad.com
By steve on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
Uh… Why is it when the Republicans are against a Liberal/Democrat idea, we are all considered “fundamentalists”, “zealots” or “extremists”? I am not a religious person so what does it make me if I am against gay marriage? Why is gay marriage such a civil right? Everything a liberal comes up with is a civil right and everytime a conservative says no we don’t want that, we’ve suddenly “taken it away”. It’s always push, push, push… Why can’t we just say no? And if we are saying no, it’s always tied to your bungled version of how we are leading the country the wrong way. Can’t it just be what people want? 60% of Californians voted against gay marriage. Guess what, civil rights had nothing to do with it. Maybe morals have nothing to do with it. Maybe it just seems “icky”, who knows. Last I checked, California wasn’t 60% conservative. If you took the SF Bay Area out of the equation this state goes Republican every time. If Arnold votes it down, that 60% vote is the special interest that contributed to it, not the religious right. There is an awful lot of left voting, black voters with some pretty strong religious ties, not to mention some Catholic Hispanics voting left as well. I don’t think the religious right has the absolute power over everyone.
Your left wing party isn’t your way all the way down. You guys are just the vocal mouthpiece of it. The guys that want to stir the pot and make it your way. Nothing wrong with your intent, just accept that this country does not see with you eye to eye for it. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing.
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
My beleif is not that everyone who is conservative or republican is a religious fundalmentalist but rather that your party has found that seemingly inconsequential domestic issues are the trump card for getting people to ignore the real weaknesses in our country and there for pander to these for political gain even when the out come will be detrimental and actually weaken our nation more. I have to say that there where better issues to embrace before the 2004 Pres elections than ammending the constitution to push down the slippery slope of repealing as yet undefined civil rights issues. But look people hate gays or feel icky about them no matter what their racial or socio economic status and Frank Luntz and Karl rove are only interested in how you feel not what is real. What is real doesn’t get votes. Basically they got America to agree on moral values with out defining what is actually moral, what is totally immoral, and what is a grey area. Additionally since they never truly defined those things they never got people to ask themselves why they believe what they beleive, was it something that some one else told them to believe? or was it something that they observed? In the past five years I believe I have observed more immorality than in any of my previous years on the planet. And this immorality has resulted in countless death time and again. I would love to have another Pres and admin that truly deals in life, and its actual presevation. As well an admin that deals in reality with its people and not just PR or mass motivation.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
Steve,
Believe it or not, the Republican Party is being taken over by the Christian Fundamentalists. There are people in the party like John McCain and a couple others who are fighting to get it back, but the Radical Right’s agenda is social conservativism not fiscal conservatism.
And, the Religious Right used scare tactics here in California to pass their family protection proposition. People who don’t think about politics said, “Yep, protecting the family is a good thing.” They also said that gay marriage was a good thing too, but they didn’t connect the two. The last three Field polls actually show that 50% of Californians do not support gay marriage. Moving down from the 60% you quoted from 10 years ago. Obviously the trend is to civil rights for all people. Should our leadership lead? Isn’t our leadership supposed to be enlightened and understand more than the general population?
By steve on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply
I don’t know what it is Forbush or BYOC but I feel that the Republican Party is less iconic than the Democratic Party. What I mean by that is, I don’t see our party falling over itself to push issues or certain individuals are trying to manipulate us as you are quick to point out. I didn’t know really who Karl Rove was for example until I came here. I listen to Rush when I can’t tune in Rome in the mornings and I listen to our local guy Tom Sullivan in the afternoons quite often and I have heard the name Karl Rove but I didn’t know much about the guy. With the Democrats, it seems you’ve got Michael Moore telling you how it is, Kucinich with his little group, Kennedy and Kerry and their opinions, Dean and his little sect. Then there is Air America. It seems all fractorous to me. I mean, I like McCain but I have a vague sense on who’ll we’ll have running in 2008 or who I’d like to see running in 2008. I don’t even know who is opposing Boxer or Feinstein in 2006 or even if their terms are up. (I think it’s Feinstein this time)What I do feel our party does far better is reasoning through the issues by understanding all the facts. There is no real blind defense. For example, I don’t really look to defend the Bush bashing or the hurricane other than wondering why every Bush basher thinks they know the truth right off the bat. Is information really flowing as quickly? Is the MSM that up to date and correct? I don’t know… but I think you all are ready to jump the gun because you purely hate the man. I think you fear the religious right more than you should because you fear them as unreasonable people. Religious people are pretty much the same. They stand by their convictions. Is it wrong to stand by that or defend against what they think is wrong? Is it wrong then for me to say I think gay marriage is wrong because I think it’s gross? Of course not… But to most of you guys, I am a bigot and a fascist for even thinking that, which is entirely not the truth. I just think its good for our country, is there anything wrong with fighting for something you think is good for your country?
By BYOC on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Steve the real question is will your feelings that gay marriage is gross influence your choice at the polls over the laundry list of other real issues at stake for our nation. the fact that you didn’t know who Karl Rove was before finding these guys makes me proud that they are here to tell you about him George luntz is important to because he designs the language tyhat has seduced the nation he is a guy that designed big tobbaco and big pharma as well as oil indudtry PR before getting hired by the right. I may not be as active inthe next few days something has come up but I am not ignoring this either sorry to chat and run.
By steve on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
BYOC, thanks…
Um.. speaking of polls. Did you know Schwarzenegger is having trouble putting the correct wording on the ballots for his initiatives? True story. His greatest advisary has been the Attorney General Bill Lockyer who has sole approval of the language on the ballots. There are billboards all over the state saying how Schwarzenegger is taking death benefits away in the sweeping reforms he wants to make to state firefighter and police pension funds. The language is going to be very ambiguous when this thing comes up to the ballot. In Schwarzenegger’s plan there are NO changes to death benefits from the current system to the new system which by the way only affects new hires and not current state employees. Freaking unbelievable. (Read what I wrote about here) As far as the other issues, I read my ballots. Did you know I am an advocate for illegal immigrants? I can’t see how you could be a fiscal conservative without being an advocate for it. So to answer your question, no, because I think gay marriage is gross won’t affect my decision on the other things regarding the ballot…
By LiberPaul on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Steve,
I hear what you are saying to some degree, but I think you are completely wrong on the religious right and the GOP. Check this site out:
http://www.theocracywatch.org
Now, the whole GOP has not been seduced by these evil people (yes, I think that any fundie, no matter the religion is evil). This is what scares me the most about the GOP, their undying loyalty to the most incredulous people in the country. Now, I do like the idea of being fiscally conservative, but what has been the GOP’s record on this since coming to power? Have they reduced government spending? Have they shrunk government? Have they reformed welfare? Have they given rights back to the states? NO to all of those. Why do you still support these guys when they say one thing and do another?
What have I seen from them….anti-stem cell research, gay bashing, Intelligent Design (I mean come on, it is not science), abstinence only sex-ed and the faith-based intitiative. If these aren’t religious ideas that are being imposed upon the rest of us, I don’t know what is. The GOP is not fiscally conservative, they are only socially conservative. What’s next, no abortions, Prohibition, State established religion (yes, if you are a Constitutional fundie, the first amendment only says “congress shall make no law”, doesn’t say anything about the states), censorship, blue laws?
Open your eyes and see what they are doing. Most people, even most Republicans, don’t want to see a perverted Theocratic Republic…but it is what they are working toward…..
By gindy on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
I have to agree with Political Pie on this one. We are a democracy and in this democracy 60% voted against homosexual marriage. Therefore, it is Arnold’s job to follow the will of the people. The legislators don’t seem to care about what the people want they have there own agenda which is motivated by their own lobbyists.
If you believe that the numbers supporting homosexual marriage have changed then maybe there should be another vote. But, for legislators to ignore a vote decided by the will of the people shows their elitist tendencies.
By LiberPaul on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Gindy,
“But, for legislators to ignore a vote decided by the will of the people shows their elitist tendencies.”
Since support for the Iraq War is less than 50%, we should bring the boys back home! According to your logic, the shrub is an elitist pig and is ignoring the will of the people not only on Iraq, but stem-cell research as well.
By steve on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
LiberPaul no one voted for the war in Iraq, I don’t remember seeing that on a ballot. Gay Marriage was. Big difference in your logic.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
LiberPaul, I completely agree with your point on the Iraq War. Public opinion changes with circumstances. That is why the House has two year terms. But the wild swing of public opinion is to be moderated with the wisdom of the Senate. That is why the Senate has 6 year terms and they come from a broader base of support.
OK, Steve,
Less than 50% support Bush right now. We should recall him or impeach him right now when he has no support. Simialrly the campaign to ban gay marriage riled up the Fundamentalists to vote and the moderates who may have supported this idea were blindsided. Wipping up emotion to defeat rational facts may work, but is it really democracy? Is it really what is best for our society.
And, over 50% support equal rights and civil rights. How should the government deal with the inconsistancy of taking away equal rights of homosexuals to marry because of the ignorance of the majority?
By LiberPaul on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Steve,
I am interested what your response is to my previous comment? Are you happy with the fiscal conservativeness (is that a word even?) of the GOP right now? Or does the social aspect appeal to you more? Theocracy or democracy…which do you want?
By LiberPaul on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Maybe we should have voted on the Iraq War? Would’ve still went due to the support they had from all of the lies they told, but what the hell.
By steve on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Forbush, LP:
I seem to remember Kerry being ahead of Bush in the presidential election on all those gallop polls but when the day arrived, Bush had more votes.
So I think the theories about getting the religious right or fundamentalists out to vote don’t make sense because normally they vote. That’s why I wouldn’t believe those media polls. I get the polls calling once in a while and I never talk, I hang up. I think the left loves to give their opinion and will give anyone a chance to hear about it and assumes too much about the right coming in droves to the polls. Sure we have mouthpieces like Rush who can be harsh with the left but really only points out where their wrong. You listen to Air America on the flipside of that and that wench on the afternoon, Randy Rhodes cries like an adolescent about the right. But the bottom line is, we’re just out voting you guys and that’s what you can’t stand. To say Bush has less than 50% because CNN, AP or Gallop poll says doesn’t mean it’s all the way true. How many people that hang up the phone still vote?
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Actually the polls had Bush ahead by 2%, unless you only read the Fox News poll which had Kerry ahead by 2%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html
But the important polls were actually the state polls which were predicted very well. The key of course is how the people are feeling the day of the election. If they voted today Bush would loose against any major candidate including Hillary…
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Ok I have a few miniutes again. The question I would ask is; If the desegregation in the south during the 1960s was left simply to a vote on how one group of people felt about another group of people would our government be fullfilling its obligation to serve all of the people?
And that is core, because this is a civil rights issue for people of a different sexual orientation who whish to form recognized families. We know from antiquity that homosexuality has always existed in our civilization, and it will most likely always will be a component of the human family. But it did not have the stigma attached to it.
That came after the rise of christianity. Particularly during the middle Christianity stigmatized just about any one who wasn’t Christian, based on what a few men thought the bible said. That is kind of how I feel about Christianity in general its based on what a few men think the bible says those men more often than not are not historians, or archeologists or sceintists, they are just guys with big mouths and an opinion that they go around imposing. Then of course there are other christians who don’t need to take things so literally and try to veiw the bible in its historic context influencing western and near east cutual development.
Science has been debating the nature vs. nurture as a cause for homosexuality and there is good evidence that homosexuality may be a causality of genetics. If proven it would mean that god appearantly included the gay gene in his design. And that is going to difficult for a few opinionated people who may or may not have a background in academics or genetics to understand or accept.
Which brings me back to my original point: If all men (humanity) are created equally and have certain unalianble rights endowed to them by their creator and our government represents the social compact that is going to ensure the rights does it really count when one group of people votes to prevent another group of people from attaining their equal rights? Our should our government ensure those rights much the same way it did during desegregation?
Thats how I see the gay marriage movement its not a radical redefinition of marriage its the desegregation of marriage.
On a last note I highly reccomend the book Cosmos by Carl Sagan it explains what science tells us about our current preceptions of the universe and its not really about little green men its about us. As per my earlier question would you be more likely to vote for an actual candidate who endorsed the desegregation of marriage or a candidate who wanted to ammend the constitution to protect marraige as defined between a man and a woman? its the only issue they have and there is no third party candidte.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
BYOC,
Thanks for the wonderful comment. You made some wonderful points. “Cosmos” is a really good book, but I’m afraid that the people like “steve” can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction.
By Billion Year Old carbon on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Ah one last last not, Of course the unions would be interested in how new hires get treated they are putting their lives on the line for others and their families are the one who will expeirience hard ship if they should pass. I’m sure vetaran fire fighters are probably against it but I don’t live in Cali although I have some family there.
I’m not really sure what you are saying here ,”Did you know I am an advocate for illegal immigrants I can’t see how you could be a fiscal conservative without being an advocate for it,”
Do you mean that you are an attourney for illegal immagrants trying to legalize them selves?
Or do you mean that you would encourage the illegal entry of foriegn citizens into the united states so that their non existant status can be exploited for slave wages? while simultaneously bracking the back bone of the middle class and widening the socio economic gap (making more poor people)
By BYOC on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Thanks Doc!
By steve on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Hold on here Dr. Forbush, you are trying to make me look stupid which is the case every time you guys shoot me down. Unfortunately despite your scientific evidence California voted 60% against gay marriage. Fact is, that’s the fact. Arnold is right for vetoing it. 60% in one of the most liberal states in the union. Why is that so fictional to you?
BYOC,
I am against the exploitation of illegal immigrants if that is what you are asking. Every few months you hear of some bastard running a sweat shop or fast food restaurant paying his workers cash, not paying his workers comp insurance or paying the guys under minimum wage or no overtime. These people do this because they think they can’t compete or are trying to squeeze every dollar out of their business. These people need to go to jail or be shut down but no one does anything about it. California is full of small business owners like this. I supply an industry that has a very very high percentage of hispanic workers. The guys that do what I said above are not my customers. I couldn’t supply them if I tried, they won’t even pay for what I offer. The guys that are my customers pay their employees well, more than minimum wage and more than proposed living wages. Why do they hire the hispanics? They show up and want to work. The average American guy that shows up doesn’t want to put in a full 40 or wants to leave early and really wants no advancement. And these people, who most of the time get here illegally, can get real advancement in this business. They can end up being homeowners, even in California. It’s the American Dream. Hispanics are a growing middle class in California. They are hitting that top tier as well, starting from the bottom like our grandfathers and great grand fathers did.
You cut illegals out of this country, you will kill a vast majority of small businesses that are labor intensive and very legitimate and normally exceed minimum wage. If every body was treated equally there’d be no need for a minimum wage. The market would set the minimum. I hate to say it but Mexican President Vicente Fox’s statement he made about blacks is partially true, except for the “blacks” part. Substitute blacks for Americans. And it’s very all inclusive. American’s do not want the jobs the hispanics are taking. Restaurants, hotels, automotive, construction, etc… you name it. These industries would fall flat without our friends from the south.
By BYOC on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Ok I think its great that you don’t supply the sweat shops but you do realize that the people you do supply are engaged in tax evasion right? Its double jepardy not only are citizens not able to take those jobs the nations budget is being robbed.
I noticed that you did not address any of the other questions I asked though concerning the actually topic of this post. I understand that my last comment did warrant some reply but I don’t want to change the actual subject. We all know that sooner or later we will have time to discuss immigration …again
By steve on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply
Nations budget being robbed? How? Say illegal immigrant has fake SS number or Tax ID. They still take federal and state taxes and contribute to your little Social Security fund. Then they get caught and deported… Does the money go with them too? Hell no… A business only has to ask for the documentation required by the law. They need not police their workers if the items they are presented with are fake though not obviously fake.
As far as your question, I’d vote for the candidate of the latter out of personal choice not because I was “socially motivated”. I do find Carl Sagan interesting though.
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
As far as your endorsement of ILLEGAL immigration goes if it comes up again in a sidebar or something I’ll address it then I do find your stance to be ill-logical on so many levels but I’m not going to allow for that much distraction here. If your looking for the kind of action you usually get from Brad you are not going to find it here I’am not to be played.
Now …Steve… I get the feeling… that your holding back on this topic of Homosexaul marriage. I am begining to wonder if you find this subject difficult to address? So say what you want to say. You would choose the candidate pushing the defense of marriage act (Which in my book is nothing but an act for reasons stated above but thats my reasoned opinion) you use the term “socially motivated” but really do not define what you mean by that so what is your actual motivating factor if not society? Please… extrapolate.
I would like to recap; “inconsequential domestic issues are the trump card for getting people to ignore the real weaknesses in our country” This brings me back to my point the politically savy know that people of all colors, socio-economic backgrounds, most creeds, and certainly both genders, have an irrational fear of homosexuality that was built into your mind through the trappings of mainstream western society. (It has happened before people where once afraid of a heliocentric universe or sharing a water fountain with African Americans, sadly some people still are) Still sex is very personal and something most people associate some sort of misplaced guilt or shame over it.
So when some one tells you that homosexuals are threatening your family by steping up to claim equality for their own families it gets a fear reaction, kind of like your own family might be just as gay by associative equality ie. the pedastal that your family has been placed upon no longer lords over the gay commited couple who in fact are a family. In reality every ones family is on that pedestal just as it should be, but why make it so exclusive? Because now you can create a political divide based on appealing to an irational fear and capture voters from every backround, even some homsexuals who either still ascribe to the built in societal programming on some level or are voting against themselves for some percieved benefit. Claiming the right to be married does not mean one has to get married right away.
This is certainly one of those issues that started with the religious right that has been pandered to the point that it is a political fear based WMD. It is not a surprise that it came out of that corner considering that these are always the slowest members of a society to adapt and evolve to changes in the social enviornment.
By steve on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
Oh trust me I don’t equate Brad to the general population of Bring it on…
I was gonna head off to bed but I got time for this (we’ve got Family Guy TiVo’d)
Where to begin. First read the 79th comment on that post from the 5th about the documentary title. That’d be a good start. I didn’t want to cut and paste it because it belongs there. It’s God’s honest truth.
I guess I am against gay marriage because I flat out just don’t care. You guys all seem to care because you’ve equated it to the war in Iraq, Rove’s supposed conspiracy, the DSM and oh, I don’t know, the right’s stand with Bush on Katrina.
In fact, I think you guys have made every issue a battle line with the right. More and more its an us against them. A vast majority of the American public do not give a rat’s ass about who is President and all the issues you guys bring up. So I guess since it is some little social victory for you guys (gay marriage) we’ll just stand in and say no. And why can’t we? Alternative lifestyles are a personal choice and not a social choice. Society doesn’t make you gay or straight. Maybe genetics has something to do with it, but I doubt it. (IMHO)In fact, I don’t know what genetics has to do with any of it. The idea of marriage to me, is pro-creation. You can pull all the historical, before Christ stuff on homosexuality all you want, marriage transcends that because it’s most likely older than that. You can force all the family values crap about gay unions you want to me about how they are wonderful parents and their adopted or surrogate kids grow up “normal” or straight. I am sure you can offer a butt-load of statistics to show me that it’s ok. Fine I believe ya, I am sure there are some good examples. I saw the Birdcage. But why should I accept it if it is against what I see as a family or pro-creation? You claim we are the slowest members of society because of adapting and evolving. You know, we may actually like the way things are, the current way, with the current system. We actually feel it’s good for America. Why put us down as “slow”? I think we are a little more adapted to our convictions then you even want to fathom. Is there something wrong with that? And who made it wrong? You? You progressives are not that far-ahead thinking group you’d like to think you are. Can you accept that statement without showing rage?
By Hector on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
“Steve” as a republican I have two questions for you first question is “did you ever know anyone who was anti-gay in past and all of sudden you find out they are gay now?” A friend told me, if you are anti-gay, you yourself are most likely to become gay. The reason why is if you are anti-gay you are not totally confindent in your sexuality?
The second question is “Steve since you are anti-gay, have had homosexual thoughts, or any encounters with homosexuality that made you become anti?
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
There now see doesn’t it feel good to speak your mind instead of just dancing around the issue. I’m not sure what of you are interpreting as rage though. In fact I have to say that is a classic accusation meant to get a rise, I also met a California missionary once and any questioning of her verion of the story was refered to as “rage.” “Why do you have so much rage?”
I say why bother with cheap thrills? Either that or it is a last defense telling of feelings of inferiority.
I also have to say that your statement that you just don’t care is actually betrayed by the amount of stuff you actually have to say.
The ref to the other post doesn’t correlate well here. I’m missing the connection your trying to make from that post on this specific issue, although it makes for interesting backround. Mine is actually not that unsimilair. Saying that your Pro life and anti death penalty is great, most people here would say the same thing I think, but also add that they support a womans right to choose a medical procedure after consulting with a physician.
However I keep seeing the phrases, I don’t care, I don’t know, it doesn’t matter , you can’t tell me, and then you summed it up with this, “You know, we may actually like the way things are, the current way, with the current system. We actually feel it’s good for America.”
if all you do is feel and the first three statements are true then there is a big problem because it means that those who have embaced this philosophy are not thinking, you are feeling, feeling does not solve the nessecacary equations. Although it is a part of the equation. I never got any math done just feeling about it.
You are right when you say that as a whole democrats see this issue as a political bomb shell that is tied into every thing that is wrong with the way Republicans have been practicing politics, tinkering with the separtion of church and state, and keeping everybody occupied with distractions so that they avoid the real issues. And the worst part is that its being done at the expense of peoples lives for political gain and posturing.
Do not be mistaken when I talked about conservativism being slow to adapt to social change its not meant as a slap on the ass or a put down its a simple fact, conservativism trys to maintain the staus qou if not even push it back in time where it suits their idiology.
“But why should I accept it if it is against what I see as a family or pro-creation?”
I’m not asking you to accept it I’m asking that the federal government step up to the plate and ensure civil rights for all its citizens. It has (on the books) for people of color and many people still do not accept them, some have even formed special clubs to let them know just how much they don’t accept them.
“Can you accept that statement without showing rage?”
Certainly not. I feel that it is an out rage to ammend the constitution to limit civil liberties especially when those liberties are so closely tied to undermining the seperation of church and state, and such ammendments would prevent the government from being able to live up to protecting its citizens god given rights. You see the phrase All men where created equal means that the law should afford the same rights to all citizens. Again see above.
If it is ever proven that there is a genetic link…. I just want to remind you that every human being on earth carries the same DNA but we all have variations on which genes are switched on and if god designed DNA and there is no natural or artificle selection only his choice… then he designed gay people and meant it. Oh and that would also make some of your DNA part gay …sorry
By LiberPaul on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
BYOC,
Damn right! Couldn’t have said it better myself, thanks. One thing that is makes this country great is our protections for minorities, whether racial or political and soon I hope, gay. It took us a while to get civil rights for racial minorities and civil rights for gays, while there will be a fight, is inevitable.
By steve on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
Hector:
Why even post?
BYOC:
I referenced that 79th comment because I was telling you all my background. It had nothing to with this post.
Wow, you have a lot I could answer there but I am lacking the time this morning because of work. I will leave something but it more or less addresses LiberPaul’s comment and part of yours.
Who said marriage was a civil right? Trust me I am against all forms of discrimination but marriage can be contrued as religious experience regardless of atheism. Why? Because marriage is a ceremony like a funeral or a birthday party but different because for eons it has been between a man and a woman. If an amendment were to spring up either way, for or against gay marriage, it would be in violation of your church and state argument because the Constititution would meddling with a religous experience. What if homosexuality were a religion though and part of their religion were to join in a union kind of like marriage? Well, then the above argument could have even more problems because in order to then get “married” you’d have to be part of that religion. We’d be forcing homosexual people into a religion which would be a violation of your church and state argument because we’d be establishing a religion. That’s sort of how you should be looking at marriage as crazy as I may sound. If you want civil rights well, look at the rights of civil unions.
By The Bastard on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
Steve,
Marriage within the church is about a man and a woman and everything that has to do with advancing life.
Marriage in the eyes of the state is about a marriage license and tax’s.
Don’t mix the two up! One is legal and one is faith based. With that said one would come to the conclusion that one group is trying to force it’s faith based views into the law of the land and that is wrong. You know it and I know it. You can not project your faith based views onto others.
Tell me exactly and I mean exactly what harm could two men or two woman getting married do to the state?
The state is not there to protect your faith based views it is there to protect and secure the safety of the general population. Can these unions recognized by the state harm the state?
Can they harm a religion or for that matter the population of the world from growing? Yeah maybe, but the world is already over populated, thanks to science I might add.
Feelings for one another and how it plays out in the tax code of the United States should not be a faith based question?
Now go slap your best male friend on the butt and say “good game”!
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
Steve I don’t know how you guys get married out there in Californian but out here in the North east the civics of getting married involve going to you municiple center and getting a Liscence to perform a ceremony. If you do not have a faith you get a JP or a judge and generally you do not have to have a religious ceremony unless thats what you want. The benefit of getting married of course is the social/legal recognition that two people are bonded for life as a family.
Getting married where I live does not involve joining a cult. But even more intersting is your argument that the desegregation of marriage will violate church and state by equating sexual preference to worship.
What you are forgetting is that the states only obligation to religion is to protect the freedom to worship via the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of speech. There is no coersion into a gay religion, if they went and formed their own congregations the state would be poweless to stop them and what if a marriage ceremony was a sacrement in their gay church? The state would be poweless to stop that too, unless of course they where going to take away the freedom to worship for a specific group of people.
On civil unions: Are not all marriages civil unions where the state is concerned? This what I could never get the real ammendment to the constitution that was propesd seems little more than an attempt to hold a monopoly on a word when bringing up civil unions. because gays could form a civil union, hold a ceremony in their church, and tell others that they are married.
Now either civil unions afford all the legal obligations of a marriage liscense and is in fact a marriage or it does not hold the same rights equal to marriage. I think what you want (if they hold the same rights) is for the state to make the distinction that this is a gay couple, and that sound a whole lot like seperate but equal.
I want to point out that if in fact civil unions an gay marriage are the same in the lawful obligations/protections they offer then the admin basically wasted a ton of tax dollars to try and ammend the constitution to maintain a monoply on a WORD. Now what is the point in doing that if not frivilous distraction? For starters its kind of futile but really it is there to try and illegitimatize some one elses freedom.
By steve on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
Hmm… Quick one, I am on the road…
If this is all true then you could agree then that marriage is a religious event. Why is the state taxing a license then?
Another thing, a gay person can already get married. What rights are we violating or keeping separate? They have the right to be married now, just like you and I, it’s just to a member of the opposite sex, just like you and I (assuming we are all not gay) Two life long buddies can then get married in principle by your reasoning, they don’t have to be gay for each other, they could be straight but then be afforded the rights of married people. Being married then couldn’t be socially beneficial because anyone could be “married”. Society I think has made a clear distinction over thousands of years of what marriage is. What’s wrong with tradition?
By Billion year Old Carbon on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
Steve get real you know that I am talking about a civil tax and paper work distinction, end of the line, the individual is free to chose a spiritual or non-religous ceremony after that and the state has no say in it what form it takes as long as it does not violate other civil codes like slaughtering livestock in the open, so get over it.
This tax as you well know is the fee for the state to keep a public record on file did you want another hand out or something? Its no secret that there are many opposite sex couples who don’t get it on and still they are married and hopefully best buds if thats the best that can be hoped for.
Since you passively asked, yes you are getting all this crazy civil rights talk from a happily married hetero dude who is also a fifth generation Germanic American. It just goes to show we are not all homophobes and nazis, (I’m not accusing you of the latter so don’t even go there) I just happen to belive that the government is supposed to be for all the people by all the people in terms of civil managment, the churches can choose to be exclusive if they want and the state has no say over that.
Now look I have said all that can possibly be said on this one and it brings me back to what I said at the very top. “getting biblical with the nation always distractions them from the real dangers and failings of the administration.” look at how much time has gone into this post alone. Once agains advocates of gay marriage where not the ones trying to ammend the constitution at the federal level. They where working on a state and local level and a bunch of people got scared by it and decided to waste our tax dollars in a vain effort to define a word and the admin let it happen because they needed the distraction at the time.
I will leave you with a few visuals to explain what people “see” when they hear the term “gay marriage”
1)Two guys one of them is wearing a white wedding dress.
2) Two girls one is wearing a tux.
3) two guys both wearing tuxes
4) Two brides both wearing white dresses
5) A whole line of new wedding fashions to be marketed that transends those images so that uptight folks won’t feel “icky” when they look at your wedding album. CHA-CHING!!!
By steve on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply
I think this argument reached the end with no solution… #5 was really funny.
You quickly spun it back to an administration that is looking for a distraction when I started with the point that Republicans don’t make as big a deal about it that you think we do.
The struggle you have is recognizing the belief system I have is different than yours. My beliefs on gay marriage are important because they resemble what more than half the country might believe. It would be kinda like switching religions or even playing for a different sports team to just vote your way. How many people vote a certain way because of popular choice? (Democrats who voted for Bush, for example) It’s really a different set of ideals. You are looking for me to prove why I am correct while showing me why you’re correct. I obviously don’t think the same way you guys do when you rationalize something. Maybe that’s why I come off so odd to you guys. It goes both ways. Very tense reading these posts.
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Sep 10, 2005 | Reply
Steve you are correct we will not reach a solution. What comes off so odd for me personally is that half the country may also still to this day feel that non-whites should be segregated in “seperate but equal” social scenarios.
But just because people feel that; it doesn’t make it right. And thats why I think it should not matter if its going to hurt some ones feelings to do the right thing. You’ll survive and so will your faith.
By steve on Sep 10, 2005 | Reply
I highly doubt half the country thinks non-whites should be segregated. Unfortunately racism exists but, I highly doubt that claim.