Abominations seem to come in many forms

There appears to be no lack of nutjobs in any of our fair states in the USA. What is scary is that the nutjobs insist on making the rules for the rest of us. I fail to see how gay marriage harms anyone. If the thought of two men or two women in a legally binding contract is so frightening to you that you want to change the Consititution of your state or, even more scary, of the nation, then you, my dear, protest too much and probably are a secret queer so deep in the closet that even you don't know it.

Daniel Lee's argument employs the Fallacy of False Cause, also known as the Non Sequitur. Specifically, I believe this would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - the illogical assumption that two event happening in sequence are necessarily cause and effect.

He states that, first there was interracial marriage, now the budgets are in bad shape, therefore interracial marriage has ruined the budgets. I suspect that, if he thinks about the past forty years very, very hard, he may be able to determine that there have been a great many events, other than interracial marriage, which have occured in these past forty years. Assuming that two events are cause and effect solely on the basis that one occured before the other is no more logical than assuming that the federal, state, and city budgets are in bad shape because the TV show "Who's The Boss?" was cancelled.

elaygee wrote:

There appears to be no lack of nutjobs in any of our fair states in the USA. What is scary is that the nutjobs insist on making the rules for the rest of us. I fail to see how gay marriage harms anyone. If the thought of two men or two women in a legally binding contract is so frightening to you that you want to change the Consititution of your state or, even more scary, of the nation, then you, my dear, protest too much and probably are a secret queer so deep in the closet that even you don't know it.

I'm beginning to fear for our children if these bigots are as plentiful as they seem. Hopefully they're just overly loud and obnoxious.

John -

as always, thank you for your thoughtfulness and humor in dealing with controversy! Regarding the Lawndale person's comment - I always find it amusing that people of faith think they can know, see, and determine the mind or plan of god (and while we're on it, which god? whos god???- but that's another discussion, one you covered very nicely on 05-18-08 :-D)... how refreshingly comforting it must be to know your god's plan for everyone on the planet... even those not governed by your god!

Rosalee FoxWood

Unfortunately, this important issue isn't getting its due. As the posters above show, most folks seem to want to insult people with different opinions rather than engage in an exchange of ideas.

John Bogert's column similarly left out the important points. As the 3 dissenting judges observed, if a "right" for gay marriage can be found in the manner the other 4 judges used, then "rights" for polygamous marriages as well as father-son, brother-sister marriages can be found as well.

Society needs to determine for itself what is and isn't the definition of marriage. Not 4 judges. Maybe society does want polygamous marriages as well as gay. To determine that, we held a vote in 2001. It looks like we'll need to vote again.

Calling names won't solve the issue.

Apparently, Daniel Lee missed US History 101.

Being a Black woman from the South, I feel the need to educate Mr. Lee and others who simply don't get it. Black people in this country weren't even viewed as human, much less kinda sorta equal when it was decided that miscegenation was an abomination.(intentional use of the word, since people throw it around so much right now) The thought of a Caucasian person intermarrying with a person of African decent was about as well received (and marked a direct corollary to) intermarrying with an animal. Now, I know that we're enlightened now (sarcasm), but we cannot forget the proper context in which this legislation was written. Nor, can we dismiss the importance of its dismissal.

That said, comparing the two scenarios--same sex marriage and interracial marriage--is absolutely a proper comparison. Because members of the LGBT community and same sex relationships are not seen as right or proper, which is the foundation of the argument against the community and gay marriage, anything that seemingly equalizes the rights of said community is the same as doing what this country did (albeit far too late) for non-White peoples years ago. It's about time that people understand that this is exactly the same issue that Martin Luther King, Jr was fighting for. The irony is that those who are the most verbose opponents of gay marriage are the very ones crying over MLK's speech while drinking lemonade and enjoying barbeque on their day off.

You can't have it both ways, people. It's either equal rights for everyone or it's not. Period. Which one will you choose? Institutionalized bigotry or the freedom that this country is supposed to represent?

Tamika wrote:

Apparently, Daniel Lee missed US History 101.
Being a Black woman from the South, I feel the need to educate Mr. Lee and others who simply don't get it. Black people in this country weren't even viewed as human, much less kinda sorta equal when it was decided that miscegenation was an abomination.(intentional use of the word, since people throw it around so much right now) The thought of a Caucasian person intermarrying with a person of African decent was about as well received (and marked a direct corollary to) intermarrying with an animal. Now, I know that we're enlightened now (sarcasm), but we cannot forget the proper context in which this legislation was written. Nor, can we dismiss the importance of its dismissal.
That said, comparing the two scenarios--same sex marriage and interracial marriage--is absolutely a proper comparison. Because members of the LGBT community and same sex relationships are not seen as right or proper, which is the foundation of the argument against the community and gay marriage, anything that seemingly equalizes the rights of said community is the same as doing what this country did (albeit far too late) for non-White peoples years ago. It's about time that people understand that this is exactly the same issue that Martin Luther King, Jr was fighting for. The irony is that those who are the most verbose opponents of gay marriage are the very ones crying over MLK's speech while drinking lemonade and enjoying barbeque on their day off.
You can't have it both ways, people. It's either equal rights for everyone or it's not. Period. Which one will you choose? Institutionalized bigotry or the freedom that this country is supposed to represent?

I couldn't have said it any better myself. You are absolutely correct.

Tamika wrote:

Apparently, Daniel Lee missed US History 101.
Being a Black woman from the South, I feel the need to educate Mr. Lee and others who simply don't get it. Black people in this country weren't even viewed as human, much less kinda sorta equal when it was decided that miscegenation was an abomination.(intentional use of the word, since people throw it around so much right now) The thought of a Caucasian person intermarrying with a person of African decent was about as well received (and marked a direct corollary to) intermarrying with an animal. Now, I know that we're enlightened now (sarcasm), but we cannot forget the proper context in which this legislation was written. Nor, can we dismiss the importance of its dismissal.
That said, comparing the two scenarios--same sex marriage and interracial marriage--is absolutely a proper comparison. Because members of the LGBT community and same sex relationships are not seen as right or proper, which is the foundation of the argument against the community and gay marriage, anything that seemingly equalizes the rights of said community is the same as doing what this country did (albeit far too late) for non-White peoples years ago. It's about time that people understand that this is exactly the same issue that Martin Luther King, Jr was fighting for. The irony is that those who are the most verbose opponents of gay marriage are the very ones crying over MLK's speech while drinking lemonade and enjoying barbeque on their day off.
You can't have it both ways, people. It's either equal rights for everyone or it's not. Period. Which one will you choose? Institutionalized bigotry or the freedom that this country is supposed to represent?

Well said.

My monkey and I worship at the Monkey Love Church. He used sign language to indicate his desire to marry me. What about his equal rights? What is the definition of a "person" anyways. He says we need to redefine the word "person" and then he will have his equal protection, too.

apparently you cannot write (primate that starts with M and ends with y) on this site. sorry if i offended any animals with my last post.

Tamika -

Beautifully put... those of us who are not people of color are usually reticent to make direct comparisons to Civil Rights issues - and usually for at least one very good reason... while I cannot choose my orientation, I can and do choose who knows about it... non-white persons cannot choose to be seen as white (generally), and so that struggle is
even more difficult. But thank you for making the correlation! It really means a lot...

namaste,
Rosalee FoxWood

Tamika wrote:

Apparently, Daniel Lee missed US History 101.
Being a Black woman from the South, I feel the need to educate Mr. Lee and others who simply don't get it. Black people in this country weren't even viewed as human, much less kinda sorta equal when it was decided that miscegenation was an abomination.(intentional use of the word, since people throw it around so much right now) The thought of a Caucasian person intermarrying with a person of African decent was about as well received (and marked a direct corollary to) intermarrying with an animal. Now, I know that we're enlightened now (sarcasm), but we cannot forget the proper context in which this legislation was written. Nor, can we dismiss the importance of its dismissal.
That said, comparing the two scenarios--same sex marriage and interracial marriage--is absolutely a proper comparison. Because members of the LGBT community and same sex relationships are not seen as right or proper, which is the foundation of the argument against the community and gay marriage, anything that seemingly equalizes the rights of said community is the same as doing what this country did (albeit far too late) for non-White peoples years ago. It's about time that people understand that this is exactly the same issue that Martin Luther King, Jr was fighting for. The irony is that those who are the most verbose opponents of gay marriage are the very ones crying over MLK's speech while drinking lemonade and enjoying barbeque on their day off.
You can't have it both ways, people. It's either equal rights for everyone or it's not. Period. Which one will you choose? Institutionalized bigotry or the freedom that this country is supposed to represent?

My feeling is if you don't like same sex marriage then don't have one. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. If you don't like smoking then don't. America is supposed to be the last refuge of freedom. Tolerance in the US is falling to the wayside, and we might still end up like Pakistan and Iran where a book written to help the illiterate live a more moral life becomes the enemy of freedom. The Torah, Koran and Bible all share this danger with people with closed minds and an unfullfilled wish for power, and control.

Thank you. If only the other side were listening...

If you want the other side to listen, then stop calling them names. But if you want to harden opinions against your opinion, then proceed to insult all those who disagree with you.

The above holds true no matter how you view this issue. We have about 5 months until the vote on a constitutional amendment. It lost by a big margin 7 years ago.

I wonder if Tamika, et al, are listening?

Clear Thinker wrote:

Unfortunately, this important issue isn't getting its due. As the posters above show, most folks seem to want to insult people with different opinions rather than engage in an exchange of ideas.
John Bogert's column similarly left out the important points. As the 3 dissenting judges observed, if a "right" for gay marriage can be found in the manner the other 4 judges used, then "rights" for polygamous marriages as well as father-son, brother-sister marriages can be found as well.
Society needs to determine for itself what is and isn't the definition of marriage. Not 4 judges. Maybe society does want polygamous marriages as well as gay. To determine that, we held a vote in 2001. It looks like we'll need to vote again.
Calling names won't solve the issue.

Critical thinking at it's best!

Thank you!!!

Tamika wrote:

The thought of a Caucasian person intermarrying with a person of African decent was about as well received (and marked a direct corollary to) intermarrying with an animal.
...
That said, comparing the two scenarios--same sex marriage and interracial marriage--is absolutely a proper comparison.

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, as you demonstrate, even the reference to animals has made its reappearance in gay rights as we have all too often heard an opponent of gay rights claim that, if we allow two men to marry, we will be forced to allow a man to marry a sheep.

PS: If not for interracial marriage, I would not have been born. I support gay marriage.

Dove wrote:

PS: If not for interracial marriage, I would not have been born. I support gay marriage.

PSS If not for your straight parents you would not have been born, either.

Obomination wrote:

<quoted text>
PSS If not for your straight parents you would not have been born, either.

If not for intolerant whackos like you, people could live their lives.

Chef wrote:

<quoted text>
If not for intolerant whackos like you, people could live their lives.

Could I not say the same thing to you? You are right and anybody who has a different opinion is wrong? How do my opinions stop people from living their lives? Do you think everybody should just get to change definitions of words and law to make them happy?