The (Circus) Arena of Ideas
Politics — By Rachel Motte on November 14, 2008 at 5:12 pmBy Robin Dembroff
Hearts should be breaking.
In a story released yesterday, November 13, on FoxNews, a report was given of an elderly woman who attended a “No on Prop 8″ rally in order to support traditional marriage.
Sixty-nine year old Phyllis Burgess came holding a large foam cross, and video footage reveals the brutality with which she was received by the “rally,” or better termed, “mob.” I would encourage everyone to watch the footage and reflect on the method by which we “exchange” ideas in our present society. As you watch, you will see the cross being ripped from her hands and trampled upon by the raging protesters.
Bringing a big cross and conservative views to a vehement liberal rally was, granted, probably not the wisest idea. However, that is no excuse for the violent retaliation of the crowd.
To add irony to insult, as Burgess tries to escape from the scene–likely to avoid being injured–the camera follows her, and one of the protesters blocks the camera’s view by shoving a sign in front of Burgess’ face.
And what do you think this sign said?: “Vote No on Prop 8:
Equality for All.”
The road we dare not…trample?
This leads me to wonder: if those who claim to believe the ideology act in a way that spits on their own theory, what is their foundation for expecting it of others?
Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
52 Comments
“A lot of hate and a lot of anger, quite honestly, on both sides.”
The newscaster was watching which protest?
“A lot of hate and a lot of anger, quite honestly, on both sides.”
The newscaster was watching which protest?
“A lot of hate and a lot of anger, quite honestly, on both sides.”
The newscaster was watching which protest?
My computer messed up big time. Sorry about that.
I’ll only post once. That’s all I need. The incident of the cross trampling was, indeed, a day that should give all gays who believe in the Constitution reason to do some serious soul-searching about their cause. I am especially disappointed that no prominent Christian gay spokesman has come forward to denounce this violence or try to talk some sense into the movement illuminati. It’s the radicals who are the main image-bearers for gaydom. The cross, naturally, is an affront to them because it bears witness to a Savior who died for all of us while we were in our sin. But his resurrection (the cross is empty) proclaims the freedom we all have to leave our old lives behind. That is being done by those who now can call themselves former homosexuals.
This again, eh? Really, doesn’t one post cover it? Yes, the mean gay people stomped on her cross. They were wrong. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, and I find their behavior appalling, and I bet a lot of gay people do as well.
You should hear what my daughters’ little classmates said to them when they found out that my family doesn’t go to church. That’s right; good little Christian children told them their parents were evil and were going to hell. They were terribly upset by this, naturally, but not one kid stepped in and told the others to lay off. Does that make Christianity wrong, or is it just the specific BEHAVIOR that is wrong?
Hypocrisy does not care about left-wing or right-wing, folks; it doesn’t care about sacred or secular; it spans ideologies. Attempts to cast this behavior as uniquely gay or only associated with bad causes is disingenuous at best.
Ok, so an apparently mentally feeble woman crashes a gay rights rally. She gets her styrofoam cross taken away and trashed and someone sticks a sign between her and the camera. She later laughs it off and doesn’t press charges until she realizes that it would make a lot of people happy if she did.
Yes, this truly is the end of civilization. Let’s compare this to the number of gays beaten, harassed and even killed by so-called Christians.
And didn’t you guys already post on this. Is this really the best you’ve got? And the ages of you posters seem to be getting younger. You started with recent graduates of Biola, then went to seniors at Biola and now we’re to sophomores at Biola? What’s next? Homeschoolers who have applied to Biola? I’m proud of what they have done at their young ages, but this blog needs a consistent and reasoned mind at the helm. I often disagreed with Joe (who apparently will always get credit from his admirers on the sidebar), but at least he was committed to the blog and wrote in an engaging style.
Ad hominem? “Is this really the best you’ve got?”
I never said it was the “end of civilization.” Nor did I say that the incident disproved any specific ideologies.
What I DID say was that the protesters were behaving in a way that, like the “good little Christian children,” was antithetical to their ideology’s principles. I then pointed out that it would hardly seems fair if I expected others to act on principles when I would not adhere to them myself.
Rob, your children were upset by the cruel remarks of their classmates, and rightly so. Is it so surprising, then, that I have expressed my sorrow at the brutality with which an angry crowd treated a 70-year-old woman?
We all agree that people should not be attacked or abused by angry crowds.
If at any time you actually want to address the arguments made by supporters of gay marriage please feel free to try. If the point of this post, though, is along the lines of ’see this is what all supporters are really like’…..well at what point will you be begging forgiveness for every email calling Obama the antichrist that was sent by someone on your side? I’m sure we can find some fetish outlet in the East Village that will be happy to rent you a hair shirt for the occassion.
Your sorrow at their brutality? Oh give me a break. You are trying to score points against gay marriage because some protesters acted poorly. How exactly was she brutalized? How many stitches did she require? Will she ever recover psychologically? It’s so good that you emphasized that she was “elderly.” More sympathy points for your side! The elderly are being brutalized by the sodomites! Egad! My parents are 72 and don’t take kindly to being called elderly, young missy.
“Rob, your children were upset by the cruel remarks of their classmates, and rightly so. Is it so surprising, then, that I have expressed my sorrow at the brutality with which an angry crowd treated a 70-year-old woman?”
Not surprising at all, Robin. And that is sort of my point. It would have been more surprising, and effective, if you had made an example of someone who shares your ideology instead of making an example of gays. It rather gives the impression that you are associating the behavior with the ideology (that of espousing tolerance for homosexuality).
“I then pointed out that it would hardly seems fair if I expected others to act on principles when I would not adhere to them myself.”
I’m glad you feel that way, and I heartily agree with you. But you didn’t use the first person in your post like you did just now, so I missed the point. I am delighted to know that this was not to be seen as a reason to oppose the aspirations of gays, but as a more general lament that people tend to undermine their own positions when their actions are not consistent with their espoused beliefs.
I watched the video, and in some places it was kind of blurry, so I couldn’t tell exactly what was on the cross, whether or not it had something written on it that was counter-protest to the protest that going on. What I want to know is how they knew that she wasn’t waving that cross in support of their cause. If she was just there to show her support for their protest, then that makes the episode just that much more ironic.
I just watched the footage with the sound off (too late at night). There seems to be a pretty serious argument at the beginning with a heavy set man in a white shirt so there was no doubt she was crashing the protest.
This leads to the obvious point about all protests…all gatherings of humans are dangerous. Protests especially tend to be somewhat roudy affairs which is why you have police at them. Along these lines, there’s usually three groups of people at protests. One side, the other side and people in between. The people on opposite sides should be kept apart and this is what police are supposed to do.
What this seems like to me is inciting a riot…or at least a situation that was a potential incitement to riot.
Now Robin’s answer to this is to spit in the face of thousands of years of traditional thinking about man’s fallen nature. Her answer is that her people are really good and the people she doesn’t like are really bad and their impolite behavior when you crash their protests shows just how bad they are. Perhaps she is too young to remember the hatred that the Last Temptation of Christ brought out of supposedly good Christian folks who weren’t above death threats against any theatre owner who played the movie. Lesson 1. People are nasty. Please try to learn it so you don’t end up humilating yourself when you become a Junior.
And yet, somehow, I just don’t think a pro-choicer who sneaks into the middle of a large pro-life rally/protest to suddenly announce she was protesting against the groups goals would be treated with loving kindness. Nor do I suspect Obama supporters who tried such a stunt with a Palin rally would likewise be so treated. Hell, even doing this sort of thing at a sporting event could get ugly really fast.
It’s wonderful that we have the freedom to protest but don’t kid yourself. Protests are a little dangerous, sometimes very dangerous. Always have been and always will be. Good policing knows how to keep things safe and fun for everyone 99% of the time but that doesn’t alter the fact that people can and do get hurt.
Of course it is good that no one seems to have gotten hurt here except a giant foam prop. And maybe we can excuse the woman because she is old and stupid. (Yes you see inciting a riot is a criminal act…inciting a riot because you don’t realize what you’re doing is therefore stupid…I don’t think this woman’s a criminal so stupid it is) And it does seem like the heavy set man had some fellow protestors who tried to defuse the anger and keep the situation from boiling over. But the question has to be asked…
Is this what the right is reduced too? This endless quest to paint yourselves as put upon victims has lead you to applaud an old woman behaving foolishly, possibly setting up a dangerous sitaution for her and others so you can have a sympathetic victim? For shame, for shame……
Palm Springs – 69 year old Phyllis showed up at a protest the next night also. She plans to attend all of them, it seems to be a night out and social activity for her.
Since Palm Springs police had suggested she file misdemenor charges from the video incident and she seems to be somewhat socially and mentally challenged, police are familiar with her and keeping her back from the core of marches and protests.
She was delighted she was getting attention which is quite sad, and it’s good of the police (albeit to late in this appearance cited in this post) to keep an eye on her.
Did you notice the weird smile she had, all dolled up, and at 2:42 in the video she seems to help whomever took her wrist toss the cross. Then she appears to stomp on it. You’ll notice some of those she protested respectfully escorted her away.
I have no use for fat angry olde white guys getting in the face of a 69 year old woman and a female reporter no bigger than a minute. Phyllis loved the attention though.
She’s a fixture, none locals took part in the march and she’s delighted she is able to incite people who don’t know her personal difficulties.
It is her right to protest and to file a complaint.
She has announced on her MySpace page after talks with police she won’t be laying charges.
Lawyers say her complaints would likely be tossed out in court, but the attention has made her happy.
Palm Springs police are now used to her persistance and keep her back from crowds, keep her company for her own safety since she has issues.
Locals call her the crazy cross lady.
Rachel: Why not write about hetrosexuals who voted and have lost their jobs with Mormon firms?
Why not write about the meeting at El Coyote?
The mormon in charge of the resturant donated 100 dollars to her church. Gays are the spawn of Satan in her faith. Her employees are donating 5 thousand dollars to the opposite side.
Why not write about the protests this weekend involving Christians, GLBT, citizens of all stripes who know the issues and refuse to allow religious right to drive wedges between communities such as GLBT, blacks and hispanics.
Why not write about why people are angry about the financial and Mormon tactics to use their money, mailing lists and Utah edits?
We are seeing these demonstrations spread across the US on our news in Canada.
In a few years California will vote what the 4 Republican judges (one Democrat) ruled.
Many people are now stepping forward saying they thought they voted for equal rights and were duped by the Yes campaign.
Why not write about the Arkansas proposition pushed by the Focus on the Family sub group which stripped the rights of unmarrieds, singles and GLBT to foster or adopt under their religious agenda.
I think some will repent and repentence will be necessary be they churched or not.
What about the children. 1 thousand adoptions are in limbo, foster kids will have to go into state care?
Write about those kids tossed to the state by The Arkansas Family Council Action Committee are proud of what they’ve done – ”For the safety of children, to increase the number of prospective homes, and to “blunt a homosexual agenda.”
Write about Westmount College caught in the Tea Time wildfire.
Take a look at what Westmount went through (awesome pics)
http://www.sb-outdoors.org/fire/index.html
Bene D,
Assuming your description of this woman is accurate what she is doing is attempting to incite riots to get attention. You have a right to protest but you don’t have a right to crash other people’s protests. And crashing someone’s protest is something that will get them very angry, with justification. You go through a lot of work to pull together a protest, you get a thousand people in one place on the same page and all in the sudden all the media attention goes the one person whose crashing. You’re going to incite tempers and when you already have a crowd going…see previous posts about protests being dangerous by their nature.
People do these sorts of antics with protests. After 9/11 I accompanied a friend who went on a ‘counter protest’ of a radical peace group that didn’t want the US in Afghanistan (this was after 9/11 but before Iraq). We didn’t actually crash the group but walked around them in our own little counter protest. The police kept them behind a barrier and kept us from crossing it (my friend’s pro-war t-shirt made it quite clear we weren’t part of the group). Nothing violent or bad really happened, in fact we had a few good conversations with one or two of the protestors. But I don’t doubt this was small potatos when it comes to protests.
Long story short, this woman is playing with fire to get attention. Whether this is out of ignorance or mental illness the police need to stop encouraging her to incite a riot and the ‘Christians’ here who are applauding her with no regard to her and other’s safety are doing a big disservice.
A couple quick clarifications…
First, I was not “applauding” Mrs. Burgess. If you would actually read my article closely, you will note a sentence that reads, “Bringing a big cross and conservative views to a vehement liberal rally was, granted, probably not the wisest idea.”
Personally, I think that Burgess should have given the No on 8 rally space and not “crashed” it. However, once she did, the reaction was what I wanted to note.
Secondly, and regarding that reaction, the message I was hoping to communicate with this article was two-fold, and many people have automatically assumed a third that does not exist. The basic one is that respect is needed for each other, especially for the elderly, (would you rather have me call her ‘old’, or do you not think older people ought to be shown deference?).
If we are to be “exchanging” ideas and seeking truth, anger and violence will only get it the way. I don’t really care that they were “No on 8″ protesters, in that regard. Before my time at Biola, there were supposedly some pro-life protesters who were so pushy and rude to the students that they were banned from campus. That was equally wrong, or perhaps more-so, in my opinion.
Also, I wanted to communicate that ideology is not enough. If I have an idea that I hope people will take seriously, the means I use to achieve my vision my show my devotion to it. In this case, the ideology is “equality,” but what you see is biased rage. For example, totalitarian USSR became that way due to leaders who wanted to create utopia in Communism. Based on that model, millions of people are now reactionary to the word “Communism.”
Whether or not Communism is right, whether or not Christianity, gay marriage, or abortion is right, I am hoping to remind everyone that each belief has underlying principles that need to be a) determined possible, and b) considered when acting upon the belief.
Perhaps that is a “no-duh,” but as you’ve eloquently reminded me, I am but an ignorant, naive Sophomore.
Don’t expect anything too earth-shattering. :-)
Robin
The basic one is that respect is needed for each other, especially for the elderly, (would you rather have me call her ‘old’, or do you not think older people ought to be shown deference?).
I have no objection there. If I was in a crowd I’d try to defuse such a situation. On the other hand, after such an encounter happened I’d not applaud such an act. One doesn’t show respect for the elderly by encouraging them to incite a riot.
Also, I wanted to communicate that ideology is not enough. If I have an idea that I hope people will take seriously, the means I use to achieve my vision my show my devotion to it. In this case, the ideology is “equality,” but what you see is biased rage. For example, totalitarian USSR became that way due to leaders who wanted to create utopia in Communism. Based on that model, millions of people are now reactionary to the word “Communism.”
I think what we are seeing and talking about here is more basic than ideology. We are seeing human nature and anger is one of our basic emotions. Ideology is something we plaster on top of this skeleton of our identities. When groups of people get together and get angry bad things can happen and I appreciate your acknowledgement that this is pretty much independent of ideology. Given the right conditions, a pro-lifer can just as easily crack someone’s skull with a rock as a pro-choicer or pro-gay marriager. We are all sons of Cain….Able didn’t get to have kids.
Robin:
I apologize for getting your name wrong.
I tend to look at the bottom and see the poster.
I’m not use to a blog post using top byline. I overlooked your name.
I’m sorry for my carelessness.
Robin,
I apologize for my ad hominem which belittled you based on your youth. That was out of line. I honestly didn’t think you would even see it since most of the guest bloggers don’t seem to join in the comments discussion. Still, it was inappropriate.
Indeed, there is deep inconsistency in having no respect for others’ civil rights while arguing for one’s own.
It’s clear this was no drunken, post-game riot: no alcohol can be blamed here.
But where is coverage of this on national media? What if it had been the Koran a woman was holding, instead? It would’ve been the proverbial shot heard round the world. But the liberal illuminati stopped giving truth the microphone a long time ago.
Reagankid
1. What Fox News isn’t the national media? Last time I checked it’s part of almost every standard cable and sat. TV package and even available outside the US?
2. Why do you think it’s ok to beat up old people if you’re drunk? Are you doing some type of strange, post-modern virual marketing campaign for the beer companies?
The legally recognized institution of marriage has always been restricted to consenting adults of complementary sexes, not too closely related, and not already married to someone else. Those restrictions apply uniformly. Domestic partnerships in California are afforded every legal right concerning medical decisions, property, etc. that marriages have. There is no inequality except in the enactment of a ritual and the use of the word “marriage” to describe the relationship.
The people of California voted by initiative to preserve that word to define the relationship as it has always been called, while affording the same legal rights and protections married couples have for domestic partnerships. The California Supreme Court ruled that simply by not permitting the use of the word “marriage” to define their relationships, homosexual partners were made victims of discrimination. California voters again by initiative, reasserted their intention to confine the defintion of marriage to its long established usage.
The money donated to the promotion of Prop 8, by indidviduals and organizations of people of faith was dwarfed by the donations of anti Prop 8. Hollywood outspent the Mormons by a considerable margin.
The thuggish rejection of the democratic process by gay “rights” supporters is a troubling and undemocratic abuse, just as voting to end free elections would be. Their behavior imitates their brown and black shirted soulmates in the early half of the twentieth century.
Protesting something is a thuggish rejection of the democratic process? Does anyone here believe if the vote went the other way the supporters of Prop 8 would have simply went home and said ‘well that settles it forever’?
Yeah, I remember seeing this and thinking, “Oy.” That’s really all that came to mind.
After thinking about it, I hope the public is watching and that they see this for the temper tantrum it is. Boycotts and protests are fine, but what we’ve seen and heard time and time again in the Prop 8 aftermath is a horse of a diff’rent color.
Like I said, I hope the public is watching the mask drop. But like I’ve said on my own posts on the subject, I’m not holding my breath…we are far too easily bullied by angry words and swayed by screaming rights rhetoric.
P.S–I’m new here…first time poster…hi. :)
Ken,
Your argument contains at least two fatal errors.
First, you argument is based on an appeal to tradition. From wikipedia:
“Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition . . . is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of “this is right because we’ve always done it this way.”
An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:
A. The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
B. The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.”
Your second mistake is in falsely claiming that marriage has always been the same. You say it has always “been restricted to consenting adults of complementary sexes, not too closely related, and not already married to someone else. Those restrictions apply uniformly.”
Many, if not all, cultures have at one time sanctioned polygamy, including Judaism and Christianity. I challenge you to find a passage in either Old or New Testaments that explicitly forbids polygamy. You also say “not too closely related.” You have left a giant hole here. Are second cousins too closely related? How about first cousins? How about Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah? How many the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve marrying each other? Marriage has also often legally involved at least one who was unwilling. For instance, in the Old Testament, the punishment for rape was for the rapist to marry his victim. It seems doubtful that the victim consented. Many cultures have used arranged marriages where consent was not always even asked.
I don’t recall hearing roars of outrage over the rather large number of Metropolitan Community Churches that have been burned downed over the last 30 years or otherwise fallen victim to suspicious fires.
Now some thugs pick on an old lady and suddenly its held up as an example of all gay and lesbian Americans. Shall I hold up White Supremacists as sterling examples of Christendom?
The only reason to bring up the story in the context of this blog is to further vilify an already unpopular minority. Well done.
Meanwhile I’m still waiting for American Christians to show some vague sign of remorse for supporting torture as a means of statecraft for the last 8 years… I won’t hold my breath.
ex-preacher writes “Let’s compare this to the number of gays beaten, harassed and even killed by so-called Christians.”
Yes, lets. Care to list some actual statistics or incidents of where true Christians did such things in recent years? Please don’t just list every incident you can find, I want it documented that the people who beat and killed” the gays were Christians.
Tell us what church you preached at; was it Unitarian or the PCUSA?
The reality is that the “gay marriage” movement is about a lot of things, but marriage isn’t one of them. What they don’t want is to simply get married and live in peace. What they want is to remake society and force their values on all of us.
Tom the Redhunter,
In 2007, the FBI reported 1,221 hate crime incidents motivated by anti-homosexual bias. There were 22 incidents of anti-heterosexual crimes. You ask how many of these were perpetrated by “true Christians.” Why do I have a feeling that you are going to say anyone who would commit such a crime is not a “true Christian.” Are you familiar with the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy? This is why I said “so-called Christians.” In other words, people who self-identify as Christians. I have no idea how many of the crimes were committed by people who considered themselves Christians, but I think it stands to reason that a number were as something like 80% of the people in this country self-identify as Christians. I do know that most of the Ku Klux Klan organizations require their members to be Christians.
Regardless of the number of these crimes committed by Christians, don’t you agree that Christians should vigorously denounce such crimes?
Before my deconversion, I was a minister in the churches of Christ for 12 years.
I find it fascinating that you are somehow privy to the true goals of the “gay marriage movement.” Who told you the secret agenda?
Caught any reds lately?
Ex-preacher,
You answer Ken by saying:
“Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition . . . is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of “this is right because we’ve always done it this way.”
–I can’t speak for Ken; I don’t know what, exactly, he was suggesting by referencing tradition. However, I can tell you how I reference it. When I talk about tradition in relation to marriage, of course I don’t mean that ‘this is right b.c we’ve always done it this way.’ Rather, it shows where the burden of proof lies. We should be open to changing things, but the burden lies with those who want to change tradition. They must argue for why their change is needed. Just saying “why not?” and question begging is not good enough.
Secondly, I reference tradition to point out that the traditional marriage view, though it certainly comports with Christianity and many are motivated to hold it by Christianity, transcends religion. People from all sorts of cultures, religions, and no religion at all have held to the traditional view. That, in my mind, goes a long way in taking the air out of the “its a religious argument” retort.
You say:
Regardless of the number of these crimes committed by Christians, don’t you agree that Christians should vigorously denounce such crimes?
–Yup, I agree. Last time I checked, we do denounce them. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard pastors denouncing such actions from the pulpit (granted, I’ve only been a Christian for 11 years), and I’ve heard ‘laity’ Christians denouncing them much. Perhaps its just the circle I run with, but I tend to get around.
And hey, Jesus, the one that matters, denounces them too: “Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness, I never knew you.”
It’s amazing how many people think that gays have to “clean themselves and get straight” before coming to Christ. He died for ALL sin. All are welcome – not by their works, but by faith.
Christians are more worried about being “right” than loving people with grace and truth.
Gays hate Christians because we’ve given them plenty of reason to do so. Why should we feel sorry for that woman? Did she really think that what she did was effective? To what end? What was her motivation? That wasn’t the time and place to love gays. Love is an action, not a sign and a video camera.
I can only speak for myself, but to my way of thinking it would not be necessary before coming to Christ. The cleaning up and getting straight would be the visible sign of loving Christ. I’m not sure I understand why you think that rally was the wrong place and time to show them love though.
Have you proved that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage was based on incorrect grounds though? What circumstances have changed? Are men suddenly able to have children by men now? Are women suddenly able to have children by women now?
In 2007, 1,221 homosexual hate crimes? Out of a total population of 301 million? You’re calling this a persecution, a constant threat to homosexuals?
And according to a few seconds of googling, “hate crimes” can consist of rude name-calling right through to physical attack and, horribly, murder.
Hate crimes are never right, never justified, but don’t move the decimal point on the statistics to make it look more compelling.
In 2007, 1,221 homosexual hate crimes? Out of a total population of 301 million? You’re calling this a persecution, a constant threat to homosexuals?
And according to a few seconds of googling, “hate crimes” can consist of rude name-calling right through to physical attack and, horribly, murder.
Hate crimes are never right, never justified, but don’t move the decimal point on the statistics to make it look more compelling.
Sorry for double-post, I swear I hit the submit button only once!
smmtheory
Have you proved that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage was based on incorrect grounds though? What circumstances have changed? Are men suddenly able to have children by men now? Are women suddenly able to have children by women now?
What evidence do you have that marriage was based on the ability to have children?
Matt,
Yes, it is sad when Christians insist that the fish must be cleaned before it is caught. But…
What does that have to do with prop 8?
Well, Boonton, as stupid as I am, even I can see the evidence that it takes a man and a woman to produce children. Duh!
smm, please address the question asked or stop wasting our time.
What makes you think I was implying that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage was based specifically on the ability to have children? There is no ability test, there never was, and there never should be. It is perverse for you to even suggest that there should be. Why do you people get so hung up on that?
Are men suddenly able to have children by men now?
versus
What makes you think I was implying that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage was based specifically on the ability to have children?
Show of hands for everyone who does NOT believe smmtheory should retain his place in this blog’s Trinity of Stupidity.
I wrote about this on my own site, but I have to add that the opening sentence sort of makes me twitch. There is an implication that the assault is somehow more “heartbreaking” than other violence which has been and will be committed in similar circumstances because she is an elderly woman.
It is always heartbreaking, far beyond constructions of the political divide. Hearts should already be broken, if they are to break.
Just a rhetorical nitpick, but not an insignificant one, I don’t think.
Men are able to impregnate women Boonton. That is only partly the basis for the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage. But that is not the ability you wanted to infer Boonton. You wanted to infer that what I said was that marriage was based on the ability of any specific couple to produce children. You were trying to be sneaky about it. You were trying to manipulate the conversation so that you could inevitably ask why a man and woman who cannot apparently produce children are allowed to be married. Ostensibly to imply that we should be insisting on verification of ability to have children.
The basis of the tradition of marriage (Judeo-Christian tradition, and that is truly what marriage law in this country is patterned after) is not specifically the ability to produce children. It is not specifically about protecting children born of a couple either, although that would be a major concern of society in general, and might be a major influence behind the creation of marriage law in this country. If you were Christian then you might also be able to understand that marriage is analogous to the relationship between Jesus and the Church (Groom and Bride), as well as being analogous to the relationship of God to mankind in general.
So here’s how smm’s argument work.
As a type or class man + woman can result in impregnation. Sort of like as a class a business takes inputs, produces outputs and hence generates profits. That doesn’t mean though that a particular couple can or will have children anymore than it means any particular business will be profitable.
But the problem here is that this type argument is entirely arbitrary. As a type, marriages of humans produce children whereas marriages of humans to non-humans do not. Therefore I can say gay marriage is no different than the marriage of a couple where one or both members are infertile. It’s a marriage of humans and humans marrying humans can produce children even if a particular marriage won’t because it is members of the same gender or one partner has some type of medical condition or whatnot. Or I can choose to ‘zoom in’ and assert that marriages of fertile people with infertile people do not produce children hence those marriages should not be recognized. Or I can zoom in even more and say certain marriages of fertile people by definition cannot produce children (say due to genetic conflicts) so they should not be recognized.
Why should civil law make set the ‘zoom level’ of this type analysis at just the point where gay marriage is prohibited but all sorts of nonsensical, child irrelevant heterosexual marriages (and even child harmful heterosexual marriages) are deemed not worthy of such state scrutiny?
Ostensibly to imply that we should be insisting on verification of ability to have children.
The problem with the line of argument is that it begs the question of why not verify the ability to have children? Or at least why don’t we look down upon marriages that can’t produce children? The problem with this line of argument is that it puts the cart before the hoarse. Marriage is primarily about the two people who join together in the union. You get married THEN you have kids….or you don’t. But you technically aren’t supposed to be getting married just to have kids. Many marriages will produce children because it is a biological fact that most people are straight and most will seek out stability with a partner at an age when they will still be fertile. This explains why we tend to dislike marriages that are wonderful in terms of the odds for child production (rich old man, very young woman). If tomorrow, though, some strange event caused everyone to become infertile (such as the premise of the movie Children of Men)… we would still have marriage.
No, that is not how my argument works. Unfortunately though, I do not have time at the moment to untwist the perversion of your logic. I’ll just have to let it stand as one of the best arguments you can make against pretending same sex unions are marriage.
You gotta love a post whose essential argument is: “My position is right and if only I had time to explain it you’d clearly see that I’m right but sadly I only have time to tell you how impressed you’d be if I only had more time to demonstrate my bullet proof reasoning”
This is the latest of probably a half dozen smmtheory posts over the last few years telling us how little time he has.
I’ve been following this exchange with interest. I’ve been genuinely trying to get inside the mind of people like SSMTheory and see exactly where their opinions stem from.
As far as I can gather, the thinking runs like this…
Everyone should stay single virgins and have absolutely no sex whatsoever (including masturbation judging by his remarks on other threads), until they find someone who would make a suitable parent for their offspring. Then and only then, should they get married (which gives sex the go ahead) and they are free to procreate as much as they wish.
Homosexuals therefore, have no right marrying other homosexuals, because no children can be born, and the marriage is thus pointless.
Is this a fair assessment? Am I even close?
I’ve been following this exchange with interest. I’ve been genuinely trying to get inside the mind of people like SSMTheory and see exactly where their opinions stem from.
As far as I can gather, the thinking runs like this…
Everyone should stay single virgins and have absolutely no sex whatsoever (including masturbation judging by his remarks on other threads), until they find someone who would make a suitable parent for their offspring. Then and only then, should they get married (which gives sex the go ahead) and they are free to procreate as much as they wish.
Homosexuals therefore, have no right marrying other homosexuals, because no children can be born, and the marriage is thus pointless.
Is this a fair assessment? Am I even close?
Largely because I’m too impatient to wait for a response, I’ll carry on as if my above comment is indeed accurate…
One major problem with this line of logic is that infertile people should be excluded from marriage too. Since they cannot have children, surely it would be pointless for them to marry.
But the biggest problem with this stance is simply that it is so far removed from reality. People want to marry because they want to be in love. They want to find a person they love and who loves them, and to spend a lifetime with that person. This being the real world, I know that people don’t always truly marry for this reason, but it should at least be an ideal. Children may well come along – I’m sure that in most marriages they do. But having children is not the sole reason for marrying; love is. We shouldn’t pick our spouses just on the grounds of whether they would make a good parent to our children, but whether we love them and have a solid, healthy relationship with them.
And heterosexual people have no monopoly on love.