The Gay Fray

A Certain Point of Confusion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

This is a curious mystery; the macguffin seems obvious, but I am still uncertain just how it is supposed to work.

What you are looking at is a comment to a blog post↱; it is worth noting the author appears to have actually read the article it points to; the second sentence makes that evident:

Yes it is a choice. Yes it is a choice the way we think it is. Yes it is a big deal.​

Because that is the punch line of the teaser quote; yes, there is a choice involved in being gay, but not quite how the anti-gay Christians think.

But from there everything just seems to get strange. The six-sentence second paragraph is absolutely mindbending:

Damage the sanctity of sex within marriage between a man and woman and you damage the family. Damage the family and you damage society. Damage society and you damage human existence. And yes, procreation is partly what I’m talking about. The LGBT rights you want mean our children will be indoctrinated through public school with public taxes through diversity training to believe contrary to our religious beliefs. Future generations will simply not exist.​

And while there is a certain logical process asserted, the connections between each point on the curve are tenuous at best. Consider that the first four sentences, dealing with "the sanctity of sex within marriage between a man and woman" do seem to include a certain traditional sense of obligation and entitlement; note that this is only partly about procreation.

But those last two sentences are the real puzzlers. The bit about LGBT rights and indoctrination is just a matter of pathetic whining, but it is also the heart of the fear. For whatever reason that the homophobes seem utterly incapable of explaining, they seem to think that the obligation to not go out of one's way to be hostile toward other people means they must necessarily be enrolled in the program. It's kind of like the implied fears of gay people being denied the right to marry opposite-sex partners; that's not how it works. At the heart of this particular outlook of Christ Centered Teaching is essentially a complaint that people won't be allowed to be deliberately rude in the public square. Everybody saw through the mind police tinfoil; now they're just straight-up complaining that they won't be able to be rude to queers, say, at work. You know, just like people have complained the whole time about not being able to say "nigger" at work, or call female co-workers, "honey" or "babe".

Any bully losing privileges will complain of losing rights.

That last sentence, though is just perverse:

Future generations will simply not exist.​

Would somebody please explain to me how this works?
____________________

Notes:

Christ Centered Teaching. "Yes it is a choice". This Is. Reader comment. 21 April 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 26 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1DqODBb

See Also:

Pavlovitz, John. "Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely Is a Choice". The Huffington Post. 21 April 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 26 April 2015. http://huff.to/1J82Paj

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A Birds and the bees lesson. No functional drone bees in the colony and the colony dies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But, Still ....

Doesn't that just beg the question?

Okay, remember the Underpants Gnomes? Step one, collect underpants. Step two, "?" Step 3, make profit.

Right. Similar process: Step one, LGBT rights. Step two, "_____". Step three, "future generations will simply not exist", "colony dies", &c.

What fills in the blank? There is a gap in the logic we hear from bloggers like this commenter, televangelists, politicians, activists, and pretty much everyone else who sounds off on the anti-gay side of this discussion.

With, say, the amicus brief from Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives, we can at least see the device in action; they argue that, somehow, if homosexuals are allowed to marry same-sex partners, then they will somehow be denied the right to marry opposite-sex partners. As I said, we can at least see the device, even if they cannot explain just how they are making the leap. But with this gay = extinction paranoia, we find ourselves venturing into the realm of Poe's Law. Honestly, when looking at this gap, if people on my general side of the argument try to fill in the blank, it's going to sound like ridicule, because it is very much true that we simply do not understand what about gay people being allowed to marry each other means heterosexuals will suddenly stop fucking.

So, really, how does this work?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd love to know how the people who think "promoting homosexuality will make kids gay" decided they were heterosexual. I mean, obviously they chose to be straight, right?

 

If they want to ban gay marriage for the sake of family, then they should ban divorce, too.

 

I think their reasoning is not so much that heterosexuals will stop fucking, but there’ll be less of them doing so, thereby negating generations that otherwise would have begotten. There is some logic to this assertion in that by increasing social acceptability of homosexuality, greater numbers of the sexually ambiguous might be more inclined to play for the other team, which might at best lead to total percentages in the low double digits. What the paranoids fail to realize is that greater acceptance would likely increase the number of LGBT families willing to engage in procreation, which could offset the losses incurred by the defectors. They may also have a problem wrapping their brains around the mechanics of LGBT procreation.

 

The Game Is Afoot

SCOTUSblog is covering the Supreme Court arguments this morning in Obergefell consolidated, and a couple of points stand out:

• "[Justice Kennedy] also said that he thought that the fact that same-sex couples raise adopted children cut strongly against the state's arguments."

• "The Chief Justice also raised the question on whether bans on same-sex marriage amount to sex discrimination."​

The observations, by Tom Goldstein, are gratifiying. The disrespect shown adoption during this political fight is absolutely unbelievable; were I anti-gay for the sake of Jesus Christ, the erasure of adopted families from consideration would be one of the things I would fear answering God for. It is actually hard to believe the argument needs a Supreme Court justice in order to be part of the discourse, but here we are.

And the question of sex discrimination is pretty interesting, too; I've made a version of the point here, before, and the thing is that it generally hasn't worked because it is unpopular. That is, regardless of the logic, people would prefer to look away.

The fact that these cases and issues come before the Supreme Court is entirely a result of supremacist determination to have this fight. And the way in which this comes before the Court will long stand as a testament to religious faith as a component of American society.

And the fact that the Justices are pushing these questions into the dialogue is gratifying. In the end, though people might have wanted to avoid these aspects, we aren't getting out of this mess without dealing with the points. It is a necessary part of the consideration.

The marriage arguments are finished; the recognition discussion is apparently under way. Meanwhile, word is that a protester managed to disrupt the courthouse, and early implications make it unclear whether he was merely in the building or actually in the room when he said something about people burning in Hell.

The first press reports are posting already; this is the Big Show, and from what we're hearing so far, it is a generally dignified spectacle.
____________________

Notes:

Goldstein, Tom, Eric Citron, and Tejinder Singh. "Live blog: Obergefell v. Hodges". SCOTUSblog. 28 April 2015. SCOTUSblog.com. 28 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1EjsCIl

 

"Legal Group Seeks Recusal of Justices as Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Case"

http://christiannews.net/2015/04/28...preme-court-considers-same-sex-marriage-case/

 

They are getting very, very scared! Pretty soon even gays AND blacks will have the same rights as everyone else. Too much equality!

 

Notes on Recusal

This is one of those times when we need to stop and look at who is asking what.

The Foundation for Moral Law is an activist group headed by Kayla Moore, wife of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Others involved include Scott Lively and Janet Porter.

Mr. Lively is well-known to gay rights activists; his career arc has taken him from various fights in the states, such as Oregon in the '90s, on up to international infamy for his involvement with the notorious "Kill the Gays" law that caused Uganda so much controversy. His pet theory is that the Holocaust is the result of a gay conspiracy. Ms. Porter is the director of a fake documentary bordering on obscenity for its hatred; she is also helping Christian evangelists stir their flocks to armed insurrection.

Steve Benen, blogger for msnbc, goes on to compare and contrast the demand that Justices Ginsburg and Kagan recuse themselves with appeals that Justice Scalia should have recused himself from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Cheney v. United States. The conservative curmudgeon refused in both cases; by comparison the whining about Ginsburg and Kagan is ridiculous.
___________________

Notes:

BD. "A Rumor of War". This Is. 11 April 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 28 April 2015. http://wp.me/pUgG0-1fl

Benen, Steve. "The laughable calls for high-court recusals". msnbc. 28 April 2015. msnbc.com. 28 April 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1z9rc47

Clark, Heather. "Legal Group Seeks Recusal of Justices as Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex 'Marriage' Case". Christian News Network. 28 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1HPs3Z4

Wheeler, Lydia. "Faith leaders demand that liberal justices sit out gay marriage case". The Hill. 27 April 2015. TheHill.com. 28 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1OBJjqj

 

Well when Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves on issues involving the Tea Party and Republican Party, then I think there would be grounds to ask the liberal justices to recuse themselves on liberal issues. After all, Thomas's wife is a very well paid Republican/Tea Party activist and Thomas and Scalia have both attended secret political strategy sessions with the Koch brothers.

 

"Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Scott Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, told reporters he’s filing a motion with the Supreme Court calling for the recusal of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan."

http://thehill.com/regulation/24016...s-restrained-from-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage

 

So ...

... I just finished reading oral arguments from the marriage equality case, and, frankly, I'm very nearly confused.

(1) Mixed Signals ― Early headlines suggested the Justices gave mixed signals. There are a couple things going on here, and part of it is simply the Court shaping the discussion to meet Its needs.

(2) Huh? ― Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan seemed somewhat prepared for the day. Chief Justice Roberts was reasonably honed. Justice Breyer was actually hilarious, but pretended to be unprepared. Justice Scalia was hard to figure. Justice Alito was a mess. What I can't figure, though, is what was wrong with the lawyers. Certes, it was Bonauto's first trip before the Nine, and that is part of why we heard those early headlines; my best guess is that the Justices' questions came from unexpected directions. Bursch was very nearly foolish, and Whalen seemed over his head. Hallward-Driemeier, arguing for Petitioners on the second question, was the second-most experienced lawyer in the room, and did well enough, but apparently surprised the Justices. Believe it or not, it was Justice Scalia who introduced Article IV by name ... during Whalen's arguments. Yes, really. I think that's how Hallward-Driemeier surprised the Court, by not taking a tack akin to the Rubin Pathway, and making everyone else chase after him. Solicitor General Verrilli, who also has the most experience among the lawyers arguing, seemed perfectly at ease. But this was a really weird mix of discussions.

(3) So ... What Just Happened? ― Don't let the pretense of tension and doubt put forward by the press confuse you. What happened was really weird, like what should have been a thrashing wasn't, but only because the clear winner wasn't punching as hard as possible. The Justices ferociously pursued Bonauto because, well, it's her case. And perhaps her performance looks a bit confused and stumbling, but all that gets erased insofar as Bursch, while confident, brought pretty much nothing. As near as anyone can tell, his argument really did come down to the "right" to decide "who gets rights". And Hallward-Driemeier might have started on a different tack, but he ended up riding the questions to an easy beat. Whalen's performance was a disaster. One important note, though, is that Question 2 presupposes the Petitioners' loss on Question 1. And we might be able to read some tea leaves there. Scalia was in his best form questioning Whalen during the second session; he was in pretty damn good form for any of them. And Scalia set up Ginsburg, and Ginsburg set up Sotomayor, and Sotomayor damn near buried Whalen.

(4) Predictions ― Exactly none of use. I don't expect we'll get a unanimous decision. Scalia might have his way out on the Marriage Question. Actually, it's possible he will perform an insane surgery, ruling for the States in the Marriage Question, for the Petitioners in the recognition question, and then stitching up the Marriage Question for the petitioners. Nonetheless, he wouldn't do this except for the fact he was losing on the Marriage Question, anyway. That is to say, even he knows it's over, but he really, really doesn't want to give the federal government this one. Except he also knows he needs to; it's his job. Thus, Alito and Thomas are a foregone conclusion; we'll have to see what Scalia does, and I think he's going to split himself, at least, if not split and try to walk back. The Chief Justice is in for the Petitioners, I think, so 5-4 on the first question and, well, that Recognition Question could see the 7-2 I wouldn't otherwise expect, but if Scalia breaks, how, really, would Alito and Thomas hold out? The one embarrassed himself, and we know very little about what the other thinks, other than he was really upset that the Court wouldn't give Alabama a little more time. 8-1 on the second question, with Alito the lone holdout? That would be interesting. Still, though, what would that mean to marriage equality? I would go so far as to say we'll see an overall win, but there is a possibility that the concurrences and partials on this will be a Show Unto Themselves.

 

I just call it "Christian faith and character"; it's a good catch-all phrase for pointing out the faithlessness of so many contemporary Christians. Pastor Lee is among the faithless.

Consider the way many Christians tried to indoctrinate my generation. We were taught of a loving, forgiving God, and even though a particular result wasn't evident in my religious circles when I was young, the problem with these halfwitted evangelicals is that they are afraid that God will forgive and redeem the people they hate, so they want God's authority for themselves during their earthly sojourn.

They do not trust God; they have no genuine faith in Christ.

 

perhaps some forgot the Inglish-english Gaylord principle crest agreement: zero probability of insult of any persons by part of technological attention, and or in person, therefore if there is an attachment to end that is monopolizing it's security issues of personal problem at attention/ which is insult at any persons home or life any individuate at or of any mean of human stasis upon civilian rights those would bagreed sought at to end. and be murdered as country nation cleaning: ?wasn't veterans day supposed to be identification of in country use of microphone radio insult crime, and like England (not real radio stations/shitheads that do it on the side). A day of line of fire' killing the technological, manipulator, coercers and misusers 'slutters of people whom terrorize 'ethic and 'principle. people whom disturb practical structuralist opportunity claiming concern and "laughing at the harm they encurr, build to many buildings with their running guilt, start too many wars, puppeteer and guide people. in front of the Lincoln Memorial it's late.

their slutteny is so murderous their technological'drama 'cult need be national example of killed for variable coerscion. it shouldn't be handled wrongly.

 

Huh-Now Highlight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"Slutteny"?

 

That sounds like something's gone wrong with google translate.

What's your native language?

 

For any of our religious brothers and sisters in the audience:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think that pretty much sums it up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!