Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, September 30, 2016

The National Memo brings you an excerpt from What’s Wrong With Homosexuality? by John Corvino. President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) have all recently voiced their support for marriage equality, and on Tuesday the United States Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments for and against same-sex marriage — decisions are expected to be made in June. Corvino, Associate Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Wayne State University, discusses his experience as a leading advocate for the LGBT community as well as his understanding and criticism for the anti-gay rhetoric.

The following is excerpted from What’s Wrong With Homosexuality? You can purchase it here

 

Are They Bigots?

When people are unwilling to approve of same-sex relationships, does that make them bigots?

I believe in using the word “bigot” judiciously. Like “evil lie of Satan,” it’s a conversation-stopper, and we need more conversation around these issues, not less. To call someone a bigot is not merely to describe him or her as irrationally bound to false views; it’s to label those views as beyond the pale. One does not thoughtfully entertain bigoted views any more than one thoughtfully entertains Satan’s lies: one rejects them and keeps moving.

Gays did not invent the use of conversation-stopping rhetoric. Whenever someone labels us perverts, deviants, agents of Satan, or worse, they are casting us outside the realm of civilized discourse, and (wittingly or unwittingly) giving cover to those who would treat us as less than human. I know whereof I speak. I’ve had food thrown at me by people yelling “faggot.” I’ve been physically attacked by teenage gay-bashers. And—twisted as it may sound—I’ve heard people invoke the Bible while doing such things.

Meaning well is not the same as doing well, as any honest look at history will reveal. I am reminded of my beloved grandparents, who—like many other whites of their generation—opposed interracial relationships. I admired and respected my grandparents. (Still do—one is still living.) Their racism was not the sneering, epithet-wielding, block-the-schoolhouse-door variety. Their stated reasons against interracial relationships sounded principled and wholesome: It’s bad for the children, they’d say, or it’s not what God wants, or sometimes: “It’s just not right.” They didn’t make a fuss about it, and they didn’t organize around it politically, but as a moral matter, they deeply believed it.

Were my grandparents bigots? I can certainly understand why many would think so. As someone who loves and was loved by them, I prefer to frame it this way: My grandparents—like all of us, me included—had their moral blind spots, and racism was among them.

My awareness of our shared human frailty is one reason you’ll never hear me refer to gay rights as “the last frontier in the civil rights debate,” as some do. Calling it the “last” implies that we, unlike our ancestors, have identified all our moral blind spots. But the whole point of calling them “blind spots” is that we don’t see them. Just as belief in an infallible God doesn’t make anyone infallible, belief in the moral demands of justice doesn’t make anyone perfectly just.

Bigotry results from complacency at least as often as from malice. It can have a gracious, even noble-looking face. It’s not necessarily about yelling epithets, or throwing food at people, or physically blocking doors. Sometimes it involves kindly grandparents who can’t quite wrap their minds around social change. Sometimes it’s about blocking metaphorical doors, rather than physical ones—which brings me to my final topic.

Buy From Amazon.com

Conclusion: Love and Marriage

In the last two decades, the gay-rights debate has evolved into a debate over marriage. This is a natural evolution. In 1992, when I started speaking about gay rights, it was against the law in approximately two-dozen states for me to have private consensual relations with a same-sex partner. Indeed, for many years, I lived as an unapprehended felon in the state of Texas. The option of marrying a same-sex partner was scarcely on anyone’s radar. And so gay-rights rhetoric largely focused on freedom and privacy, a “leave us alone” message.

Telling anti-gay legislators to “leave us alone” made sense when we faced the threat of being harassed, jailed, and even put on sex-offender lists for private consensual lovemaking. But after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the “leave us alone” message became less relevant. It is not irrelevant —gays are still subjected to physical and emotional abuse, a tragedy that has become more apparent with the increased visibility of gay teen suicides—but it is less important as a political goal. Because marriage is a social institution, same-sex couples’ desire to participate has changed our central public message from “leave us alone” to “include us.” For better or for worse, this new message broaches the morality debate. As I explained above, people express their moral values in the associations they choose to keep, or not to keep.

The connection between the morality debate and the marriage debate is not absolute. One can believe that homosexuality is morally wrong while also believing that same-sex couples should have the legal freedom to marry, just as one can believe that divorce is morally wrong while also believing that a free society should permit it. Conversely, one can oppose same-sex marriage without believing that homosexuality is morally wrong (although the position is rare). But part of what marriage does as a social institution is to give a kind of public moral blessing to otherwise private commitments, and so the two debates are inextricably entwined.

This moral dimension of marriage is one reason the issue is so contentious. When same-sex couples ask for marriage, they are not only asking for legal rights and responsibilities—although those are crucial, and their denial can be devastating—they are also asking for inclusion, affirmation, and equal respect. No one should be ashamed to seek such things: Human beings are social creatures. But it’s important to remember that, given the affirmative message that marriage carries, asking for it means asking others to confer something. It’s not just a personal relationship between spouses; it’s also a relationship between the couple and the community. For gays, it’s about access to an institution that our heterosexual fellow citizens take largely for granted.

Of course, the state cannot legitimately force anyone to condone anyone else’s relationship decisions. In a free society, citizens retain the right to opine as they wish on homosexuality, marriage, or any other topic. Yet citizens of a free society also expect equal treatment under the law, and they must accept that others may exercise freedom in ways they themselves don’t necessarily approve. For example, you might believe that interfaith marriage is immoral, or that divorce and remarriage are immoral. You might believe that your daughter’s fiancé is a jerk and that for her to marry him would be just plain wrong. You might think that there should be a moratorium on Kardashian weddings. You are entitled to your convictions, but in the United States, at least, you may not stop anyone from marrying because of them.

I’m not going to rehearse the arguments for and against same-sex marriage here. (I’ve recently done so at length with Maggie Gallagher in our book together.) I simply want to emphasize that, at its core, the marriage debate is a moral debate: It’s about the kind of relationships society is willing to embrace—or, short of that, to tolerate. It is about the fact that relationships are good for people, that social support is good for relationships, and that some people find love with persons of the same sex. Although it involves legal rights and responsibilities, it’s about more than that: It is one thing for the state to let you marry, and quite another for your family to show up at your wedding and be happy for you. In my view, both elements are important.

In these pages I’ve argued that there is no good reason to condemn same-sex relationships, and that, indeed, there’s a good reason to affirm them: Like their heterosexual counterparts, they can be an important avenue of human well-being. As someone who has been involved in this debate for two decades, I recognize that philosophical argument only takes us so far, and that this issue demands not merely a change of mind but also a change of heart. But nor should we dismiss the value of reasoned discourse in opening a space for a broader personal and social transformation. When moral arguments are twisted into weapons, as happens all too often, philosophical analysis becomes more than merely relevant: It becomes morally urgent. I hope that this book invites an ongoing dialogue that is thoughtful, rigorous, sensitive, and productive.

Reprinted from What’s Wrong with Homosexuality? by John Corvino, with permission from Oxford University Press USA. Copyright © 2013 by John Corvino.

  • dtgraham

    I’ve long thought that it depends to a pretty fair degree on whether you believe that one is simply born gay or becomes gay…somehow, someway. You know, everyone is born straight but “something happens” somewhere along the way to some. That kind of thing. That opens up a lot more avenues to discriminate if you’re so inclined. Of course religion promotes the latter. The latter is surely nonsense but religion has always been a good cover for a lot of nonsense.

    Corvino’s comments on invoking the bible, and what god wants, caught my attention because I’ve been following a debate on something similar where I live. Some Canadian Provinces are experimenting right now with something called the “gay-straight alliance” in public schools, including my own. That would be a sort of club where kids can voluntarily meet, if they want to participate, to share their thoughts and get to know and understand other kids in the LGBT community. The program is mandatory but participation by students is not, so far as I know, although it’s promoted in the schools. There are also very strict anti-bullying rules that’s part of the legislation. That’s largely geared toward gay students, as part of the package, but it applies to any student.

    The far south of the my Province is dotted with conservative German Mennonite towns that we refer to as our bible belt. These people are very devout and they hate the “alliance” and the bullying rules. There’s no controversy elsewhere with it but there is there. They’re actually opposed to this on the basis of religious freedom. They actually want the freedom to have their kids give the proverbial back of the hand to any students suspected of being gay and to not even so much as hear about them. They’ve had meetings of 1000 or more people in the evenings to vent to their Progressive Conservative MLA’s who, to their enormous credit, don’t appear all that empathetic.

    Fortunately they don’t have a choice in the matter as sexual orientation equality has been put into the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s constitution. Religious freedom is also in there of course, but your religious freedom gets trumped by the Charter the moment it tries to prevent the rights, human dignity, and freedom of others.

    I can scarcely believe that people would be against a thing with such good intentions as this and, furthermore, do so on the grounds of spiritual faith. These are supposed to be the good people. The good Christians. It’s no wonder I’ve never practiced a religion even though I may be interested in the topic.

  • What is wrong with homosexuality in an intolerant society such as ours is influenced by religious doctrine and ignorance. People are not gay because they want to be, and we are not heterosexual because we decided to be. We are all living things determined to impose our convictions and interests on each other, with total disregard of what others wish and unwillingness to accept the differences that exist between us from gender, to age, ethnicity, culture, to sexual orientation.

    • Germansmith

      and your statement may be correct, but it opens the situation to all sort of discussions.
      Are sociopaths born that way or are they a product of upbringing. Maybe they can not help themselves.
      How about Pedophiles? In our current law system if a boy of 18 years of age have sex with a girl of 16, he can be label a child molester or sexual predator, a label that will stay with him for the rest of his life.
      If is OK and now socially acceptable to have a guy sodomite another fellow in the name of love…Why are we making such a fuss about polygamy among consenting adults? Why is it not OK for a man or a woman to have more than one spouse?
      Homosexuality is not new, but it has always been shunted even in the more permissible societies and religions in our history, even ancient Greeks look down on homosexuality as a practice that was harmful to the fabric of society.
      I do not have a problem with gays loving each others and having a legality to their relationship, but I really wish people stop trying to sell me homosexuality as “just another normal relationship between to loving people”

      • A_Schick

        Why are you so obsessed with sodomy? Christ you are the only one here who in obsessing over sodomy. Did you have a bad experience with it once? Did the wife say “no?” Get over yourself and your silly little playground biases.

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        Where do you think the term “doing it Greek” came from?

        For your information, homosexuality was approved of in Ancient Greek Society. Yes, they had certain conditions placed upon the act. But, never the less it was approved of. Homosexual Intercourse was forbidden under a certain age however.

        What are you trying to imply that homosexuality equates with Pedophilia? That is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. You’re also trying to imply that homosexuals are Sociopaths? IF that’s the case, everyone is then in one form of another.

        200 years ago slavery was approved of. We changed it. We did it because it wasn’t acceptable any longer. We did it because it was the human thing to do.

        This society will change sooner or later to accept gay as normal. All Psychological Organizations have long since de-classified it as a mental disorder.

        By the way, Bigamy is still practiced in the Mormon Faith. They are just not allowed to marry multiple wives. More the merrier I suppose.

        Also, as far as the age of consent……

        This depends entirely on the state you live in as pertaining to you mentioning a 18 years old man with a 16 year old woman. As well, in that state you are legal. But, move to a different state, they could charge you with a Felony of Rape.

        I know of one such case in Ohio. A couple in West Virginia got married, he 22, she 16. They had children and moved to Ohio. Someone found out their ages when they got married. They were investigated by the police. He was charged with Rape. He went to prison. Their kids were put in Foster Care. The State mandated that she had to attend Psychological Therapy sessions afterwards. I don’t know if the family got back together or not.

        But, besides this, in many parts of the world, a 18 year old man would have been expected to be married already, having a family and supporting that family. Depending how one looks at it, we, as a society is very backwards in our views of sexuality.

        And, the rest of the world is laughing their asses off over it.

      • Sand_Cat

        Pedophiles and sociopaths harm other people. If their condition is inborn, that is unfortunate, but when they prey on others, they must be stopped.

        How do two people who love each other hurt YOU?

        And many of those opposed to gay marriage are polygamists: Bob Barr, who wrote the stupid law in the first place while in his third marriage, and Newt Gingrich, now living with the second of his “mistresses” (that he married) after dumping the woman he promised to live with forever. And apparently blessed by the church that says marriage is indissoluble.

        Polygamy would likely create huge legal problems if the marriage didn’t work out, but if the government stays out of it, and the participants are of sound mind and adult years when they agree to the arrangement and are willing to live with the results if it doesn’t work, who are you to stop them? Many of the people who wrote those nasty things about homosexuality and made laws against it were polygamists.

        Animals cannot give informed consent, and “marrying” one would be a crime for that reason.

        So, just what is YOUR problem, and it is YOUR problem. That people try to “sell you” homosexuality? Did it ever occur to you that they might not like your effort to “sell” them your anti-gay bigotry? And you clearly DO have a problem “with gays loving each others [sic] and having a legality to their relationship,” or you wouldn’t have written your comment or used the judgmental term “sodomite.”

  • frharry

    I find the distinction of “moral blind spot” from bigotry helpful. Certainly they both involve the operation of a social prejudice often legitimated by questionable arguments from tradition, science or religion. But there clearly is a difference between one’s grandparent engaging in denial about changed understandings of reality and the fearful misanthropy of Fred Phelps.

    The question in my mind, however, is at what point the former stops getting a pass. Clinging to formerly uncontested understandings is not terribly surprising. Most people avoid change. But when we begin to see an avoidance of the evidence that one’s understanding and resulting position is not only wrong but ultimately destructive to other human beings as a means of having to rethink that understanding, we have moved into a different moral territory. Moral blind spots speak to the luxury of naivete. Once one is confronted with disconfirming evidence of that position, the question becomes what we do with it. Denial is a common response, but a very basic level, it is essentially intellectually dishonest.

    I do think we need to be slow to pronounce others bigots even when their positions evince base social prejudices. Motivation is an unavoidable consideration in any critically considered moral judgment.

  • frharry

    One more thought on this provocative and well-written excerpt. While I agree generally with the argument here that quest for same-sex marriage is at heart a moral question which ultimately seeks social affirmation and inclusion, I wonder if it might be more helpful to recognize that the legal rights aspects are separable from the moral aspects in their realization.

    Clearly Brown v. the Board has not resulted in the eradication of racism in America. But it did prove the vanguard of the dismantling of segregation, particularly in the Jim Crow South. The result of that dismantling was that suddenly people who had never really encountered each other began to work, study, shop, eat and live together. Abstract notions of the other encountered the reality of their persons. As a result, many of the fear-driven and self-serving constructions crumbled in the face of that disconfirming reality.

    At some level, LBGTQ people do not have the luxury of wanting people to accept us or affirm our relationships. We simply need them to stop discriminating against us and using the law as a weapon in the tyranny of the majority. The acceptance and affirmation will no doubt follow for many former opponents even as homophobia is as unlikely to ever be completely eradicated as racism has proven to be. Change of law is about justice which is denied so long as it is delayed. Change of mind and heart is about the human capacity for change and growth which often occurs only in the context of stimuli revealing one’s former understandings as inadequate to meet the current realities.

  • Germansmith

    Because the word “GAY” sounds a lot better than “SODOMITES” or “HOMOSEXUAL”
    By now you probably know that our marketing driven society tries to clean up names as a failed effort to make our discussions more politically correct.
    Is all MARKETING…….Probably more people are willing to accept Gay Marriage than “Sodomites Marriage”

    • latebloomingrandma

      I think the word “gay” for homosexuality was derived from a French word for homosexual inclination.

    • mah101

      And, conversely, your use of the term “sodomites” is designed to inflame and cast gays as immoral. Homosexuality is not a choice any more than the color of your skin. Regardless of what term you use, it is not your right to judge LGBT people based on whatever biases you have anymore than it is their right to judge you on the color of your skin or your gender.

    • A_Schick

      What about married hetero couples who engage in sodomy?

      • Germansmith

        The same way I feel about married couples with kids that like to parachute from the same plane together. It is risky, maybe even irresponsible and I hope you have health insurance that you pay for it yourself, not the government.
        I personally prefer to stick things in places I will not encounter poop (and that usually happen unless you follow the same rectal cleaning procedures the porno industry follows)

        • Sand_Cat

          Maybe you should look to your own faults, or are you perfect?

  • Tom May

    What’s wrong with incest? It is against nature. It is comingle of the ‘same kind. (blood)’. Produces ills in procreation (birth defects). Comingle of gender produces rectal, vaginal diseases because ‘it is not nice to fool Mother Nature.’

    • Germansmith

      Good Point
      I can not think of any sexual practice more unhealthy than unprotected anal sex.
      But I guess with access to free medical care (thanks Obamacare) is all OK now.

      • A_Schick

        Then your understanding of anal sex is pretty wrong.

        • Germansmith

          What are you, the official protector of anal sex?. I guess I now understand your handle.
          What is to understand about anal sex, it is not an obscure subject. Is it the word UNPROTECTED you are confused about? It means NO CONDOM.
          I really do not care if you do it and like it…power to you….still no matter how you feel about, unprotected anal sex is the most unhealthy of the sexual acts (excluding S&M of course). It usually causes lesions to BOTH partners in a place full of bacteria that live in feces and in blood.
          Why do you think the HIV virus spread so rapidly among the homosexual population, but it took longer for heterosexuals?

          • A_Schick

            Yup. I am the supreme overseer of anal sex. As to my “handle,” my name is Adam Schick.

            What is your fixation on anal sex? Why do you link it to marriage?

          • Germansmith

            OPPPS!!! Sorry, my full apologies I hope you understand my confusion A_Schick can be understood in other ways specially when the person is defending anal sex.
            I do not have a fixation with anal sex and I am not linking sodomy to marriage, I am linking sodomy as my answer to somebody else complaining about the word GAY being use instead of homosexual or sodomite..is a long story

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Studies also show the human mouth to be pretty nasty too. Should I also note, eating snatch isn’t very clean.

            Yet, guys like to get head from their girlfriends. And, guys like to eat their girlfriends snatch.

            Anything that has anything to do with sex carries risk. That’s why you keep yourself clean and do whatever is necessary to prevent, or at least try to prevent some of these horrible diseases.

            Also, the spread of Aids in the gay community was largely because the medical community didn’t recognize it as a stand-alone all-encompassing disease. And, when they did, the straight community didn’t want to fund the necessary funds to try and stop it, thinking it only happened to the gay community. Ha, here to find it, the straight community was screwing around just as much as the gay community. Thankfully, diseases like Aids doesn’t discriminate against gay or straight, religious or not.

            You know that cold sore people get every once in awhile, that is the Herpes Virus.

            And, just an added note, do you know who the biggest spreader of Aids is today? A female person of color and straight.

          • Germansmith

            WOW I really did not expected this vigorous defense of rear end humping

            .My deepest apologies to all of you that feel a hairy butt is a thing of beauty and feel compelled to screw it….good for you.

            Yes Michael, sex is dirty (if is clean then, you are not doing it right), but my argument stills the same . When you mix blood, feces and open orifices or lesions in your body, infection is only a microbe away.

            Eating a beaver after she has run for a couple of miles may not be very clean, but it is sweet and my tongue has not fallen off yet (saliva and digestive acids helps).

            “biggest spreader of Aids is today? A female person of color and straight”…WOW, that is politically correct !!!! Or as a “comedian of color” would put it…do you mean a Black Ho? Yes, you are probably right, this is probably due to drug usage, promiscuity and bisexual UNPROTECTED sex in their culture and ignorance about AIDS in Africa. I am sure that the surviving homosexuals from the 1980-1990 epidemic have learned that digging in somebody’s derriere without a condom could be a likely death sentence.
            .

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            It’s not only a gay thang humping rear ends.

            Lots of straight guys also like to hump their girlfriends behind as well. Probably cause the woman’s cunt’s been stretched out due to having more than a few kids.

            I’m not defending gay activity on grounds of Anal Sex. I am gay, 63 and have been in “our” relationship for well over 16 years now. Our comittment to each other beats 50% of current straight marriages.

            Some people think being gay is ONLY about sex. Believe me, it isn’t. Some people think we screw each other 24 hours a day. We don’t!

            I will be perfectly honest. IF I had to rely on sex as a lifeblood, I’d of been dead long ago. Sex to me is not that far from the bottom of a list of other way more important things. Cutting our Lawn with our Lawn Tractor at times is more important than getting a piece. I don’t get sex three days a week. But, the lawn still gets cut every three days:)

            And, I know more than a few straight married couples who’s sexual appetite and adventurism puts mine totally to shame. I hope I don’t need to give details.

            The old saying: “sorry not tonight, I got a headache”, around here is very true at times and not only myself:)

          • Germansmith

            Michael
            Congratulations on your relationship, I hope it last forever.
            Marriage in today’s society does not last.
            Do you ever wonder if we straights remove all obstacles to gays relationships and marriages and therefore you lose the “us against the world” feelings . would gay marriage last any longer than the ones among us straights?
            I guess if I was a divorce lawyer I would be salivating at the prospect of 2 successful gays divorcing each other….this would open all sort of new legal fields.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Good questions:)

            I really don’t know. It does make me wonder, if gay marriage is normalized, would that mean our marriages would result in divorces as much as straight couples? Some say yes, some say no.

            Yes, any good divorce lawyer should be salivating at that prospect.

            Some people in the straight community look upon gay marriage as a punishment, meaning, we suffer through it, why not you also.

            Personally, I approve of it. But, for myself and my own situation, I’m not at all sure I would want to take that step. The only reason I would want it is to guarantee property rights, etc. And, as I mentioned many times in the past, I honestly don’t care what it’s called.

            As far as the “us against them”, every minority group has had that battle since time immortal. The gay community is just society’s latest scapegoat.

          • Sand_Cat

            Let’s not descend to his level, OK?

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Well, it seems he just don’t understand what any relationship really involves. Some people just think of sex, which it appears all he seems to think about.

            I’ll give it to him with both barrels and more graphic than it would take to get him to understand.

            It ain’t easy maintaining any relationship. It takes work, lots of it.

            Haha:) Sometimes ya just got to get down to the nitty gritty:)

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Heck, unprotected sex could be a Death Sentence. That’s not new news.

            Watch 1000 Ways To Die one of these days.

            Hell, you could be walking down a street someday and have a 1 Eyed, 1-Horned Flying Purple People Eater fall on ya too. Now, THIS would be New News:)

            I mean, sure, people should be careful these days. But, seems to me people are a little too careful, too paranoid, too “programmed”. Why wake up in the morning if you’re going to have that sort of mindset all day long.

            I do have better things to do.

          • Sand_Cat

            You moron, no matter what you do, infection is only a microbe away.

  • howa4x

    This should be at the heart of the conservative agenda, where the main complaint is government over reach. So here we have a case where the government is telling you who you can marry and who not. It is not in the constitution which they wave around. It actually comes from our religions which is more interesting. Those who wave around the constitution and of course the Bill of rights, which gun owners usually point to giving them the right to bear arms, seem to skip the part about there being no national religion. Over time this has been interpreted as a separation of church and state. So where are all the strict conservatives? Where are all the people with the flags and signs that say ” don’t tread on me”. Why aren’t they leading this fight to get the government out of the marriage decision business? There is nothing more government intrusive, than that. Is there? At least Ted Olsen the former solicitor general under Bush and a staunch conservative is following true conservative principals, and standing up for peoples right to be free. Where are all the tea party people who want less government regulations? Where are the flags, and signs? Why aren’t they marching for freedom? I guess in America the idea of being a conservative is just to say you are, and that’s enough.

    • dtgraham

      Those are interesting points howa. You’d think that it would follow that strong conservatives would be leading the protest to get government out of gay people’s lives. That they’re not is a testament to the deep extent of conservative belief in civil religion. They’ve fused religion and civics so strongly that it’s become inseparable to their politics now. They’re selective though. They love the strict mores of the old testament and not necessarily just on sex. Remember Michelle Bachmann’s campaign reference to the biblical quote about a man not eating if he doesn’t work. However, Christ’s social gospel seems completely absent from their politics. They love his name but they don’t appear to be too fond of what he taught.

      • howa4x

        True. It is so sad that conservatives has become liberal interventionists into people’s lives and liberals have become conservatives in trying to limit the reach of government. This really shows how meaningless labels have become. There is too much religion in politics, though wrongly interpreted. Now an evangelical conservative favors greed over humbleness, and sees the meek as leeches on society. So unlike what Jesus ever said

  • ObozoMustGo

    Well written op-ed. Kudos to John Corvino. But it doesn’t alter the fact that we, as a society, have placed limits on what is marriage for a long time. And those limits have existed in human civilization for thousands of years. Just because 2 people love one another does not mean that a marriage is socially acceptable. A brother and sister cannot marry one another if they are in love. Nor do we permit polygamy. These things are bad for society and they are forbidden. I do not suggest that gay love is equivalent to incest or polygamy, but only to say that we have always placed limits on marriage. Marriage is between one man and one women. Period. End of story.

    In honor of the topic, see Obozo and his boyfriend below. [click image to enlarge]. Who thinks Obozo should come out of the closet?

    Have a nice day!

    “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.” ― Mark Twain, Pudd’nhead Wilson

    • howa4x

      So good Obozo that you can easily mix religion into politics, though not what the founding fathers had in mind. This man and woman thing comes out of the old testament and not the constitution. Funny in your world conservatives have become liberals trying to force the government into people’s lives and liberals have become conservatives trying to stop government over reach. It is an upside down world for sure.
      Have a nice day

      • ObozoMustGo

        Howie, how have you been my friend? I hope you are well. Religion or not, EVERY single major civilization known to have existed has ALWAYS held that marriage is between a man and a women. The institution was created for the purpose of denying gays the ability to marry. it was created because procreation within the framework of a family is the first building block to creating civil societies. Gays cannot procreate, therefore they cannot marry. It’s really as simple as that.

        Have a great day, Howie!

        “The only defense against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.” ― John Locke

        • Michael Kollmorgen

          Your logic is flawed.

          If the only reason for marriage was for procreation, that would mean IF a couple is beyond child rearing age, they are disallowed from being married?

          I don’t know the entire history of marriage as we know it. But, I would presume that marriage in the classic sense was first supported by the Royalty to protect their assets and control of power.

          Yes, the church was involved too, primarily stating if you get married with us, you’re not married with some other denomination.

          More over, marriage is a business contractual agreement between two consenting adults. It always has been. Even in the Amazon Rain Forest, with the tribes down there, marriage usually involves exchanges of various assets, be it pigs, clothing, food, gifts, etc. Then after, they all get shitfaced, very similar to what we do. The wedded couple is probably thinking: why did I ever get married? hehe.

          People like to cloud it over with all sorts of religious rituals thinking “their” god is the only one who can sanction it.

          I’m pretty sure, before it was so well organized and institutionalized, marriage was a very simple process.

          Also, I believe marriage is a female invention to reign in the Libido and control of the male in western society. In the Middle East, it is to reign in the access to other males by the new husband.

          Procreation is usually an afterthought, unless there is one already in the oven.

          • Sand_Cat

            His “logic” is not the only thing about him that’s flawed.

        • howa4x

          Not every civilization had marriage as being between one man and one woman. In the time of King Solomon he had over 140 wives, and in Roman times the generals encouraged homosexuality among the legions since they felt someone would protect their lover more than some idea about Rome. Early Mormons encouraged polygamy since more women joined the church than men. They did it as a practical matter.

          The real issue here is whether we base laws on religious beliefs or justice. If you only use procreation as a basis for who can get married, what about infertile couples, as Justice Kagan asked? They would have to adopt just like LGBT couples would, and the American assoc of Pediatricians studied the issue of Gay adoption and found there is no damage to the child. Better to have the child with a loving couple than in a group home or foster care.

          This issue boils down to government intervening in the most intimate relationship and deciding whether two people who love each other can get married with out meeting a religious criteria. This is reminiscent of the civil rights movement of the 60’s, where one group was excluded by race/color from benefits enjoyed by the majority of Whites, and at times they used the Bible to justify segregation just like now, using the Bible to discriminate against another group.

          The supreme court found that segregation violated the equal protection provision of the Bill of Rights. Now we have a different group wanting that same equal protection. There is no difference unless you use religion as a guide post for the basis of a legal decision, which is contrary to what the founding fathers wrote when they stated clearly there will be no national religion. So if there is no national religion and we base our legal decisions solely on the rule of law, then Gay marriage clearly fits the protection clause.

          We clearly have a flip flop here. Supporters of Gay marriage are really acting like conservatives by trying to get government out of people lives, and you people who want government intervention are acting like liberals

          This is what I don’t understand about you conservatives, and why I have a hard time taking you seriously. On one hand you rail about federal government over reach with Obamacare, and gun restrictions but at the same time you want government to intervene in a situation you find objectionable based on a religious basis
          You can’t have it both ways.

          Have a nice day

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            But, you see since time immortal, government(s) have legislated for and against sex for a large variety of reasons.

            These days, its usually done to prevent; Incest, Child Sex, Certain Diseases, Sodomy – even between married straight couples, which has been struck down recently, Nudity – which equates with sex to some, Homosexuality – which has largely been struck down.

            These are mostly for health and common sense reasons.

            We’ve had these Morality, religious-orientated laws in place as well for thousands of years. These have been largely struck down. This is because we live in a Secular Society governed by man-made laws.

            The Gay Issue is not a new development. Before WW2, Berlin Germany was the hub of gay life in Germany until Hitler demonized it. During the Holocaust, The Pink Triangle came into its own in the Interment Camps. One single Pink Triangle meant you were Gay. A overlapping double Yellow Triangle meant you were Jew. And, there were other different colored Triangles for other purposes as well.

            During this time, the Gay Community was left alive only to serve as Sex Slaves for the soldiers. If they didn’t agree to it, they were also killed, or sent to camps for hard labor.

            So, the Gay Community has been fighting this battle for many generations. This is nothing new to us.

          • howa4x

            Most of the hostility toward sex has been generated over time since the advent of Christianity and what it evolved to in the middle ages. A religion based on vengeance and fear. In those times if a woman was deemed too sexual she was branded a witch and the church burned her at the stake. You don’t read much about homosexuality during this period but if you read the accounts of the torture preformed during the inquisition you realize that these so called priests had some very deviant sexual behavior, and from the current scandal facing the catholic church about homosexual priests raping children, we could assume this behavior has been going on for a long time behind closed doors.
            Most of the laws about sex in this country come from religion, which has no place in the constitution or government regulations. Laws against homosexuality were encouraged by the churches, and since we were mainly a Christian country, we followed their teachings.
            In a truly secular society laws should be based on civil justice but sadly some states still don’t use that as a measure. In the 50’s we went backward in terms of civil liberty and had issues like the red scare going on with people telling on others. Homosexuality was used during this period to discredit a person’s credibility, especially if they were trying to fend off baseless accusations. Ironic as it may seem the chief commie hunter, J. Edgar Hoover was a flaming closet queen.
            The entire anti gay marriage debate is centered around religion and not the rule of law. The Anti Gay marriage group is always quoting from the bible about why it shouldn’t be allowed, never from the constitution where discrimination is prohibited. So here we can clearly see that the hatred that spews out in this country is religiously based, and that is the reason it should never be mixed with government. The basis of our freedom comes from the secular rule of law and not from the bible. Religions in the way they are practiced, sadly drive us apart instead of pulling us together.
            Finally conservatives and liberals have flipped positions on this issue. We now have so called conservatives calling for government intervention directly into people’s lives and so called liberals wanting government out of peoples lives.
            so much for talk radio!

    • Sand_Cat

      Why should anyone even read the posts by a moron like you?

  • The Bible tells us the story of Sodom upon which we base a lot of credence that homosexuality is bad. Why? The people of Sodom accosted two angels sent by God to test how evil the people were. The people triied to sexually accost the angels despite a good man named Lot having offered his two virgin daughters in their place.. The angels blinded the townspeople but God spared Lot and his wife and daughters when he demolished Sodom and some surrounding towns for good measure. Lot’s wife looked back and was turned into a pilar of salt. Lot’s daughters desired to reproduce and saw Lot as their only alternative. They got him drunk on two successive nights and were impregnated, presumably one each night. The moral of the story: homosexuality is evil and punishable by death, but incest is tolerable. (The fact that angels are not known to be of either sex makes this interpretation a bit confusing,)

    • Michael Kollmorgen

      Incest can not be tolerated.

      I have relatives, that in the past, were said to be having sex brother/sister. The flawed gene was carried down through several generations. It popped up with one of my aunts having kids with Spinal Bifita. 5 Babies from that particular aunt and in partiular in the father’s family tree, died before it was 6 months old.

      My own surviving cousin now in his 30s, still has major speech problems and has a vasestomeny to prevent any further flaws in the genetic chain from being fathered.

      Why do you think Incest is forbidden in most modern cultures? Simply put, the product that results is severely flawed, has major health and mental problems, if it survives, for the rest of its life.

      Some Rules during the Dark Ages were also products of Incest Relationships to retain power in the family tree. They were deemed mostly insane.

      Your bible has no basis in medical facts. This is just one example of how flawed your bibles are………………….

  • tax payer

    Men have been known to dress in women clothes, but most of them do it to find out how it feels to wear women’s clothes and than some may say I like it, and they may decide to come out of their closet. It’s their choice and no one can make them be what they were before.