Tim, the Enchanter

wow ... what a strong statement -- you're so angry with Google, that you're gonna use Yahoo for search ... you must REALLY hate gay people a lot!

of course, you probably didn't think that if Yahoo takes a position, it will probably be the same as yours ... every progressive company wouldn't dare vote any other way, especially Yahoo -- A) they're a Bay Area company, and Bay Area residents are generally opposed to Prop 8; B) Yahoo can't afford to offend anyone, and voting for Prop 8 is about as offensive as anything could be

personally, I'm hetero ... I don't really care one way or the other ... I just hate it when anyone thinks his/her way is "the right way" -- who-the-f**k-are-you, anyway?
 

Sodom and Gomorrah is arguably a tale of inhospitality toward strangers. I know we are taught otherwise, I grew up in the Church of Christ, but I urge you to research the times, social practices and region before believing the latter interpretations of these passages (there are two stories in the Old Testament that are similar).

Rome had a lot more problems than sexual deviancy, like over-extending their empire and armies, exploiting their people and crazy leaders.
 

Read through what you wrote again, but mentally substitute the words "Jewish", "black" or "female" instead of homosexual.

Then you'll get a taste of how ridiculous your argument sounds to those of us who are more enlightened.
 

I'm not American so I haven't read the proposition in detail, but I can't understand how loving someone so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with them could be considered unnatural or immoral.
 

Hi Dave,

Thanks for chiming in. Here's a great documentary video that captures what the homosexual movement is all about:

Inside the Homosexual Agenda

I'm not convinced that this is about "spending the rest of your life with the person you love". Homosexuals can do, and already do, just that.

Consider a few hidden agendas the homosexuals would like to accomplish:

1) Legalize homosexual/lesbian marriages;

2) Give homosexuals/lesbians parental and adoptive rights;

3) Classify HIV positive/AIDS carriers as disabled;

4) Enact "hate-crime" laws to include sexual orientation;

5) Use tax dollars to fund homoerotic AIDS/sex education in all grades;

6) Amend laws to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and public services;

7) Prohibit the military to exclude anyone because of sexual preference;

8) Repeal all state sodomy laws;

9) Repeal laws controlling the age of sexual consent.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but letting a person pervert the mind of a child and have perverse sexual relations with them makes me ill. Imagine being an employer, and scared to death that if you don't hire a certain guy, you're business will be shut down, even though there's another candidate more fit for the job.

I'm convinced that this is about granting special rights and privileges to a group of people who have chosen a particular behavior. As this guy so eloquently put it: Homosexuality deserves to be a protected class about as much as peanut butter and jelly sandwich eaters do.

Apart from that, there's a whole fistfull of issues already beginning with the homosexuals pursuing special treatment, that infringes on individual the rights of those who choose to recognize Homosexuality as a sin (thanks Connor Boyack for the list):

- The California Supreme Court voted unanimously that the City of Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate (the Sea Scouts) at the city marine because of the scouts’ opposition to homosexality. (link)

- The San Francisco City Board of Supervisors issued a scathing resolution condeming the Catholic Church’s moral teachings on homosexuality and urging Catholic leaders to defy Vatican directives telling agencies not to place children with same-sex couples. (link)

- A Federal District Court held that a student’s religious speech opposing school support of homosexuality could be banned as such “injurious remarks” “intrude[] upon…the rights of other students”. (link)

- Eharmony.com was sued for refusing to offer its dating services to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. (Eharmony.com was founded in 2000 by an evangelical Christian with strong ties to Focus on the Family.) (link)

- The Oakland city government found the words “Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values” to be a hate crime and reprimanded a group of Oakland city government employees for using these words on a flyer in the workplace. (link)

- Four San Diego firefighters were ordered to participate in the San Digeo Gay Pride Parade. In a lawsuit currently before the California Superior Court in San Diego, they are suing the City of San Diego for sexual harassment and violating their freedom of speech. (link)

- Two evangelical physicians have been sued for acting in accord with their religious beliefs and not artificially inseminating a lesbian. This case is pending before the CA Supreme Court. (link)

- A California Lutheran high school is being sued for expelling two girls who engaged in “homosexual conduct” on campus. (link)

Altering the moral climate and legitimizing same sex marriages is going to cause more gender-confusion in children, and open up the flood gates for a whole slew of problems. This is why I'm for proposition 8. It protects the family, and strong families are the moral backbone for our nation.

Thank you for your sincere, respectful comment. Have a good day.

Warmly,

Tim
 

Gtcaz,

Sad to see you go, I've enjoyed working with you on the git installer. Care to debate this and discuss why you believe I'm full of intolerance at some point?

You have a beautiful family by the way, I saw your photos on Flickr. Aren't families wonderful?
 

Kevin,

Thank you for your considerate, polite response. I agree that Rome had a lot more problems than sexual deviancy. So do we :) Overextending our empire, exploiting our people with bailout bills laden with socialism and pork barrel spending, crazy leaders.

You bring up an interesting insight about Sodom and Gomorra. Considering the text (King James Bible):

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

I don't think there's much room to argue whether or not the intentions of the visitors were to have sexual relations with the men that were with Lot. Maybe that's not your argument, I don't know.
 

Jon,

I did as you suggested. Nothing happened. Please enlighten me.
 

Tim

You are an intelligent, logical guy, and I really can't believe you couldn't see the meaning behind my previous comment. I'll explain in more depth for you.

By substituting the word "Jewish" you end up with an anti-Semitic point of view: "I can’t support a company who supports the Jewish agenda, no matter how much I love them.". Presumably your morals dictate that this sounds abhorrent.

With the word "black" your statement sounds racist: "I can’t support a company who supports the black agenda, no matter how much I love them." Presumably you also react in disgust when reading that.

With the word "female" you end up with a sexist statement: "I can’t support a company who supports the female agenda, no matter how much I love them." This also sounds disgusting to most people these days.

So my point was, extrapolate that "ugh" feeling you experience when reading those rewritten paragraphs, and recognise that the paragraph you wrote sounds equally wrong to most people these days. You are discriminating based on sexual preference.

As I said earlier, you're a smart guy, so I can't believe you genuinely couldn't see my point, but hopefully you do now.

Jon
 

Oh sure! Because of probable Yahoo-Google partnership (google for it) it is likely that you will see results generated by Google when you search on Yahoo. So don't fool yourself and switch to live.com search from Microsoft. Oh wait! Microsoft supports gay rights legislation in the state of Washington (google for it again)! What a shame! I guess your only choice it to stop using internet, to drop your blog and to go to your local library for some paper books about human rights...
 

Oldjackaroo,

You bring up a good point. I wasn't aware of the items you brought up, I'll be sure to research those out.

Well, one does the best that he can to take a stand on what he believes in. Obviously, I'm interested in a practical, effective, approach, and it's very likely that switching from google to yahoo for search doesn't make an inkling of an effect. I'm still debating that in my head.

But, once again, I'm just one person with convictions (and, apparently unpopular convictions at that).

Good day, God bless you

Tim
 

Hooray for someone standing up for the family as it should be. It takes great courage to do so! Marriage and family keeps a society thriving. Homosexuality will NEVER be moral. It will not add value to the American way of life; it will simply add more confusion. Causing such confusion will NEVER make it right.
 

Tim,

> I understood what you meant. The reason why
> it had no effect on me is because, for one,
> you inappropriately placed "Gays", "Women",
> and "Blacks" in the same category, for starters.

In that case you clearly didn't understand what I meant. It doesn't really matter what category the discrimination is targeted at, discrimination is discrimination. Just because you personally feel that discrimination against a particular categorisation of human beings is OK, doesn't mean the same feelings apply to everyone else. It also doesn't mean that your feelings have to be taken into account by the rest of society. Isn't there something about separation of church and state in the USA?

But, you are a religious person. My arguments mean nothing to you because you have a lifetime of experience in rationalising to yourself why prejudices handed down to you from your religious leaders are unimpeachable.

The prejudice against homosexuals is one of the only remaining prejudices in the bible that Christians can still get away with with a relatively straight face. They can't claim any more that slavery is OK, as sanctioned in the bible, because it's morally repulsive. Stoning rape victims to death is also sanctioned in the bible, but again nobody would pursue such a policy these days because it's clearly barbaric.

You are being lied to Tim.

From within the religious delusion you will be unable to see this. I know because I once considered myself religious. I was both baptised and confirmed, and never missed church.

By the way, since "becoming" an atheist I've never been happier.

You are an atheist too, for all the other "gods" like Zeus, Baal, Thor etc. so you know what it's like.

Anyway I'm possibly straying from the topic a bit. Thanks for the enjoyable debate though!

Jon
 

Hey Tim,

I'm sad to see the amount of fear and indeed hatred evident in your post and comments. As you know, I'm not gay (I'm happily married with 2 kids and one on the way), but I'm not threatened by gay marriage, civil unions, or the like. Bringing in child abuse is a straw man, and I don't accept that premise.

I really respect and admire your technical work--you have talent in spades. I have to strongly disagree with you on this topic, though. I'd be more diplomatic than Jon, but I also think you're being fed some bad info on this. Really, it reminds me of the kind of apocalyptic scapegoating we see with racist skinheads.

As I said in my email, we're adults now, and I know it's unlikely a few blog comments and emails will change either of our minds on this.

Kind Regards,
Geoff
 

Tim, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It seems that you have put a lot of thought and time and research into this topic and I think it is admirable that you are standing up for what you believe in in a positive way. Unfortunately I believe that moral relativism has taken a strong hold here in America and anytime you take a stand you are going to be labeled as "ignorant" or "intolerant." I believe there IS such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG, and that those values are given to us from GOD. It's really difficult to have a true discussion with people who don't recognize these basic principles.I believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is the foundation of any successful society.
 

Jon

I'm terribly sorry to hear your experience with religion has been so miserable. My belief in God has done nothing but bring me joy, and to the degree which I apply the teachings of my religion, the more personal peace and happiness I have in my life. My wonderful wife and beautiful daughter bring me unspeakable joy, I'm so grateful to know God's plan for us and to have an opportunity to follow it.

gtcaz

Considering you to be a good friend, I take your remarks with a greater degree of certainty. You, along with some other friends, have persuaded me in part against my strategy for standing up for what I believe in.

After considerable thought, I believe you may be mistaking my concern for the well-being of my country with fear, and my hatred for sin as hatred for people. I can see how this is an easy thing to confuse, and it is difficult to hate a sin that destroys lives and happiness and not come across as sounding like you hate the people who are a victim of that sin. I'm an imperfect person, and you've persuaded me to be much more tactful on the way that I approach it. However, my passionate disdain for homosexuality (the behavior) is based off of personal experience and observation, and it is disturbing to me that there are those that would want to pass it off as natural.

Marcie

Thanks for chiming in. I always value your comments and input.
 

Hi Tim

Just FYI, I wasn't miserable when I considered myself a Christian, I'm just happier now.

Jon
 

Tim,

If the radical homosexual agenda’s efforts to attain certain “rights” and status in society were confined to them alone, I would accommodate them. However, the morally harmful precedents being set in place by these people are oblivious to the harmful consequences of their actions to society, particularly innocent children. This corrupt agenda flourishes on the ignorance of the silent majority. Indeed, the tail wags the dog here.

The Holy Scriptures make reference to the “natural man.” We learn that God’s ways and intents for His children result in the ultimate happiness to be known throughout our mortal lives. I know that to be true because I’ve seen it work in my own life and with countless others. God’s commandments liberate us, not restrict us. His commandments dealing with sexual purity result in pure joy and order. Disobeying them yields chaos, confusion, and misery. That is self-evident.

When we curb and control sexual appetites, passions, and desires, or control the natural man, we become liberated. This is a tremendous challenge in this top-heavy, sex-drenched society. But it is possible and the results are incredibly edifying.

Attractions of every kind – same-sex, to children, men to other men’s wives (and vice-versa), to animals, etc. – can be controlled. We choose our behaviors. Thousands of little decisions result in who we are here and now. Man is that he may have joy...or misery, depending on his choices.

A civilization which pays little or no heed to God’s standards of morality is ripe for self-destruction. Imagine for a minute that there are no restraints to carnal and sensual desires – that anything goes. The deepest, darkest base desires are given free rein for a time. The resulting mayhem would be the end of us all for sure.

I cannot buy for one minute the notion that people are born homosexuals any more than adulterers and fornicators are born that way. Or that pedophiles are born that way. Or that practitioners of bestiality are born that way. Were it so, you would not find the prefix “former” in front of any of them. Sin is sin no matter what color it is. When we repent, we find joy. If we persist in sinful practices, we are miserable.

God’s moral standard is THE standard by which society survives...or not. There is no such thing as breaking God’s commandments. You only break yourself against them.

Finally, I can make these claims because I have proved and tested the Lord’s ways to be true. They have worked for me and for millions of others. I welcome honest inquiry and discussion on this matter. It is of grave concern for us all.
 

Tim,

You did not get my point. Probably it was because of I was too sarcastic, sorry for that.

I mean, if so many good companies oppose Prop 8 because it would affect negatively their employees - there is something more than just being politically correct. Maybe homosexuality is not so bad if so many smart people are either homosexual or do not care about others sexuality. And if things that you actively use - like Internet - were created by those people, have some respect to their beliefs or feelings. Or stop using what they created.

I completely understand and support your position for defending the family and family values. I just think you are fighting the wrong battle. If you REALLY want to support family - fight against divorces. Start a campaign to outlaw divorces! THAT would really make families stronger. Look, how many families that you know were hurt by the fact that some gay couple got married, and how many families were hurt by a divorce? I think the proportion is 1:100 if not more. So instead of fighting for that 1 family, fight for 100! Besides, divorces are definitely prohibited by most religions, including Christianity. So what a noble battle would it be to make divorces illegal! Start with your own city, or county, or state.

And speaking about religion - please, don't bring this argument seriously. At least I know of no war that was started to promote homosexuality, but lots of wars were started because of religion. So to me, in no way are religious people in a better position to promote their moral values than someone that just wants to be with the person he or she loves.
 

Santa Cruz

Am I to understand that to be tolerant, all views are to be held equal, that no view intrinsically better than another view?
 

Tim, I like to think I understand your position. I grew up Christian, and though I am no longer, I still have an appreciation for the perspective.

So instead of talking to you on moral grounds (where intelligent people strongly disagree), I would ask you to consider whether you want government to set a precedent promoting a certain religion. There's a significant gap between legality and morality (speeding may be illegal, but certainly not immoral). So even though you may believe homosexuality to be immoral, I would hope that you at least accept that perhaps it should be legal.

Consider what precedent may be set by legislating morality, and how that can lead to a majority oppressing a minority that you may someday be in. Everyone is a minority on something.

By promoting freedom for everyone, we protect freedom for ourselves.
 

@Lance

Thanks for your post. Sorry to hear that your no longer Christian - I hope you decide to come back some day.

A LOT of intelligent people happen to agree that proposition #8 is a good idea! Normally, I would just let things be, I too am for individual rights - after all, the smallest minority is the individual.

Re: religion. Religion included a system of morals and belief in a higher power. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion. If you want to debate the latter, just ask mother nature.

Are kids being taught Mormonism in school? Is it illegal to not hire a Mormon? Is it illegal to not accept him at your college? Thankfully, employers and private colleges still have freedom in that regard. But now we've gone so far in public schools that if you even open your mouth about religion: ie school prayer, sharing your testimony about God, etc. - you're "infringing your views on others". This is wrong, a violation of free speech, but this is our current state of affairs.

Homosexuality is already as legal as Mormonism, almost more so. Nothing else needs to be done to legalize it. And, it's not a religion, it's a sexual perversion. Now, if someone want to live that way, fine, that is their free exercise of conscience. But, they may reap the rewards of their own lifestyle (which is misery), similarly how I reap the rewards of mine.

If homosexual marriage becomes embraced by our government, however, it will advance the moral decay of our society. It's no secret the NEA is just itching to push teaching homosexuality as a normal, healthy lifestyle. I happen to disagree profoundly. I've posted many items of things that are already happening - people being sued for standing up for what they believe in. This is not speculative fear mongering - it is already happening.

Take for instance this: David Parker went to jail to objecting to his child being taught homosexuality in his child's classroom, and demanding that his child be taken out of school for that particular part of class. The school did not have this Father's permission to teach it to his child.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46431

A private school of my church, Brigham Young University, has a strong moral code of ethics. If you fornicate - you get kicked out. Alcohol, drugs - nuh uh. Homosexuality is obviously out as well. It's a wonderful clean environment, students do very well there generally. It's not perfect in implementation of the standard, but it's standard is ideal and striving for it is effective. Treating "homosexuality" the same as religious preference, race, or gender is seriously threatening to the freedoms of such schools (and, not to mention, churches). I mentioned above that a Lutheran school had a law-suit against them for expelling two girls engaging in homosexual conduct.

On toleration: Being tolerant BEGINS after disagreement of ideas. The modern idea of being tolerant is self-contradicting: if it holds true that all views are of equal value and none is better than the other, then it is can't be true that my view that homosexuality is a perversion is bad. This is why so many people are moral cowards!

When it comes to ideas, I am an elitist. When it comes to people, I am egalitarian. I am this way, and my children will be this way. No one has any right to change that.
 

I didn't say religion. I'm talking about morality, which includes natural morality. I picked morality because it encompasses your sexual perversion argument (which, by the way, applies equally to oral pleasure, fetishes, contraceptives, and generally any other non-procreative usage). I picked "morality" because I want to start out by assuming we disagree on whether homosexuality ought or ought not to be forbidden aka "sinful". Let's not debate that, because doing so would require us to agree on a moral code, which would take us all the way back to God, the Bible, and the origin of man. :-)

So sure, there are ways in which homosexuality is being pushed as a political agenda that I don't agree with. But is there a baby in the bathwater there, Tim?

And sure, the homosexual lifestyle may correlate to other lifestyle patterns that I agree to be destructive. But I find it very conceivable that it's a result of rebellion and counter-culture from an oft-marginalized group.

But is it something we should legislate?

I'm currently reading a fascinating book on diet and nutrition written by the foremost expert in the field, called The China Study. It turns out that animal proteins are responsible for nearly every "disease of affluence" from heart disease to cancer. I believe that natural morality (aka mother nature) indicates that we *ought* to be vegan. And doesn't the Bible tell us to take care of our bodies, as the temple of God and the vessel of the Spirit? Based on the evidence in this book, I believe that a meat and dairy poses a much more substantive "threat" to our nation than homosexuality.

But is it something we should legislate?

I would much rather raise children in a culture of veganism, and legislating veganism would go a long ways, I'm sure! Then I wouldn't worry about public school lunches, and I would have more choices when I eat out. But that's not the solution, now is it?

The government should be as agnostic as possible. It should not dictate lifestyle, even if you and I argue believe there's a moral obligation (stemming from either nature or religion) to live one way or another. And while you can say that homosexuality is currently legal, that's only half-true as long as same-sex unions get unequal treatment.

-Lance

p.s. I attended a college similar to Brigham Young in its moral standards.
 

Lance,

A) You can not divorce law from morality. Law is, by nature, a moral code.

B) I do not believe the only function of sex is to procreate. There is a unifying function that bonds married couples together, when used appropriately, selflessly, out of love and not lust.

C) I don't believe you understand my argument. I'm not saying people should not be allowed to practice homosexuality in private, the way you're suggesting you'd like in your utopia for everyone to be compelled to veganism. But, parading down the street naked in the name of pride, exposing children to the perversions and teaching them that it's a healthy behavior - nu uh.

Look - me exercising restraint and not lusting after my neighbors wife takes self-control. This self-discipline, between my wife and I, keeps the foundation of our family strong. If I can discipline my sexual attraction and focus it on the one I've married, so can anyone. I wasn't born an adulterer, though I have the tendencies to become one if I don't watch myself. Same applies to homosexuals. If we're going to have a moral code, lets have it be one that teaches morals which will strengthen the family.

D) I would definitely prefer that government not sanction homosexuality, as there is a whole Pandora's box to be unleashed which I've articulated earlier. The way things are set up are to favor fruitful families. Now, that's another argument - I'm not for redistribution of wealth. But hey, if we're going to have it, and I'd rather not have it, but if we are I'd rather it be going towards supporting fruitful families as much as possible.
 

Oh, by the way - the China study IS a fascinating book :)
 

What I don't understand is: if marriage and family keep a society thriving, then why would you want to prohibit marriage? While homosexuality isn't quite my thing, I would much rather see gays formalize a loving, monogamous relationship in marriage than to condemn them to an eternity as bachelors.

If you think homosexuality is bad because many gays are promiscuous (something not unheard of among straights either, by the way), wouldn't you want to encourage them to live a more monogamous life? Why is it so bad if they want to make that relationship official through marriage?

As a christian, I honestly don't understand the objection to gay marriage. Gay (or other) promiscuity, sure, but marriage?
 

Tim, keep fighting the good fight. I support the definition of marriage to include only one man and one woman, nothing more. If homosexuals want to do their thing, there is nothing stopping them. However if this is about tax breaks, then fine..., if removing all tax breaks (or similar incentives) for married couples were to appease the homosexual activists (it wouldn't), then I'd rather go that route than to let homosexuals be "married".

If homosexuals can legally be married, where is the line between the laws enforcing the legalization of such marriages and freedom of religious expression? Soon we're looking at churches being forced to perform homosexual marriages against their religious beliefs. Isn't it "freedom" that everyone here purports to support? Then let churches have their religious freedom to refuse to perform gay marriages without loss of tax exempt status or what have you. (And allow individual the ability to refuse to perfom a marriage without loss of job or any other negative consequences). The problem is, once gay marriage is fully legalized, the floodgates will be opened against the ability of religions and their adherents to refuse to perform such marriages. Those who are really pro-freedom will see the injustices that will increasingly happen against the religious as gay marriage is legalized more and more. Which freedom is specifically mentioned in the constitution? Religious freedom, or freedom to be married to anyone of any gender?



@Lance,
You said, "But I find it very conceivable that it's a result of rebellion and counter-culture from an oft-marginalized group." --- Do you know of other marginalized groups that have similar destructive lifestyle patterns to the magnitude that homosexuals do? Did blacks have such patterns during the civil rights movement? I would say NO. Just something to think about.
 

@mcv: I was just about to go there myself! That's what I was thinking when I wrote the phrase that Eddie quoted.

@Tim: I do understand your argument. Do you understand mine? I was hoping to bypass our differences and appeal to the libertarian in you, but the Mormon in you is stronger. :-)

@Eddie: I agree that it's wrong to force a church to perform a gay marriage against its beliefs. But that doesn't justify your response: a classic case of babies and bathwater. Let's be consistent here: protecting one freedom shouldn't mean denying another because of possible slippery slope.
 

@Lance: If it really was "just" a slippery slope, your last argument would be a strong one. But as Tim has already pointed out, it's not just a "possible" slippery slope. It's already happening. People who choose to believe that homosexuality is a perversion (and not normal) and act according to their beliefs, are already losing their religious freedoms. I guess I would have to revise my argument from just claiming that legalizing homosexual marriages "will" (at some future time) infringe on religious freedoms to a stronger argument: that legalizing same-gender marriage will only make such infringements worse than they already are. The "baby getting thrown out with the bathwater" in this case is religious freedom.

Yes, I fully understand your side of the debate, as I'm sure you understand mine. We choose to take different stances anyway. To each his own.
 

Looks like you're going to have to stop using Macs as well.

Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
 

@gtcaz

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, good friend.

I don't know if you read the update to this blog article, but I withdrew my support of the google boycott a day later. My reasoning is stated there.

Warm regards
 

Tim, that came across as more snarky than I intended. I did see you revised your decision to boycott.

Obviously I keep thinking about this because I respect so much of what you do (otherwise I'd just pass by and never look back).

I still think the best way to "protect marriage" is to have a happy and healthy marriage. I'm not threatened in the least by same-sex couples wanting to have a legally recognized union and the protections, privileges, and responsibility that entails.
 

Shame on you.

In the end, you, who truly believe in a higher deity -- who precisely are you fooling with your rationalizations of hate?

Fact: there is nothing about homosexuality and homosexuals which precludes heterosexuals from marrying and attempting to start their own family.

Forget every other argument. You cite propagandist videos about "homosexual agendas" but the fact remains that despite your radically active 1%, heterosexual marriage is still going strong among heterosexuals, and divorce rates are stable if not decreasing (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce90_04.pdf). Arguing that homosexual marriages somehow imperil the heterosexual ones doesn't seem to be borne out by the statistics.

You can defend your opinion that heterosexual marriages are better -- that is your right. You can find homosexuality distasteful -- that is your right.

And yes, society classifies certain groups as rights restricted. Criminals, for example -- because they implicitly, categorically impinge upon the rights of others.

Homosexuals do not, categorically, naturally impinge upon your rights or those of any other group, any more than my being Jewish (a cultural choice), or white (a genetic non-choice) impinges upon your rights or those of any other group.

You are attempting to force your rights-depriving views onto a group which does not implicitly impinge upon the rights of others.

That bears repeating: nothing about homosexuals implicitly reduces or revokes the rights of any other individual or group. The basis of your claim is that, in your opinion, this group is bad for society, and hence their rights should be restricted.

That is bigotry, not "protecting society" or any other rationalization you have come up with.

As for positive thinking, perhaps the right solution is simple: if marriage is so tied to religious custom, then the state should stop issuing any kind of marriage license, heterosexual or otherwise. Let the state issue civil unions to all comers.

Marriage is between you and your church. Your distaste for homosexuals and their families is between you and your church. Your desire to implement this distaste as law is an affront to freedom and civil rights.

Regardless, tonight I am saying a prayer for your soul before going to bed. I pray that you realize how your bigotry devastates the lives of countless good men and women who simply hold opinions different than yours, opinions which the United States was explicitly created to protect from bigots like you.
 

@Idan

Well, I certainly don't consider myself immune from being wrong. Since you seem to be so concerned about my soul (which by the way, I'm grateful for), let's engage in some serious discussion if you don't mind.

First off, lets start off with some definitions, if you will. What is a Human Right, and what does it mean to infringe on a human's right?
 

Breaking news: eHarmony.com has been forced into offering a same-sex matching service. You want to talk about human rights? How about this one: "Free exercise of conscience", the ones that homosexuals claim to be so fond of, but ONLY RESPECT IT when applied to themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/11/19/eharmony.same.sex.matches/index.html

Not only were they forced into do something they as a company are against, they were ordered to pay $55,000 in administrative expenses.
 

Tim,

In Brown v Board of Ed, I'm sure the Topeka Board of Education felt that allowing Black students to attend the same schools as their white counterparts would be a violation of their conscience -- and yet in the end they had no choice, because their conscience was overruled by the antidiscriminatory nature of the 14th amendment to the constitution. As US citizens, bound by the laws and courts of the land, the Topekans were forced by the government to extend equal rights to a group they found abhorrent. That is not a limitation of freedom; it's a limitation of a group's curtailment of freedoms.

The US Government "forces" US citizens and bodies corporate to respect the law, including antidiscimination laws, which protect the civil rights of all groups.

The government intervenes in similar fashion when it revokes the liberties of criminals and other elements of society who intrinsically or through some action, deprive the liberties of others. eHarmony was breaking the law, it was explicitly ordered to stop doing so and was punished in a fairly commonplace fashion: their wallet.

eHarmony simply wasn't at liberty to say "We will allow this group but not that group," because discrimination is illegal. Those 50K dollars in "forced" administrative expenses is probably more than the money they would have had to spend to spend to build a law-abiding business, but that's the way punishments work. When I get a speeding ticket, I've probably caused no material damage to anybody. The fine I pay is a deterrent, to help me remember not to break the law again.

So there is nothing in that last comment which further "limits" the freedoms of eHarmony -- any more than they were already limited by US law. They were simply noncompliant to begin with, noncompliant with a limitation that says "you cannot discriminate."

That limitation is one of the core tenets upon which the United States was founded. Why should it apply any less to eHarmony than it did to Brown v Board of ed? To women's sufferage? To the end of slavery?

You are free to exercise your conscience so long as you do it within the bounds of the law, which is in turn bounded by the constitution. If you don't like the freedoms afforded by the constitution, then start a theocracy somewhere with your own constitution of discrimination. Your freedoms and those of eHarmony are, in fact, as intact as they ever were.

Pursuant to the argument above, I see nothing in your latest which answers the core question:

1. Homosexuals do not intrinsically impinge upon any freedoms held by any other group.

2. Therefore, why should the rights of this particular group be reduced or restricted in any fashion?
 

Is homosexuality a choice?
 

Personally, I don't believe so, but I have no hard science one way or another. I also don't believe that it is in any way immoral or detrimental, any more than a pencil has immoral or detrimental qualities. A life is what you do with it.

That being said, I don't think it matters one way or another whether homosexuality is a "choice". Either way, discrimination is illegal, in the same way that it is illegal to discriminate against me for my skin color (non-choice) or religion (choice).
 

Why is discrimination illegal, and who / what is the deciding factor on what discrimination is?
 

Tim, take a look at the 14th amendment, section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Discrimination, put succinctly, is saying that the laws are applied one way for one set of citizens, and a different way for another set of citizens.

You, a heterosexual US citizen, are eligible for state-recognized "marriage", with attendant freedom to conceive/adopt and raise a family, inheritance and shared property, be treated as a family by official bodies such as health insurers and the IRS (the latter being the most dubious "pleasure").

The 14th amendment clearly states that not extending the same offical, legal recognition to another group (such as homosexuals) constitutes fickle application of the law, and is unconstitutional.

As for who "decides" whether a certain situation is unconstitutional, in the end it is up to the judicial system to interpret and apply the constitution for each situation. Personally, I have a hard time understanding how anybody can read the 14th amendment and reach a different conclusion than the one I've laid out.

I'm a Jew. Personally I don't care for Christ, don't think he was the messiah, and find abhorrent much of what his followers have done to the world over the course of time. In the predominantly Christian United States, that makes me a minority, one which was once openly discriminated against, and is not entirely free from prejudice today. The 1st and 14th amendments are all that stand between me and your belief that I will go to hell unless I accept Christ. There were historical periods when Christians waged Jihad against Jews, it was called the Crusades, and it is the Constitution that protects me from somebody like you trying to force your views on me, for my own good or otherwise.

In the end, if you like discimination as a part of US law, then what you really need to do is amend the federal constitution to permit discrimination, using one of the two permitted methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments_to_the_Constitution.

As it stands, proposition 8 is clearly unconstituional according to amendment 14, and the only means of making any such similar law is changing the US constitution.

The day when the constitution is amended to favor hatred of the sort that you seem to embrace is the day that America, land of freedom from religious persecution, is dead. On that day you will succeed in making America most like Iran.
 

Idan, if you read above you'll discover that I had a few things to say to Tim as well. I'm against proposition #8. But the problem is that it seems you came here with preconceived notions about Tim's position. You've made things too simple. Until you can realize that Tim is not driven by hate or anything approaching racism, you don't belong here. You're just copy/pasting stock arguments across the web.
 

Lance,

I came here looking for the blog of the developer behind Git for OSX, so I really had no preconceived notions about that developer's religion or politics. The only posts I've read of Tim's are the ones on the front page of his blog. At the time I first visited, the top post was Tim's statement in support of proposition 8, ergo discrimination and intolerance. That is the sole basis for my understanding of Tim's position: that he believes that the United States should discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and his subsequent implication that a family reared by a homosexual couple is somehow less good or even detrimental to society.

And yes, I did simplify things. I didn't really address the implication of familial fitness -- only the discrimination, because that is the part which our laws clearly speak to. Our laws do not say who will and will not make for a good family short of evidence such as abuse or neglect, and that cannot be predetermined categorically for gay people any more than it can be predetermined for straight people. On that matter, I would also point out that the US does not limit the freedom of poor people to start families, despite the statistical likelihood that these children will face harder lives and are less likely to become productive members of society.

I mostly limited the scope of my argument to the law because that is the least common denominator shared by Tim and myself as citizens of the US.

As for copy-pasting arguments from elsewhere; I don't know if you meant it literally or figuratively. I wrote (well or poorly) every word under my name. I didn't lift it from another source, and I didn't refer to a list of "talking points". I referred to two things only:

1. my sense of decency and egalitarian treatment of fellow humans when deciding whether to post a response,

2. my sense of logic and a copy of the constitution when deciding how to make my case for equal rights / against discrimination and bigotry.

As for my labeling Tim a bigot: whether a criminal has justification or motive for a crime does not change the fact that a criminal is a criminal. The same statement holds for bigots. I don't necessarily ascribe hatred as a motive for Tim's bigotry, but the position he espouses makes him one. I can say the same about my parents, whom I love and respect for many things -- they too think of gay people are unnatural and that equality should come slowly, if at all. They're bigots, but like many people, I think it is rooted less in hatred and more in their upbringing. That's a good thing! Hatred is blind, but ignorance can be cured through dialog. I try to show them how their views constitute a kind of hatred, a kind of discrimination, and a kind of illegality, but they still cling to the notion of a flat world, a world where gayness is some kind of disability, dismissing the "radical, new " concept of a round earth as preposterous.

I don't spend my time posting elsewhere about prop 8 or gay rights or any other subject. I think the world changes one person at a time, and here I was moved to challenge the position of a person who doesn't lack in brains and is potentially open to seeing that the discrimination, the bigotry that he supports is both wrong and illegal. I can't say I haven't harped on the wrongness of it, but the bulk of my response here has focused on the illegality of it, particularly in response to Tim's follow-up questions. I would love for Tim to understand why discrimination is and should be illegal, but I'm currently more concerned with him understanding that it is illegal, and for good reason.

So, Lance, having read my reasoning above, I would ask again if you think that I don't belong here. I would not have wasted the time to write if I did not care, or was simply motivated by some prop-8-talking-points-agends.

And to you, Tim -- I would not fault you for deciding that you don't want this discussion in plain view on your blog; if you want to continue it via email I would comply. I'm both pleased and encouraged so far that you haven't responded with non-sequiturs or blanket denials. Your questions mean that you've actually read and thought about the subject, and I can't really ask for more. Thank you for taking the time to read, think, and respond.

(No sarcasm in that last, lest it be misinterpreted.)
 

@lance - thank you, you're awesome.

@Idan

I appreciate the sincerity in you taking the time to comment on my blog and raise these points to my attention. I'm fine with this debate continuing here. There are a million tangents where we could take this discussion, so I'm going to try my best to focus on what or two points. OK - enough chit chat! :)

---------------

To review, and to ensure that I understand your position, you assert that I am a biggot because my position is based on a belief of superiority, and not reason. You assert that my support of proposition #8 is discriminatory, that discrimination is and should be against the law, and that the supreme court decides what constitutes discrimination. Additionally, businesses found to be discriminating should and ought to be punished. You also assert that homosexuals have no choice in how they are, but agree that evidence is sparse to support a conclusion one way or another.

Before I ask the next question, let me state something I predict we will agree on. I believe those that practice homosexuality should not be denied hospital visitation rights, legal protection for inheritances, the ability to associate with one another, or express affection to one another (appropriately). I'm not opposed to civil unions. Also, I would be in favor of abolishing the redistribution of wealth that occurs to subsidize families, especially non-fruitful ones. (I have two children)

Now, take away the piece of paper, the marriage license. Given this plus what I've stated in the prior paragraph, is there anything remaining, in your opinion, where those that practice homosexuality are being discriminated against?
 

Tim,

I assert that you are bigoted because your espoused position effectively labels a class of citizens, equal to you in their entitlements and obligations before the law, as second class. Taking a group of people who do not deprive others of liberties, and then taking liberties away from them is discrimination.

I don't care nor do I "assert" that the reason for your bigotry is a "belief of superiority." I speculate that it stems from the religious indoctrination you received in the community where you were raised. I'm not here to fix the LDS or any one of many religions (my own included) which think that homosexuality is a kind of disease to be "treated". I'm here to convince you that equal treatment under the law is a binary state: either it is there, completely, pervading all aspects of government and life, or it is not.

As to the rest of the first paragraph, I agree with the broader sense that discrimination in any form is illegal, whether the perpetrator is a business or a municipal civil servant.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "wealth redistribution" -- for families with or without children. Please elaborate what you mean by that part.

As for the various rights that you think we will agree on: I think those are a good sampling of the freedoms you enjoy as a US citizen, but it is by no means exhaustive. The test I propose for any potential liberty is simple: if you can do or have something, then homosexuals should be extended the exact same liberties, certified using the exact same language. My passport is not worded differently from yours. Were we to live in the same state, my driver's license would not look different from yours. Why should a certificate treating my and my spouse, granting me the same civil rights as you and your spouse, differ in a single letter?

So in answer to your question: apply the test. You have a piece of paper labeled "marriage certificate". Gay people should be able to acquire the same piece of paper you were legally issued, with the same wording and civil rights accorded to other couples in possession of that legal certification. Conversely, we could amend your piece of paper to read "Civil Union," no "Marriage" licenses issued by the state at all. Either way, the document which accords you certain benefits (and obligations) as a heterosexual couple should be the exact same document according the exact same benefits to homosexual couples. The notion that you should have one piece of civil identification when somebody else has a different one may seem like a triviality but it is the root of "classification," and it fails to apply the law in an equal manner for all US citizens.

Now, you might say: "Semantics! Marriage is the union of a man and a woman! Clearly this document is good for this situation and that document is good for that situation!"

That is a great example of "separate but equal," which was ruled as a form of discrimination in Brown v Board of Ed and several other cases which comprised the overturning of Plessy v Ferguson (wikipedia is a good starting point for reading about both of these landmark cases).

Furthermore -- you define "marriage" as between a man and a woman. You might do it on the basis of historical precedent ("Um, that's just how we always did it"), religious grounds ("The church does not view a homosexual couple as a family"), or even on biological grounds ("Homosexuals cannot naturally conceive children without resorting to means outside their relationship, and Marriage is partly defined by the potential for fruitfulness").

Most of these arguments are opinions, none of which carry force in the eyes of the law:

1. History alone is not sufficient reason to prevent changes to protect civil liberties. Any practice that has become illegal could have been condemned using the "it's how we've always done it" defense, and yet slavery has been abolished and women are allowed to vote despite a long history of both in the world.

2. Semantics is not a science; you ascribe a certain meaning to the word "marriage" and I ascribe a different one. This alone doesn't mean that I'm right -- it just means that the law must look elsewhere in deciding what is and isn't legal.

3. Any religious definitions of marriage are moot in the United States, where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

4. The last argument, the biological one, fails because of the "equality test" I proposed above. Imagine for a moment that you and your wife were found, for some medical reason, unable to conceive. Your marriage would still be called a "marriage," and you would be free to pursue IVF, surrogacy, or even adoption in your pursuit of offspring without affecting your marital status.

So in the end, the sentiments you attach to the word "marriage" is really something private to you (as well it should be!) The state doesn't offer you any of the religious benefits of marriage; it merely recognizes two consenting adults who have chosen to bind their lives together. Everything beyond those civil rights aren't issuable by the state; they emanate from your religion and tradition. If the term "marriage" is so loaded that the state cannot use it for fear of suggesting some religious aspect to the civil rights it accords to couples, then the state should issue only documents which emphasize their civil nature and not any religious certification.

So, no. I do not believe that the rights you've enumerated are sufficient. Equality is not a buffet. When a gay couple can acquire the same piece of paper recognizing their union as you receive recognizing yours, then there will be no question of whether a civil union is eligible for something that marriages are eligible for. The state should not be in the business of handing out different certifications for different classes of otherwise equivalent US citizens. The document they hold should say the exact same thing as the document you hold, just like our passports and drivers' licenses.

I'm interested in learning why you think that gay couples should not receive the exact same "Marriage Certificate" which you possess.

If your reasoning has to do with the definition of "marriage", I would ask you why the state should have two different certifications which provide the exact same liberties but under a different title, and would appreciate an existing example of such.

And either way, I am interested in your opinion on the state simply issuing civil unions to all comers. Why would it be bad for your civil rights as a couple to be enshrined in a civil document issued by the state, and titled as such? I wouldn't fault the church of LDS from saying "gay marriage has no place in our church because it goes against our belief". Let the LDS refuse to issue "LDS Marriage Certificates" to gay couples -- these certificates would only attest to your entering a social contract blessed by your church. That refusal, while still repugnant to me, is your sacrosanct religious belief. Just as your church should not interfere with our government, our government should not interfere with your church.
 

Tim, I think you've done a great job at calmly arguing your viewpoint even when commenters have turned hostile.

(Which is not a knock against hostile commenters; I share their passion for this issue and know it can be frustrating to argue.)

Your last comment is interesting. When you say that you support civil unions, do you mean a version of civil unions that will confer the same rights and privileges as marriage?

You seem to be against income tax deductions for dependent children (at least that's what I assume you mean by "subsidiz[ing] families") — but would you be OK with allowing same-sex couples in civil unions to enjoy the same tax deductions? (This implies, of course, that they also be able to adopt children.)

I ask this because I'm trying to find common ground. Many of those opposed to Proposition 8 are frustrated at how the debate changes when the phrase "civil union" is replaced with the word "marriage."

I believe that if the government chooses to incentivize a family unit through a legal arrangement like marriage, it might as well offer that arrangement to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

But I also believe that churches should be able to "define" marriage however they please. The government shouldn't care about the religious union any more than God would care about the civil union.

Does this appeal to you?
 

Tim, I don't care nor do I "assert" that the reason for your bigotry is a "belief of superiority." I speculate that it stems from your religious beliefs, but I'm not here to fix the LDS or any one of many religions (my own included). I'm here to convince you that equal treatment under the law is a binary state: either it is there, completely, pervading all aspects of government and life, or it is not.

As to the rest of the first paragraph, I agree with the broader sense that discrimination in any form is illegal, regardless of the perpetrator. I don't quite understand what you mean by "wealth redistribution" -- for families with or without children. Please elaborate what you mean by that part as it pertains to homosexuals entering a civil commitment.

As for the various rights that you think we will agree on: I think those are a good sampling of the freedoms you enjoy as a US citizen, but it is by no means exhaustive. The test I propose for any potential liberty is simple: if you can do or have something, then homosexuals should be extended the exact same liberties, certified using the exact same language. There are not two kinds of passport, or two kinds of drivers' license for different classes of people.

In answer to your question: apply the test. You have a piece of paper labeled "marriage certificate". Gay people should be able to acquire the same piece of paper you were legally issued, with the same wording and civil rights accorded to other couples in possession of that legal certification. Conversely, we could amend your piece of paper to read "Civil Union," no "Marriage" licenses issued by the state at all. Either way, the state-issued document which recognizes the civil commitment they undertook should be identical to the document recognizing the civil commitment you undertook, seeing as it accords the same rights and obligations. That document need not use terms loaded with religious baggage, but if you insist on the application of the loaded term "marriage" to some civil commitments, then it must be applied equally to all civil commitments. Don't you tell your children to share the toys or lose them entirely?

What remains are semantic explorations of the word "marriage". I define it as a commitment between two consenting adults to live their lives together, potentially starting a family. I think you define it as roughly the same thing, with the added proviso that the two consenting adults must be of opposite sexes. It's ok to disagree on this -- semantics is not a science -- but it does mean that semantics alone cannot prove a basis for legal decision. Hence my suggestion that "marriage" licenses be provided by your church, where everybody is in agreement over the added proviso which serves no purpose in the civil sense.

So, no. I do not believe that the rights you've enumerated are sufficient. Equality is not a buffet. When a gay couple can acquire the same piece of paper recognizing their union as you receive recognizing yours, then there will be no question of whether a civil union is eligible for something that marriages are eligible for. The state should not be in the business of handing out different certifications for different classes of otherwise equivalent US citizens.

I'm interested in learning why you think that gay couples should not receive the exact same civil certification which you possess. If your reasoning has to do with the definition of "marriage", I would ask you why the state should have two different certifications which provide the exact same liberties but under a different title, and would appreciate an existing example of such.

And either way, I am interested in your opinion on the state simply issuing civil unions to all comers. Why would it be bad to separate certification of "marriage" into a public, religion-free civil certification and a private, between-you-and-your-church religious one? Would you feel any less "married" if the "married" aspect of your civil union was conferred upon you by your church and not by a civil servant?

I wouldn't fault the church of LDS from saying "gay marriage has no place in our church because it goes against our belief". Let the LDS refuse to issue "LDS Marriage Certificates" to gay couples -- these certificates would only attest to your entering a social contract blessed by your church. That refusal, while still repugnant to me, is your sacrosanct religious belief. Just as your church should not interfere with our government, our government should not interfere with the private matters of your church.
 

@andrewdupont.net

Re: redistribution of wealth to subsidize families

This quote appropriately reflects my view on government:


Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.

-- Henry Grady Weaver, The Mainspring of Human Progress [1947]


I believe social engineering, organizing society to behave a certain way by initiating force, is wrong. This is what I mean by redistribution of wealth. If one does not choose to pay the higher taxes demanded of him due to not fitting a certain mold the government is trying to encourage, well... just answer, what happens when you skip out on taxes? Who get's to decide what gets subsidized? If people think it's a good idea to subsidize families, why do we have to have the government force it upon everyone? If it's a good idea, why don't we just do it, without involving government?

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. — James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

... out of time - will respond more later. God bless.
 

Lol who'd have thought it would stir up this much controversy :)

So...the question remains. Should we boycott google or not? What do you think, Tim? I'm undecided still [seriously]. It would be fun, but...would it be seriously christian?
-=R
 

Tim, you seem find fault with both the "tyranny of the majority" and with the structure of our representative republic.

Taking the second point first: it's true that we don't make each and every decision ourselves; instead, we vote for representatives we trust will act in a way that balances their judgment and our interests. It's not perfect, but it's how America works. If citizens feel the people they chose are abusing the power given to them, they can pick new people the next time around. This is a powerful, powerful check.

Now, to your next point — that majority rule imposes unacceptable constraints on civil liberties. I can understand your feeling that the government shouldn't care one way or the other whether you have kids. In this case, I think they care only inasmuch as it affects your income tax burden. Someone decided a long time ago that you shouldn't ever have to pay so much in income tax that you wouldn't have enough left over for necessities (food, shelter, etc.). Naturally, if your household has four people, you need more money for those necessities than if it had only two people.

Furthermore, any tax benefit (or penalty) that one receives for being married is unintentional. Ideally, a couple would pay the same amount whether they filed jointly or separately, but it's hard to make it come out that way.

More broadly, though, you seem opposed to any sort of government "incentivization" of individual behavior. I presume this would also apply to things like hybrid car tax credits (incentives given by the federal government to individuals) and "national drinking age" legislation (incentives given by the federal government to states in exchange for setting the drinking age to 21).

Whether I agree with these sorts of policies on a case-by-case basis, I don't mind incentivization as a general concept. I believe very strongly that government should be balancing long-term and short-term benefits — something that both individuals and the free market are notoriously poor at. And governments are free to encourage behavior that's in long-term interest. If you feel that they're encouraging behavior that's arbitrary, or even hurtful, then there's always the ballot box.

Let's bring this back to Proposition 8, though. I find an odd discord between your distrust of majority rule and your desire to ban gay marriage in California as the result of a ballot initiative that narrowly won. I'm quite interested to hear more about you reconcile your fiercely libertarian streak with your opposition to gay marriage, because I think we can agree that government should have far less say in what the word "marriage" means in general.
 

@andrew and @idan:

An LDS declaration of beliefs goes like this : "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Article of Faith #11)

I'm not opposed to homosexual partners having the same rights and privileges as married couples, so long as those rights do not infringe upon mine.

Let me repeat something I wrote in an email to a friend:

I believe there is deliberate effort being made right now to ultimately make it illegal to say (and perhaps eventually believe) that homosexuality is a sin, and to force it's acceptance on all civilization. As soon as homosexuality falls into the same category as race or gender, a whole slew of inevitable consequences will follow:

* It will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech rights
* Freedom of families to to raise a child in a atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman, will be lost
* Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family
* People and private institutions that oppose same sex marriage will be increasingly labeled as intolerant, and be subjected to legal penalties and social ostracism.

--

I don't have any reason to believe that once gay marriage becomes state sanctioned, the trend of the continual forced acceptance will be reversed. It will only get more intense as those who are pushing this agenda will have more government power to impose their views on others. This is where I dissent.

There are a whole slew of evidences pointing to this forced acceptance, if one has the eyes to look and see it. I've named many through out the comments in this blog. One especially is recently that eHarmony.com finally decided to settle a suit against them - the court had that much power and there was that much at stake, that they gave in to the demands of the Attilas and the Huns who beat their chests and shouted out threats, demanding that eHarmony modify their business to appeal to their values. Seriously? Like you couldn't find a homosexual dating site online. Why would you think the only way to get what you want is through force and not personal initiative and persuasion? The fact that these bullies had this much leverage in their court is an awfully large indicator of just how dangerous of territory our government has grown into.

Here's an idea: instead of forcing a business to cater to your values, why not open up a business that caters to a market that you perceive to be under-served? If you yourself don't believe there is opportunity there, why would you ever suggest that a business be forced into serving that market? And, if people who believe differently initiate force against your business to shut you down through forceful means, then the appropriate function of government is to intervene and put an end to it. And don't call it a hate crime, or a discriminatory crime. There is no such thing as a non-hate crime, and I doubt a non-discriminatory crime truly exists either (even a guy opening fire in a public place is discriminating against a certain group of people - he chose the location!).

This is a somewhat silly example, but it illustrates a point: I am very allergic to milk. Often times, I can only order from about 5% of the menu. Sometimes I can't have anything. Do I have the right to demand that all stores and establishments that carry ice-cream also carry non-dairy deserts as well? That's ridiculous - I wouldn't think of doing that for a second because I wouldn't want anybody doing that to me! I can bring my own desert! Even if I were the only person allergic to milk in the whole entire world, I would not expect people to go out of their way to make my life more enjoyable - I do not believe that I am entitled to the fruits of another persons labors because of the way I am. I would make my own way, and bear my own trial, taking pride and joy in being self-sufficient.

I do not see any principled argument for why discrimination should be illegal. We all discriminate. I discriminate who babysits my children, for example. I discriminate when I choose whether or not to give a hitch-hiker a ride. I discriminate when I go to the store, which products I buy, sometimes based off of the attitudes of the company or if their ideals align with mine. Radio stations discriminate the music they play. I would not like to listen to a radio station that played songs about homosexuality, do you believe individuals have no right to create such a radio station? Do you honestly really believe that you have the right to deprive another human being of his property and freedom because you believe his discrimination was unjust? Have you heard the phrase "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"? And, if you want to pass an anti-discrimination law that requires a majority vote, isn't it proof that success and progress was already possible with out resulting to government force by merely getting enough people to vote for it?

I don't see any necessary and natural boundaries that separate Businesses and any social organization. Therefore, I do not see any principled reason why anti-discriminatory laws should exist in the first place, even less why they should apply to businesses and not any other social group. Unprincipled government knows no boundaries.

In closing, my argument summed up: I supported proposition #8 because I perceived it was the best way to protect individual liberty for all parties. I perceive that the legalization of homosexual marriage would be a great source of leverage for those hoping to infringe upon individual free will and force them to accept homosexuality in their schools, businesses, and eventually homes and churches.

Good day,

Tim
 

@roger

I certainly don't think it would be immoral to boycott google, you're certainly within your rights to refuse to do exchange with any business entity for whatever reason you feel best agrees within your value system.

However a few things persuaded me against it:

* Ineffectiveness - I don't think it would be an effective strategy
* Neutrality - Google has maintained a great deal of neutrality in the services it offers. They aren't censoring certain material from their search engine, or refusing to host videos on their video sites that promote traditional marriage. I appreciate this about google.
* Golden rule - I thought of if I would want people to refuse to do business with me because of my beliefs on traditional marriage, or my support for a bill that supported traditional marriage and in my view protected religious liberty.

Tim
 

For some reason I thought of this snip...

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

--Alexander Pope
Of course, that doesn't mean I'll quit google :)
-=R
 

Religious Freedom Compromised in the UK: link

It is the right of every man to believe and to teach that this behavior is wrong, likewise is the right of every man to agree or disagree.

It is not the right of every man to inflict force upon another man because they don't agree with a particular idea (this goes both ways).

America was founded on religious freedom. Mark my words: if we lose religious freedom, every other freedom will go with it, and we will not have peace.

"We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." D&C 134:2