“It’s the Economy, Stupid!” - Why Every CMC Capitalist Should Say No to 8
By Nico Brancolini • November 9th, 2008
Editor’s Note - Although the Forum does not normally delve into politics, we reserve the right to publish political pieces that have that … extra CMC touch to them. As always, students interested in submitting original content can email their stories and ideas to forum@ascmc.org.
While many of us were elated Tuesday night by the election of Barack Obama as our 44th president, there was one glaring piece of irrational legislation that also passed. No, it was not Proposition 2 (damn that animal lobby!) I lament, but Proposition 8, which Constitutionally banned gay marriage in the state of California. I could use this space to discuss the horribly misleading campaign launched by “Yes on Prop 8” — which included wantonly lying to voters about kindergarten and the California Education Code, purposely confusing voters, and in some instances even using automated phone calls that said, “If you support gay marriage vote YES on Proposition 8” — but I am too lazy to write such a long piece.
I could also use this space to discuss the moral argument for gay marriage. A friend explained to me that she feared the cultural damage of dramatically changing “an old institution” such as marriage, but she never answered my lingering questions on precisely how. Would gay marriage make the gay lifestyle decision so much more appealing to impressionable youths that they would forsake heterosexuality? Shouldn’t moral authorities prefer encouraging monogamy in the gay community? And wouldn’t loving, long-term relationships discourage the cocaine-induced orgies complete with greased up Adonises — or would it be Adonii? — in Malibu mansions that people in middle-America — and I guess middle California — envision as the most offensive, or maybe secretly alluring, part of the “gay agenda.”Furthermore, the afore-mentioned young lady and many like her claim to support “civil unions” that would be identical to marriage in everything but name. Separate but equal — I seem to recall that working pretty well in the past, didn’t it? Honestly though, I just do not understand how anyone can think that gay marriage will have any true moral bearing on society.
However, I do not mean to insult you all with notions of morality and justice. This is, after all, Claremont McKenna, whose patron saint is Mammon. We all hope to be titans of industry one day so naturally our first love is money — not justice. This is the real reason gay marriage was good for California, it was economically profitable. Civilization prospers through commerce, bitches, and the gays were bringing us that glorious commerce.
A big stink was made about Apple donating money to “No on Prop 8,” but frankly, I’d rather have Steve Jobs – a successful businessman – influencing my state than the creepy Mormon cabal that pumped $20 million into the “Yes on 8”campaign. I read one view-point that argued it was bad business for Mac to donate that money because it would discourage conservatives from buying their product. But I think it was brilliant business! Gays statistically have more discretionary income than any other social group. Sleek Apple designs go perfectly with chic modernist WeHo homes. Mac was just pandering to a more lucrative base, although I guess I can’t completely dispel the notion that they may actually believe in universal civil rights.
Back to my main point, though: gay marriage was good for business in California. Having a reputation as a progressive gay-friendly state helped the tourism industry. Think about it: pretend for a minute you are a well-toned, sun-loving, narcissistic dandy – or for that matter, a middle-aged school teacher, retired corporate lawyer, small business owner etc. – from the Midwest. Would you rather vacation with your life partner in A) creepy Jed-Bush electing Florida or B) gay-marriage allowing California? Two weeks ago the obvious chance would be B, but following the November 4th election, there’s hardly as much appeal.
You might as well go someplace else to spend tons of money buying antiques, investing in property, shopping at high-end boutiques, and visiting theme parks since California now seems a tad more hostile and a lot more expensive. Those Midwest dandies don’t want to walk down the street knowing that every other person they see voted against their happiness in the November election! Even if the gay pilgrimage to California is not completely decimated the gay marriage ban will still disrupt the free-spending. Instead of a lot of frivolous impulse buys – “Well of course this Erté would go magnificently in the foyer Karl!”— they’ll be fixated on guessing who voted for and who voted against Proposition 8. Everywhere they look they will either see a supportive local or cartoonish villain. This would obviously detract from their purchasing power.
My point is this, people. Sure there are moral arguments for gay marriage. Sure we may have a conscience deep inside of us trying to tell us, “Gay people have feelings too,” and we may even have a sense genuinely telling us to believe that equality is guaranteed by our Constitution. But forget all that “tyranny of the majority” crap. The real reason to support gay marriage in the state of California is because it’s good for business. It helps the clothing industry, the cake industry, the miniature figurine industry, department stores wedding registries, and, of course, the tourism industry. So please, to all of you reading this out there: work to bring gay marriage back to California to help boost our state’s economy and bring money in for all of us to enjoy, it’s what Milton Friedman would want you to do!
November 10th, 2008 at 1:31 am
[POST DELETED - thecmcforum.com]
November 10th, 2008 at 1:32 am
By the way, that list isn’t mine. It’s from NPR, you know, that fabulously conservative news source.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
November 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Dear Charles Johnson,
Although I will concede that “creepy Mormon cabal” is not the most politically correct phrase, it was used in an article with a tone that is more satirical than anything else. Your insinuations, however, that this article is part of a “gay activist agenda” which insists “on demonizing those of us who don’t okay their lifestyle choices” is disappointing, to say the least.
Do not, EVER, publish such discriminatory or misleading material again on this site, or you will lose your privileges entirely to comment. Your libertarian-lite ideology is one thing. Discounting an entire segment of the population is something entirely different.
Best Regards,
The Editor
November 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The funny thing here is that Charles isn’t even against gay rights at all, so I have to assume he’s just whining for whining’s sake. He believes the Forum should not be allowed to publish anything he disagrees with because he pays student fees that go toward ASCMC and running the Forum, so he lashes out on whatever he can.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Nice article. Good point. Funny.
I’m sorry I missed Charles’ comment. I love hearing about Gay Agenda conspiracies.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
This is how we deal with people who write on the Forum website. I definitely think my comment should be restored. Immediately.
I said nothing inflammatory.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Dear Ross,
I cannot speak to the contents of Charles’ original post. However, what I can speak to is how incredibly unprofessional it is for you to respond publicly on this site to Charles, without giving readers the chance to read Charles’ own original comment. If you insisted on deleting his comment, then a private email to him would have sufficed.
In the interest not only of free speech, but also of decency and professionalism, I encourage you immediately to restore Charles’ post.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Ilan and Charles,
As we explicitly highlight in our disclaimer, the editors of this website have the right to delete or edit posts that appear discriminatory in nature. It was in this editor’s judgment that some of the language Charles used was inappropriate and discriminatory. Accusing another student’s more comical take on a popular political issue as part of a “gay activist agenda” which insists “on demonizing those of us who don’t okay their lifestyle choices” is not appropriate, and so that post was deleted. The rest of the message involved information from an NPR story, which was actually interesting to see (who would’ve thought…NPR!), so I kept the link.
Any personal agenda I have for this website is simply a huge desire to see the Forum continue to grow in scope and content. As a forum for CMC students, we can agree to disagree. But when you cross the line - as I believe Charles did - action will be taken. Thank you for your understanding, and thank you for expressing your concern.
Best Regards,
Ross
November 10th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Josh, I don’t believe that the Forum should be allowed to be funded with school money, but now that it is, it’s all the more reprehensible that Mr. Boomer censored me and has threatened my commenting privileges.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I am well entitled to my opinion, Mr. Boomer and I’m entitled to post something in the comment section under California’s Leonard Law. I did not cross any line whatsoever.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Of course, Ross just proves my point that some gays are intolerant of people using their rights, like freedom of speech and of the press.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Ross,
Can I please see what Charles said in his original post and decide for myself if it was inflammatory? The phrases you quoted, “gay activist agenda” and “demonizing those of us who don’t okay their lifestyle choices,” do not sound out of line, or different than anything that is said in a left-wing argument which attacks right-wingers. So, did he really say something discriminatory, or just something that you disagree with? Please restore his original comment. Who knows, maybe when I read the whole comment I will agree with you, but at least allow me to decide for myself if it was inflammatory.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Hi Ross,
I have read over the entire article and conversation preceding this point, and I have to say it seems like this is a classic example of the typical irrational liberal mindset that is quick to dismiss any rational thought set forth by a conservative. Our tuition dollars fund this website, and even though I know liberals think they know what to do with people’s money better than those they take it from, we the readers should have a say as to what posts are left on and which ones are taken off. You do not get to make that choice just because someone made an observation that offended your delicate liberal sensitivities.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:16 am
To Ross and Josh:
I know you guys pride yourselves on how sophisticated, thoughtful, and open-minded you think you are. But to actually have these qualities, one would need both the courage to challenge his assumptions and the intelligence to recognize irony.
It has become characteristic of gay marriage activists to assert rather than to argue. Thus Josh excuses what any normal person would recognize is plain statement of bigotry:
“Also, if someone’s goal was to declare war on my right to marry, I would probably not hesitate to call them names like a ‘creepy Mormon cabal’ too, even if it is slightly incendiary.”
A war on your right to marry? First of all, can you show me where this right comes from? The reality is that marriage is an institution, created by the government, to foster the most stable environment for the generation and raising of future citizens (children). The people retain the right to tailor institutions they create to the ends they see necessary. You can make an argument to the people to extend the sphere, but calling them bigots and forcing them to accept any willful assertion of how to change their institution by calling it a “right” can and should be seen as an attempt to undermine the institution itself.
Perhaps this is why advocates of gay marriage aren’t alarmed by all the ways gay marriage is then used to sue and attack private institutions that disagree with gay marriage. Anyone who disagrees must be forced to agree. Rather than consider this point, Ross believes it would be better to silence someone like Charles when he points it out. Better to let nobody see it.
So the irony couldn’t be clearer. Ross disagrees with Charles’s argument that gay marriage activists rabidly try to force their beliefs down others’ throats by shutting their critics up and refusing to debate their claims by, well, shutting Charles up and refusing to debate his claims. Who knew college would be so much like Animal Farm?
I suppose the hypocrisy is easier to swallow when you tell yourself pleasant little lies. Here’s how Josh rationalizes what Charles has to say:
“The funny thing here is that Charles isn’t even against gay rights at all, so I have to assume he’s just whining for whining’s sake. He believes the Forum should not be allowed to publish anything he disagrees with because he pays student fees that go toward ASCMC and running the Forum, so he lashes out on whatever he can.”
Yeah, that’s it. Charles doesn’t believe The Forum should publish anything he disagrees with. How Astute.
That The Forum now censors dissent is appalling, but not surprising. Besides Max Davison’s classic humor columns, it has never posted anything of any intelligence. Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Dan
November 11th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Dan,
The forum wasn’t censoring dissent, but rather a comment that did not add anything intelligent to the discussion beyond the NPR quotation Charles misleading placed in a manner that made it seem like his own, quickly adding a second comment to reveal those were not his own words. A link to the article would’ve been okay, a thoughtful addition to the discussion, which is why, I believe, Ross has kept the link.
Instead, Charles had to troll like he always does and present his argument in a negative, discriminatory manner.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:57 am
To Dan (though I think this is all a bit ridiculous):
“Sophisticated, thoughtful, and open-minded you think you are?” Is this level of maturity really necessary? Have we ever even met in person?
And where do you get that I’m a “gay marriage activist?” Or homosexual? Or against Proposition 8? Or even a liberal?
And yes, I have a right to marry a woman, as marriage law exists in California and the United States. I don’t know how you could intelligently suggest otherwise.
Overall, I think this is blown way out of proportion. I read Charles’ comment, and though I didn’t delete it myself, I did comment to Charles that he shouldn’t post things like that in the future (for different reasons), and he told me he wouldn’t in the future. His link to what he posted is still there, so I don’t think there is a problem.
_____________________
Also, The Forum does not “censor dissent” as a rule or practice, but reserves the right to censor anything based on the Editor’s (Ross’s) judgment. Honestly, I’m surprised Ross has not edited or deleted Charles’ comment about “some gays,” which I think is a petty and disgusting personal attack on Ross.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Josh,
There’s still a problem. Speech rights aren’t “a bit ridiculous” but essential to our Republic. Ross censored my initial post because he doesn’t want to actually argue with the argument that some gays don’t like free speech or freedom of religion arguments which was the crux of my post.
To Josh,
If you were willing to leave the comment alone, which you were, why does Ross get to make the ultimate decision? Why for that matter does Ross get to make the decision to run a political piece on what is not a political website? Where’s the balance with those of us who voted for Prop. 8?
I think it’s time we had a serious review period for comments on this website and considered allowing students to run for the position of editor, rather than having someone just randomly selected as such. I think it’s also fair for Dan to assume that you’re a gay marriage activist as you’ve stated as much many times to me over gchat. [Josh's note: I hesitate to write this in Charles' comment, but I don't want there to be any misunderstanding-- this is a bold-faced lie. I asked Charles to prove this and he couldn't. I'm not going to "censor" this, even though I consider it libelous, but I will leave this note here. I normally don't share my position on gay marriage with others, and I certainly did not share it with Charles.] You also make the same kinds of arguments that gay marriage activists do.
To Alex,
I don’t “troll” but I certainly make my arguments. Leaving out the link in the first post was intentional as I wanted people to read the full text rather than the hyperlink. It happened to have worked.
To Dan, Ilan, Scott, and David, thanks for the support!
Anyone else want to notice how Ross totally excused bigotry against Mormons? Of course he did. He probably agrees with it!
November 11th, 2008 at 1:34 am
http://www.claremontconservative.com/2008/11/ross-boomer-forum-editor-is-censor-and.html
That’s my response to Ross et al., if anyone’s interested.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:37 am
If anyone’s interested in seeing proof, I’ll sent you the gchat conversation and you can make up your own mind about whether or not Siegel supports gay marriage. [Josh's note: "you can make up your own mind" is pretty much a cop out and admission that I never told Charles my views on gay marriage. But he's "made up his own mind," so I'll leave it at that.]
Notice how Siegel also censors me and micharacterizes my position as being for gay marriage. It isn’t. Of course I’m not given the opportunity to edit his comments, now am I? [Josh's note: Just thought I'd put another note down here =)]
November 11th, 2008 at 1:41 am
While I did not read Charles’ full comment, it seems to me that the most problematic part of his post was the fact that he referred to being gay as a lifestyle choice, something that could be and was found extremely offensive by other CMC students. Because Ross believed that the Forum was better than just a place to insult, offend and hurt your fellow students, he made the decision to remove these comments and it is part of his job to be able to make that decision. I believe he was right in this decision, partially because of the offensive nature of the content, and partially because I have rarely seen Charles write any comments on the Forum that seem genuinely committed to furthering constructive debate on an article.
Personally, I am disappointed that anyone would write anything anywhere on the Forum without thinking about how it might adversely affect other members of the CMC community. I am especially disappointed that someone would personally attack another student on this site. The article was about how there is an economic rationale for gay marriage and the author explicitly stated he did not want to address the moral or political aspects of the issue. Why then, I wonder, did Charles feel it was necessary to bring them up in an poorly thought out, offensive manner?
Quickly, in response to what Dan said: You are obviously correct that marriage is not a right as determined by the constitution or the bill of rights. However, the constitution does recognize that people should be granted liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., which are all things restricted by not being able to marry the person you are in love with.
In addition, you point out that marriage is an “institution” and that people should be able to restrict the scope of this institution if they so wish without being called bigoted. I can think of a few other institutions, like education, all businesses, government, etc. that are mandated by law to provide equal access to all people. While we don’t have a “right” to any of these things in the constitution, if institutions do not provide access to all people equally, it is called discrimination. Like with these institutions, not providing access to marriage is discrimination. Also, the definition of “bigot” is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” Not allowing a group or person to be a part of an institution like marriage because of your own opinions and intolerance is certainly bigoted.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Shelby,
Perhaps I should be clear, I do believe one chooses to act on one’s impulses therefore gayness is a lifestyle choice. One chooses to be out of the closet or in the closet, as the case may be. One also chooses to be be actively heterosexual or not as the case may be. One makes choices, but one shouldn’t use the power of the state to validate those choices i.e. by suing, etc.
As for whether or not that statement offends you, I frankly don’t care. I have a right to express my opinion on a CMC paid for website under California’s constitution. Perhaps what is needed are actual fair procedures — like say, also taking down very bigoted statements against Mormons.
If you’re offended, you are free to comment. I encourage it.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I’m frankly disgusted by how rude and unchivalrous this “debate” has become. Better to call it by what it really has devolved into: a rank fest of largely one-sided mud-slinging, led, ingloriously, by Charles Johnson. There is a time and a place to disagree about and discuss differing opinions. There is, however, no room for blatant attacks on the personal integrity of Ross. I am offended on his behalf, and utterly shocked that Johnson would have the audacity to stoop even lower than he already has in order to -deliberately- slander a man whose comments and intervention in this matter have only been in consideration of respect to our community. If anyone is to be singled out as behaving in an entirely unprofessional and egotistical manner, it is Johnson.
I once considered suggesting a middle ground of posting a link on this page to Johnson’s blog so that our community might still have immediate access to his POV, even if The Forum decided it was too offensive to endorse even by proxy. Now that “The Claremont Conservative” is graced with the downright libelous post title of “Ross Boomer, the Forum Editor, is a Censor and Intolerant of Free Speech,” I’m hesitant to endorse its exposure. Nevertheless, I do hope that students really will take time to examine both sides of the spectrum, even though they’ve been readily available this whole time to anyone interested in looking.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter: like it or not, Ross does have the ability to suppress inappropriate comments, as does any (newspaper) editor, prior commentators included. Johnson’s inappropriate comment was checked once, and he was publicly advised to not descend to offensive generalizations again, but otherwise not inhibited. It is by the good will of our so-called “censor” that Johnson has been allowed to carry on in such a distasteful manner, perhaps because Ross considers attacks on his person to be less egregious than those upon the entirety of the gay community as well as the 48% of Californian residents who voted against Prop 8.
Johnson claims that he has an undeniable right to state his views. I’ll refer to Ross’s first comment, in which he quoted enough decent evidence to forcibly demand that Johnson resubmit his thoughts in a more appropriate way:
“Your insinuations, however, that this article is part of a ‘gay activist agenda’ which insists ‘on demonizing those of us who don’t okay their lifestyle choices,’ is disappointing, to say the least.” (Boomer, quoting Johnson)
Johnson, in all seriousness, thus lumps together a comedic author with a generality of gay activists whom he accuses of “demonizing” others, the clear implication being that this is an unjust and duplicitous war waged against a moral majority from which the ‘gay activists’ seek some sort of validation or figurative patriarchal nod. The article is an obvious comical and hyperbolized capitalist-minded take on the situation, and doesn’t ever match the vicious ‘demonizing’ of which it is accused.
If not for an alleged “gay activist agenda,” however, Johnson also persists in criticizing both author and editor for the inclusion of the following line, which he refers to as “very bigoted statements against Mormons”:
“Frankly, I’d rather have Steve Jobs… influencing my state than the creepy Mormon cabal that pumped $20 million into the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.” (Brancolini)
It is undeniable that the author has bracketed the word “Mormon” with “creepy” and “cabal,” and thus, might be accused of the same sort of generalizing and slander of which Johnson is undeniably guilty. However, let us return once more to Ross’s initial response to Johnson’s complaint:
“Although I will concede that ‘creepy Mormon cabal’ is not the most politically correct phrase, it was used in an article with a tone that is more satirical than anything else.” (Boomer, quoting Brancolini)
Neither Johnson nor the author attack religious or personal views; both, despite colorful and derogatory vocabulary, stick to the political side of things. The difference, however, truly is in the tone: one playfully satirizing all its diverse subjects, while the other demeans with all sincerity and seriousness.
Nico, I congratulate you for an article that is, on the whole, very amusing and witty. You have some noble predecessors: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970
Ross, I know you to be prudent in your decisions, but I am certain that you would be humble enough to admit a mistake. In short, I trust your decision upon the matter. You have my respect for withstanding such unwarranted slander.
Ilan, I appreciate your straightforward request, particularly its lack of condescension, despite the way you may personally feel about the subject and your own publication.
Charles Johnson, I don’t think it just to call you a ‘gay-hater’ or ‘homophobic,’ but I will admit that your behavior in this matter, though it may have been in some cases justly motivated, was often in exceptionally poor taste.
With all sincerity,
Sara J. Roberson
November 11th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Josh,
You ask,
“And where do you get that I’m a ‘gay marriage activist?’ Or homosexual? Or against Proposition 8? Or even a liberal?”
I never said anything about you being homosexual or liberal. I got the impression that you favor gay marriage from your statement of sympathy:
“Also, if someone’s goal was to declare war on my right to marry, I would probably not hesitate to call them names like a ‘creepy Mormon cabal’ too, even if it is slightly incendiary.”
Then you throw this condescending statement at me:
“And yes, I have a right to marry a woman, as marriage law exists in California and the United States. I don’t know how you could intelligently suggest otherwise.”
Thanks. Way to entirely ignore everything I said to pretend like I was informing you that heterosexuals can marry.
I know you’ve honed the tactic of responding to things people don’t say rather than to what they do say, but sometimes it’s pretty obvious.
Dan
November 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The comments by Charles and his chauvinistic (all male, by the way) friends here (especially O’Toole) stink to me with undertones of homophobia, intolerance, sarcasm, and mean-spiritedness. These students represent a very small minority of CMC students but their voices are amplified when they come out together on the internet.
The best thing to do is ignore all following comments, as they are only meant to provoke and even hurt other students. I suggest everyone simply ignore them from here on out.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Shelby,
First, just to clarify, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But I do believe that Constitution makes the principles of natural rights in the Declaration realizable and can’t be understood separately from the Declaration.
But note that these rights are “natural,” that is, they accord with nature. It’s not just any old relativistic idea of freedom for happiness that we are aiming for. After all, there are some relativistic notions of happiness that would surely conflict with others’ rights.
This natural distinction means that you don’t simply get to define what makes you happy. Happiness is actually in accordance with human nature, and the moral and intellectual virtues that mark its peak or most rational excellence.
This is why the Constitution empowers states to regulate morals and to educate their citizenry. Creating an institution like marriage is an act of regulating morals. In the eyes of the state, marriage is not natural. (Rousseau, a philosopher I’m not fond of, is actually pretty good on this point. There’s no marriage in the state of nature. It’s just bumping and grinding!)
Marriage is not a right that the state is seeking to protect. It is an entirely civil institution that takes the form of a contract. But we create marriage because it does mirror something natural that we want to encourage: the procreation of children, monogamy, and stable family life. All of these things, we can argue, are in accordance with rational, happy human life.
We single out heterosexual marriage because we believe this is the institution that best produces and raises children. Homosexual sex does not produce children. Homosexual sex cannot uniquely create the family the way that heterosexual sex does. So we’ve never seen the need to extend marriage’s sphere to encompass it.
Now, it is true that we let gays adopt children. And it’s also true that we let heterosexuals who can’t have children (or who don’t want to have children) get married. But these are besides the point. Simply because marriage is not exclusively the only way to get children, and simply because people do not necessarily use it for that purpose, does not abolish the reasons we give for creating the institution. Nor does it mandate marriage strictly for those purposes. It would be like saying, “We know we gave you a driver’s license, but since you’ve been riding your bike all the time, we’re going to have to take that away.”
You argue that it’s not just for a the state to make unnecessary distinctions. I agree. To discriminate between groups for no rational reason is antithetical to equality of natural rights.
But this doesn’t mean that we cannot discriminate, period. There just has to be a rational reason. Letting a two-year old drive a car sounds like a bad idea, so we make age distinctions. At the same time, saying you guys are of different color so you need to sit in different parts of the bus is arbitrary. It discriminates for the sake of discrimination. This would not be just.
Marriage falls into the former category, not the latter. We create the institution so we create the rules. No one is denied the right to marriage based on their group, but they are told to marry in a certain way (that is, you have to marry someone of the opposite sex). It’s like allowing people to drive, but saying that you have to drive on the right side of the road.
Thus when you create an institution, you can limit its use to the ends for which you created that institution. If you create marriage for the sake of procreation of children, you can limit marriage its use to those relationships that can procreate. This is a rational distinction, not an arbitrary one. This is why, I don’t believe, gay marriage about protecting the rights of gays.
If your only standard is that people should get married because they are “in love,” then you admit there is no standard. Why not marry several people? Or a cousin? A kid? All you need is love. Are you willing to say that you have a “right” to marry any and everything?
Gay marriage activists get upset when conservatives point this out to them. They think conservatives are changing the subject. But that’s not true. We are actually looking for a decent, natural standard on which to ground the institution. We think that the logic of the gay marriage activists creates rights out of thin air, and could be used to further create rights for any bizarre sexual accommodation people might desire.
Now, rather than belittle your critics and assert your right via courts (which of course denies the people their right to choose the institutions and conditions under which they want to live) gay marriage activists could actually make some decent arguments that gay marriage fosters the public good.
(1) They could say society prospers with monogamous relationships between TWO loving people so we should institutionalize and promote those relationships. It would be better for gay partners. (2) They could say that since we’ve started allowing gays to adopt, it would be unfair to those kids to not grow up in homes with two parents.
I think the first argument is persuasive (I’m not a fan of rampant promiscuity, homosexual or heterosexual), though it would be interesting to learn how many gays actually want to get married. It’s true that many merely want “recognition” or validation of their lifestyle (which of course nobody actually has a right to). The aim has to be to use marriage, not to damn it.
I go back and forth on the second. It rests on the assertion that having two parents of the same sex will not inhibit the child in any way. It has always seemed to me that having a motherly and a fatherly influence is really important. It certainly is most natural. (And just because this doesn’t always happen, or because sometimes mother-father homes are awful, doesn’t mean this is not the ideal family we should promote.)
But maybe my fears are too great. Perhaps mother-mother or father-father parenting is just as healthy. I’m skeptical, and at least for now, I’d say that gay marriage advocates have not made their case.
(And regardless, I would agree that it’s much better for those kids of adopted gay couples that their parents are actually married rather than just be partners. So on this point, I suppose I see a benefit of gay marriage.)
And all of this of course must be weighed against all of the harm it could cause to churches and private organizations that don’t favor gay marriage. Charles has done a good job documenting all of this. Gay marriages would be wise to recognize this complaints and cool their jets.
They become most frightening when they barge into the room demanding some right that frankly doesn’t exist and calling anyone who disagrees a bigot or a homophobe. I recommend talking it out instead. Now, if only Mr. Boomer agreed that talking about these things were a good idea…
Best,
Dan
November 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I’m sure I haven’t found all of the typos, but let’s start with these:
*This is why, I don’t believe, gay marriage IS about protecting the rights of gays.
*Gay MARRIAGE ADVOCATES would be wise to recognize THESE complaints and cool their jets.
Dan
November 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Alice (and everybody else),
What are you trying to say when you point out that Charles’s defenders are all male? What’s wrong with that?
Now, since you you’ve called me intolerant, chauvinistic, homophobic, and mean-spirited without pointing to a single thing I’ve said that merits those slanders, I’d like to challenge you and anyone else to a debate. Trust me, it’s much healthier than labeling, ignoring, and silencing views you don’t agree with.
The CI will be meeting tonight and we should all head to snack around 10:30. Anybody who would like to come talk with us is welcome. I realize in my responses thus far, I haven’t shown yet why Charles’s claims were entirely legitimate political arguments people should consider rather than the “hate” they are being smeared as.
So come find us.
I’m the short guy with dark hair. You’ll probably find me goose-stepping, burning crosses, or slapping women around.
Cheers,
Dan
November 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Alice,
To be honest, I hadn’t read your whole message. Do you honestly think we are just trying to provoke and hurt other students? Incredible.
I’m not surprised that you just want everyone to ignore us. It doesn’t seem like your way to think about and engage arguments.
Dan
November 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
holy shit, this is like an essay contest.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:45 am
hahaha agreed. i’d respond, but i doubt anyone will read my comment, as there are like 10 pages of comments to get past first.
maybe people will go to tool’s meeting to “debate” him. just as likely, maybe o’toole would go alone to a port side meeting to debate them, lol.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I agree with Kyle. First place wins $50. Although, I would like to see more creative elements involved with the essay-writing process, as every essay I have read thus far on both sides have been droll and unimaginative. At this rate, none of you are getting accepted into my college…
November 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Dan,
If the sole end of marriage is procreation, why do we allow sterile people to marry? If marriage was truly a “rational” institution, then it would necessarily be limited to this — and only this — function. You write:
“We single out heterosexual marriage because we believe this is the institution that best produces and raises children. Homosexual sex does not produce children. Homosexual sex cannot uniquely create the family the way that heterosexual sex does. So we’ve never seen the need to extend marriage’s sphere to encompass it.
Now, it is true that we let gays adopt children. And it’s also true that we let heterosexuals who can’t have children (or who don’t want to have children) get married. But these are besides the point. Simply because marriage is not exclusively the only way to get children, and simply because people do not necessarily use it for that purpose, does not abolish the reasons we give for creating the institution. Nor does it mandate marriage strictly for those purposes. It would be like saying, “We know we gave you a driver’s license, but since you’ve been riding your bike all the time, we’re going to have to take that away.””
Your first paragraph would make equal sense if you substituted “homosexual sex” with “heterosexual sterile sex” in all of the above instances, with the added caveat that “heterosexual sex,” as it stands now would be taken to mean “heterosexual sex capable of spawning a child.” It follows, then, that your conclusion would also stand: because sterile heterosexual couples cannot “uniquely create” family in the same ways fertile heterosexual couples can, we should limit the institution to the latter and not the former. If your only argument for marriage is procreation, then it needs to be a narrower institution than it presently is.
Your second paragraph implies a different argument for banning gay marriage, i.e. that at least heterosexual couples have some sort of CAPACITY to procreate, and so on the basis of this general, indiscriminate CAPACITY, we are justified in limiting the institution of marriage just to them.
But, Dan, what is the difference between a sterile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple on this point? Both are incapable of reproducing through natural processes, yet the former is allowed to marry while the latter is not. Your argument then seems to be reduced to the fact that heterosexuals couples, IF THEY WEREN’T STERILE, would have some sort of capacity to marry by virtue of the fact that they are both of different genders. But we could make the same counter-factual claim for homosexual couples, too. They would be capable of reproducing, IF THEY WEREN’T BOTH OF THE SAME GENDER. These counter-factuals are equally absurd — and therefore can’t be the basis for discrimination that you claim is “rational.”
The fact is that the institution of marriage — as it stands now, limited only to members of different sexes — is an irrational creation of tradition, not the narrowly tailored “rational” activity you claim it to be. There are too many inconsistencies between the “rational” theory you elucidate and its present practice. If marriage was truly created for the sole end of reproduction, you’ll have to deny a license to any woman past menopause.
I don’t disagree, however, that the state ought to create policies that further social interests — one of which undeniably being stable families. Yet heterosexual marriage offers no guarantee that it will bring about this end. Putting aside marriage in theory, marriage in practice ends up in divorce half of the time, and many heterosexual marriages do not provide “ideal” circumstances for children. Denying gays the right to marry because they will not provide equally “ideal” circumstances holds gays to a different standard than that for heterosexuals. This, my friend, is the essence of discrimination! There is no reason — a priori, or empirically — that two loving gay parents will differ from two loving, straight parents in their ability to raise a child.
There remains, then, no leg for straights-only marriage to stand on. Your arguments, at the end of day, have been exposed as rank fallacies more suitable to politicians than philosophers. I’m very disappointed.
- Simon
November 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Michael,
I think you put forth a wonderful idea. It seems Dan and/or Charles would be more than willing and excited to debate the full Port Side staff. I encourage all to go to snack and take shots at Dan but why don’t we have an organized debate? I can’t imagine you and I are the only ones that would like to see such an event.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Sara,
Thank you for finally conceding that I’m not a “gay hater” or “homophobic” (What faint praise indeed!)
Ross may have a right to censor my comments — I dispute the right as I help pay for this site and therefore would like more of a say in its comment sections, but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument — but he certainly owes me an explanation for threatening me with restricting my access to a website I helped finance given how rare his censorship has been in the past.
Imagine for a moment if we dared do such a thing in the Claremont Independent or the Claremont Republicans. The outcry would be justifiably enormous.
Sara, I would just point out to you further that your censorship of my blog on this website is against the very spirit of what constitutes the phrase “Forum” and is evidence for the very kind of bigotry against conservatives that so many of us have come to expect whenever we make a serious argument against homosexual marriage. Later, not only was I quoted out of context, first by Boomer, then by you, I wasn’t given the dignity of making my initial argument known. Better to shut me up then. The post I wrote on my own website isn’t libelous at all, but addresses the very real fact that I was censored by Mr. Boomer on a school website. Please point to a single instance of libel or slander on my website or anywhere else I’ve written. You won’t be able to.
If Mr. Boomer would like that post to come down — which is proxies have made clear to me, given that it is apparently the fifth thing down when once searches his name on Google — then he ought to apologize on this Forum and set up a policy whereby comments are unmolested and this website, paid for by all of us, serves the function it was intended for — to be a Forum. Anything this else is a charade.
I take issues of free speech and free expression to be the most sancrosanct rights we have. There is a reason, after all, that the First Amendment is listed first in the Bill of Rights. These rights go to the heart of why we even attend a college in the first place. Without them, the whole exercise is useless. We might as well sit at home, worrying about offending whomsoever we meet.
I don’t much care to be misaligned or maltreated or libeled myself, but if that’s the only thing treatment I receive from the people on this website or even on this campus generally, then I will consider myself lucky. Other conservatives on this campus and other campuses haven’t been so lucky.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Dan O’Toole (aptly named),
Your amateur, pre-law, rhetorical-gymnastics don’t impress me. Simon is right, your argument is unrealistic. It’s also hateful. You are the reason why CMC constantly needs to apologize for its stereotype as a haven for rich, white, racist, homophobes. You give every other hard-working, intelligent, and compassionate student at CMC a bad name, and you depreciate the value of their degrees. Congratulations, you have successfully flexed your articulation muscle. You were probably a stud debater in high school, right? Wow, hot sh*t. I hope you never have to experience the shame and frustration of oppression that you wish on our homosexual brothers and sisters.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I, for one, am incredibly offended by this entire thread and find it to be discriminatory and misleading from both sides. Ross Boomer should exercise his editorial discretion and delete every last post so that neither side has the opportunity to display a point of view. No one should either have the right to post a response or even read anything, as it has the potential to offend.
It’s because freedom of speech is a one way street in this country. If you’re an “agent of progress” and want to further the left, you can say whatever you want whenever you want. But what it seems the CMC Forum and Nancy Pelosi’s America have forgotten is that the other side has a constitutional right to respond.
Because that’s the great thing about going to college. You only get one side of an argument and get to stay in your comfort zone for four years while fostering your pre-existing world view. You get overly ambitious freshmen from both sides of the aisle who openly advertise their politics on day one and make a conscious effort to never consider that maybe the other side might be right.
No matter what you think about him, Charles Johnson has a distinct voice. But Charles doesn’t inspire open conversations or new perspectives anymore. He just gives CMC students an opportunity to flash their liberal guilt and 10th grade Michael Moore cliched logic while attempting to win an online battle that carries as much weight as Dennis Kucinich.
I’m not defending homophobia or racism or bigotry. But it’s about time that we give the intolerant a chance to be so. How else are they supposed to realize how wrong they are?
November 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I don’t know which I find more offensive: the article for promoting the stereotypical gay lifestyle or the reaffirmation of second class citizenry by CMC’s student body.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I’m just copying what Ross wrote earlier, as I think it pretty much sums up why what happened, happened. He’s clear, and not actually “censoring” Charles’ viewpoints, as he apparently left the link to the NPR story that was the actual subject of Charles’ post. People are taking this conversation out of context. Ross is an editor. He edits. Let him do his job. Don’t we have better things to talk about?
“As we explicitly highlight in our disclaimer, the editors of this website have the right to delete or edit posts that appear discriminatory in nature. It was in this editor’s judgment that some of the language Charles used was inappropriate and discriminatory. Accusing another student’s more comical take on a popular political issue as part of a “gay activist agenda” which insists “on demonizing those of us who don’t okay their lifestyle choices” is not appropriate, and so that post was deleted. The rest of the message involved information from an NPR story, which was actually interesting to see (who would’ve thought…NPR!), so I kept the link.
Any personal agenda I have for this website is simply a huge desire to see the Forum continue to grow in scope and content. As a forum for CMC students, we can agree to disagree. But when you cross the line - as I believe Charles did - action will be taken. Thank you for your understanding, and thank you for expressing your concern.
Best Regards,
Ross”
November 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Excuse me for posting this with out reading every pre-law argument posted on this forum, but, as a rationally conservative pitzer student, i don’t understand why prop 8 is a big deal to the majority of you. the right for two men or women to marry does not affect, in any way, your individual well being. all you are doing is attempting to extend your influence into the home of others. why should you have that right?
November 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Jason, that’s interesting that you commented on the ARTICLE ITSELF!!! Although I don’t think there was anything actually that wrong with the article’s depiction of a stereotypical gay lifestyle, considering the tone was pretty tongue and cheek (obviously from the rest of the content on this site, we’re not dealing with a professional and progressive political news blog.)
But most importantly, don’t abuse stereotyping yourself. Charles and his minions make up a minority (albeit a loud minority) at CMC. 85% of CMCers support gay marriage according to a recent survey.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I think rather than arguing about what was said,who said it, what should or should not been done, etc, we should focus on the real issue. The issue is the proposition that was passed. Thats what I think was forgotten in the midst of this heated debate. Neither Mccain nor Obama support gay marriage. Civil unity is another story. I guess my problem with the whole argument is that I believe marriage should be privatized. Did I oppose prop 8, yes. Did I vote in oppostition yes. But honestly, what everyone should be pushing for is for civil union to be widely acknowledged and respected and let marriage be a personal matter. Church and State should not have a decision in this matter. there should not be a legal nor a religious status on the marriage. this is a freedom issue.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I have to agree with Samantha, here; Gay Marriage is an issue because homosexuals feel that without the right to marry, they are denied legal rights and are therefore second-class citizens. With Civil Unions, homosexuals are granted the same legal rights.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Having actually read all these comments, I’ve got to say that naturally there are some things I agree and disagree with. I fall into the category of people who believes that everyone has the right to do whatever makes them happy in their personal life, so long as it brings no harm to anyone (don’t twist my words, you know what I mean). But that’s another story…
Following along with Sarah and Garrett, I think the issue with Prop 8 is really the definition and connotations of the word “marriage.” In the US, you have a civil certificate of marriage, that is what the government needs to recognize you and your partner as a married couple, that’s where you derive all your benefits, etc. Then you have your religious marriages, in which your church (or such body) blesses you in holy matrimony (or such equivalent). Religious bodies can give such certificates and have them recognized by the government. And that’s where I think the major confusion lies. If homosexual couples are allowed to marry, how does this reflect on religious institutions? Will they, by law, be required to bind these couples they do not or can not approve of? Which is a fair enough concern. I think we can all agree that no one likes having the beliefs of another imposed upon them.
In many countries you have civil marriage and religious marriage. They are completely separated. You have a wedding before a judge and another in a church (if you choose to!). Honestly, I wish this distinction was made with more clarity in a country that boasts its separation of church and state. The government can’t tell the religious bodies who to marry and religious bodies can’t tell the government.
I would really love to see “civil marriage” and “religious marriage” as two separate categories. Marriage is then not a strictly religious term (which I acknowledge, it isn’t in quite a few cases).
As such, the social connotations of the term “marriage” is all that is being fought over. Prop 8 doesn’t deny civil unions or benefits, or anything. I try not to trivialize the matter or ignore the tactics of the “Yes” campaign. But I think it goes beyond legal rights and is something more an internal struggle to define an institution that has had little need for definition in the past. I do not believe it is something that should be in a civil constitution. And I, for one, can perfectly understand the desire to call yourself a “married couple,” with all it’s positive connotations.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
AMEN SISTER!
I have long felt that the term ‘marriage’ has religious connotations that don’t apply to a majority of married couples, gay or straight. I think the state should take away all ‘marriages’ and dub them civil-unions, gay or straight. Then, if said couple wants to get married, that’s their choice but will have no governmental benefits from attaining this religious status. If a gay couple wants to get ‘married’ they can take it up with their church or religious institution.
Problem solved, everybody happy.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
To Garrett and Samantha,
Remember what happened the last time our country pulled out the separate, but equal concept?
Creating a separate institution, what you’re calling a civil union, is still not the same as granting the option for marriage to everyone.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Hale wins.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Simon-
I just wanted to thank you for your insightful analysis of O’Toole’s argument on the functional purpose of marriage. I am very grateful to now have practical examples to use (eg sterile heterosexuals and postmenopausal women) when others argue against gay civil marriage by citing “function” and “nature.” It’s people like you that contribute the the intellectual growth (flourishing, if you will) of our community.
Thank you.
-Danielle
November 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Danielle,
While Simon’s arguments are appealing, I think you should at least consider another line of reasoning. Sterile heterosexuals and women who don’t get married until after menopause are a subgroup of a group that can, as a general rule, procreate and fulfill the “function” of marriage. Allowing gay marriages is extending the institution to a group that by definition cannot have children, period (unless they marry someone of the opposite sex).
Just because there are certain exceptions to the general rule of heterosexual marriage does not mean it has the same implications as allowing a group that by definition cannot have children.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
To argue against the Tool’s main points, let’s start with this–
I sincerely hope you aren’t using a religious bias, Dan. I would hope you would be less ignorant than that.
And since I’ll assume you aren’t that ignorant, then let’s look at gay marriage from a civil institution point of view. It can be perfectly understood that some religious people don’t approve. But marriage, at least in the sense of the benefits, etc, that come from it, homosexuals should have that right as any other couple do.
So please don’t spout crap about morals. Especially such a vast majority of heterosexual marriages fail in America today, don’t even start with that garbage.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I’ve managed to stay quiet until recently, but come on. First, if you want to be taken seriously, stop calling Dan “the Tool.” It’s unoriginal, trite, and we expect better from someone as intellectually capable as you obviously must be, since you have no religious bias.
Second, just because the institution is weak today among heterosexuals does not validate the argument for gay marriage. If it’s bad already, why make it worse? I’m not saying that it will necessarily be worse, but as long as that is a possibility, your argument is silly.
Third, and most importantly, everyone votes and makes public policy decisions based on a certain world view — in other words, based on certain morals. Using one’s religious beliefs is no less valid than using your flimsy conception of morality, usually based on what you “feel” is right, with no grounding in reason or nature, and which you probably couldn’t define for me anyway if I asked you.
Fourth, the way you are talking about Dan suggests that you are doing exactly what Charles originally said in his censored post: you demonize people who disagree with you.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Not that I need to be posting on this, but I accidentally censored myself and this link last night amongst the chaos. Say what you will, but I have yet to hear a more heart-felt account about why 75% of what is being spouted above is, to say the least, unfortunate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
November 11th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Stephania, I don’t think the issue is forcing churches to marry gays. I think it’s more things like adoption agencies, Boy Scouts, schools, etc.
Danielle, I’ll need to respond to Simon’s challenge more substantively, but it’s important to realize that my argument really still stands regardless of this trivial technicality he wants to hinge it all on. Ilan’s response provides a good primer.
But most importantly, I’ll need to respond to myself, and my liberal use of Rousseau.
(Also, I just saw Chris Hitchens. He had some refreshing thoughts I’ll share tomorrow.)
November 12th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Charles Johnson, you have the freedom of speech, but not to hate for no reason. As for you other CMC student who have posted defending charles and attacking Mr. Boomer for defending himself, you are the ones who are truly rediculous. Editor or not, he has the right to defend himself when being attacked like that. You whiney little rich kids needs to stop thinking that because your parents pay your tuition that entitles you to be asses to other people.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Christopher MacAloon,
Say what you like about me, but I’m definitely not rich — you’re free to see a copy of my tax returns for the last fiscal year, if you’d like — which is why I take such offense at being censored when I have contributed $300 to ASCMC. I pay my own tuition, incidentally, that which isn’t paid for by aid from this the great college in America. I pay it freely. Please stop being a racist by assuming that because I happen to be a white kid who believes in freedom of speech that I am a rich white kid who is “whiney.”
I am informed by an ASCMC member that what Mr. Boomer did is against the spirit and the purpose of the Forum and that the disclaimer is something that he has no right to even create, let alone enforce unevenly.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Charles, I think you have some insecurity issues. Nowhere in my message did I say anything about you being white. I dont want to get into an argument of insults where nothing real is being said. I simply do not understand why you care what other people do. How are two gay people adversley affecting your life? How is allowing two gay people to marry going to adversly affect your life? I think that in general this stems from a larger issue in our culture where we need to be kinder and more empathetic towards each other. I completely respect your freedom of speech, but do not understand why you would want to use it to put down other people and limit thier rights.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Shall I quote you back to you, Mr. MacAloon? “Editor or not, he has the right to defend himself when being attacked like that. You whiney little rich kids needs to stop thinking that because your parents pay your tuition that entitles you to be asses to other people.” Given that you initially addressed me in the post, I took it to mean that you thought I was “whiney” “little” and “rich.” I am none of the above. (I need to hit the gym, more often, though.) I assume you made that assumption because of the color of my skin as you would have no other way of determining my socio-economic status.
Need I remind you further, that I wouldn’t be “whin[ing]” if Ross didn’t violate the spirit of this website. Unlike you, Mr. MacAloon, I take my rights seriously and don’t write piece about when my friends lost their virginity. http://www.cielearn.org/Journal_2007/Formatted/Student%20Scholarship/Pitzer-ChristopherMacAloon.pdf. Here at Claremont McKenna College we believe in freedom of speech and don’t destroy fountains as your Pitzer cohorts did.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:25 am
CJ, CJ, CJ. Aren’t we all ASCMC members? So informing us that an “ASCMC member” says Mr. Boomer is out of line is also, out of line. And what is wrong with the disclaimer? The editor has the right to delete DISCRIMINATORY and FALSE information. Although it’s unfortunate we cannot all see the original deleted message that started this whole tirade, it seems pretty clear that the phrase “lifestyle choices” to describe homosexual behavior was the reason your comment got deleted. That is false and discriminatory, blatantly. You obviously have no idea how emotionally distressing discovering one’s sexuality can be. To say that it is a choice is beyond demeaning. You need to find a new fight to fight because this is a waste of your time.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Again, where does the “right” to marry come from? I would, in general, agree with your point about being kinder and more empathetic towards each other, but fear that this is a courtesy that was denied me by censoring me on this website, which I happen to pay for.
But if we are going to be making ad hominem attacks on one another, perhaps the fact that you live in a wealthy suburb (Evanston, Illinois) accounts for your distaste of rich people. At Claremont McKenna, (read: not Pitzer), we believe wealth is good. Perhaps it is you who have the “insecurity issues.” As you are no doubt a committed leftist who writes about virginity and anthropology, it must be tough to have been a white male and to live in a wealthy suburb. I sympathize.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:31 am
ASCMC member,
Your point about ASCMC members is well taken, though I should stop before I say more and betray the person who talked to me in confidence. Allow me to just say that if it is true that ASCMC members are all equal, than from where does Mr. Boomer’s supposed right to censor me come from? This was surely not the intention of the Forum.
Acting on your homosexual urges is a “lifestyle choice.” Just as pursuing women is a lifestyle choice. How is it false and discriminatory to observe nature and comment upon it? It is absolutely a choice to act on one’s urges, but that was not the case I was making. I was suggesting that homosexuals use the power of the state via suing once they have gotten homosexual marriage to sue religious and secular institutions into de jure recognizing their union. I criticized that as against common sense and totalitarian and part of a “gay activist agenda,” which point of fact, it is.
I think there’s considerable debate about that. It’s neither FALSE, nor DISCRIMINATORY. It may just happen to be absolutely TRUE and ACCURATE, but then again, we’ll never know until we actually DEBATE the topic rather than CENSOR one another.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:48 am
First of all, you dont know me. Dont pretend because you did a little google search you know anything about me or my life. My life wasnt that tough growing up. I have never been marginalized the way gay, minority, or impoverished people are. All this makes the fact that I have the ability to look beyond my life at the perspectives of others more salient. Like you said, “At Claremont McKenna we believe wealth is good.” This is part of what I mean by you “rich kids,” obsessed with the persuit of money and missing out on the real fruits of life. I am going to bed now but it has been fun, this is the first blogging I have ever done. Good luck with your bigotry.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Christopher,
At least I did you the courtesy of a Google search. Maybe you wouldn’t knock making money so much if you didn’t have as much of it as you probably do.
But if you insist upon being a defender of minorities, perhaps you’d consider being a defender of the greatest minority’s rights, that of the individual. After all, anyone who makes the pretense of being a defender of minorities, can’t ignore the censorship that occurred against me.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:58 am
cj, I think we *get* what you’re saying. stop repeating yourself. What I don’t understand is how you apparently have no concept of respecting the thoughts and feelings of others. Regardless of whether you personally feel homosexuality is some kind of choice, you don’t seem to have a concept that the phrase “lifestyle choice” can be offensive and hurtful. Since when is it okay to create a hostile environment at CMC? You do not have an inherent freedom of speech in every single situation you face.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:09 am
ASCMC member,
Two words: Leonard Law. Under California’s constitution, it guarantees me the right to free speech on even private college campuses. Who says that I’ve created a hostile environment? I reject the charge. I haven’t censored anyone at all and I certainly haven’t threatened anyone, which, you seem to forget Mr. Boomer did do. It’s he, not me, that’s guilty of creating a hostile environment to conservatives.
I don’t care if my words “hurt” or “offend.” I have a right to say anything I’d like on a college campus that would be defended under the First Amendment of the United States. Don’t like it? Repeal the Leonard Law. For those of you who are interested, here’s the relevant law I’ve been mentioning. http://www.splc.org/law_library.asp?id=14
November 12th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Charles Johnson, I’m sorry that you feel the need to so savagely defend yourself (in reference to your comment above), I understand the impulse considering the rather personal attacks that have been made on your character, most without much justification, but in your defensive outrage you forgot to respond to Mr. MacAloon’s question. “How is allowing two gay people to marry going to adversly affect your life?” If this is your (or anyone’s) view because of religious reasons I can respect that but it is obviously not a reason to ban gay marriage. In fact, I have yet to hear a convincing secular argument against gay marriage, although Dan O’Toole’s eloquent little essay was a valiant attempt.
I see marriage as a matter of personal choice which should be entirely outside the reach of the law; the government should ensure equality in whatever benefits are shared by married couples and leave the remaining processes to the individual (obviously along some sort of pre-existing guidelines).
November 12th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Charles
I just had a chance to briefly gloss over this entire comment wall. I did not see your initial post and so have nothing to say about it. I apologize if this post is redundant (I thought I’d spare myself the hour it would take to read through this message thread) but I would like to respond to is one of your comments on this forum that caught my eye:
“Perhaps I should be clear, I do believe one chooses to act on one’s impulses therefore gayness is a lifestyle choice. One chooses to be out of the closet or in the closet, as the case may be.”
Yes, as you said correctly, one may choose to remain in, or come out of, the closet. This is a decision every homosexual must make. This being said, I reject your characterization of homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice.” To suggest that someone is gay because they are “choosing to act on their impulses” reduces homosexuality to my decision to get Heroes instead of In-N-Out because I “feel” like getting a Black-and-Blue Burger instead of Animal-Style Fries.
Imagine for a moment that you, a heterosexual, were to grow up in a predominately homosexual society. Billboards would not show scantily-clad women hawking everything from Coke to beer, but rather half-naked men. Your parents, both men (or women), would expect that you will grow up and marry a man. Every other guy at school would flip if they found out you were straight and the last time you went to church, you heard a sermon about how heterosexuality’s acceptance would hasten the death of religion in the western world.
Sure, your so called “impulse” to hook up with girls might be there, but you could simply ignore it, go to the gay strip club with your homosexual friends, ask a guy Monte Carlo, and, just to keep your parents happy, marry (and have sex with) the man of your dreams. Easy, right? I mean, sure, you might be attracted to girls but hey, I wanted to eat at Heroes but it’s midnight, Heroes is closed, and I’m just going to drive down Foothill to get a burger at In-N-Out. No big deal.
My guess is that you, as a heterosexual (I’m making the assumption based on your comments), probably don’t feel comfortable holding hands with a guy and cringe at the prospect of having sex with one (within the confines of marriage, of course).
To think that someone like me, coming from a conservative family in rural Pennsylvania, would have braved the very real possibilities of social ostracism and expulsion from my home just because I “felt” like making an “alternative lifestyle choice” is misguided, insulting, and somewhat comical…Nearly as comical as the prospect of you happily walking hand-in-hand with a guy on your way to Monte Carlo.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I challenge everyone who has posted on this forum to watch the video that Ross just posted the link for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
Thank you Ross
November 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Well posted, Rachel.
I think Keith says it all on this subject. It’d be interesting to see how Charles argues that one.
Plus, Charles, have you ever looked for evidence NOT supporting your twisted beliefs? Say, that maybe homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle choice? It’s been stated that homosexual’s actually are hardwired differently–so maybe it isn’t as concrete as you’d like to believe, eh?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am
So, CJ, the whole “I don’t care if my words ‘hurt’ or ‘offend’ ‘ comment - while not surprising - was pretty much the icing on the cake for why people shouldn’t even acknowledge you in this debate. Also your use of Leonard Law in matters of potential discrimination and prejudice on this college campus does not apply, as you signed some of your freedom of speech rights away when you signed the contract freshmen year that you would abide by certain CMC guidelines that protect marginalized groups, like the GLBT community. But yeah, I’m done with this debate.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Daniel O’Toole - I don’t think the issue is churches, really, but what people feel/think this means for Churches. Adoption agencies and foster systems are so over-crowded with kids, they’re usually grateful for anyone stable enough to take on kids. Which is why many times, singles adopt. Thinking practically, having a body of people who might want kids and can’t have them, would be a great solution. However I believe only one state this past general election passed a law forbidding gay couples to adopt. There are a few more that already had such a law into effect.
I can see how schools might play it. They were pushed to the front of Prop 8 by the “Yes” group. Though given that public schools can’t/aren’t allowed to teach about marriage, along with sexual education, or most else along those lines without parental permission, I don’t quite see the issue. Even in high school I remember students could voluntarily leave class during our segment on evolution in biology, and were all encouraged to tell their parents that’s what was being taught in class.
I’ve got to admit, I don’t know how Boy Scouts plays into this.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I think what Dan was referring to was the fact that the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, have the right (as noted in a recent Supreme Court case), to uphold certain values that allow them to, say, take away the Eagle Award of a former member (plaintiff in case, I think) who was later found to be gay. Homosexuality is not supported within the Boy Scout organization, as you take an oath to being “morally straight.”
Although from personal experience, I would say that many boy scouts are anything but that…
November 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
This is a target rich environment. Please forgive me if I don’t do everyone’s argument justice as there are only so many hours in the day.
Tim Hamlin,
I’ve made the argument that gay marriage causes a lot of legal battles that otherwise needn’t take place. The compromise position on gay marriage I fleshed out last year on my blog. You can read it here. http://www.claremontconservative.com/2008/05/gay-marriage-massachusettsification-of.html
It isn’t so much an idea that gay marriage will personally affect me, but that it will affect the state and the organizations I happen to be a member of by tying up the courts in what I consider frivolous lawsuits. I am not religious, at least, not in the sense you would think of me as being religious, but I support religious freedom — a time honored practice — above what I see as the intimidation and lawsuits against religious establishments. The link for that is my second comment above. Other examples of this kind of intimidation include the insistence of a Lexington, MA man who wanted to get his kids out of a kindergarten class that taught homosexual marriage was okay. He was arrested. Still another example is the lawsuits filed against adoption agencies that refuse to place children with homosexuals. Instead of fight the lawsuit in MA, they canceled their adoption agency and so all those children couldn’t have any home at all.
ASCMC member,
I actually never signed the statement as it violates the law and ripped it up. Thanks for your consideration, though. Under California’s Leonard law — the case concerned speech codes at Stanford — those types of statements were ruled illegal. Nice try, though!
Karthik,
Though your hypothetical is amusing– have you read Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War, by any chance? — it violates nature for the whole purpose of marriage throughout time has been to produce children. Though infertile couples may fall short of this ideal, it is nonetheless hoped for that their infertility be cured.
Brian,
Even if homosexuality were “wired” in the brain, one still has freedom of action and reason or else you are arguing for genetic determinism and hence a lack of free will. If you want to make that argument, make it, but follow seriously the arguments associated with it. You might find that it is your beliefs, not mine, that are “twisted”.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
An interesting fact–1500 species have homosexual relations, dolphins, swans, apes, etc. Only thing different about us is that we can put on a tie=P.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I have not read Charles’ comment, but I am inclined to give Ross the benefit of the doubt.
I came to CMC for the diversity of political ideology and for debating issues. There are issues like what roles should the Court’s take, should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq, etc. Those are one type of issue. There are also issues like gay marriage, gender equality, race related issues, etc. Those issues have the political side and also the deeply personal side, entangled in social identities. Ross, I am sure, has talked about issues concerning gay rights (or whether or not you consider them rights), and he has done so civilly and openly. He would have to.
Our community has had to grow up into a world where we are a minority and are constantly pressured to explain ourselves. Ross, I am sure, knows the line between a reasonable debate about a sensitive issue and inflammatory speech that creates an unsafe environment. For Ross to be set off by a comment that Charles made signals to me that he had a good reason to do it.
Charles, I don’t know you or your beliefs so I am not going to attack you personally like some have done on this site. I just ask you to consider the fact that there is a huge problem with gay students and the education system because there is a lot of hate directed to them as a minority community. Many gay students skip school and drop out because they don’t feel safe. They have to strategically pick what colleges they apply to so they won’t have to worry about how their fellow students would treat them. There was a large amount of colleges I didn’t apply to because I didn’t think I would be safe. Of all the colleges I applied to CMC had the most ideological diversity. That is why I wanted to come here. Pomona, Vassar, and Brown, they are great schools, but there are all very liberal, and, in my opinion, a hive mind. Because of CMC’s reputations as being more ‘conservative,’ I had to convince my Dad that I would be safe here. Actually I had to spend weeks convincing him. He was afraid CMC would be filled with homophobes that would create unsafe environment, where I would not be able to reach my potential. And more dramatically then that, he fears I might be the next Matthew Shepard (in Missouri that fear seems a little more relevant than out here in CA).
Safety for queer students in an educational setting is important. I assume that Ross made the judgment to remove Charles’ comment because he thought it compromised the safe and open community that CMC strives to create for all its students.
Charles you will likely disagree that your comment would make anyone feel unsafe, but at least recognize the legitimate concern for creating a safe community.
Now to a little Substance:
Charles, in regards to your blog post:
As far as I have heard from him, Pitney does not think the issue of gay marriage is dead. He has said that The Defense of Marriage Act is free game for the Courts. Additionally, Prop 8 exit polls show the same trends that Gallup shows: younger people are more likely to support gay marriage. Over the last twenty years the percentage of people who support gay marriage has increased and so has the number of people who would consider voting for a gay candidate for president. It has actually increased dramatically. The difference in support for gay marriage in California has increased incredibly over just the last 8 years. I don’t have a link to a specific study, since its been months since I read them, but many reports show that even young evangelicals are coming out in larger support for gay marriage. Those kids will grow up to be the crucial voting block in states like Missouri that aren’t exactly considered home to the ‘gay agenda.’
Also people who know gay people are more likely to support gay marriage. The number of gay people, by most surveys, is increasing steadily since the 1950s. Presumably because now its easier for people to be open about their sexuality and less and less of them are hiding it and repressing it. In my opinion opposition to gay marriage is fighting a losing battle. Time will tell.
Charles you also say on your blog, “it must be better to be raised by a gay couple than to drown at the bottom of a Chinese well and any party that makes saving those children from certain death ought not exist.”
Yeah it really must be better. Medical and psychiatric organizations believe that gay couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples at raising children. Most of my friends back home have had rough family lives, with one notable exception, and she has two moms. I think the idea that the best parents are heterosexual and biological is antiquated.
And your concern about activist courts. Who protects the rights of the minority? Loving, Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas . . . are these cases really that bad? If you are to convince me that so called activist courts are bad, then I need to know who is going to protect minority rights.
I am bisexual (which brings up another issue that most people don’t believe in bisexuality, but just for this line of argument please give me the benefit of the doubt since I have felt this way for 7 years and am secure about it) and I have always wanted to get married at some point in my life. I read the same stories as everyone one else when I was little, stories that glorified relationships and marriage. I don’t know if I want to marry a woman or a man. It depends on who I fall in love with. But I have to say it scares the heck outta me that a group of people can get together and decide for me. They don’t understand my feelings, they don’t understand my desires. I will pay taxes and work hard to support myself and my government, and in return I will be told: “you can marry a woman, but don’t even think about wanting to marry a man.”
November 12th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The forum needs a better and more explicit moderation policy. Sure, delete the advertising bots that post here, but deleting student’s posts is bad policy. Lets look at the existing policy:
For the record, this website is designed as an online forum and news blog that serves to provide an official student outlet for sharing information and ideas relevant to the CMC community.
As such, this is a FORUM for ideas, and its content does not reflect the ideas or opinions of ASCMC, nor the managing editors of this website. Although we reserve the right to delete or edit posts and comments that appear overtly false or malicious and discriminatory in nature, we will otherwise let content stay put. Those students who post or comment on the site are liable and responsible for their own words, and any disagreements with their ideas should be directed towards the writers, not ASCMC or the website as a whole. Thank you for your understanding. (http://thecmcforum.com/2008/10/17/uncategorized/a-quick-disclaimer-on-our-content/)
I really like this policy, on the whole. The bone I have to pick is this line “we reserve the right to delete or edit posts and comments that appear overtly false or malicious and discriminatory in nature.” Why do you reserve this right if students who post on this site are “liable and responsible for their own words.” Let their posts speak for themselves and reflect on them in kind. By policing content in this way you essentially draw the objective nature of your editing into question, which then makes it hard to believe that the content /doesn’t/ represent your opinions. More over, this censorship runs counter to the purpose of the site as “an official student outlet for sharing information and ideas relevant to the CMC community” when you explicitly start preventing students from sharing information and ideas, no matter how vile.
I even think the compromise of “disemvowelling”, the practice of removing all vowels from a post to deprecate but does not delete an offensive remark, would better adhere to your purposes. More on that: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/27/boing-boings-moderat.html. It can be impossible in a board like this to not have a malicious troll post with the intent to derail a thread, and it’s difficult to ignore such remarks. Disemvowelling offers a solution: retaining the essential message, while making it harder to have it derail the thread. Everybody wins.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Alerted to this debate by some students at Pitzer, where I teach, I came for a look. I am amazed that a debate with 74 comments as I write this comment has proceeded from a deleted post which has not been restored despite the fact that numerous people, including the “editor,” have QUOTED from it. The “Chief Development Officer” of the site has even interpolated several commentaries INTO Charles Johnson’s subsequent replies. There are some good points above, and some bad ones, but how can this debate serve any purpose whatsoever if the original response to a very provocative (in a good way) article is censored by a site purporting to provide “news” and “exchange of ideas” and serve as a “forum”? Unless Mr. Johnson advocated violence against gay people, which I gather he did not, IMHO his post should be simply restored. Most of this site seems like a useful public forum; the petulant and heavy-handed management of this thread is anomalous and antithetical to the site’s mission.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
1- the post cannot be restored. “deleted” means it’s gone.
2- ross decided to delete it for the reasons he articulated. if you didn’t read the original comment, i don’t see how you can argue that he shouldn’t have deleted it. the fact is, nobody remembers exactly what was in it.
3- i understand you are a professor from pitzer and are not familiar with charles johnson’s antics and poor reputation at cmc. even some professors and deans here think he is out of line.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Adding on to “to professor norvell” (note: I’m not the same person)…
1- the original post apparently dealt with the npr link which has yet to remain posted.
2- chucky already has a huge forum, he really doesn’t need this.
3- chucky is considered out of line often by cmc faculty and staff, look only to the fact that he’s basically screened at the ath because of his antics and so can’t ask questions. i personally don’t care that he feels his free speech is being abridged, just look at the overall content of the posts here, he probably has half the posts on here - most of the offensive variety.
4- forgive me, but I’m not sure that I buy your “net-cred”, sorry. i just don’t see a pitzer prof coming in to defend an arch-conservative cmc student without knowing the contents of his post.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
It’s true, I’m not familiar with him, although from what I can glean from his blog, I would disagree with pretty much everything he says and can imagine his crossing “the line” in various ways. He seems to have offended many many people and to enjoy doing so. Over here at Pitzer, we just applauded a man (Christopher Hitchens) who boasts of the same. Students seem to be able to respond to Charles Johnsons’ posts more than adequately. The 5Cs need good forums for debate, but editorial policies like this don’t foster it, except in the perverse and non-productive way of generating lots of outrage about a statement that no longer exists and no one remembers accurately. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m sure you’re right that the post can’t be “restored” technically, but surely someone, hopefully the Editor, saved a copy and might consider reposting it.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Figures. Professor Norvell tries to make a serious contribution to the discussion, and the first subsequent poster’s three comments include one non sequitur and one ad hominem attack, while the following poster manages to include two non sequiturs and two ad hominem attacks.
Maybe someone should refresh my memory — I thought everyone was mad at Charles for being offensive and not contributing to a legitimate debate.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“ross decided to delete it for the reasons he articulated. if you didn’t read the original comment, i don’t see how you can argue that he shouldn’t have deleted it. the fact is, nobody remembers exactly what was in it.”
You can obviously argue that he shouldn’t have deleted it. Ross listed his reasons for deleting the post. If you disagree with those reasons, you can have a discussion about when it is appropriate to delete or censor posts. Charles’ post is gone, but providing guidance for what the editor should do with next post they find objectionable seems productive.
“chucky already has a huge forum, he really doesn’t need this.”
Agree with him or not, every member of the Claremont community should be allowed to engage in an appropriate discussions of campus affairs. The standard that “discrimination” in not an appropriate form of discourse is too capricious. It opens the door to editorial censorship, which doesn’t keep with the purpose of the site.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Any comparison between Christopher Hitchens and Charles Johnson shouldn’t go much farther than their capacity to offend people.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:11 am
First and foremost, I should make it known that I feel quite sorry that some gay students feel intimidated. One of my cousins is gay as is my uncle and I think it’s wrong to gay bash, just as I think it’s wrong to bash religious people or any people. I have never and would never advocate violence or intimidation against any people. Period. That I am not given the benefit of the doubt and censored would seem deeply offensive to me had I not developed thick skin. If you believe that I do that you happen to be right on these issues and others, you can do no other than argue them patiently and forcefully and let the chips falls where they may.
To Professor John Norvel 2,
I have not had my questions screened by the Ath, though if this is the case, I’m worried about the so-called intellectual diversity that Chertoff applauded. Incidentally, I thought it in poor form of Mr. Luke Johnson to pick the questioners by what appeared to be racial means. And it seems unwise to pick Ath staff before those who have signed up, seems a bit silly, but to say I have been censored by the ath is false, insofar as I can tell, but one should expect falsehoods on the comment section of this website. More to the point, I’m not an “arch conservative” but a libertarian conservative. I don’t believe the state should be in the marriage business generally, but I understand why it is. Of course you’d never know that by your use of “arch conservative.” (For the record, I’ve never met anyone who identified as such. It’s a slur liberals use to marginalize someone in a debate rather than engage them, which seems all too common on this website.)
Oh, and by the way, it’s CJ, Chuckwalla, Chas, Carlos, Charles, Chip, Charlie, Chucko, or Chuck, not “chucky.”
Still, it bothers me immensely that there are those who would censor me at this college. I crossed no line at all and consider it disgusting that Ross cites from my post and quotes me out of context without my words being able to speak for themselves. He then threatened me for speaking my mind. I think he probably ought to step down as ASCMC editor as he’s apparently incapable of respecting the charter ASCMC gave him when it entrusted him with the responsibility of overseeing a site that was intended to be a FORUM. I call for his removal next semester, if not sooner. He has violated his oath of as an ASCMC officer and there ought to be consequences for that.
I would agree and add to the words of Professor Norvell and Ilan. I have every right to say what I want on this website and appreciate all of those who have come to me both privately and publicly and opposed my censoring.
I am deeply touched that a professor would intercede on my behalf. That he disagrees with me on a lot of issues is beside the point, but that we can find common ground in respecting one another’s argument and those arguments implicit guarantee to be uncensored gives me great hope.
Oy vey is right about the comparisons with me and Christopher Hitchens, though I should confess that I’ve read nearly everyone of his books and agree with his positions on nearly everything, esp. Mother Theresa and Gandhi.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Also, by the way, there are few professors or even deans I know of who “think I’m out of line,” but even if there were would that change my right to speak on this website, paid for by my tuition dollars? I may already have a forum, the Claremont Conservative, but that doesn’t mean that I should be restricted from this one anymore than the person who owns own book should be precluded from reading any other.
On the contrary to what was posted above, several CMC profs and one dean has come to me saying that what happened to me is deplorable and against the spirit of CMC generally.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:53 am
One point that renders many of the above arguments against gay marriage invalid: marriage was never created as an institution to protect the family and raise children. Marriage was originally a form of ownership, a way for a man to assert his power over a woman as his property. I am of course referring to the institution of marriage as it originated in England, but this is the very same marriage that our forefathers brought with them across the Atlantic. Thus, the whole idea of marriage is antiquated.
I agree with those who say that civil unions should be the binding contract for homo- and heterosexual couples alike, and that “marriage” should be reserved for religious unions. But as long as it is the government handing out marriage certificates, all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to get married. Marriage is clearly not a religious institution, and the government’s practices are clearly violating the separation of church and state.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:43 am
“Incidentally, I thought it in poor form of Mr. Luke Johnson to pick the questioners by what appeared to be racial means.”
That baseless, non sequitur attack makes it so much harder to defend you, but I will, nonetheless, defend to the death your right to say it.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
1. To everyone on this thread: Please stop calling us “the gays.” I am a gay person or a queer person. I hope all you straights can understand that.
2. Personally, and I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t think that Ross should have deleted the comment. I think his heart was in the right by trying to defend queer people at CMC, but I think it is obvious that we can defend ourselves. I think that comments here should be left alone unless they can be defined by the 5Cs to be a ‘bias incident’ in which case I think the perpetrator should be dealt with by the deans in the normal fashion.
3. Charles, you ARE being offensive and you ARE creating a hostile environment at CMC for queer people. You are spreading lies about us by saying our sexual orientation(s) are a lifestyle choice. It doesn’t matter if you have a gay cousin or a gay uncle, that doesn’t excuse you. Are you close to these relatives? Maybe it would do you good to have a nice long conversation with them about what is and what is not appropriate to say about gay people.
4. Finally, Charles, whether you think you are a bigot or not I think that you easily fit within the definition. If you don’t want to be a bigot then maybe some soul searching is in order. I don’t expect you to relent on this thread, or to even repent anytime while you are at CMC as that would be a blow to your pride, but maybe down the line you will come to recognize how many people you have hurt with your comments and opinions, and maybe even feel bad about it.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Charles, stop whining about censorship — you look like a child. Newspapers/ news blogs are not obligated to act as a forum for bigoted speech and intolerance. As a journalism major, I can say with absolute certainty that comments sections are not soapboxes from which people get to spout intolerant rhetoric. They are designed to further the discussion, and the editor is the ultimate arbitrator of what does and does not fall into these categories. The fact that you’ve been using this section to bicker with Ross about a moot point does not instill me with much faith that your original comment was particularly relevant.
Amen to what “One not so minor detail” said. I also think it’s funny that people worry gay marriage could lead to polygamy. It’s when marriages are built on wealth, and hence pro-creation, that polygamy (mostly polygyny, or one man with many wives) exists. Do some ethnographic research on hunter-gatherer groups such as the Dobe and Yanomamo, and this trend clearly emerges. Saying two men can’t reproduce and hence shouldn’t get married is completely counter-intuitive from that perspective. Plus, the world is so over-populated as it is. It makes absolutely no sense to define social and political institutions based solely on the ability to bring more babies into a world that won’t be able to physically sustain them soon.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
[...] as how our gay marriage article has gotten so much attention, I thought students might be interested in some more info on sexual [...]
November 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Voltaire, You’ll forgive me for suggesting that the non-sequitur wasn’t one at all. In the past, Pres. Gann and others selected racial minorities to give questions in front of big name speakers. It isn’t unprecedented and might I say that it is a tad bit odd that one of the Ath questioners found himself in the back of the room before even the second question was asked? More to the point, I thank you for your misquotation of Voltaire. In fact, the quotation above didn’t come from him at all. Voltaire was actually quoted as saying in a 1770 letter to Abbot le Roche, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” If only the Forum followed in his foot steps….
One not so minor detail, I fail to see where it follows from the premise that marriage is antiquated. Is it say, antiquated like paying taxes, which probably predated the existence of marriage? If so, I suggest we abolish those as well. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be necessarily opposed to getting the state out of the marriage business altogether, but think that it would have deliciously damaging results on the tax code and various other bits of state government and so it is unlikely if ever to happen.
To a Queer CMCer,
First and foremost, thank you for defending my right to have the comment up.
1. I don’t understand then why you are later given the right to speak for “the gays” by yourself. You write that we can “defend ourselves.” Who is attacking you? Surely no one has suggested that any violence ever be done to homosexuals, just as no one would ever suggest that violence by done to another CMCer. I take the view that individual rights matter and as such, no person can really speak for others unless he’s been given their consent. Have you gotten it?
2. To your point about bias-related incidents, the bar has been set considerably lower than I would have liked. Witness the tortilla incident. If you can simply get the “5Cs” to declare something a bias related incident it sort of misses the point of say, due process and the Leonard law. Witness the work FIRE has done on that score.
3. I am close with both of those relatives, but that misses the point. I’m not “creating a HOSTILE” environment for anyone. I’m simply making my views known. I don’t know whether or not homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice,” though I suspect that it probably is at least on some level just as I suspect that when one engages in heterosexual behavior that is a lifestyle choice.
4. Don’t count on it. I’m not a bigot, though I confess that if making one’s views known on a central issue currently debated in the country makes me one, then I welcome the accusation. We used to call them “citizens.”
Nico’s sister,
Actually, this isn’t a typical newspaper as it is paid for by all of our tuition dollars. It would be one thing if I could get back the 300 dollars or a portion of it not to contribute on the Forum, but I apparently cannot. I would remind you though, having worked in journalism for the ill-fated New York Sun that the comment secti