Anti-gay editorial unsettling

An Anonymous Patron sends" a letter to the editor of the Vance County (SC) Daily Dispatch taking issue with the paper's 'unsettling' response to the removal of the book King and King from an elementary school library, because it featured two men in a relationship."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re:Oh, that old chestnut?

Also irrelevant to the gender discrimination question.
You gonna contradict anything I said or just dig up sorry straw men?

Re:It *is* a civil rights issue.

Statistically, children from two parent households are most likely to be sexually abused.

I've seen data that says otherwise. Take a look at this: Robin Fretwell Wilson, "Children at Risk: The Sexual Exploitation of Female Children After Divorce," 86 Cornell Law Review 251 (2001).

Here is an excerpt: Similarly, a review of forty-two publications  observed that "the majority of children who were sexually abused ... appeared to have come from single[-parent] families. I tend to believe this more than your statement. I should say that this article focuses mainly on girls; however, the article does discuss both girls and boys. I'd also suspect that girls are the biggest victims of sex abuse.

I would agree with your statement about pedophile being mainly men, but I'm not sure what that has to do with single-parent households and two-parent households.

Re:It *is* a civil rights issue.


In the post above I asked if people had a source for the points they were making and I get marked as "offtopic". What kind of crap is that? You can mark this "offtopic" also.

Re:Reality Check

Really? A book showing the existance of gays is equal to promoting drinking and drug use? Wow, that's some interesting logic.Also you apparently don't live in my neighborhood where gays are not the pariahs they apparently are in yours. People in my neighborhood treat gays like people... just people, not good people not bad people, just people, who do exist, so why can't there be a book about them?It goes back to the same old thing, if you don't like it, don't check it out. Tell your kids they can't check it out. Don't stop my child though, they aren't yours to monitor.

Re:Aren't Gays Human?

I think the question no one looked at is 'arent' gays human?' libraries try to have material representing a variety of views, gays pay taxes and live in communities, why must they be invisible? Why do some insist that they have the right, because of their beliefs, to deny some a voice, and say, to be seen and acknowledged, no one is asking for everyone to approve, just not ignore.that said, I can only see an argument for the removal of this book from a school library, because of in loco paretis, but I still think it's just an argument, not a given, depends on the community. Public library, no argument.

Re:Aren't Gays Human?

I believe the people who want the book removed are the ones who politicized this issue. It is a children's book chosen by the librarian to have in her/his children's section, none of us know that community or collection as well as that librarian but everyone here has jumped in with their own idea of what is or is not appropriate for that library.
  The person who wants the book removed is the one with the obvious agenda. The librarian isn't reading it aloud to kids or requiring everyone read it, it is just one more element of what I assume is a collection of different books. The librarian may or may not have gone out looking to find a book depicting this issue, may or may not have had a request or seen a need for some discussion or the potential for interest in this book. We just don't know why she chose it, we only know that someone objected and everyone has an opinion about it.

Re:Public Schools

But it is enough of the theme to get a subject heading. So homosexuality is not some mere side point of the book.

Precedent Friend

Your definition of marriage is exactly what it is, your definition. You neglected the bit about "opposite sex". Love-based is certainly desirable, but has nothing to do with the defintion as well. (See American Heritage, Merriam-Webster et al.)

I would suggest that your subtle tweaking of the above definition is disingenuous, not my introduction of polygamy.

Here's the rub. Any change to the institution of marriage creates precedent. One-on-one, same-sex today, becomes one-on-two, three, polygamy, and any other relationship du jour.

We are dealing with law. Law evolves from precedent. Most Americans don't want any precedent set that modifies marriage.

Re:Precedent Friend

In fairness, my inclusion of "love-based" was unnecessary (I do have a tendency to get florid); it is as irrelevent as anything you have said.

That doesn't make your slippery slope argument any less a logical fallacy.

The fact remains that monogamous marriage is a legal status that exists in this country and that discriminates along gender lines. There is plenty of legal precedent about gender discrimination.

Re:Precedent Friend

>>The fact remains that monogamous marriage is a legal status that exists in this country and that discriminates along gender lines.

I disagree. Gays folks are free to marry. You have just conceded that "love-based" was unnecessary.

There is no violation of equal protection here Willpie.

Re:Precedent Friend

Semantics. My concession that "love-based" is an awkward, unnecessary descriptor of a legal status in no way invalidates the voluntary nature of marriage. If your capacity to choose your own spouse is impeded by your gender, then equal protection is indeed violated.

As a separate question (a curiousity, really; I mean, let's face it, neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so we might as well call this wank-fest what it is), what's it to you? Really, what do you care who anyone else is allowed to marry?

Re:Precedent Friend

>>If your capacity to choose your own spouse is impeded by your gender, then equal protection is indeed violated.

Equal protection says no such thing. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide equality among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. Gays folks are free to marry.

>>Really, what do you care who anyone else is allowed to marry?

For the same reason I, and possibly you, don't believe in polygamy.

Re:Precedent Friend

This is getting silly. The extension of marital partnership rights to some couples who want them, but not to others for the sole reason of their genders is not equal application of the laws. You, too, are free to marry someone you don't want to marry, but you're not legally compelled to do so in order to have the legal rights and privileges of marriage.

For the same reason I, and possibly you, don't believe in polygamy.

. . . which isn't an answer at all.

Re:Precedent Friend

>>This is getting silly.


Your argument is with the 14th amendment, not me.

Re:It *is* a civil rights issue.

Comments tend to be marked negatively when the points made are irrefutable. It's the oldest ploy in the book; if you can't refute it, discredit it.

Re:Precedent Friend

Any change to the institution of marriage creates precedent. One-on-one, same-sex today, becomes one-on-two, three, polygamy, and any other relationship du jour.

This is a slippery slope argument. Just because A, it does not necessarily follow that B. While the slippery slope is a real force in the physical world, slippery slope arguments tend to be erroneous.

I'm going to assume that your relationship du jour comment is an oblique allusion to allowing zoophiliac relationships; an assumption I make because I have seen that argument presented. Fine. Lets assume that you, as Mark Matthews did, want to marry your horse. A legally binding union before secular law requires both partners to sign numerous documents. How is your horse going to sign the marriage certificate?


>>This is a slippery slope argument. Just because A, it does not necessarily follow that B.

Yes. Willpie has already apprised me of the "slippery slope". However I am speaking about law. I'll leave the cut and paste philosophy for the two of you.

Law is based on precedent. At least in the US. Any change to the legal concept of marriage, the union of a man and woman, would most certainly invite other "du jour" relationships.

Why do you suppose pro-choice activists, as they prefer to call themselves, are so adamantly opposed to legislation that would prohibit the killing of a baby in the last trimester?
This procedure would not outlaw abortion. Because they, the pro-choicers, fear this precedent will ultimately lead to a ban an abortion completely. Perhaps you and Willpie could forward the NOW folks your "slippery slope" explanation and see if this sets their minds to rest?

No different with the gun crowd with gun registration, locks, background checks, eyeball scanning, etc.. It is about precedent Fang. To hell with the slippery slope. You are dealing with lawyers, not philosophers. . Strike down marriage as we know it and we will be dealing with polygamists.

Frankly I'm surprised by the tack you take in this argument. Fine if you believe gay folks should marry for ethical, moral reasons. Trying to apply this "slippery slope" business is an awkward defense at best when discussing the role of judicial precedent in English Common Law, of which our American system is based. I expected better here Fang.

Re:Precedent Friend

This is a slippery slope argument. Just because A, it does not necessarily follow that B. While the slippery slope is a real force in the physical world, slippery slope arguments tend to be erroneous.

Yeah, but the Lawrence decision (last year's US Supreme Court decision dealing with sodomy) does open the door to this type of interpretation. The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court did cite Lawrence in its Goodrich decision (the gay marriage opinion). So, I wouldn't just pooh-pooh the slippery slop argument.

Here is the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court in Goodrich citing the US Supreme Court from the Lawrence case:
  There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner.

This is pretty broad language and it isn't just limited to same-sex. Now, this doesn't end it because their still has to be some analysis regarding the state's interest in regulating marriage. But that is the whole point of the Goodrich case.

I think some smart lawyers are going to make these arguments regarding bigamy, polygamy and incest criminal laws and they are probably go to be successful.

The horse situation is probably the worst case scenario and I think your analysis is correct; however, I think the bigamy, poligamy and especially consenting adult siblings (incest) is something that will legitimately pop up.


Well, your reply is pretty much what I expected from you so I'm not at all disappointed. You started of by quoting me out of context for one thing. Remember when you posted a comment sniveling about how I'd done that to you? Well, you did do that here because you deleted significant, qualifying information from what I had written to twist my words into something misrepresentative. The portion of your words that I quoted in my journal entry expressed a complete idea that could be separated from the second sentence in the paragraph without altering the context of the extracted words.

Yes, I know the gay-marriage ruling establishes precedent, I had that in mind in when I wrote what I wrote. Now, compare Tinker v: Des Moines with Hazelwood and ask yourself why the Supreme Court did not throw out Hazelwood on the basis of Tinker.

Anti-gay editorial unsettling

I agree entirely with the author of "Anti-Gay Editorial Unsettling" when he writes,
"When a school pulls a book from its shelves simply because its main characters are homosexual, the school sends a message to children that homosexuality is bad. Granted, many of us are perfectly content for the schools to send that message. But wouldn't a message of tolerance and acceptance of people's differences be more productive and more in line with the ideals of American public education?

When we tell small children that homosexuality is wrong, we do them and our society a disservice. Reading "King and King" isn't going to make little straight youth become gay any more than hiding it from them is going to make gays straight. But reading it might make straight kids more accepting of their neighbors who happen to be gay. And don't we want our kids to be open-minded, to be able to accept others as they are even if they're different?"

Unfortunatley we have a government that doesn't support this view. I received the following e-mail "Letter to Bush", which is obviously satire, but it's scary that some might not recognize it as such...

"Dear President Bush:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them...
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus >21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness. (Lev.15:19-24) The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality. We don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. But may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to >curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging."

Scary, huh?

Re:Straight Lifestyle Re:Anti-Gay Editorial

I don't see how a gay couple living together is the antithesis of a straight couple. Their relationship has absolutely nothing to do with someone else's relationship. Gay couples getting married does not, in any way, inhibit a straight couple from getting married and having children. How could it? The decision to get married or to have children is made at an individual level, not at a societal level. I had children because I wanted them, not because I thought it would be good for society. Conversely, knowing gay couples did not make me second guess or delay that decision.


Syndicate content