Here’s a not-so-subtle reference to “Dr. Laura” by West Wing. I’m posting as my personal protest to the passing of Prop 8 in California.
I suspect that all of those California Bible-thumpers who successfully voted in favor of bigotry are resting content tonight. And no, you don’t have to be consciously and intentionally bigoted to be bigoted.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI[/youtube]
Here’s more on Prop 8 from Wikipedia:
Religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California’s largest, also endorsed the measure. . . . About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.
If only the Roman Catholic Church would have spent 1% as much effort on rooting out their own rapist priests as they did trying to prevent gays from having their long-term committed relationships recognized by the state.
The mayor of Los Angeles believes that gay marriage is clearly a civil rights issue. Here's the video.
From Badtux the Snarky Penguin
No one here has addressed the bigotry and hatred of vocal ex-gays by the gay community? When does tolerance get put aside never to be seen again? When advocacy begin!
I can advocate for civil rights for all people, even criminals and prisoners of war. That does not mean I have to advocate for their behavior that got them where they are today. This is why there are constant studies to try and find the "gay gene." If that could be found there would no doubt be the need to consider the issue of non-volitional sexual orientation. After all, if its a genetic fact that makes a person gay they require special genetic fact exceptions.
Jesus refered to a term known as a Eunuch (someone incapable of having their own reproductive children) in scripture and stated that some of these people were that way from birth. I still believe what they choose to do with their sexual behavior was still their volitional choice and not a genetic determined response.
Race is not a behavior that gets a person where they are in life.
Choices in how an individual interacts with their own sexuality and with others are factors in determining where they are in life.
I agree that more than homosexuality should be pointed out as wrong behaviors conserning the population as a whole. Divorce use to be much less prevalent.
I already stated that fornication, adultry, and other imprudent uses of sexuality are all equally wrong but beccause they are soft peddled, all are becoming equally prominent in society.
Hank says:
"If a group like the LDS whose scripture says “stay out of politics” gets directly involved in politics, they’ve gone against their own doctrines for purely Earthly political reasons. It seems Holy Mormon Doctrine did not provide sufficient guidance in this case and the humans involved followed their own consciences (such as they were)."
My statement is that Hank, and others as well, will use an interpretation of a passage and think it means what they want it to mean.
I don't believe that the statement you referred to says that those of the LDS faith are required to check their values at the door of "secular" voting booth.
The statement you refer to says the exact same thing Jefferson and others stated when they tried to state that they didn't want to have such a link between the church and state that the lines of demarcation could not be seen.
Jefferson, as many original signers of the Bill of Rights had no false believe that a utopia on earth could exist where religion and values were some how kept out of the public arena. They were good clear thinkers who recognized that all people have a "religion" or a set of values that they eat, drink, breath and live by. It was not the role of government to either establish or defend those values, but to allow the people to choose between values and beliefs.
They believed in the free marketplace of both capital as well as ideas. It was never their intention to believe that a society could create a secular society that could eliminate religion from public courtrooms or voting booths.
It was certianly not their intention of providing a cloak of disguise for naturalists to claim that science is irreligious and therefore permissible so that anyother religion along with their so called values could be actively dis-established. Atheism that is cloacked and called humanism is a religion – believe it or be a blind follower of a very basic religion that has claimed a following ever since people have lived.
Why not go so far as to say the the LDS tells their people to stay out of the voting booth?
Why not go so far as to say that Jefferson told American conservative christians to stay out of politics?
Karl: Whenever you fail to cite to an easily available sources to back up your assertions, I become suspicious. Once again, rightfully so. Though he was a deist, Jefferson merely tolerated organized religion–he didn't promote it or consider it a component of any "utopia." Consider these quotes of Thomas Jefferson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
From the same article, consider these quotes:
In his 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world…"
Karl writes:—"I agree that more than homosexuality should be pointed out as wrong behaviors conserning the population as a whole. Divorce use to be much less prevalent."
One must ask why, though. Because people were more committed or because the options for women were fewer? Up until early in the 20th century, divorce meant the woman left, with the clothes on her back, and nothing else. It got better, but until such a time when women had real career options—you know, the ability, in large numbers, to make a decent living?—divorce was problematic except for the fairly to very well off.
Position statement here: I believe divorce should always be easy. I believe marriage should be difficult to do. We let people blithely make commitments they in many cases are incapable of sustaining. I'm sure this always happened to some degree, but in the Old Days you just had to live with your mistake.
However, along with that position, I believe we need to have a much more reliable sex education policy in this country and freer availability of contraception. Children make everything more complicated. There are many people with children who have no business being parents. We are just as reluctant to address that as we've ever been,
—"I already stated that fornication, adultry, and other imprudent uses of sexuality are all equally wrong but beccause they are soft peddled, all are becoming equally prominent in society."
Imprudent uses of sexuality…that can cover a broad range. But I take your meaning. Basically, you believe sex should only be performed within a marriage, between a man and a woman, and preferably they should both be virgins when they wed and never stray from each other.
Another position statement (I'm saying this make it clear that this is what I believe, so it is my opinion about my own preferences.): If you read my DI post on Sex you already know this, but I'll make it clear.
Sex—fully consensual sex—is the best thing humans can give each other above and beyond material safety and security. To use a rough analogy, why would you limit it to one item on the menu in only one restaurant? I think that entire monogamy thing is fine if it is a free choice, which means it is one among many. If people prefer monagamy, great. Let them be monogamous. If, on the other hand, that is not how they wish to live their lives, who do you think you are to condemn them for it?
The way this whole ethic has been used historically is as a control issue. The 20th Century saw one study after another shoot the fabric of it to pieces. Some people are better off in monogamous relationships. Others, not so much. But I'd say for most of us it would do no harm to experiment before choosing a permanent lifestyle. In fact, it might be a good thing for many people to bring a little experience to the marriage bed.
That's an opinion, of course. But in this I am adamant—you have no right to judge in this matter. You may think the Bible accords you that right, but it doesn't. In this instance, I think the Bible is a couple thousand pages of hypocrisy, conflicting opinion, and misogyny. The patriarchs and their male minions got to screw any and as many women as they wanted, but the women got stoned for it. We need to stop seeing this as some kind of divine lesson and see it for what it is—patriarchal privilege inserted in a religious text by the Good Ol' Boys Network of the Levant.
Erich says:
"Though he was a deist, Jefferson merely tolerated organized religion “he didn't promote it or consider it a component of any "utopia." Consider these quotes of Thomas Jefferson:"
I never said Jefferson believed in pushing his views on religion in the constitution, bill of rights or even in his writings. He loathed everything that was wrong with religion, but he was not so ignorant to thnk that people operated in a vacuum of faith and belief.
He obviously believed he was wise enough the pick and choose parts of the Bible he trusted more. He was a Deist which meant something to him at the time.
He was able to find agreement with other Deists at the time. I guess if he was around today He would need to find agreement with the humanist some of whom claim to be atheists.
"I don’t believe that the statement you referred to says that those of the LDS faith are required to check their values at the door of “secular” voting booth."
It's that very phrase, and the breaching of its intent, that's causing so many LDS members to leave their church due to its support of Prop 8. They're following their consciences, their values, because they believe their church did the wrong thing in this case.
What was breached in this case was an instruction for the church to leave the politicking to the politicians. Keeping the church out of political campaigning allows each church member to vote precisely according to their personal values and not according to some official church position! It's the complete opposite situation of what you claim here! If the LDS had stayed out of Prop 8, Mormon voters would have felt free to make their OWN choice, instead they had one foisted on them; their church was presuming to speak for them instead of saying to them that it was ok make up their own minds on the issue. Many Mormons left because of this presumption and it makes me wonder how other many Mormons simply voted 'yes' because the church wanted them to. I'm still waiting for the IRS to revoke their tax-exemption for their blatant partisan political campaigning…
But enough on the bloody Mormons, they're sort of beside the point. I'm still yet to hear or read anything *which makes sense* as to why gay people deserve second-class status and/or why religions care so deeply about what people do in private. If your employer or school or bank manager denied you some service or right because you were gay there'd be hell to pay, but once again religion gets a free pass on bigotry, like it gets a free freaking pass on everything else.
"I already stated that fornication, adultery, and other imprudent uses of sexuality are all equally wrong but because they are soft peddled, all are becoming equally prominent in society."
I think it's time for some people to grow up here and try a dose of realism. "Fornication" (premarital sex? I'm not up with the latest biblically-derived sex-talk), sodomy, adultery, everything else…these have probably been around longer than the institution of marriage itself. What is simply impossible is legislating anything you don't personally agree with of existence!
Adults can do what they like to each other as far as I'm concerned, and as long as noone gets hurt and nothing happens against any participant's consent it's no one's goddam business! I don't think adultery's ethical, but it's not illegal. Hell, some couple even tolerate it (more power to 'em, I couldn't stand it).
Again: assuming we're talking about law-abiding adults, it's no one's business who someone else fornicates with, who someone else loves or how. Not mine, yours or anyone's. Some people are overly concerned with other peoples' sex lives – religions being the most guilty of this – and it's high time these overly-concerned, nosy little prudes butted out, kept their eyes on their own backyard and stopped trying to enshrine into law their own private prejudices. It's disgusting, this hate towards people who have just ONE difference. Equally disgusting is the endless attempted justifications of this hatred, be they sociological, religious, political, biological, whatever else the fundies can pull out of their bag. But it's also a quixotic crusade against the inevitable, which gives me comfort.
Can you point to any cases where "vocal ex-gays" have been severely beaten or murdered by members of the gay community, simply because they were ex-gay? Or even threatened with same?
Assaulted and verbally attacked yes. Intimidated and threatened, you can bet on it. Now murder is hard to prove without witnesses and intensive investigations. As to why any individual gets murdered, even when connections are made it is very hard to prove intent or motive. The military don't ask and don't tell rule gives cover to all manner of hate crimes once service members part their ways.
http://www.washblade.com/2007/9-14/news/localnews…
http://jackyan.vox.com/library/post/the-gay-marri…
http://digg.com/world_news/4_Black_Marines_Execut…
In this case, no one has narrowed down the issues yet, but it was probably more than just a little bit of hatred over issues of sexuality.
Matters of sexuality run deep to the core of the human experience.
Mark wrote, "…I think the Bible is a couple thousand pages of hypocrisy, conflicting opinion, and misogyny. The patriarchs and their male minions got to screw any and as many women as they wanted, but the women got stoned for it. We need to stop seeing this as some kind of divine lesson and see it for what it is—patriarchal privilege inserted in a religious text by the Good Ol’ Boys Network of the Levant."
Mark's comment touches on one of the many reasons why the Catholic Church has no business making moral judgments about abortion. The Church's hierarchy is a club of self-elected men that has excluded women from membership, from representation, even from participation, for two thousand years. The notion that this club should decide the medical welfare of our planet's entire female population, and do so with the explicit declaration that the life of a pregnant women is irrelevant to their decision, is tyranny at its worst. This club is not just misogynistic, it is, quite literally, malevolent — male volition.
Karl:
It's hard for me to even imagine the thought process that went into selecting those links as support for the premise that ex-gays are at serious risk of violence from the "gay community."
Karl: I agree with Vicki. Those links you provided two comments above have nothing to do with the claim you are making. Did you even read them before submitting them?
Just to make this a bit fairer, it stands to reason that gays who claim to be "cured" would draw fire from other gays, who would see such a claim as a kind of treason. After all, they're working hard to obtain civil rights, and such people undercut that effort. We see it in other things all the time. It's Union Mentality. Equivocation is not condoned. It might even be the case that in some places, here and there, frights broke out about it.
But so what? Just because gays might react negatively to such a person just shows that, at base, they're pretty much like everyone else. No one ever said that because they've been oppressed that makes them paragons of virtue and all lovey-dovey. They're people. They live here. They'd like to have the same rights and privileges as everyone else.
Now, Karl, I don't know what history books you've read, but there is no example I can find of any oppressed group that has ever obtained rights without some form of strong advocacy. So I don't understand your point in stressing that. But it's not like African Americans came out and said "All you white people must now be black in order for us to be happy." Women didn't say "You men have to have sex change operations in order for us to feel equal." So why assume gays would make the demand that we all have sex with our own gender in order for them to have equal rights? But be advocates for their cause—you bet. Just like the religious right keeps trying to shove their way down everyone's throat.
Again, I suggest you stop feeling picked on.
The first links are directly related to assaults and intimidation of ex-gays.
The third link show the difficulty of finding the real "Hate" behind the execution style murders. These guys were loose canons and something besides robbery set them to committ these murders.
Murders like these can occur where either the racial motivations and/or sexual motivations may never be fully proven. These dudes weren't only interested in robbery. They had a score to settle about something.
Here's another link to the murders:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/11/…
Note the uncertain nature of the real "Hate." Did the murderers consider her simply white trash or was there also someother sexual issue to settle with their commander?
Prosecutors say robbery was the motive, but neither family believes it – though they have stopped short of calling it a hate crime.
Pietrzak, 24, who was born in Poland and raised in Bensonhurst, was white. His 26-year-old wife, who grew up near San Diego, was black. So are the four accused Marines.
RELATED: CONFESSION IN MURDER, TORTURE OF MARINE
"If it was a robbery, why didn't they come when nobody was home instead of in the dead of night – armed to the teeth?" Pietrzak-Varga wrote.
"Why did this happen? What motivated them? What was it about my son and daughter-in-law that inspired such hatred and loathing?"
Two of the four Marines served under Pietrzak, an Iraq War veteran, at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego. They were charged last week with murder and rape.
Investigators are also checking whether one of the accused Marines, Lance Cpl. Tyrone Miller, had ties to the violent Crips gang.
The Pietrzaks had been married for just two months when they were murdered on Oct. 15. Their bodies were at the morgue when the wedding photos they planned to send with the thank-you cards arrived at their house.
A friend of Pietrzak family said the grieving mother wrote to Obama because her son and daughter-in-law admired the Democrat and voted for him a day before they were killed.
Pietrzak-Varga composed the letter on Veteran's Day. She described how they emigrated from Poland in 1994, how her son enlisted at age 17 after 9/11, how she raised him to be a good American. "He wanted to defend America," she wrote.
Pietrzak-Varga also said her daughter-in-law's parents need closure. "They need to know why she, as a soldier's wife, was killed," she wrote.
Also, the event happened well before the election, but was not reported until after the election.
Karl: I don't buy any of what you're selling.
Have you ever before in your life admitted that you were wrong?
And you didn't ever answer my earlier question:
If you were in charge of the U.S., would you pass laws to:
1. Make sure that gays couldn't be parents, or
2. Make sure that gays couldn't be public school teachers.
I'm waiting impatiently.
Karl:
1. The first link lends more support to the claim that charges of violence and intimidation of ex-gays by gays are greatly exaggerated. An ex-gay group claims that volunteers at their booth at a county fair were yelled at and a literature display knocked over. No police report was filed, no one was injured, the fair administration has no knowledge of the event. Yet 30 days later, in a fundraising letter, the group describes the incident as a "vicious attack" organized by pro-gay groups at the fair.
Compared to what happened to Matthew Shephard, Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo, this hardly seems like a "vicious attack."
2. Second one is quite random. Some guy's blog post about the CA Supreme Court decision re: same-sex marriage. Someone else takes issue with him in the comments section. Help, help, call the police, someone is disagreeing with me!
3. I can't tell if this one reveals a scary, Fred Phelpsian streak in your thinking, or not.
It certainly is a horrible crime. But there's absolutely no indication in the articles that the victim was ex-gay and the perpetrators gay, which would be the minimum needed to imply that it was in ANY WAY related to your premise. Your reasoning seems to be that they COULD be gay, because of the don't ask, don't tell policy. The automatic jump from "military veterans commit horrible crime" to the "gays in the military" theme makes me wonder about the influence of Fred Phelps on your thinking.
I wonder if Phelps' sorry band of bigots will be picketing this guy's funeral with their "God Hates Fags" signs?
Mark says:
Now, Karl, I don't know what history books you've read, but there is no example I can find of any oppressed group that has ever obtained rights without some form of strong advocacy.
You are correct. We differ on the meaning of strong advocacy and what "oppressed group" we are talking about. I stand for civil rights for people who are law abiding citizens and whose respectful civil disobedience renders support for their cause. Advocacy on behalf of others should be what comes easily to mind for values that agree with your own.
When members of the human race (or subgroup) consider themselves in need of special protection then we come into conflicts.
In the Old Testament. Moses didn't advocate with numbers and shot guns for the release of his kinsmen from Eygpt. When Daniel didn't agree with the directives to bow down and worship the king's golden image, he did it repectfully – not showing disrespect by his words or actions. During the womens' rights movement I don't recall having to hear of much hostility and intimidation.
Ruthless slave owners generally didn't advocate for setting slaves free. They wanted protection (selfishly motivated) to remain as they were, they rationalized they were actually helping the slaves in America. These biased individuals used the govermental structures to protect their ideology.
There is still not enough advocacy on behalf of black people in America, this a agree with. However the kind of advocacy that will work must recognize the dignity and moral worth of the individual. People who are not shown dignity and respect end up living in antagonistic ways to the very conditions they seek obtain. They do not choose to return dignity and respect because they believe that will not serve their purpose.
But it also works the opposite way. When the selection of values and beliefs by a group of people leads to their needing a special protection from the population their needs to be a way to determine if the values of the group are proper for the society or not. Moses' cheif desire was to allow the Israelites religous freedom which meant Egypts' gods weren't the only gods around. Moses advocacy for physical feedom was directly connected with the rights of his kinsmen to worship (freedom to choose between values and laws) whom they choose.
If slavery weren't an economic and states right issue I believe it could have been brought to an end much more quickly by a direct application of Old Testament Law. After seven years it was to end, and the children of slaves were never to be considered anyone's property. Even the Romans never got that one clear until it was too late.
Advocacy for an oppressed group is not simply a matter of letting people do whatever they decide they would like to do (whether in the privacy of their homes or not).
I advocate for people whose values are not harmful to the society in which I live or the future of the nation in which I live. Accordingly, I advocate for moral values and beliefs which I believe are best determined by religous beliefs, history and the behavior (past and present) of other advocacy groups.
I will not advocate on behalf of terrorists whose means determine their ends and vice-versa.
I will not advocate for un-monitored freedom for sex offender rights.
I will not advocate for protection of rights of religous people who are sexual predators, or any sexual predator for that matter.
I will not advocate for beastaility rights.
I will not advocate for man-boy love rights
I will not advocate for fornication rights.
I will not advocate for adultery rights.
I will not advocate for prositution rights.
I will not advocate for divorce rights.
I will not advocate for abortion rights.
I will not advocate for homesexual rights.
I will not advocate for a "re-definition of marriage" rights.
I will not advocate for company CEO rights when they promote their own wealth to the demise of free markets.
I will not advocate for murderer's right.
I will not advocate for the rights of judges to legislate from the bench when that is not a role alotted them in our constitution.
I will not advocate for theives' rights.
I will not advocate for hindu, buddhist, muslim, morman, atheist, deist naturalists or christian "rights," if any of that means one group is more established or dis-established by the laws of the land.
I will advocate for duly authorized representative government that follows the will of the people and the consitututed authority of their governing documents including the processes for ammendment of such documents.
Democracy will fail utterly when its unelected officials (Judges) assume they can better carry out the functions of the legislative or the executive functions of government while also shirking their own responisbility to uphold the written documents that govern the democracy.
I guess we all need to advocate for liberal judges who will both legislate from the bench and pick and choose which parts of the constitution and bill of rights have importance for the day and age we live in. That's the strongest advocacy any special interest group really needs in their court.
Erich asked:
If you were in charge of the U.S., would you pass laws to:
1. Make sure that gays couldn't be parents, or
2. Make sure that gays couldn't be public school teachers.
I'm waiting impatiently.
If I were given legislative authority I would encourage a DA/DT mindset. Married couples, singles or civil partners would be allowed to adopt. That is the civil thing to do.
If I were given legislative authority however I would also encourage advocacy in favor of heterosexual marriage and wouldn't recognize the other arrangements as equal to it. I would also attempt to enact legislation that held both civil leaders (including judges) and religous leaders (priests and officials) that change clear meaning of documents, words and to suit their wishes responsible for their actions and require their resignation from leadership.
The people who voted for an office holder (not just legislators) should be able to initiate impeachment of legislators or judges. Only the legislatures should have the ability to impeach federal officials.
We are in this problem because civil rulings have thrust their ideas into religous settings.
Secondly, the public school has morphed over the years and will continue to morph into the place were special interest groups seek protection for their perspectives. The free market place of ideas needs to present in the public arena, but the monetary support it needs to be returned to the parents who choose what type of school they want for their children.
If more people want a liberal filled classrrom at the college, secondary or primary level that should be an option not a requirement.
Schools should continue to be allowed to hire whatever qualified teachers they think best meet the mission and goals of the specific school under consideration. All school are not equal nor should they be made to be equalized. Again, doing such just lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator.
I should clarify my earlier comment. I don't mean to equate Karl with Fred Phelps and his followers, whose obsessive, bigoted hatred of gays actually verges on mental illness. I don't WANT to believe that Karl is even influenced by his ideas, but the line of reasoning Karl presents with this horrible murder is straight out of the Phelps playbook. Help me out here, Karl, is there something I'm not seeing that would relate this crime to the sexual orientation of anyone involved? It may well be a race-based hate crime, or a fragging incident where enlisted man attack an officer, but is there ANY shred of
evidence that it is related to sexual orientation?
In the hate crimes statistics for 2007, the FBI documents 5 murders motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, and 700 assaults:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_04.htm
I am not necessarily in favor of additional penalties for hate crimes, but I do think they should be tracked, as they currently are. I would encourage any ex-gays who have been victims of assault or threats of assault, to file police reports. I would be in favor of tracking attacks motivated by the victim's proclaimed ex-gay status as hate crimes.
There's nothing that leads me to believe this a serious problem, however. Disagreement, even vocal, passionate disagreement, does not amount to persecution. Free speech means you're free to tell me I'm a hardened sinner bound for hell, and I'm free to tell you're full of shit.
Don't hold your breath EV.
Here, check this out while you wait for more apologetic bigotry or obtuse, specious "reasoning":
"Australian Sex Party launches on Thursday"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2519…
For the record I probably wouldn't vote for these cats (single issue parties and all that) but damn, I'm looking forward to some of our home-grown book-thumping haters getting their noodles baked just by their mere existence 😀
After all, "those who offend easily deserve to be offended as often as possible". Vote [1] Sex!
Karl makes a lot of noise about "ex-gays," but I believe the population of "ex-straight" people far outnumber the population of "ex-gay." Furthermore, virtually all of the stories I've ever heard about "ex-gays" don't support the suggestion that they actually are "ex-gay." They're still gay, they simply have elected to not consumate sexual relations with people of their own gender, usually for reasons of religious shame. Conversely, people who are "ex-straight" — i.e., people who have 'come out of the closet' — usually are starting to live for the first time as who they actually are.
Karl writes:—"In the Old Testament. Moses didn’t advocate with numbers and shot guns for the release of his kinsmen from Eygpt."
No, he didn't have to. Yahweh laid seven plagues on the place and killed a lot of Egyptians. So your example there rather begs the question.
"During the womens’ rights movement I don’t recall having to hear of much hostility and intimidation."
The first phase was rather ugly and violent, in the 1910s. Women got arrested, some were abused in jail. Marches were often marred by epithets as well as thrown rocks. The second phase, in the 60s and 70s, was considerably less violent, true, but the violence had been bled out of the country by the Civil Rights movements and I think people were just tired. That phase of the women's movement came out of the civil rights movement, so it's an arguable point.
—"There is still not enough advocacy on behalf of black people in America, this a agree with. However the kind of advocacy that will work must recognize the dignity and moral worth of the individual. People who are not shown dignity and respect end up living in antagonistic ways to the very conditions they seek obtain. They do not choose to return dignity and respect because they believe that will not serve their purpose."
Couldn't agree more.
The rest of your list is a mixed bag to which I mentally ticked off my responses of "Of course" or "Huh?"
The formula I've used for decades in matters of humans rights is simple enough: I disregard any qualifier and ask only if we can agree that People have such-and-such a right. Never mind what kind of people, just People. The trouble, it seems to me, always begins when someone says "except for those folks over there, who are Such-and-Such."
This is where I come down, firstly, on the whole argument of women's rights. If it can be agreed that People have a right, then it is not proper to make exceptions based on gender. Women (and men) are People first, male and female second. (Granted, there are some few things men and women can and can't do based on certain biological differences, but they are minor in the greater scheme of things and should have no bearing on whether we regard them as People.)
So if you can agree that People have a right to live as equals, then it doesn't matter if they're white, black, red, yellow, Slavic, Malay, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Socialist. They're People first, whatever qualifier second.
And if that's the case, then if we can further agree that People can get married, then…
Well, I'm sure you can follow the thought through.
When you segregate out a certain group by virtue of who they are, you invite the eventual disintegration of any rights you wish to maintain. Happens time and time again.
As to your list of things you will not advocate for, that, too, is very simple.
If the rule you're asserting can be applied equally—People shouldn't commit murder; People shouldn't steal; People shouldn't lie or cheat—then there's no conflict. Everyone is still equal. But when you say these certain people over here can't do this thing that the rest of us can do, then you have problems.
A couple years ago, someone thought to catch me up with that Man-Boy Love thing, since I was clearly advocating on behalf of gay rights. My response was simple: "That's a no-brainer. We don't let heterosexuals diddle minors, why would we let homosexuals do it?" The rule applies equally.
We're used to categorizing, though, so it's often difficult to stop segregating groups out. But that's the only way to get to a right place. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
Karl says:
Cognitive dissonance much?
You want to take away my friends' rabbi's license 'cause she marries same sex couples, but you're for freedom of religion? WTF?
Karl makes a lot of noise about a lot of things, however we're yet to see his bursts of static coalesce into anything resembling an actual argument. Copy+paste conservative homophobic apologetics do not a salient point make.
It would've been interesting seeing which side of the coin these Prop 8'ers would have been on during the Abolition/Suffrage debates…
"It's tradition! We've always owned blacks/kept our women subservient/picked on gays, why should we set them free/let them vote/allow them equality? If we do that, society will crumble into chaos and anarchy with free negroes/chatty women/married gays dragging us into a bottomless pit of syncopated drumbeats/gossip magazines/interior design shows!"