Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Missouri - Home of the Sexually Insecure

The results are in, and it looks like 70% of Missourians fear homosexuals enough to enshrine discimination against them in their Constitution. This is all the more depressing because 100,000+ more Democrats showed up to the polls than Republicans.

Back in June, in response to the inquisitive ThatColoredFella, I posted my prediction, and it was that the amendment would pass 60-40. I thought I was being realistic - I didn't know how bad it would be.

13 Comments:

Blogger lj said...

Dan,
Why is it always fear when the people vote something you don't like? You assume that because they voted this, they have made an ignorant and misinformed decision.

Yet you admit that it was the majority of Democrats that put it over the top. So is it your party that is full of fear and prejudice, to use your terms?

It's difficult to imagine that 70% of the people are driven by such a shallow reason, particularly democrats.
Won't you at least admit that there is a remote possibility that there is another side to this issue? That it isn't just about fear and prejudice?

"Enshrine discrimination."
I will post on my blog why I do not believe it is discrimination. I have never held to the false notion that homosexuals are born predisposed to that lifestyle. If I did, then you are right, it would be discrimination. To judge someone because of how they are born, when they have no control over it, would be discrimination.

Of course I believe it to be a choice of lifestyle. One in which should not be forced upon other Americans. And it would not be "enshrined in the constitution" if it wasn't being forced to. Unfortunately, the people have not other option.

8/04/2004 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lj:

"It's difficult to imagine that 70% of the people are driven by such a shallow reason, particularly democrats."

While I admit it's difficult to see so many Democrats forgoing intelligence for emotion, it's not at all surprising to see 70% of the population driven by fear. The Patriot Act is a great example of how people will allow horrible awful things to happen when they are scared. To strike a little closer to the issue, how long ago was it that 70% of the population opposed interracial marriage? How long ago was it that 70% of the population opposed school intergration? In these situtations woudl you say that simply because 70% of the population nfelt that way, that they had good valid reasons to?

"I have never held to the false notion that homosexuals are born predisposed to that lifestyle."

Then you are laughing in the face of modern science and in the face of common sense. First I'll address science. Every major study from a legitimate (non-biased) scientific organization (that's right Focus-on-the-Family doesn't count) done in the last 30 years (prior to that very little research at all had been done on the topic) has shown that while the roots of sexuality are not 100% understood, we DO know that sexuality is considered to be established and unchangable by the age of 3 at the latest. Now for common sense. The choice argument fails to hold up against common sense because I've yet to have anyone tell me when they CHOSE to be heterosexual. So lj, when did you wake up and decide to be straight?

"Of course I believe it to be a choice of lifestyle. One in which should not be forced upon other Americans."

Interesting lj. Perhaps you could explain to me precisely how, in the absence of this legislation, anybody would be "forced" to be gay.

dolphin
http://www.dolphinsdock.com/blog/

8/04/2004 12:10 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

LJ:

It's not always fear when people vote opposite of me. In this case, though, it is. You yourself, on your blog, admit that the reason people voted against gay marriage is because they hate the gay "lifestyle".

And, yes, members of the democratic party voted against gay marriage.

8/04/2004 6:30 PM  
Blogger lj said...

Dan,
The comments on my blog were in response to the definition of prejudice. I was simply pointing out voters are not factually misinformed when it comes to their decision, an important point when you point the finger and call them prejudice. As for their reasons for voting, you would have to ask them.

But my theory is that there are two varying philosophies and standard of ethics, which is becoming ever more clear in this country on many issues and is not limited to this one. I also didn't use the word hate. You're simply creating things that aren't there.

8/04/2004 7:59 PM  
Blogger lj said...

Dolphin,
I thought up a clever response and gathered ammunition then I deleted it. Not because it wasn't well articulated or that my position is indefensible, but that I realize that we aren't going to agree and I appreciate Dan's patience, as I am debating on his site (although he does the same on mine :) which is devoted to a cause I am not in support of.

However, I will simply state what I believe and that's all I can do.

I'm sure you're not surprised to know that my beliefs come from a Christian faith. You can call me a nut if you want but that won't help the argument. While I don't believe homosexuals should receive special rights recognized by the government, don't let that be confused for hate.

I serve a loving God. One who loves homosexuals just as much as me, the worst of sinners. But God hates sin and it's clear from His Word that homosexuality is unnatural and a lifestyle of sin. That is also why I don't think it is a learned behavior. Why would God destroy a whole city (sodom and gomorrah) filled with people that were predisposed to a certain behavior? You see when you say they are born that way you are essentially saying God made them that way. How then could He be against His own creation?

You can call it flying in the face of science but having science on your side gives no more weight to your argument. I appreciate your youthful optimism but there are no UN biased publications on this issue. What you really mean is one that supports your argument. There are plenty others that aren't Focus on the Family that support this claim. But I won't be able to persuade you with science. Even if it were Dr. Drew or Dr. Phil.

Being "established and unchangable by the age of 3" and being born that way are not the same but let's assume. So you believe this to be true for all sexual behavior or just homosexuality? Where do you draw the line and from where do you get your beliefs?

The argument is between two governing philosophies: the humanistic world view which seeks to interpret our Constitution and laws without any moral basis and those who hold to judeo-Christian values, the spirit in which our consitution and laws were written, and which is the basis for all law. I am reading a book by Francis Schaeffer, the late Christian lawyer and he says it best:
"What is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freeedom can exist without anarchy, and yet provides a form that will not become arbitrary tyranny?"

"Certain Inalienable rights. Who gives rights? The state? Then they are not inalienable because the state can change them and take them away. Where do the rights come from? They understood that they were founding a country upon the concept that goes back into the Judeo-Christian thinking that there is Someone there who gave inalienable rights."

Great men like John Witherspoon, once president of Princeton university and signer of the Declaration of Independence and Henry Blackstone felt the same way. Blackstone believed that there were only two foundations for law: nature and revelation, and he stated very clearly that he was speaking of the Holy Scriptures.

That probably flies in the face of more than science and common sense and yet it doesn't cease to be true. There was no need for me to wake up and be straight. It isn't a learned behavior, it's a natural behavior. I think I've already stated that. I don't have to wake up and be a certain race, I was born that way. But I do have to learn how to act in society and the biggest influence on that is family. My parents can either teach me to be a law abiding citizen. Or they can ignore me and allow me to digress into crime. You don't have to teach a kid how to lie. But you do have to teach him how to tell the truth. That's because we're all born sinners and sin comes naturally but that doesn't make it normal or right.

"Interesting lj. Perhaps you could explain to me precisely how, in the absence of this legislation, anybody would be "forced" to be gay."

I never said others would be forced to be gay, yet the American people are being forced to vote on an issue that will never live up to the civil rights issues you quote of race and women's suffrage. I prefer Pepsi over Coke and so does my wife but that is a personal preference and a lifestyle choice. I would never ask the government to recognize my rights as a pepsi drinking individual because that would be ridiculous.

Yet somehow this is not.

8/04/2004 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lj:
I appreciate your honesty. I will not argue with you on this as I agree we will not come to an agreement. YOu have stated that you believe what you believe and no amount of science, logic, or common sense will change your beliefs. While belief without reason is an odd concept to me, to each his own. I caution you in your claims that in a society where only 3 of the 10 Commandments are law, that our laws are somehow based on your personal religous beliefs or that they ought to be. Fortunately for me, history as a guide one can only assume that gay people will one day have the same rights as straight people as soceity continues to progress and those who used gross misinterpretations of the bible to justify hating gay people will eventually be looked at in the same way as those who used that same book to justify slavery and to prohibit interracial marriage.

8/05/2004 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan,

After reading about the results, I immediately blogged my thoughts (also at WatchBlog.com).

I titled it 'Conservatives' Hollow Victory'. Although, the turnout was bigger than the recent state Primaries, only 40% of 3.58 million voters showed. The around 70% majority came out to about 28% of the electorate - a familiar average of hardcore, rabid Conservatives here in Illinois.

I surmised, that they garnered no significant support outside their followers, and shows the low priority among energized Democrats sure to show, en masse, come November. I also wondered if most feel Gay Marriage inevitable, and/or are assured that the courts will make it right.

Your thoughts?

thatcoloredfella

8/05/2004 7:04 PM  
Blogger lj said...

"gross misinterpretations of the bible to justify hating gay people will eventually be looked at in the same way as those who used that same book to justify slavery and to prohibit interracial marriage."

Can you show me in my statement where I used the Bible to hate gay people? Perhaps you weren't speaking of me and if so I apologize but as a response to my post I can only assume.

Faith isn't the absence of reason but when the two collide, faith wins. For example, creation. I'm sure you hold to evolution and I do not. And while many scientists claim evolution is proven, it is not. It is a theory and actually takes more faith to believe in it than in a Creator.

And again you use civil rights statements. It's almost like you are required to use them in each statement. Homosexuals do have rights and I don't recall any being sold in public auctions or whipped for personal pleasure. Or denied the right to vote. Nor are they mentioned in the constitution as property.

Some people feel the need to tie their cause to such examples in order to strengthen their case. Abolitionists didn't need to tie their cause to another one because of the moral justification of their position.

And it is true that any moron can use the Bible to promote their own agenda. I recall many politicians doing the same. But that doesn't mean all people of faith promote hate. Although that seems to be what many on both sides are trying to do.
They are propogating the very same stereotypical behavior you claim to defend.

Sorry to comment again, and like you, I don't want to argue but I don't like being misrepresented. I will let you have the last word. I appreciate the debate and I hope you understand that I feel no ill towards homosexuals as people. It's difficult for many to believe that and to separate that this issue is about more than just what you think of a certain type of person.

8/05/2004 8:44 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

TCF:

I wish I shared your knack for optimism, but I believe that the 70% represents a broad segment of the voting public, and not just the rabid right. I'm convinced that a lot of democrats are not yet ready to accept gay marriage. I also believe that the hard-core left did come out for these elections - there were a bunch of good democratic races in the primaries.

8/05/2004 8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LJ, where's your blog? I'd like to read more.

8/06/2004 12:03 PM  
Blogger lj said...

Anonymous,
Dan has a link to it. Look Both Ways.

8/06/2004 10:06 PM  
Blogger thatcoloredfella said...

Well Dan,

I'm always reluctant to say out loud, but for this country to be the freest on the globe, there are far to many stupid, ignorant, uneducated hypocrites taking up space.

After going overseas to Europe, the trip only reinforced this belief. There are far more intelligent, engaged, passionate and tolerant citizens living there - and, not just the rich ones! And, it is because those countries are a melting pot, where different races and cultures have no choice, but to co-exist, confront and respect one another.

Does that sound like Missouri?

8/07/2004 1:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ThatColoredFella said, "I'm always reluctant to say out loud, but for this country to be the freest on the globe, there are far to many stupid, ignorant, uneducated hypocrites taking up space. . . . .[European] countries are a melting pot, where different races and cultures have no choice, but to co-exist, confront and respect one another."

We do co-exist, confront and respect each other in this country. Sometimes, the will of the people is different than your will. You are required to be tolerant. Sometimes the will of the people is different than my will and I am required to be tolerant. I am tolerant of your views even though I disagree with many of them. In fact, I usually enjoy reading your comments and the comments of other contributors to this blog.

In liberal circles, "being tolerant" sometimes seems to be code for "people need to agree with the thing my friends or I want to do." Some liberals are very tolerant of "alternative lifestyles" and foreign cultures, but not very tolerant of the conflicting religious or political beliefs of others - particularly the beliefs of conservatives, Christians and Jews. It is ironic, but our country now seems more tolerant of the religious practices and beliefs of religions that are not well established here than it is of religious beliefs and practices that have been commonly held since our country was founded.

What you have to remember when comparing the USA with Europe is that Christianity and Judaism do not have as much influence there. Is Europe tolerant of Christians? Jews? others with conservative moral views? Isn't there a rising tide of anti-Semitism? They don't seem very tolerant of people like me.

We're not all stupid, we're not all ignorant, we're not all hypocrites and disagreeing with you and Dan does not make us so.

RM

8/08/2004 3:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home