William Buckley Jr on Canada decision

[TheGeepster]

William F. Buckley Jr.: Meanwhile in Canada ... (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/buckley/story/6955650p-7904788c.html)

I found this op-ed tonight and read through it. The conclusion he reaches in the bottom may not be one some people will like, but I think it's right on the money.

From the article:

"To oppose same-sex marriage effectively," Frum writes, "you have to believe that marriage is more than a contract between two consenting adults. ... that unmarried cohabitation is wrong, even when heterosexuals do it. Lose those beliefs and the case for marriage has been lost. It has been lost in Canada. It has been lost in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and France. ... It will be lost very soon in the United Kingdom. Will it lose in the United States? It is difficult to be very optimistic."

Any thoughts on this or anything in the rest of the article?

[Gerudo]

this is discrimination, pure and simple, not allowing same sex marriages is fucking stupid...

freedom of religion, but not freedom of marriage... what the fuck...

edit: and all you religious types who oppose same sex marriages can go eat a can of worms...

[AtmaWeapon]

I'm confused by the quote... To oppose same-sex marriage you have to believe that unmarried cohabitation is wrong? That would seem to me to support it more than oppose it.

Personally, I don't believe homosexuality is right at all. I do have an obligation, however, to respect the United States Constitution. Unfortunately for my moral beliefs, the Constitution has no provisions that explicitly disallow homosexual marriages, and my interpretation of that is that same-sex marriages are already legal. While I don't support homosexuality, I do support the Constitution. The only way my mind will be changed on the legality of the issue is if an amendment is added to the Constitution explicitly denying same-sex marriages.

Notice I support the Constitutional legality of same-sex marriages. I don't support the morality, and I definitely would vote in favor of an amendment barring them. However, our government is run by laws, not morality, so the only actions I can take are to disagree and vote likewise. The states have the power to make their own laws within the bounds of the Constitution, and so far same-sex marriage laws have been put in place.

*I added the part below in an edit, and Geru has already posted while I was typing, so this is to avoid any confusion if there is any*

Oh, and Geru, since you got so emotional, I have prepared the following example of the dangers of politics.

Check out the nice men of NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.de), the North American Man-Boy Love Association. If I'm not mistaken, your opinion is in favor of sexual freedom for all. Part of the case for homosexual unions relies on the argument that the Constitution does not disallow them and therefore any law barring them is unconstitutional. Child molestation is not included in the Constitution either, so I believe that argument indirectly supports the idea that a 45-year-old man can have sex with his 12-year-old nephew, as long as they both consent. So, while I support the Constitutial legality of same-sex marriages, I raise the point that by taking that stance, one supports many illicit practices. Such things are the very reason why states were given the right to make laws that can disallow certain actions.

Where does sexual freedom for all end? Where do unacceptable practices begin? Johnny got to marry Joe, what's diferent between uncle Bob and me? Do we really want to face these issues, or should we maintain our stuffy, yet effective, system of morals? Last I checked, democracy (yes I know we are technically a republic) has worked for close to 300 years without allowing same-sex marriages. I'm sure you'll argue "Oh, and democracy worked fine with slavery in place.", but look how long slavery lasted compared to the system of morals the US has tried to uphold. Slavery was physical abuse of human beings. Disallowing same-sex marriages is adhering to a system of morals that the public generally agrees on.

Should same-sex marriages be condoned by governments, will churches be mandated to allow them? That strips freedom of religion, for the government would be controlling the church. We may as well make a Church of the United States and make at least bimonthly attendance necessary. Let's all sing hymn 911, "I WILL NEVAR FORGET BUT RENAME LORD OF THE RINGS!@!11"

[Gerudo]

/me wonders how someone can judge others JUST because they like the opposite sex...

Atma: i guess our morals are way different...

i mean, someone can be your best friend for X amount of years, then once they reveal themselves, be shunned almost forever...

now, is that morally right?

(im not directing that question and example at you specifically Atma...)

edit: actually the previous example is the same situation i was placed in when 2 of my close friends 'came out'... of course i accepted it... i wasnt going to banish my friends for a choice they made...

[AtmaWeapon]

Neither would I dissolve my relationship based on a friend's sexual preference. I don't support the morality of homosexual behavior, but that gives me no right to persecute them. Lying is immoral as well, but if I were to disassociate myself with all liars, I would not only be alone but require some means to remove my relationship to myself.

I feel that Constitutionally, I have to let it happen. Romans 13:1 tells me:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. My governing authority claims that homosexuality is legal, and I must support the legality of it. I do, however, have and maintain the right to my opinion against it. I also have the right to vote against it, and under the right circumstances, my vote can alter the governing authority to not support it.

Do I have a right to attack homosexuals? No. If one asks me what I think about homosexuality, do I have the right to tell them I don't support it? Yes. Do I have the right to verbally abuse them? No, only to state my opinion. Do homosexuals have the right to disagree with me? Yes. Do homosexuals have the right to persecute me? No, they should have the same rights I do, no more. "Oh, but you have the right to marry your girlfriend, Atma!" I agree, and I also agree that every homosexual man should have the right to marry a girlfriend, too. Whether or not both he and I have the right to marry a man depends on the governing authority we have agreed to submit to.

[Gerudo]

well said...

while i am not religious by any point, i will not say that your points are invalid, because they are as equal and as valid to any points i make as well...

i guess it comes down to tolerance, and i would dare say not many people are... well, tolerant of homosexuals as others... i wanted to say 'open minded', but that wouldve sounded like i was bashing... ;)

[Starkist]

Quite frankly, I think that you people who find nothing wrong with all types of sex, while claiming that anyone who sees a moral issue here is backward and old-fashioned, are the ones who are closed-minded.

People make a big deal out of homosexuality, but in truth it is only one sexual sin among many, according to the Bible. Whether it is homosexuality, premarital sex, or adultary, you are taking something that God gave for procreation and the pleasure of a husband and wife and misusing it. (This seems to be the heart of Buckley's conclusion above.)

There are two utopias we can imagine. The person who does not believe in God or his morality will say that a perfect world is when you could have sex with anoyone without fear of disease or unwanted pregnancy, or hurt feelings. A real Christian's utopia is different. If every sexual encounter was between spouses, and marriages never broke up, then there would be no STDs, and every child born would have a mother and a father. God designed it well, humanity has corrupted it.

[TheGeepster]

Marriage throughout history has been viewed as being more than merely an agreement between two individuals. It was seen as not only an oath to each other, but also an oath to God. This puts into the equation a level of moral judgment about what should and should not be allowed within the institution, because societal whims ought not have any effect on things which are from God (See Constitiutional rights). Besides, is marriage a right? Is it something that is required of everyone? No.

And by showing a willingness to bend one aspect of a sacred institution, you tear down the foundation for that sacred institution, allowing others to do the same with equal justification. In other words, the idea of cohabitation, which removes from marriage the idea of an eternal vow and replaces it with the concept of convenience, and that opens the door down the road for other aspects of that sacred institution, such as the notion of it being between a man and a woman ONLY, or even that marriage is only between 2 people, or that marriage is not allowed between related blood relatives. (But my cousin and I LOVE each other!)

The idea is that things which are considered sacred have to be protected from corruption, or else it loses its sacred nature and becomes a thing which can be changed at the chaotic whim of anyone in a society.

Homosexuality is a behavior. And it isn't the nature of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to deal with what the PEOPLE cannot do, so the argument that since homosexuality isn't outlawed in the Constitution it ought to be allowed means little. The Constitution is concerned with what the STATES can and cannot do. And nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee that a particular lifestyle is protected. Again, not all lifestyles are equal. Not all behaviors are equally moral.

[DarkDragoonX]

So essentially you guys are saying that we should all bow down and follow the Christian belief system (and attached moral code), which is the true faith, despite the fact that every other religion on Earth ALSO claims to be the true faith. But I guess they're lying, unlike you, right? Pff.

I've said it before and I'l day it again: laws should NOT be made based on a purely moral basis, because every person in the entire world has a slightly different set of morals, if not a radically different set of morals. Gay people having sex and marrying each other doesn't affect you in the slightest, so why bitch about it? If it's against god's will, like you're suggesting, why not just let god sort it out after they die?

Bah, why do I even bother arguing the side of logic? You're not going to listen any more than you would hold a satanic ritual in your den.

[Foxx]

Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
"Oh, but you have the right to marry your girlfriend, Atma!" I agree, and I also agree that every homosexual man should have the right to marry a girlfriend, too.
While I'm in support of homosexual marriages, this point here is a zinger. You would be scary in debate Atma, and if anybody were to take you on I would fear for his dignity.

But....


Originally posted by DarkDragoonX
Gay people having sex and marrying each other doesn't affect you in the slightest, so why bitch about it? If it's against god's will, like you're suggesting, why not just let god sort it out after they die?
Bingo. It may disgust people who know or hear about the partners in question, but other than that, why not indeed?


Originally posted by TheGeepster
Homosexuality is a behavior.
Eh, not quite..... the manifestation of homosexuality is behavioral, but the homosexuality itself is a mental orientation which the individual is born with, much more often than not. Why condemn one for that over which he has no control?


Marriage throughout history has been viewed as being more than merely an agreement between two individuals. It was seen as not only an oath to each other, but also an oath to God.
Wow, well, considering all the divorces and infidelity that go on in this civilization, I'm surprised the earth hasn't exploded from the pressure of the souls of the people who are obviously being sent to Hell in droves.

[Starkist]

Laws have to be based on something. Why is drug use illegal? Assault, rape, murder? Adultary affects others, yet it's not illegal. Where do you draw the line?

[DarkDragoonX]

Originally posted by Starkist
Laws have to be based on something. Why is drug use illegal? Assault, rape, murder? Adultary affects others, yet it's not illegal. Where do you draw the line?

Rape, murder, assault are illegal because they harm others. Drug use is illegal because taking crack can cause you to go on a homicidal shooting spree, or smash your car into someone else's at 90 miles an hour. Adultery could be illegal too, really, as it does a lot of harm to the victims, but being a mental/emotional hurt, there's no way to judge it's severeness. Laws should be based on the protection of a country's citizens, both physically and economically.

So, my point is, since gay sex/marrige doesn't hurt others in any way, there's no good reason for it to be illegal, even if it is really nasty.

I'm sorry if I came off as kinda harsh... I respect how much faith you have in your beliefs, even though it does grate on my nerves sometimes, and I don't have the world's best temper, that's for sure (it's the Buddenhagen gene, I guess). Anyway, I'm not religious myself, but as I see the spiritual side here, preaching to people that they shouldn't do it is one thing, but to outlaw it is another thing. The Bible says god gave people free will, after all. Just try to lead people down the moral path, since god has the last laugh anyway.

[slothman]

My, political, view: I think people should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others not including "I don't like it." Any view on something like cocaine use being illegal should apply to alcohol and marijuania(sp) as well. Adultery is only wrong if marriage is an actualy contract saying "I will not commit adultery," though lying about it may also be wrong. NAMBLA only seems wrong because 12 year-olds supposedly can't make decisions for themselves. When I was 12 ,over a decade ago, I could have made a decision like that though I didn't. Man-boy sexual etc. relationships might also be bad because people that young haven't matured sexually yet. What I want is a reason why laws such as this should be bad for reasons other than religion since stuff like that could easily be different in other countries.

[Gerudo]

first and foremost, i would like to apologize for my first reply to this thread...


Originally posted by Starkist
Quite frankly, I think that you people who find nothing wrong with all types of sex, while claiming that anyone who sees a moral issue here is backward and old-fashioned, are the ones who are closed-minded. i would like you to further explain this... how can being openly accepting towards things, but saying others should as well, be close-minded? as far as beliefs go, i dare say that the leading reason that same-sex marriages have not been legalized yet is because of religion in general...


Originally posted by Starkist
People make a big deal out of homosexuality, but in truth it is only one sexual sin among many, according to the Bible. Whether it is homosexuality, premarital sex, or adultary, you are taking something that God gave for procreation and the pleasure of a husband and wife and misusing it. (This seems to be the heart of Buckley's conclusion above.) im sorry, but im not going to let a mythical being dictate my way of life... (i do not believe in God, but respect the ways of those who do, but i will still argue my point against theirs...)


Originally posted by Starkist
There are two utopias we can imagine. The person who does not believe in God or his morality will say that a perfect world is when you could have sex with anoyone without fear of disease or unwanted pregnancy, or hurt feelings. A real Christian's utopia is different. If every sexual encounter was between spouses, and marriages never broke up, then there would be no STDs, and every child born would have a mother and a father. God designed it well, humanity has corrupted it. ironically, i see that you dont realize that your two "utopia's" arent that different, about the only difference i see in your version is 'having sex with anyone' as compared to 'every sexual encounter between spouses'...

[TheGeepster]

You cannot see the difference between merely eliminating consequences and in proper use of the sex act? (within the confines of a monogamous heterosexual family, which has been shown to be the best situation for a family if nothing else)

Homosexuality is perhaps the most commonly condemned deviation from the godly model, but the fact is that it isn't the only one. Allowing any major deviation opens up the door to allow others in. The sacred concept of marriage is exchanged for a mere contractual idea, allowing something truly wonderful and meaningful to turn into the commonplace and banal.

I know that the world will not end if the US ever did manage to legitimize legally the concept of a homosexual marriage, but it WOULD be a sign of the further degradation of our society, just as the acceptance of cohabitation and adultery have been.

Your religious views have also been noted Gerudo, and so let me put in a different argument.. Homosexuality is a violation of natural laws, because the primary purpose of sex is procreation. However humankind came to be, it is abundanlty clear that in order for procreation to occur, that a male must join with a female. That is the only combination which works. Furthermore, in order to give the offspring of this act the best odds of survival, the two parents must combine their efforts to show the offspring how to suceed. This requires that the two parents stay together and work together. A monogamous relationship avoids the emotional and psychological entanglements which would get in the way of this child-rearing process. And the concept of a legal bond strengthens it even further.

[deathofspam]

Now, my issue with people who are all anti gay marrige from a religous stand point, is that I don't think they realize where it actually says anything about it in the Bible. Many think it is part of Sodom and Gramorrah, and why those cities were destroyed, but while the man do have sex with eachother in Sodom, it is not the reason for their downfall, but instead that they no longer obeyed any laws, including the laws of god, and were all, well lets just call it excessivly sexually active.

The only place it says that "no man may share a bed with another man" is in livitcus, which is now almost fully disregarded as being just plain silly. In the same section, it tells us about how a man may not lay with his wife for a week before, until a week after her period, and that she has to have a separate room, and bathe in something odd. I can't remember exactly and i have to leave for work so i really can't look it up. Now, why is it that the only part of that section that anyone actually sticks with is the one about homosexuality? Because deep down, people hate people who are different, who aren't "normal" We have always found ways to put down those who aren't us, and when this issue is finally resolved, we will find someone else to make miserable, because it is our way to impose ourselves on everyone

[AtmaWeapon]

Originally posted by deathofspam
The only place it says that "no man may share a bed with another man" is in livitcus

livitcus is not a book in any Bible I know of. I know of Leviticus, however.

Chew on this:


Romans 6:9-10:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Seems pretty clear in NIV to me.

I do not debate the legality of homosexual marriages. However, I feel it is folly to claim that laws should not be based on morality. What is a law designed to protect? Truly, many people have many different beliefs, but does that make everyone's beliefs right? This reeks of moral relativism, a belief system that is as foolish as it is paradoxical. What to do with a man who has been raised as a terrorist and feels that killing is the only answer to any problem? His beliefs are every bit as important as ours, should we make murder legal because our current law clashes with his morals? All laws were created based upon a the morality of those who created them. Every law is designed to enforce a belief of the people who voted for it. To claim otherwise is to negate your credibility in any argument.

Mankind is wicked and foolish at once. Even the Jews turned from God from time to time in their flight from Egypt, a time when it His presence was blatantly obvious. You can deny the intelligence of those who follow Him all you want, you will not change my opinion one bit. I will vote against homosexuality any chance I get. I'm not closed-minded, I'm an American exercising my right to an opinion. I am sick of minorities being the only people allowed to have an opinion.