Gold medalist resigns, thanks to pro-’gay’ criticism
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow -
Pressure from homosexual activist groups has compelled the head of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics team to quit.
Two-time gymnastics gold medal winner Peter Vidmar has resigned upon receiving harsh criticism from homosexual and lesbian athletes and activists, who complained that he had donated $2,000 to promote California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
“I wish that Peter Vidmar had not resigned,” laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). “I wish that he’d stood up for his right to defend marriage, and I wish that he’d forced them to fire him if that’s what they were going to do, because that would engender the sort of national discussion that we need against this escalating intolerance against…opposition to gay marriage.”
And he disagrees with openly homosexual Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir, who describes Vidmar’s position on marriage as “disgraceful.”
“How dare he seek to marginalize Peter Vidmar, who simply stood up for his beliefs,” LaBarbera contends. “Most people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The radical redefinition of marriage still does not have majority support in this country, despite the huge media blitz in support of it.”
The AFTAH president concludes that the homosexual movement is clearly “seeking to intimidate people into silence, and we’ve got to stand up to their bullying.”
Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, does not fault Vidmar for his decision. She told CitizenLink that the Olympic medalist’s entire career and livelihood were at risk when the “gay rights movement decided to go after him.” Vidmar, she points out, is currently one of the leading corporate motivational speakers in America.
Loading ...
Any more, a person needs an awful thick skin to stand up to the bullies like HRC.
Because athletes shouldn’t be allowed to call out or criticize their coaches judgement?
When you work hard to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights, you ought not be surprised when those law-abiding citizens refuse to support you.
This is not refusing to support, though. This is attacking and ruining.
@Eileen
I doubt it’s ruining him. He’s still an olympic gold medalist, and I’m sure he’ll still do fine on the motivational speaker circuit.
Besides, free speech and what not, athletes have a right to decide if they want to protest a coach. And maybe, given that we do have gay and lesbian athletes competing, a coach who doesn’t support same sex marriage isn’t the best option to lead an American team on the world stage.
Who’s being stripped of any rights? All gays and lesbians are already permitted to marry. Just because they refuse to partake of a right already offered doesn’t mean they’re being stripped of anything. They demand to redefine marriage for all citizens. Such a demand is not a right, but an extortion of approval for a union which does not meet the requirements of marriage. These so-called law-abiding citizens are like the school yard bully, who takes the ball and goes home when he/she can’t get the rules changed to suit him or her. If a person wants a public license to do something, they have to meet the requirements. In the case of marriage, the requirements are sexual orientation neutral. Legally, there is no rational argument sustaining the claim of someone being “stripped of any rights.” If gays were refused marriage licenses on the grounds of sexual identity, they would have a legitimate claim. But they are not, and to claim otherwise implies a gross understanding of either logic, or the law. However, it is a spectacular example of emotional grandstanding.
People will lose interest in the Olympics if it becomes a vehicle for the advocacy of homosexual practice, just as libraries will lose their funding if they cannot bar access to pornography..
How on earth does this man’s political contributions affect his ability to train Olympic-level gymnasts???
Vidmar evidently does not believe that gayness and marriage are compatible–that does NOT mean that he believes that gayness and athletic ability are incompatible.
Suppose (theoretically) that he had donated $2,000 to a Democratic candidate–would that make him unfit to coach Republican gymnasts? Or suppose that he had donated $2,000 to a church–given that we have agnostic and atheist athletes, does that mean that he “isn’t the best option to lead an American team on the world stage”?
This is sheer and total political bullying–”Don’t you dare oppose us, or you will lose your job.” And he’s not the first–there was Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento. There was Margie Christoffersen, the manager of El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles (and she only gave $100!). And for every case like this, where someone loses a job, there is a vastly multiplied “chilling effect” on many other people who now are afraid to participate in the political process, lest they, too lose their jobs.
Right on cue the SSMers make excuses for the progay bigotry of those who favor the SSM idea over the marriage idea. The assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics is intrinsic to the SSM campaign.
Keep in mind that Prop 8 is purely about the definition of the word marriage. California law still gives gay couples every legal right the state gives married couples. Yet people can be forced out of a job over disagreement on the definition of a word. The law abiding citizens being stripped of their rights are citizens who dared to participate in a legal political process that happens to clash with the GLBT orthodoxy on what a word means. This is Orwellian.
Really Amy? Gays and lesbians had the right to marry their partner in California. Now they do not. Ergo, the right was stripped away from them.
Also, you might find this interesting:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/discrimination-certainly-not
@Rob Tisinai Nobody has stripped anyone of any rights.
@nerdygirl This is just another example demonstrating that when homophiles say that SSM will have no affect on anyone, that it is just a big, fat LIE!
@Amy WOW!!! what an outstanding response!
Perhaps in states where gay couples have never been allowed to marry, you can make the argument that their rights haven’t been stripped from them.
In California, however, the Supreme Court found that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. Proposition 8 stripped them of a constitutional right. Whether you agree with the stripping or not, the fact that it was stripped is not debatable.
That approval for a brief time in CA shouldn’t have been given in the first place. It was against what the majority of the voters wanted, even in CA!
@Emma
“In California, however, the Supreme Court found that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. ”
No, they actually didn’t. They only addressed whether they had to use the name “marriage” if they were giving the same bundle of rights. They ruled that using a different name was unconstitutional.
how could they have been more clear that they were not saying that California must offer same-sex couples the right to marry?
Eileen: “That approval for a brief time in CA shouldn’t have been given in the first place. It was against what the majority of the voters wanted, even in CA!”
That statement in no way refutes my original point: When you work hard to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights, you ought not be surprised when those law-abiding citizens refuse to support you.
“If you choose to participate in the political process, we will see that you lose your job.”
Does that sound anything like stripping someone of their rights?
CA courts overstepped their bounds, and gave same-sex couples “privileges” to call themselves married, by usurping state licensing that should have been extended exclusively to opposite-sexed couples of whatever sexual orientation. Marriage existed before the licensing of it did, and the state had no right to redefine that for which it was giving out a license. Gays and lesbians, therefore, were not stripped of any actual rights. Rights cannot be conjured out of thin air.
There is no such thing as a “right” to render marriage unions neutered.
@Ruth, it’s more like: If you use the political process to strip me of my rights, you will not have my support.
“Rights cannot be conjured out of thin air.”
Well, where do they come from? Please don’t say god, because atheists appear to have the same rights as believers. It is my understanding that the US Constitution is the source of my rights as a US citizen. My fellow citizens are NOT the source of my rights. It is frightening, to say the least, that the rights of gay and lesbian Americans appear to depend on permission of the straight majority.
The proSSM opinion of the CA court used reasoning that actually destroys the proSSM complaint and proposed remedy. So that court’s conclusion is arbitrary and as such is a now rejected abuse of judicial review. The court has been corrected. There is no constitutional right to impose SSM on society. The man woman criterion of marriage did not change even during the interim period that set the court against the social institution and the citizenas of CA.
The People have a government, not the other way around.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Wut. If it were legal, he wouldn’t have donated and there would be no “scandal”.
@Ginny
Hmm. I suppose it would depend on what specific service. If it were a church that was known for inflammatory words against atheism (There’s a church in my town that would loudly and rudely protest anything the atheist group did.) Then it might make sense to protest that appointment. But generally speaking, a donation to a church or church based charity wouldn’t raise eyebrows.
Similarly, prop 8 was seen as attacking gay and lesbians. Marriage in our country isn’t viewed as a custom or requirement so much as it’s viewed as a partnership between lovers. (one that is supposed to be permanent) So, yeah, the idea that Adam can’t marry Steve, despite loving one another because of their gender is going to come across as an infringement on their rights. And on a federal level, there’s no need to for religion to play a role, so if we’re going to continue the idea that marriage, in secular society, is still only to be between a man and woman, you’re going to have to come up with something better then because thats how it’s always been done.
Personally, this feels less like an attack and more like seeking martyrdom.
@Rob Tisinai
When you work hard to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights, you ought not be surprised when those law-abiding citizens refuse to support you.
If you use the political process to strip me of my rights, you will not have my support.
I don’t have a problem with “refusal to support” a business. But we’re talking about attacks on businesses. To use the example of the El Coyote manager–if you disagree with the political opinions of one of the restaurant’s managers, then it’s perfectly fair to “refuse to support” the place. You can say, “There’s no way I’m spending my hard-earned dollars to eat there; I’ll go somewhere else.” And you can write El Coyote a letter, explaining that they have lost your business, and why.
But that kind of simple boycott is not what happened. There were organized protests of over 200 people outside the premises, for several nights running. Customers were harassed and called vulgarities. An employee (who was not pro-Prop 8 ) called in, afraid to come to work. When the restaurant held a press conference to explain that it did not support Prop 8, the event ended with Ms. Christoffersen being hastily escorted out the back door, to protect her from the angry mob that was demanding that she be fired. And after four weeks of this sort of thing, yes, she resigned. That is not “refusal to support”.
@nerdygirl
If it were Your job, it might feel more like martyrdom.
“There is no constitutional right to impose SSM on society.”
No one claims there is. But there is a guarantee of equal treatment and if the government is handing out marriage licenses to some groups, but not others, it needs to provide an explanation. Typically, depending on the group disfavored, there needs to be at least some rational reason for excluding the group, a public purpose, if you will. There doesn’t seem to be any public purpose in excluding gay people from marriage, as the Prop 8 trial revealed.
@Ruth
The problem is it’s not Peter Vidmar saying this, it’s other speakers for other non-related groups claiming this.
@Sean The homosexualists here who keep claiming “equal rights” continue to neglect that there is no such thing as “equal rights” to marriage. Marriage must have qualifications. Two people of the same sex are not qualified. Neither are two people who are closely related. Neither are underage people. Neither are polygamous couples. If you claim “equal rights” to marry for your sexual proclivities, you cannot logically deny any other assembly of people – or people and animals for that matter. Don’t give me the canard of what’s legal; homosexuality used to be illegal also. Being legal or illegal doesn’t make something morally right or wrong.
@Glenn: “animals for the matter”
Seriously, Glenn, if you don’t understand why we don’t allow animals to form contracts — of any sort — with human beings, there’s not much we can do to enlighten you.
Excerpts from http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2011/05/peter-vidmar-the-intolerance-of-gay-marriage-supporters/:
“Intolerance is a one-way street for supporters of homosexual unions/marriage
It’s worth remembering that in a democracy we are supposed to have freedom of speech on the important issues confronting our country.
But in just 3 short years, it has become forbidden to state publicly that one opposes same-sex marriage. You can be stripped of your position, called all manner of names, and be completely socially ostracized. Gay rights activists have worked very hard to make sure that anyone that opposes same-sex marriage is vilified. And they’re doing a bang-up job.
Is democracy strengthened by such bullying tactics? Of course not. Democracy works best when everyone feels they have the right to express their opinion and attempt to persuade others of the validity of their position–without fear of reprisal. Democracy thrives on such dialogue and debate. Democracy is the antithesis of a socially coercive silencing campaign. “
The actual disagreement is about the differences between the marriage idea (a public sexual type of relationship that provides for responsible proccreation combined with integrations of the sexes) and the SSM idea (a type of relationship that is not sexual by law but is imposed to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics).
It has become a political disagreement about the societal preference for the core meaning of marriage versus the gay identity group’s demand for favoritism in the laws and culture at the explicit cost of denigrating the preference for the marriage idea as bigoted.
The SSM campaign is highly and urgently corruptive of all it touches. Its purpose is to elevate, arbitrarily, and not to enoble the identity group nor to pusue justice in society. This has been illustrated by the excuse making comments of SSMers in this discussion
nerdygirl for example declared that stating disagreement is really just a ploy to be treated as a martyr. Such a despicable assertion as that is delivered in the bland voice of indifference to fisrt principles of public discourse. It exemplifies the pro gay bigotry taught by the SSM campaign. That is closely analagous to racist supremacy.
@nerdygirl
I don’t know what Peter Vidmark has said about all this. He may have resigned hoping that it would all quietly go away, so he could continue his public speaking career unaffected by this controversy.
I am complaining on my own behalf, as a citizen who now feels intimidated about voicing my beliefs in the public square. I don’t want to be a martyr (I’m chicken that way). I would like to be able to put a bumper sticker on my car, but I won’t if I’m worried about my car being vandalized. I would like to donate to political causes, but I won’t if I think I could lose my job. If I wanted to “claim martyrdom”, I would go ahead, sticker my car, make the donation, and rejoice when I could say, “See what happened? I’m a victim of oppression!”
I’m also complaining because I am adversely affected, not by Vidmar’s particular job loss, but by the effect this kind of witch-hunting has on the democratic process, in a more abstract sense.
Johnny Weir in his own words:
A. “I would marry a woman tomorrow if it struck me. I don’t think sex and relationships necessarily have to go together.”
The SSM idea means a relationship by law that is not sexual. That gives context to Weir’s jibe (“disgraceful”) at the selection of Vidimar for the role chef de mission. That jibe was about gay identity politics rather than samesex sexual orientation, much less a sexual type of relationship.
B. “I think as a person you know what yor values are and what you believe in, and I think that’s the most important thing.”
But the pro SSM excuse makers here applaude the opposite when it comes to Vidmar who has been an exemplary athelete and leader of atheletes.
C. “But pressure is the last thing that would make me want to ‘join’ a community”
Yet the pressure for compliance is the first thing that the SSM campaign resorts to when engaging in its campaign of recrimination and retribution. They send the message to chill public discourse.
D. “The massive backlash against me in the gay media and community only made me dig my ‘closeted’ heels in further”
And …
E. “A lot of the gay activists got downright angry about my silence.”
Be public with your values or be nonpublic and you can’t satisify the hockers of gay identity politics. Ask Weir. Ask Vidmar. It is always the same hyperventilating pose. The group owns the individual.
Meanwhile the harsh and unjustified fury of intolerance by SSM supporters in the Vidmar story helps to forewarn society just what the SSM campaign really has in mind when it camaflauges itself in talk of tolerance and equality.
Rob Tisinai is wong This was not merely about withdrawal of support. It was an aggressive villification and a disreputable continuation of the campaign of recrimination and vengance seeking.
If an openly gay Californian was selected for the role of chef de mission would the SSMers hound her out of that role if she had not , or would not, support the opposition to the CA marriage amendment? Or is your litmus test only applicable to who openly oppose your anti-Prop8 viewpoint? Would silence satisfy or must affirmation and compliance be required? How would you react if your hard-arned selection for a great job job and your best career prospects were directly threatened just because of your support for SSM?
A Californian is almost as likely to agree with your support as disagree with it. Should the Olympic team bar from leadership roles anyone who has supported either side in the CA marriage issue?
What happened to Vidmar speaks badly of this country as it represents itself on the world stage. That isa real disgrace. The SSM campaign hopes to hold the country hostage and that is anti-tolerance and anti-rule of law.
@Rob Tisinai With no moral standard to base your beliefs on, why does an animal need a contract to have sex with a human?
Chairm, your points might make sense if society were choosing between different-sex marriage and same-sex marriage. That’s not the case: both can be legal, and co-exist. Just like both men and women can vote, or both white folks and black folks can have full civil rights.
It would be great if the anti-gay marriage folks could articulate why same-sex marriage must be illegal, and how that advantages society, or how legal same-sex marriage harms society. They don’t seem to be able to. I thought the Prop 8 trial was particularly surprising in its lack of explanation for why same-sex marriage must be outlawed. At the Prop 8 appeals hearing, Mr. Cooper said that the word marriage must be reserved for straight couples, with little explanation why.
I think this manner of argumentation is unconvincing.
“despicable” RLY.
If Peter Vidmar was claiming he was discriminated against, and there were quotes from him in the article, then I’d be more inclined to believe it. As it is, we have quotes from groups against SSM. And they are claiming victim status for him. If Peter feels he has been wronged, let him speak up about. But don’t tell me that these spokespersons from these groups aren’t pursuing their own agenda.
And no, I don’t think not acting like Glenn towards gay people is similar to racial supremacy. I think you’re being overdramatic.
@Chairm
Chairm, it’s ambiguous if SSM would be a sexual relationship at law. By “sexual type of relationship” what you really mean is “reproductive type of relationship” because by approving and allowing sexual intercourse, it means approving and allowing sexual reproduction, joining of the sex cells. Whether that happens in a petri dish in a lab, possibly using artificial or modified gametes, or naturally in a bedroom is secondary to the issue of approving and allowing the conception of children.
Do you agree that marriage approves and allows the conception of children of the couple, using their own genes, and that no married couple should ever be prohibited from conceiving offspring together using their own genes, by any method? Couples that are prohibited from conceiving offspring together are never allowed to marry, even if they could conceive offspring together and would integrate the sexes, such as a brother and sister. Do you agree that people should not be allowed to conceive offspring with a sibling? Or how about with someone of the same sex? How about with their neighbor, who is married to someone else? How about with their own spouse?
For decades, it has become forbidden to state publicly that one is gay. You can be stripped of your position, called all manner of names, and be completely socially ostracized. Anti-gay activists have worked very hard to make sure that anyone that who is gay is vilified. And they’re doing a bang-up job.
Not according to Sean who said that having civil unions and marriage was not legal.
But then this is the same Sean who makes stuff up from the constitution, always in favor of homosexuals at the expense of everyone else.
He’ll say both things. That same-sex marriage can co-exist when it suits him, and that it can’t when it suits him.
All we need to do is let Sean describe it for us, just depending on whether he thinks it promotes homosexuals at everyones expense.
… to the very same Sean who is as arbitrary and changing as the winds in Chicago.
Having Civil Unions that have the same rights as marriage but with a different name is unconstitutional, and doesn’t make any sense.
On Lawn, do you think same-sex couples should have the same rights as a married man and woman?
nerdygirl
The fact is that the SSM supporters pressed for Vidmar’s removal, one way or another, despite his excellent record and high qualifications for the role of chef de mission. Their only reason: his support for the core meaning of marriage and for the CA marriage amendment.
You excused the campaign of political retribution.
In addition you asserted that Vidimar’s stepping aside was about seeking martyrdom. That baseless assertion was and is despicable.
This political attack on Vidimar did occur whether or not you claim that to you it did not ‘feel’ like an attack. If instead you choose to make up from no facts your accusation that Vidimar sought the great job and accepted his selection as chef de mission because he wanted to be martyred by such an attack, well, that makes your excuse making for gay identity politics very closely analagous with racist supremacy.
Your comments do that. I merely point it out for others to consider. You might reflect on it a bit more honestly.
Rob the villification of Vidimar is not escused by your latest comment.
Besides, I quoted Weir. The cost of the supremacy of gay identity politics is suffered even by those who self-identified with the socio-political group identity of ‘gay’.
Hence my questions about an openly gay individual who did not support the anti-Prop8 campaign … or even opposed it … being selected for chef de mission. You may be fearful of responding to those questions even though the largest exit poll suggested that openly homosexual voters contributed to the margin of victory for the CA marriage amendment. There were such persons who openly supported Prop 8 and the nongay people who also voted for it. There were letters to newspapers making the case for bucking the political pressure of groupthink that fueled to anti-8 side’s accusations of bigotry and promotin of the supremacy of gay identity politics.
Your fear of standing on principle exemplifies the way in which the SSM campaign’s tactics are closely analagous with racial supremacy .
Sean my comment does not depend on the false dichotomy that you injected into my remarks. You have fabricated a strawman, again, instead of dealing with the actual conflict if ideas.
The federal constitutional questiions were dealt with admirably and persausively by the Cooper team. But that is not at issue here.
At issue here is the vengance seeking of SSMers who attacked the selection of Vidimar, and attacked Vidimar personally, just because of Vidimar’s support for the ratification of a state amendment to its state constiution. The CA Supreme court acknowledged that the amendment is valid. That amendment is in keeping with the marriage law of that state since before it transitioned from territory to statehood. That public understanding, reconfirmed in statute and in state constitution, has been seamlessly continuous. Even the pro SSM opinion of the state high court had acknowledged as much.
The socalled SSMs that were licensed as marriages in the brief period just prior to ratification of the marriage amendment are legal aberrations and unprecedented in CA. To claim otherwise is to condemn the generous treatment of nonmarriage in CA … and to do so for no better reason than the notion that gay identity politics trumps all else.
Again,that would be closely analagous … very closely analagous … with racial supremacy. SSMers keep confirming it as they have confirmed it in the Vidmar incident and in the excuse making comments in this very discussion.
Society ought to heed the promise of villification, recrimination, retributions, and vengance seeking. We are being forewarned by the supporters of SSM in their own words and actions. Believe them, because they show thmselves determined to keep these promises.
For them their SSM idea is not about justice but about “just us”. However Weir’s quotes strongly suggest that identity politics readily threatens suffocate dissent and disagreement and oppositition even among members of the gay identity group. The promise is not unlike that of sort of identity politics which has plagued modern civilizations for centuries. It is not unprecedented in the historical record.
@Chairm
“The fact is that the SSM supporters pressed for Vidmar’s removal, one way or another, despite his excellent record and high qualifications for the role of chef de mission. Their only reason: his support for the core meaning of marriage and for the CA marriage amendment.”
………So? They perceived his donation to prop 8 as an attack against them and their rights. Protesting is a right of all people in the States. If he had donated to Planned Parenthood and the Catholic church protested him would you still defend him? Or is speaking up for your beliefs only good when it aligns with conservative party lines?
“In addition you asserted that Vidimar’s stepping aside was about seeking martyrdom. That baseless assertion was and is despicable.”
I can kinda see how my original comment of “Personally, this feels less like an attack and more like seeking martyrdom” might read as what you said above, but it was certainly clarified that I didn’t think Peter Vidmar was claiming martyrdom, but that OTHER PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO CLAIM IT FOR HIM. In fact, thats what my reply to Ruth, no doubt clarifying my original statement was all about
“The problem is it’s not Peter Vidmar saying this, it’s other speakers for other non-related groups claiming this.”
So, really, my comments say nothing about Peter Vidmar’s character or martydom seekingness, and certainly nothing of the “gay identity politics” that only you seem to ever talk about. Your comments insinuate falsely. You might want to read more carefully.
@Sean You continue to compare sexual orientation/behavior with skin color and gender, both of which are morally neutral. It is not a civill right to redefine what marriage is. You have been continually given the reasons why marriage is what it is and why it cannot be redefined without destroying the institution itself, yet you continue to demand such reasons as you deny those that are given. You want to deny that 2+2=4
Actually, Chairm, I’m wondering what makes you think I opposed Peter Vidmar holding this position?
@Glenn: “With no moral standard to base your beliefs on, why does an animal need a contract to have sex with a human?”
1. Who said I have you no moral standard to base my beliefs on?
2. The context of this whole discussion is marriage. Marriage is a contract. Animals lack the requisite mental capacity to form contracts. Ergo, legalizing same-sex marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with humans marrying animals.
Exactly! And yet Prop 8 attempted to render thousands of marriage unions neutered. Luckily all those thousands of couples who married before a mere 52% majority of California voters stripped gays of the right to marry were grandfathered in and remain married to this day. God forbid we start voting to have our government forcibly divorce married couples, which is exactly what many prop-8 supporters wanted to do to those legally married couples.
@nerdygirl
“And on a federal level, there’s no need to for religion to play a role…”
What do you suggest should fill the vacuum that is left when religion no longer plays a role in public policy?
On what foundation will you build a moral society?
@Ruth: “What do you suggest should fill the vacuum that is left when religion no longer plays a role in public policy? On what foundation will you build a moral society?”
Which religion/denomination do you have in mind?
Emma; > And yet Prop 8 attempted to render thousands of marriage unions neutered.
Correction: It kept the state from neutering all of the marriages.
And it removed no marriage licenses, nor any opportunities for benefits or privileges for same-sex couples.
@Rob Tisinai You have no objective moral standards; you have only your personal belief, with no right to say other’s personal beliefs are wrong.
Marriage can be a common law with no contracts, no legal paperwork, etc. Just two people living together. So you can live with an animal. Tell me by what moral standard you deny that.
@Emma It is SSM which is forcing the neutering of marriage. SSM whether legal or not are neuter – not real marriages.
So allowing your gay neighbors/relatives/whomever to marry will neuter your own marriage? How so, exactly?
Old people marrying are also neutering marriage. And impotent people. Last I checked, virility wasn’t a requisite for marriage.
Governments issue licenses to individuals for all kinds of stuff. Governments are party to contracts with individuals for all kinds of stuff. So insisting that SSM would merely be a contract based on the individual’ s right of choice does not bar an individual from choosing an arrangement with an animal. And, no, it does not suffice to axiomatcally assert a limitation without justification for the restriction on choice. SSMers reject argument by definition, so they say, and rjection all arguments along the lines of that is not the way we have done it in the past, again, so they say. Sometimes SSMers cite Romman Emperior Nero who supposedly married a maleslave boy he had castrated … but Nero also supposedly married an animal. Some contract that.
And so forth.
SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship by law, anyway, SSMers have insisted. So sexual behavior and predilictions does not justify the limitation either. Even love cannot justify a restriction.
(Besides human beings are animals, too. Relationships of this kind can be very committed as those with animals at home can readily attest. Heh.)
SSMers describe a type of relationship that is indistinguishable from nonmarriage. They just stick the label on it and pretend that government is empowered to arbitrarily impose restrictions for SSM that merely ape the boundaries around the coe meaning of marriage .. a core that the SSM idea is an outright and SSMers voice their aggressive rejection of.
That which is contracted, that which is licened, and that which is called marriage depends very much on justly distinguising between this special type of relationship and all other kinds of domestic arrangements and relationship types. The SSM idea falls way short of the marriage idea.
Government resrictions require justification based on what marriage actually is. Same goes for SSM. Merely claiming either to be a contract simply does not suffice.
ActuallyRob, what makes you think you know what I think about Vidmar’s holding his position as chef de mission?
Specifically I said you were wrong to make excuses.
Generally I posed to SSMers a query about a gay individual being selected for that role. That query certainly does not assume the answers that SSMers might give. In fact that query is good for marriage defenders here to consider as well. Is the litmus test the side one took on Prop 8?
If yes, why? If not, why not?
Your excuse making strongly suggested your withdrawal of support (as you’ put it) would be more than a token gesture. Please make your view clear and state the principled basis for it.
Typo correction: what makes you think you know what I think about your view about Vidmar’s holding his position … ?
@Rob Tisinai
A firm reliance on the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, is the only foundation upon which our society will continue to flourish.
Our current drift toward Meocracy can only end in utter ruin.
Actually Chairm, I’ve never said I know what you think of Vidmar’s situation.
“Your excuse making strongly suggested your withdrawal of support (as you’ put it) would be more than a token gesture.”
As usual, I have little idea of what this means.
@Glenn: “You have no objective moral standards; you have only your personal belief, with no right to say other’s personal beliefs are wrong.”
Actually, Glenn, you have yet to establish that you have objective moral standards. All you’ve offered is your personal belief that the Bible is correct, but that’s a purely subjective opinion.
Nerdygirl, no I would not use such litmus tests for the chef de mission job for the Olympic Team. What about you? Please se the query I made yesterday.
The harsh criticism flows form identity politics and your remarks have been an attempt to excuse it.
When someone is pushed out of a job (be it a small job or a big job) it had better be for a good reason to do with that job, political differences do not siffice. Disagreement with the CA marriage amendment is no excuse for what occurred. SSMers seem ready to applaude another notch in the SSM campaign’s belt. That Vidmar is a Mormon does not excuse this either. That he is high profile does not excuse it. But it is for these excuses that SSMers, far and wide, have been uncritical of the tactics of villification and retribution. Dou you count yourself among those who applaude this stuff? Or are just not-so-passively making excuses in supposed neutrality?
By the way Chairm, if this is what you’re asking, I don’t think a person’s stance on marriage equality (or human rights and full citizenship for gays, etc.) should be a reason for firing them unless it has some bearing on their job performance.
(Unlike many people on your side of the debate who completely freak out at laws that would prevent gays and lesbians from being fired simply because they’re gay.)
No they don’t because their marriages are fully approved and allowed and have the right to conceive children, they just probably won’t. They are not prohibited from possibly creating offspring like same-sex couples should be, or like siblings are.
That’s why “neutered marriage” isn’t quite the right term, because neutering works by making procreation impossible, because animals aren’t able to control themselves or follow the law if they were merely prohibited from procreating. And it is also done to individuals, as opposed to marriages of animals. But the idea is vaguely similar: neutering means denying the right to reproduce. Marriages should never be denied their right to reproduce, even if they are old or impotent, or poor or unhealthy, they should always be approved and allowed to have sex and conceive children.
@Emma
“So allowing your gay neighbors/relatives/whomever to marry will neuter your own marriage? How so, exactly?”
It puts the right to procreate in jeopardy by declaring it equal to a same-sex couple’s right to manufacture offspring using modified gametes. If we decide to prohibit labs from using artificial gametes derived from stem cells, then it would mean that marriage did not protect the right or affirm or approve creating offspring and anyone’s marriage could be prohibited from marrying for reasons of safety or fitness. If we decide to allow labs to create offspring for same-sex couples, then it would still neuter marriage because it would mean using genetically modified gametes satisfies the rights of marriage, and any couple could be forced to use genetically modified gametes, or pressured to use improved or substitute gametes.
It comes down to recognizing that we all have a right to reproduce naturally, with someone of the other sex, and that all other ways to create people are unethical and should be prohibited, as a way to preserve human rights and dignity and environmental and ecological sustainability. The planet has limited resources, it isn’t a science fiction book. Sexual reproduction should be preserved, not replaced with industrialized technology.
The definition of marriage and its expectation of equal gender representation (one man and one woman) is removed, hence neutered.
A second way marriage is neutered is by removing the governments ability to recognize and encourage the responsible use of the unique capacities that a man/woman relationship has. The procreative type of relationship for humans is one man and one woman, and without that explicit reference there is no longer a way to service the unique needs of that relationship. When marriage moves from an explicitly procreative type of relationship (one man and one woman) to a non-procreative type, I think that suits the term “neutered” pretty well.
Now the question I ask you is what about same-sex couples needs requires that we no longer recognize the unique needs of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together, and the rights associated with that potential child in how it is procreated and the access it has to the two who shared their identity to create it?
Because as I see it, we can meet all of the needs of homosexual couples without intentionally not recognizing the unique needs of the procreative type of relationship.
No, you just don’t understand biology.
In biology the man-woman relationship is the reproductive relationship (meaning where reproduction is observed, there is always observed a particular relationship between a man and a woman).
You don’t have to see reproduction in 100% of all male-female relationships. What you see is 100% of the reproduction happening between males and females.
@Rob Tisinai
“…being fired simply because they’re gay.”
You are using a loaded expression, with which there is an essential problem.
“Being gay” can mean that someone is attracted in some sexual sense to members of his or her own sex.
It can also mean that someone is sexually involved with a member or members of his or her own sex.
It can also mean that someone is flagrantly so involved.
If a person is committed to homosexual practice, they cannot expect to be hired for a job that requires a commitment to Biblical morality.
@Ruth: Luckily, we live in a free country, one whose Founders did not believe in theocracy, even one founded on the Bible. It’s interesting to go through the 10 Commandments and see how many of them are forbidden by the Constitution from being made into law.
But Ruth, I do have to ask this: given your beliefs, do you think we should follow Leviticus and make homosexuality punishable by death?
On Lawn: “You don’t have to see reproduction in 100% of all male-female relationships. What you see is 100% of the reproduction happening between males and females.”
But in order to say, “In biology the man-woman relationship is the reproductive relationship,” you would need the sentence I quoted to be true, not the second.
@Emma No one is talking about fertility. SSM is neuter in that it has only one sex. Marriage requires one of each sex.
@Rob Tisinai
If you were to do some real research into the Bible and it’s veracity, you might just learn something. GOD does exist, as can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As the creator, He set the moral standard. Outside of God’s moral standard everyone has just their own beliefs as to what proper morals may or may not be. And that is YOUR belief system; you have no moral basis except your own desires.
@Rob Tisinai No one “freaks out” at laws that won’t allow homophiles to be fired for being homosexual – that is as a general rule. However, if the job requires good moral standards, or if it requires adherence to Christian beliefs (e.g., a job with a Christian institution), then any sexual misconduct should be allowed to be a firing offense. And homosexual behavior is sexual misconduct.
@Rob Tisinai I’ll answer for Ruth in regards to the Leviticus question (I hope she doesn’t mind). That Levitical law never applied to anyone except the nation of Israel, so why should we concern ourselves with it? This is the standard canard from the homosexualists who cannot understand what Scripture says because they just keep repeating tired arguments rather than reading context for themselves.
@Chairm
I personally don’t care. I think it’s possible to be against SSM without being a homophobe. And as long as he doesn’t discriminate against any of his team members. BUT. Here’s the thing. He’s a coach. If his team can’t, doesn’t or in some way shape or form loses respect for him, he has failed at his job. And he is no longer effective. And yes, donating to Prop 8 could cause potential team members to lose or otherwise not respect him. So he’s not as protected as you might think, because thats an occupational hazard when you work in a mentor position. Is it fair? No. Should we as a society work on moving past this sort of mentality where if a person in a mentor position isn’t a wholesome neutral at all times their job is forfeit? Well, yes. (And you can start with the busybodies who tried to get Judy Barunich fired.)
Do I appluad this? No. I reserve schadenfreude for those who actually have it coming. Do I think the boycott was wrong? Meh. Not really. The article mentions that athletes were involved, and they most certainly have a right to voice approval or disapproval of who represents them. It’s not like it was just “pro-gay identity” groups involved. (Although I’m sure you’ll argue that the athletes who protested are also just pro-gay identity and thus somehow shouldn’t be allowed to boycott a coach.)
And it still doesn’t change that anti-gay marriage groups are claiming some sort of victim status for Vidmar, seemingly without any actual input in what he believes.
Please unpack that Rob, perhaps you spoke to hastily for me to catch all your antecedents. Could you quote more directly for me?
@Ruth
Well, western civ has a couple thousand years of ethics that date before Christ, notably the Greeks. But, this article explains it quite nicely.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Reading-Morality-without-Religion.htm
Rob, how can you compare a business owner being forced to hire a gay or transgendered person, and a mob of activists forcing the firing of someone who is against same-sex marriage? I guess there are laws that people can’t be discriminated against for their religious beliefs, and those ought to protect atheists too, but I don’t think they protect transhumanist or eugenic or racist beliefs, or beliefs about sexuality or behavior, which I think people ought to be allowed to take into account in choosing who they hire or who they work for.
“do you think we should follow Leviticus and make homosexuality punishable by death?”
I think everyone should be punished by death, none of us descendents of Adam and Eve are righteous enough to deserve a single additional day of God’s mercy. But actually punishing everyone by death would be too big a job and I for one don’t have the conviction and heart, it isn’t my problem, it isn’t my job, it’s up to God to punish us, and God is merciful.
Well apparently you won’t have to worry about this too much longer: May 21st is almost here, along with Christ’s return and the beginning of the end times (at least according to the crazies driving truck-sized advertisements and putting up billboards and handing out fliers in Times Square warning about this impending doom for all us heathens) — or are those the wrong type of Christians?
No it doesn’t. Otherwise all those couples who got married in CA before Prop 8, all those couples in Iowa and Massachusetts and Canada and those crazy-scary-socialist Scandinavian countries and South Africa and so on and so forth wouldn’t be married. And yet, oh my God, they are! Go figure.
Emma, I submit this to help you understand the conundrum of what legal realities create vs the reality they are based off of…
Is it Marriage in Massachusetts?
@Rob Tisinai
By “homosexuality”, do you mean two men having sexual relations with each other, or two women doing the same?
@nerdygirl
Listening to Peter Singer tell us that we should dump the Bible is like listening to the stranger in the car telling us that we should ignore our parents.
@nerdygirl So what you are saying is that one cannot be a “homophobe” (I’m still trying to find any one afraid of homophiles), but the homophiles can be heterophobes? They can’t have respect for the man’s qualifications and skills because he is against SSM? Talk about your bigots!
Vidmar is indeed a victim of SSM supporters because they are the ones who protested him out of their own bigotry. Homophiles are bigoted against anyone who dares deny that SSM is valid.
@nerdygirl Civilization started with the morals and ethics of God. And HE planted the moral law in the hearts of all. So any society who had any morals were just expressing what God planted in them. The problem are the people who reject what they have in their conscience.
@Emma Harold Camping is a rank heretic and does not represent the Christian faith. So any reference to him as being Christian norm is erroneous.
@Emma These people are not “married” – they have a faux marriage. They are squares trying to be circles. Just because the law allows it, that doesn’t make it right. They can call themselves roses, but they are nothing but noxious weeds.
@Ruth: “homosexuality” refers to someone who is exclusively or nearly exclusively sexually attracted to one’s own gender.
But I imagine you know that, so I don’t see the purpose of your question.
Glenn, you remind me of someone who believes women shouldn’t drive, and therefore women who have driver’s licenses really don’t have driver’s licenses.
That’s the sort of logic you’re applying when you say people who are married aren’t necessarily married just because the government (which, of course, decides these things) says that they are.
You write, “Just because the law allows it, that doesn’t make it right.” I would amend that to, “Just because you think it’s not right, that doesn’t mean it’s not so.”
“Civilization started with the morals and ethics of God.”
Prove it, prove it, prove it.
Who said he was the norm? On the other hand, who said you are? Many Christians support gay rights, including many churches. According to you, they too are false Christians. According to them, you probably are.
And back we go to the weeds & roses analogies. Yay!
They are in fact and in law, married. You may not like the law that permits them to marry. Overturn the law if you like, but in the meantime, they are married.
@Rob Tisinai Rob, to compare driver’s licenses and marriage is illogical. Anyone of age can acquire a license to drive a car as long as they are physically and mentally qualified, and there is not moral value attached to it, nor does the definition of a driver’s license change due to gender.
Just because there are liberal activist judges who add a definition to marriage that is not in the word, and then say people are married because they fit his new definition, that doesn’t make them married. They aren’t married in the eyes of the law in most states, nor are they recognized as married by God, nor do they fit the dictionary definition of marriage, so therefore they are not really married.
A judge can order circles to be called squares but that doesn’t mean they are squares no matter what license they carry says they are squares. You cannot just call anything you want by a new thing and then claim it is that new thing. Things have definitions, and marriage has a definition which must have opposite-sex people in the union.
There is a moral standard you ignore, and the proof is the in the Scripture. GOD was there before any civilization and HE made the rules. If you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt I can suggest a very good book which will do that for you: “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist,” by Dr. Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.
@Ruth
But we are a multicultural society. We do not force religion on anyone, so yes, Pulblic institutions and schools shouldn’t have religion has their sole base. You may use the bible to found the entirety of your morals, but taking other things into account (Be it derived from the Greeks or Judiasm or Islam or just Honesty is the Best Policy) Isn’t necessarily dumping the bible.
And besides. Yeah, morals exist apart from Christianity, I’m sorry you can’t see that.
@Rob Tisinai
I would not advocate punishment for mere attraction to sinful behavior, and the Old Testament does not advocate such punishment.
Oh, Glenn. In California, when same-sex marriage became legal, those marriages were recognized by the state. Furthermore, they still ARE recognized by the state. And by dictionaries, too. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
I’m afraid you’re simply wrong.
As for God, and proof in the Scripture, that has no bearing on American law. You know that, I’m sure.
Finally, when it comes to Frank Turek, I’ve read enough of his columns on Prop 8 to know his evidentiary and analytical skills are weak. I’m reluctant to take up a work by an author I already know to be unreliable from his other work. Even skimming the book on Amazon shows that he’s mostly interested in setting up straw men instead of real arguments. For instance, in Appendix 1, a smart atheist would denied that the objective moral truth requires a God, or even more easily, would just have amended the question from “Why does God allow evil” to “Why does God allow suffering?”
And even accepting the first part of Turek’s very flawed response, the rest of it relies on the notion of God as a very powerful but not all-powerful being.
If anyone has a better author to refer me to, I’d much appreciate it.
Glenn, I just saw on page 19 that Turek says “‘university’ is actually a composite of the words ‘unity’ and ‘diversity.’”
A visit to any major dictionary would show that to be flat-out false. Is that how he proceeds with the rest of his proofs? By just making stuff up?
And Glenn, I found this quote from the book: “On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.”
I don’t know whether his numbers are right, but if they are, so what? If the oxygen content were 15%, what’s to prevent some other life form from evolving, one which would be similarly amazed to find that the oxygen content of the atmosphere is wonderfully suited to its existence?
In fact, this is strange evidence even from a devout believer’s point of view: there’s nothing AT ALL special about 21% given that an all-powerful God could easily have created human who can thrive at 15%.
And this: “If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up).”
Um, no. CO2 levels WERE higher at one point in history, and life managed to survive (just not human life.)
I’ll stop there. But I do welcome references to a more serious author.
Sorry, I have to do just one more. On page 124 Turek shows that he doesn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, as it receives energy from the sun, allowing order to increases here around us even as it decreases in the universe as a whole.
Actually, I’ve found that to be a litmus test: people who make that mistake can’t be regarded as serious thinkers on this topic.
Rob your side freaked regarding Vidmar. Yet you made excuses for that. What is your principled basis for your not feeaking out versus your excuse making for those who did in this incident?
Chairm, my “excuse” was a factual statement. There’s no further need to defend it. Personally I just didn’t feel the swell of outrage. I don’t feel a need to lay out a logical case for not being outraged (outrage is an emotional state, anyway, not an intellectual one). Not everything in life is a Spinoza-style proof.
Rob, I kindly submit this in order to clear up confusion on the two issues you rose.
1) Whether it is a marriage or not in Massachusetts (or in your case California). The answer is, I bet, not what you think.
2) From this discussion with John Scalzi…
The Webster’s definition would fit something like Civil Unions, or Domestic Partnerships. They are relationships that are “like that of a traditional marriage”.
Only when we neuter the definition to make it a single definition have we accomplished what the law did in Massachusetts, its legal smoke and mirrors surrounding what is naturally identified and observable even without the law.
So that leads me to ask, and ask more frequently these days,
when we are talking about same-sex marriage, are we talking about:
1) Government Recognition of a homosexual relationship, wedding and living together
2) Making it so that anything unique about the man/woman relationship with each other and the child they potentially have together is not recognized by the government in marriage by neutering “man and woman” from the definition of marriage.
The reason I’d like people to make a better distinction is that I support #1 as a part of recognizing a much larger group of responsible adult mutual support relationships. But there are reasons I don’t support #2.
Those reasons are listed (in part) here.
@Rob Tisinai As I noted, I said SSM was not recognized by MOST states, so your bring CA into the equation didn’t change anything. CA is but an example of what I noted as being liberal activist judges redefining a word.
Modern dictionaries are worthless because they change with the political climate. Try looking at a dictionary older than the last couple decades, and try looking at the history of the word and institution. THAT defines what it is.
I don’t know about Turek’s other writings, but he is only a co-author of the book I noted, and Norman Geisler is no slouch when it comes to philosophy and logic, let alone theology. The man teaches this stuff!
A better author is God, but you don’t want to acknowledge his existence. I think Romans 1:18-32 describes you quite adequately. As for the origin of the word “university,” I have read more than one suggestion as to its origin. But the point G&T make about today’s universities is one you can’t deny. There are many anthropic constants which demonstrate design – the odds of all these constants coming about by chance is astronomical, and it takes more faith to believe it came about by chance than it does to accept it came about by design. And, by the way, it is only a theory that CO2 levels were higher – no one was there, and only assumptions based on the evolutionary model says it had to be higher.
As for “closed systems,” the universe is the closed system in which entropy takes place. This is Thermodynamics 101. It seems to me you are the one who made the mistake.
I would be outraged if Rob or Sean or Mont or any commenter on this site was forced out of a job for participating in a political campaign, donating to a campaign or to any legal organization, or writing or commenting on a blog. While I may disagree with their comments, I will defend their right to free expression and participation in the political process without fear of reprisal, whether they extend that right to others or not.
See also http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/06/personal-freedom-without-polit
Thanks, Leo, that’s great. So how do you feel about people being fired just for being gay? That’s still legal in more than half our country’s states.
Glenn, the page to which on which Turek is making his Thermodynamics mistake refers to the emergence of life on Earth. Earth is not a closed system. Turek is wrong.
The bit about dictionaries is getting a bit funny. You relied on dictionaries for proof and when I pointed out your flaw, your response amounted to, “Not THAT dictionary!”
As for the anthropic principle, I summed up the problem with that: “If the oxygen content were 15%, what’s to prevent some other life form from evolving, one which would be similarly amazed to find that the oxygen content of the atmosphere is wonderfully suited to its existence?”
See, there’s nothing amazing going on here. Human life evolved to meet condiitions on Earth. If those conditions had been different (say, oxygen at 15%), then evolution would have led to the creation of animals who are suited to that set of conditions.
And this: “And, by the way, it is only a theory that CO2 levels were higher – no one was there, and only assumptions based on the evolutionary model says it had to be higher.” That’s just wrong. Scientists have found ingenious ways of determining conditions throughout Earth’s history. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110408101751.htm
@Rob Tisinai Earth is part of the universe – the universe is a closed system. Why would one have to specify that when talking about the earth? Find me a place on earth where just energy made something; no matter how much sun or other energy you pour into dirt, nothing will spontaneously develop – it is a proven fact that life cannot come from non-life.
You speculate that some other sort of life-form could have evolved had things been different, and yet you say my belief in God is fallacious!
Your “ingenious” scientists are using assumptions to come to their conclusions. One can assume just about anything, but that doesn’t make it science.
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I don’t have enough faith to believe that matter always existed and that something came from nothing. I don’t have enough faith to believe that matter made every thing and nothing made matter.
@Rob Tisinai People are never fired “just for being gay.” Leastways I’ve never heard of such an incident, and I’d like to know where it is legal to do so. IF being sexually moral is a requirement for a job, then one is not being fired for being “gay,” he is being fired for sexual immorality, which would also be the condition of adulterers and fornicators.
Glenn, it’s legal to fire someone for being gay in 30 states (give or take, depending on recent legislation). These states outlaw such a thing: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Other states have left it legal to fire people for being gay.
Rob regarding your claim about firing employees just becuase, as uou put it, they are gay,I quote you: prove it.
You called it freaking out when you describe the side you oppose; and now you call it outrage when excusing the side you favor. That belies a lack of emotional neutrality.
You stated a fact that does not defend the freaked out reaction of your side. You are right to note theirl outburst does not stand on reason but rather on swollen feelings. But that is not so for the side you disagree with. Vidmar was forced out due to your favored side freaking out.
Your excuse making began with but is not limited to your pointing at an error made by the court that fancied itself a pro SSM legislative council. That same court compounded it error by not staying its ruling until after the pending vote on the directly relevant vote on the marriage amendment that upon ratification would reconfir. the contunously affirmed man-oman definiton of marriage in CA. If the vote went your way the stay would expire without conflict with the court’s imposition of SSM. But if the amendment was approved then the couert’ ruling would become mute.
But that court further cmpounded its error by superficially resolving a supposed dilemma that it had created on its own … by arbitrarily ruling that Domestic partnerships licensed as marriages during the brief interim would artificially retain marital status, contrary to the state constitution and contrary to continuous public affirmation of the man-woman criterion ratified explicitly by that amendment. The court resolved nothing but created a dilemma that The People were currently embarked on resolving one way or the other. The interim SSMs represent a fact that illustrates the irresponsibilty of the court and as such is not as decisive as you would portray it when you claimed a right was taken away. It was not a right derived from the constitution nor from marriage law nor from the social institution of marriage; but it was an error imposed through the of arbitrary exercise of governmental power,nzmely multiple abuses of judicial review.
These are the facts that shed a harsh light on both your claimed fact and your use of that claimed fact to defend the swollen feelings of your side.
Your claimed fact does not help you defend your excuse making. It helps to remove the mask of your supposed emotional detatchment on the Vidmar incident.
@Rob Tisinai I’m sure there is more to it than just that they are homophile. Be serious. Just because a state doesn’t include “sexual orientation” in their non-discrimination laws, that doesn’t mean one can be fired just for being a homophile.
I’ve tried twice to post a series of links. They haven’t shown up. I know some spam filters block posts with too many links. But all you need to do is google fired for being gay.
Chairm, I find your long posts to be so full of jargon, buzz word, undefined terms, hidden assumptions, and circular reasoning that once again I really don’t know what you’re getting at.
@Rob Tisinai
“Being gay” is a misnomer.
One’s actions determine his or her fitness in the eyes of an employer.
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Choose to build up our society, instead of dragging it down.
@Rob
I support employment rights regardless of political or sexual orientation. Unless a person’s politics (of whatever type) or sexuality (of whatever type) interferes with their job performance or leads to criminal acts (or such future interference or acts can be reasonably expected from actual past behavior), it should not be a cause for termination of employment. Do you agree?
@Leo If a person becomes a homophile while employed in a position which requires sexual morality, then he should be fired. That is the only reason a homophile should be fired (unless he previously misrepresented himself). However, an employer, or even a group, who has certain moral and ethical standards should have the right to deny employment to a homophile, just as they should have the right to deny employment for any other sexual misconduct.
Glenn, I think a better standard for employers is to prohibit sexual activity in the workplace, while protecting a person’s right to do in private as he wishes. Employer’s are on stronger ground prohibiting behaviors on site, rather than private behaviors.
I believe it is legal in all fifty states for a private employer to fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment. A public employer, in contrast, would be probably prevented from firing someone based on political speech.
I believe protecting freedom of speech to be at least as important as, and arguably much more important than, protecting sexual expression. After all, sexuality can be and usually is meaningfully expressed in private, but restricting political speech to the closet makes it meaningless.
Freedom of speech was never about sex. Freedom of speech was the right to criticise/ridicule those in power, in the course of which they no doubt used various sexual proclivities.
I understand the misunderstanding when in our current society the pornographers have the greater right to freedom of speech than the ever diminishing right to criticise political ideologies. Pornographers have claimed supremecy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights denying women even the right to respect in our public space.
How perverse.
@Sean But when one says they are “homosexual” they just threw their privacy out the window. Just as when a normal person says they are living with someone, or having an adulterous relationship. If the job requires sexual morality, then out the door they all go.