I don't view it as a threat to my marriage. I view it as a threat to the fabric of society as a whole.
Here was a neat little tidbit buried behind the president's stance.
Now that it's 'legal' to have pictures, what is the next logical step?
Apples and oranges, Charlie. Equating two people of the same sex who wish to pledge themselves to each other and abide in the sanctity of marriage with men (and it's almost always men) who seek sexual release through the abuse of children (girls and boys) is repellent and indefensible. They are at opposite ends of the emotional spectrum.
Inter-racial marriage was going to be the death of our society, too.
If there are death knells ringing, it's not because gay people wish to marry, it's because we have become a horribly judgmental, divisive and intolerant society.
Barney, you’re a nut. How you managed to associate these two completely unrelated issues is beyond any logical thought process. That chain is short of more than one link.
The article is discussing the fact that it is impossible to prove intention by what is stored in your computer's cache (temp internet files). If you somehow get malware on your computer (perhaps one of your kids clicks a fake link) and you start getting pop-ups that include pornography (or anything else), those images are automatically stored in your computer’s cache without your having taken any action to download or view them. They prove nothing. Now that folder of images he had on his PC is another story – they were downloaded and saved to a specific location.
As the article states, the "real problem here is that legislation is not keeping up with technology" and you can’t prove guilt by "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache". So, yes, the unintended consequence of the ruling discussed is the implication that it is legal to view child porn in NY. But that zinger is a misleading statement. It would be better stated that it is not illegal to find images of child porn stored in cache without proof of explicit action taken by the viewer, such as a mouse click stream, or perhaps the duration of movie files played, which would demonstrate that the user clicked the play button and watched from start to finish.
My point is that the article is talking about the impact of the Internet and computer forensics in relation to our ability to legislate. There is nothing here that even begins to relate to the subject matter of Katie’s post.
I knew there would be difficulty understanding my point, and honestly - I didn't feel like writing a treatise to explain it. In a nutshell, my point is the slippery slope of legal acceptance. I believe you are old enough to remember the coming out of the gay community in the 60's. Well... Let's you and I discuss child porn in 50 years or so.
Just as honestly - I feel there is a connection between the OPEN disregard for traditional sexual mores and a decline in western society.
BTW - personally, I do not feel either judgmental or intolerant. The laws should (will) change as the popular opinion changes - regardless of what you or I might personally believe. I will abide by the law.
WTH is "Barney"?
Secondly, I believe the appeals ruling is weak in that it allows a defendant to claim innocence by claiming no knowledge of a browser cache, yet the defendant's files were deleted images. Sounds like he knew the pics were illegal, but he didn't know that just deleting them once was not sufficient. Seems to me that he is guilty of child porn and innocent (ignorant) of basic computer operation.
Lastly, I see a connection between the two. See my comment to katieog. That is sufficient for me to voice an opinion, same as it is for you. Of course, if you think I should not voice my opinion, please see katieog's reference to being judgmental and intolerant.
"it's because we have become a horribly judgmental, divisive and intolerant society"
In my lifetime society has become more and more tolerant of "alternate lifestyles" and lots of other things. Corruption in government doesn't even concern people anymore.
And from what we saw in emails and facebooks yesterday the pro gay marriage people are horribly insulting to the traditional marriage folks. The Pros are divisive and intolerant. Both sides behave badly towards each other.
It is in the best interest of the Ruling Class to keep the commoners at each others' throats.
I have no doubt that same sex marriage will eventually become legal but not before the Rulers get every bit of money and power out of it.
By the way, Smurfette and I disagree on the subject of same sex marriage and we don't rip each other up about it. It is just not necessary to be hateful and indignant because other people have a different opinion.
Thank you very much for not only voicing your opinion, but for providing a rational basis for it. Much more satisfying than invoking the "slippery slope" fallacy, which has been used to oppose interracial marriage, voting rights for women, stem cell research, drug testing, drug legalization, gun registration, etc.
Actually, "slippery slopists" have been sounding the alarm for quite some time now. Listen to George Fitzhugh, who published extensively on slavery in the 1850s:
"If slavery is abolished, then the economy will collapse, families will disintegrate, Christianity will be rejected, and the government will be replaced by anarchy and chaos!"
Charlie, first, I appreciate the moderate tone of your response; second, my comment about a judgmental and intolerant society was not directed at you personally. However, I must disagree with you about there being a connection between child porn and gay marriage. The most profound difference is that children are unwilling victims of a crime. There are no victims in gay marriage; no coercion, no violence, no abuse. It's as simple as that.
Papa Smurf, while 50% of our populace is comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, on Tuesday North Carolina became the 30th state to write an anti-gay marriage amendment into its constitution. Actually, they also banned civil unions and domestic partnerships between heterosexuals, which leads me to believe that a) the amendment was drafted by people with an extremely narrow view of what is an acceptable relationship between consenting adults, and b) voters were not sufficiently informed about the ramifications of the amendment's passage.
I don't who you're referring to with "Ruling Class." Are they the politicians WE elect to represent US? If we are being exploited by the Ruling Class, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.
As with Charlie, I appreciate the civility with which you present your opinion. While my husband and I agree on the right of gay people to marry, he and I are wildly divergent politically on just about every other issue. Perhaps being married to "a member of the opposition" requires civility in the exchange of opinions!
Referencing your Fitzhugh quote, all of those things did happen.
The economy of the southern states collapsed.
Families disintegrated as a result of the war and subsequent migration.
Christian is in the process of being rejected.
The government was certainly replaced by anarchy and choas from 1865-1877 and some would argue from 1965-present.
Because slavery was (forcibly) abolished, and directly or indirectly led to cultural changes.
For the record - I do not, have never, and will never support the institution of slavery.
Let me try again to explain - I am not making a direct correlation between gay marriage and child porn. My point is that once a social taboo gains legal or social acceptance in any way - there is usually an inextolerable (sic) march until the issue has established a recognized legal recognition of right.
Yes it is a slippery slope (which I do not believe to be a fallacy). I offer the following situations-
The gay lifestyle was an open secret in America for quite a while, but it was illegal and not openly practiced. It emerged in the 60's and has been gaining societal acceptance since, until we reach the present. A slope.
The Nazi plan for creating a master race as illustrated by Martin Niemoller -
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
A slope - certainly a descent.
In the current issue, please try this mental exercise: think of every reason to support gay marriage, and every disagreeable reason it is opposed. Now substitute in adult partner and child partner as appropriate. I have done this, and I do not care for the results
I cannot think of a right that an adult (straight or gay) is denied because of their orientation. Marriage is a legal convenience, with a specific man/woman definition, and I do not agree that those conveniences should be extended to gay couples.
But WHY do you not agree that people, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be afforded equal rights under the law?
You see a slope from the Stonewall Riots to today. Others see an ascent to decency and fairness.
Your mental exercise is specious, and I refer to my statement that one involves victimization and the other does not. You do indeed make a direct correlation, when you offer such an "exercise." This argument bears no more validity than substituting corpses and necrophiliacs.
I am still looking for someone to explain why same-sex marriages are a threat to man/woman unions.
I can no more explain my reasoning about gay marriage than I can explain my dislike of onions. Please explain why this this is such a burning topic to you? I am assuming you are not gay.
You mention equal rights. What RIGHTS are currently denied?
Same-sex marriages are a threat to man/woman unions because
1) they’re gross (same-sex marriages, of course!);
2) they would cost me some money (i.e., someone has to pay for those conveniences that only I and other heterosexual married couples currently enjoy).
It's not a matter of being unable to articulate these reasons, it's a matter of knowing how mean and petty they make one sound.
Charlie, I object (really quite strenuously) to the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to impose not-quite-as-entitled citizenship on my fellow Americans simply because "they're not like us." Different is not wrong; it's just different.
As long as others' personal freedoms are not impinged upon, it's difficult to understand the rationalization behind the anti-same sex marriage crowd. That, actually, is the basic theme of my blog: Why should it matter in the least to any of us heteros? There is no impact whatever on straight marriage, yet the rallying cry is "Defend the man-woman marriage!" Against what, is my question.
As for your query, what rights are being denied? Hmmm, how about the right to be recognized as a duly-married couple in the eyes of the law, entitled to the same benefits we old hetero married couples are: Tax benefits, health insurance benefits, legal spousal rights, inclusion in terminal illness decisions, etc.
Those of us who have never known exclusion based simply on who we are cannot possibly know how devastating it is. President Obama's statement yesterday changes nothing, legally, yet his words brought otherwise stoic men and women to tears. They've been a long time out in the desert.
Gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual couples. Never has been nor will it ever be. All marriages (and their dissolution) are civil unions, granted and regulated by the secular state, regardless of whether a ceremony is presided over by a member of the clergy. But when the hot button word "MARRIAGE" enters into the discussion, religious views begin to dominate.
I'm sure there are any number of bloggers out there who can quote chapter and verse of multiple Scripture cites condemning homosexuality. But those cites are not the law of the land - the laws which prohibit discrimination.
With a current divorce rate of 50% or more and a continuing increase in single parent households headed by women with children from multiple fathers (who play little or no role in socializing or supporting their offspring), an infusion of committed marriage partners - regardless of their sexual inclinations - would seem to be a good thing. And not liable to impact the overall lack of Christian morality and commitment to one's partner - til death do us part.
Of course, I've only been married for 40 years so I really am in no position to venture an opinion.
I can only give my personal perspective - I cannot answer for others.
Personally, I am bothered that the 'gay/bi' self identification trend seems to be popular among our nation's youth. I am sure I will hear plenty of cries about "who would willingly subject themselves to ridicule/abuse/..." etc. I am stating my view and opinion. Gay/bi strikes me (in many cases) as a cutting-edge, trendy thing to do and say. I think the issue clouds and confuses an already cloudy and confusing time of life. Additionally, I am no longer convinced that gay/bi people really suffer THAT much abuse. Try asking someone who was openly gay30 years ago what real abuse is.
I was a teen in the late 70's and early 80's. There were not droves of kids coming out. The argument that they were somehow repressed really doesn't fly either, since they are all now adult and they are still hetero.
Personally, I think the much of the current gay/bi outcry is media driven and attention getting behavior. I feel like much of the soap boxing is just a bunch of "look at me". I do believe you and other liberal minded people are sincere, but 80% of the crowd is just a bunch of noise, in my opinion. Therefore, I am not really in favor of giving it legal status. I have no issue with a committed same sex couple living together or being married, but it really would be unfair to put in additional commitment requirements on a gay couple that would not be required of a hetero couple. THAT would be unfair.
I am gay and I wish that we could get married, but being an American, and paying taxes, and working, and having a family I also agree that by voting the populaces is not ready and I get it, but for you holier than thou folks to claim that we will be the destruction of civilization and humanity is giving us way to much credit. Even if you do compare the child pornography article to us he was looking at little girls and he was straight so who is first in line to destruct society? I respect your right to choose why can't we have the same?
Charlie, I happen to count as friends (and relatives) many gay folks (in fact, I hadn't really realized what a large number this was until this topic began), and my experience with this large sample size is that you have it exactly backwards. The "bunch of noise" to which you refer represents the minority approach among gays, the vast majority of whom just want to be able to go about their lives with no more attention paid them, or restrictions placed on them, than anyone else. Really not societal-fabric-tearing stuff.
The last estimate I heard was that 10% of the overall population might be homosexual. Personally, I think that is high, but that is my opinion. Your friends and relatives are, My friends and relatives aren't (actually, I have a fair mix of about 10%) - so what.
My experience and exposure to the middle school and high school crowd leads me to believe that many of them claim a gay/bi label and then fall away from that sometime in their 20's. It's the cool/trendy thing to be, until they mature a little and realize that it is neither cool nor trendy.
If you have read my posts you might have noticed that I go to some pains not to be "holier than thou."
Also, if you read my posts, I have tried to explain my position. I will not apologize or pander - that is my position. I have a long memory, and honestly, I hope you guys are right that child porn will never be mainstream accepted, but I am not confident.
By the way terryterry, please enlighten me about gay marriage offers you that you do not already have.
Charlie, this may just be me, but trivializing the gay community as a bunch of attention-hungry noisemakers who are just trying to be cool and trendy until they realize what you have always known doesn't seem to be on particularly higher moral ground than being "holier than thou."
But anyways, I was wondering if that Niemoller quotation you provided earlier would have answered your question about why the presumably not-gay katieog cared about whether gays had the right to marry.
Along the same lines, could terryterry2 have enlightened you about what gay marriage offers by referring you to those conveniences that you indicated should not be extended to gay couples?
And I'm still trying to decide whether you think that there aren't really that many gay people anyway, and what conclusions you draw from that. My point wasn't that there are huge numbers of gays in this country, but that the flaming paraders are the exception, not the rule.
It only offers to make me equal in the eyes of the law, not Christianity. It only offers me the right to make decisions should my partner be incapacitated, it only offers me the right to have insurance on my partner in time of sickness, it only offers me the right to file a joint tax return and afford the tax deductions, and credits needed to make ends meet. It only offers me the right to say I am not just a tax paying citizen, and working adult born in America with the same rights, because I to am a veteran who lived an fought for my country, you know the one that doesn't think I am worthy of a committed relationship by law, but the one that gladly takes my taxes, and charges me the same at the check out as anyone else. The part I really do not get is that people like you think just because I am gay I like little boys, and we are all perverts. I have never been to a gay parade nor have I molested or have a desire to molest any little boys. By the scope of things I think I have higher morale values that most straight people, I mean just read the paper, any paper I think you straight people have a firm handle on the destruction of society all by yourselves. I actually respect your opinion Charlie no matter how neanderthal and selfish because this is America, the home of the free and the brave, the same country I served too, to give you the right to say such silly things.
I am sorry you feel that you suffer all those unfair situations. I wouldn't know anything about that because you think I am white/male/straight, right?
"The part I really do not get is that people like you think just because I am gay I like little boys, and we are all perverts." I never said that, have explained that is not what I meant, but if it makes you feel more justified - you can (unfairly) hang that on me.
I have not once mentioned Christianity, not any religion. I will confess that I am Christian, but I try to keep my faith very subtle and personal.
"I think you straight people have a firm handle on the destruction of society all by yourselves." Why do I have to be 'straight?' Why do you have to put a label on me?
"I actually respect your opinion Charlie no matter how neanderthal and selfish..." I guess that this self-interested knuckledragger should be grateful for the enlightenment that you and the others have shared. I feel so... ashamed. (not)
I don't think you should pay any attention to the Neimoller quote since you stated that slippery slopes are fallacies. For myself, I applaud katieog's decision to empathize with others. I also empathize with others, just not in this case.
Many of the conveniences I mentioned are available to anyone through powers of attorney or other legal arrangements other than marriage.
There are untold numbers of gay people, I am sure. Most of them are indistinguishable from anyone else, apparently. As for flaming paraders, I do not pay them ANY attention - that certainly is for show.
My reference to attention getting noise is directed mostly at the 15-25 crowd and falls into the same category as goth kids, jocks, princesses, etc. The difference is that as they mature they can shed most of those images. A same sex marriage might be a little harder to dismiss later in life as 'just a phase' when that is really all it was. Again, my opinion.
terryterry2 - I support the rights of gays to marry. However, I take you to task for misrepresenting Charlie's comments and attacking his position based on your mistaken paraphrases.
Charlie, I don't agree with you. I think your position untenable. Your opinion of "noise" in the systeincorrect. But, I respect your opinion and think you expressed yourself objectively and with no "holier than thou" tone.
Um, I was asking if the quotation that YOU provided would satisfy YOU for a question that YOU asked. What I think of your quotation, or the merits of your question, is irrelevant here.
And what does it mean to simultaneously applaud and question katieog's interest in this issue?
And can you clarify the relationship between the two assertions below? Specifically, the only way they don't directly contradict each other is if there are SOME conveniences of marriage that you wish to withhold from gays. As you haven't actually named any "conveniences of marriage," could you specify which ones you don't think gays should have?
Assertion 1: "Marriage is a legal convenience, with a specific man/woman definition, and I do not agree that those conveniences should be extended to gay couples."
Assertion 2: "Many of the conveniences I mentioned are available to anyone through powers of attorney or other legal arrangements other than marriage."
Finally, I have to admire the novelty, and unabashed double standardness, of your argument that (gay) marriage is a bad idea because lots of immature 15-25 year olds might get (gay-)married and later regret it.
Here's an interesting find on the topic.
The time when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite:
The simple thing people have to understand is whether gay couples are allowed to marry or not isn't going to change the fact that there are gay people and they will be forming couples, living together, and loving each other. This is suppose to be a country where all men (and women) are created and treated equally under the law as long as that equality doesn't take away from the rights of someone else. And gay people being allowed to marry doesn't effect anyone other than that couple. They should be allowed to marry just like straight couples are allowed to marry. If two consenting adults want to marry they shouldn't be stopped.
The only slippery slope here is that once gay marriage is allowed, and it eventually will be allowed everywhere the next step will be a push to allow polygamous marriages between more than two adults. Any other slippery slope argument is just stupid and ignorant. If gay couples are allowed to marry that will have no effect on if an adult can marry a child, or an animal, or some inanimate object.
Also the gay community becoming more visible and vocal has nothing to do with pedophiles. It may give ideas to young people that they could love someone of the same gender however who cares if someone finds happiness with someone of the same gender then so be it. I have two sons and if one or both of them wants to have a relationship with another male, I'm ok with that as long as they are happy.
I apologize for the generalization, and yes you have never presented yourself as holier than thou, and have always been up for a healthy debate. That is fair, and the purpose of the blog. Being gay I really do not care if we can marry or not, as most have mentioned. But say if Mrs. Howell were rushed to the hospital with only minutes to live and you then have been told you cannot see her because you are not family, no can you make any of the decisions, not will you benefit from her social security. I don't think running to the lawyer to get a piece of paper to tell you that you can see her is the only thing on your mind. But I guess when straight people figure out what to do with us they will let us know. Anyway charlie I always appreciate your lively conversation again I apologize at least you are asking questions and are interested, some just remain totally close minded no matter what. And yes believe it or not a great portion of people think just because you are gay you love little boys, weird I know right!!
With all this babble has anyone mentioned the word Bible? The Bible says it's wrong, the nation was founded on Biblical principles, if you don't agree with them move to Europe, no debate needed, end of story.