Steven M. Cohen writes “From Muskogee Phoenix
“Sexually explicit books have no place among children’s books. Children are not ready for and cannot handle that type of material physically, mentally or psychologically. But Kern’s threat of censorship is based on a vague definition of what is socially appropriate. Will all children’s books showing two men or two women holding hands or establishing a friendly relationship be sent to adult shelves?””
vague definition?
Marriage = man + woman. That’s pretty straight forward.
Re:vague definition?
I think the poster’s point was to indicate that these are highly insecure folks. People who want to participate in “thought policing” usually are. The mere inclusion of a book on any topic in a public library does not imply endorsement… and children’s books that honestly and simply tell stories about the human condition should not be fodder for censorship agendas. What’s next, banning homosexual *patrons* from libraries? Get real.
Re:vague definition?
Everything you just said completely ignores the national debate currently going on with this issue and I’m supposed to get real?
Re:vague definition?
No; that’s binary thinking. It’s exclusionary, discriminatory, and shortsighted. It presumes that marriage is only about procreative sex, but marriage is about a great deal more than that.
Re:vague definition?
Sorry, times have changed on you and your formula is no longer absolute. See the nearby lisnews story of the trans-gendered person applying for a Library of Congress job. Suppose man A marries woman B, and they have various children. Then man A becomes woman C. Are woman C and woman B then still married to each other, or does your formula demand that they divorce?
Similarly, the option of multiple marriages is a tradion of many other cultures rather than the usual WASP Christian ones. Certainly plural marriages have been practiced in the US, and the only reasons for outlawing it is that they are “different” and offend our values what other people do. This is similar to the straight forward argument against inter-racial marriage. It does not fit the traditional formula, and for many years inter-racial marriage was outlawed until the courts said that states can’t do that in 1969.
The traditional marriage formula, “one man + one woman,” also opens up Constitional arguments about divorce and re-marriage. If the proposed constitutional amendment says that marriage is between one man and one woman, what happens if the man divorces? He can’t marry again, even if it is the first marriage for the second wife, since he is obligated to “one woman.” Unless the amendment is amended to say, “one man and one woman at one time.”
And this change is only permitted because the traditional formula was changed (made obsolete by the changing mores) to accept the enormous numbers of divorces- traditionally, women did not re-marry after a divorce, except for exceptional ones such as Wallace Simpson.
Traditional formula in the US also said that child brides were OK, but that also has changed recently. The singer Jerry Lee Lewis getting arrested for taking his under-aged bride to the UK, which child bride was legal in the US but considered child sexual abuse in England, raised some ruckus not to long ago in the 1960’s. What was legal in the US in the past is no longer legal today. The formula, damn it, changed again.
Also, for many years in the US, non-traditional (non-Protestant Christian) marriages weren’t recognized by the states; Quaker, Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Native American, etc. marriages often had entanglements in property inheritance, legal obligations, and so forth, especially when the married couple moved from one state to another.
For many years, non-white marriages were not recognized. Slaves in the US (in all states except Massachusetts) did not recognize marriages among black or Native American slaves. A first cousin could inherit the house of a deceased white man instead of the dead man’s black spouse because the marraige was not recognized as legal, or the traditional formula followed.
Indentured men and women, or those apprenticed or those without the consent of their parents, could have the marriages annulled or not legally recognized, and the couple’s children classed legally as bastards.
So I think you need to change your formula to represent American tradition at the time of the Constitution: marriage= a free white Protestant male + white Protestant girl where said white Protestant girl becomes the legal property of said white Protestant male.
Re:vague definition?
“Suppose man A marries woman B, and they have various children. Then man A becomes woman C. Are woman C and woman B then still married to each other, or does your formula demand that they divorce?”
My formula requires that he get his ass kicked for walking away from his responsibilities as a father and husband.
Don’t bring color into it. There is not even a remote comparison between skin pigment and GBLTs.
Re:vague definition?
I think troll is unfair, while Greg has an opinion that has been wrong based on which century you ask it, even when you are asking the leaders of the church he is supporting, it is merely his opinion. While he has allowed Judeo-Christian tradition to make his decisions for him, that does not definitively make him a troll.
A troll would be me saying “Another nutcase christian nazi with a room temp IQ trying to enforce his belief structure on others” about Greg.
Re:vague definition?
“Don’t bring color into it. There is not even a remote comparison between skin pigment and GBLTs.”
Neither is something one chooses so the comparison is valid.
Re:vague definition?
I believe that the reality is that there are still poor souls out there who can not (or will not) understand that reading about homosexuality/lesbianism DOES NOT make one homosexual or a lesbian (according to many reports on that lovely little gland in the brain).