Friday, August 31, 2007

How tolerant of them

The lefties are all crowing about their big victory. They pressured OPB into changing the venue for the planned lecture by Ira Glass, who has a popular talk show on OPB.

The event was scheduled for the New Hope Community Church in Clackamas, but when the lefties who would normally attend a lecture by this fellow realized they'd be sitting in an institution that actually opposed gay marraige (like 57% of Oregonians, at last vote.) they threw a blog tantrum.

And of course the ever-so-politically-correct OPB caved, and now the lefties are all celebrating their latest victory in the culture wars.

I thought the left was all about tolerance? (Well, actually, no I didn't. But don't they yammer endlessly about it?)

You see, it is simply not legitimate in Portland to be opposed to gay marraige. If you hold that view, they have no obligation to treat you with respect. And if that view is connected to a religious point of view, well, then, all the worse. Tolerance does not extend to unpopular viewpoints, or to anybody who objects to their social iconoclasism.

I know the BlueOregon types are going to enjoy this moment. I hope they shout it from the mountaintops, because their angry intolerance reveals so very much about them.

Update - 2:20 PM

Check out the venom over at BlueOregon. I baited them a bit by pointing out the inherent intolerance of their views. And wow! They proved me wrong by being VERY intolerant of anyone who sees it differently. Make no mistake (because they themselves said it over and over) if you are against same sex marraige, you are a bigot. It is that simple.

20 comments:

Mick said...

Wow, Rob. Wow. When I first read your blog, I thought that you were a different kind of conservative. More and more I am seeing that you are not and this post is further evidence.

Calling on OPB to not provide financial support to New Hope is not an act of intolerance. To many, it is an act of self-defense.

Disagreeing with people is not an act of intolerance. Refusing to give your money to people is not an act of intolerance. Refusing to support their views is not an act of intolerance.

Denying people rights is an act of intolerance. Promoting the denial of rights to a specific class of people is an act of intolerance.

Furthermore, who is it that is not "being treated with respect"? Do you mean New Hope? Because I have not seen anything untruthful said about them. Factually speaking, they have opposed gay marriage both financially and from the pulpit (literally). That is what the "lefties" have said. No more, no less. Is it disrespectful to state the facts?

And it wasn't OPB that caved. Quite the opposite. OPB was firmly set on NOT moving the venue. Until Mr. Glass found out about just who New Hope is and the intolerance that they promote. I'm quite sure he refused to appear there once the facts were known to him.

Rob Kremer said...

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mick.

OPB is a partially publicly funded instittion, and it certainly appears to me that they have discriminated against New Hope because of their political views.

To see how the left disrespects anyone who opposes same sex marraige, take a look at BlueOregon. I pointed out the intolerance of their actions, and was immediately called a bigot.

Then that view was defended - anyone who opposes this effort to dramatically redefine a thousand year old civic institution is a bigot.

Sounds like disrespect to me.

Marraige is not a "right.' There are all sorts of relationships that fall out of the definition of legal marraige. The government has the authority to define which of these relationships do and do not qualify for the legal/civic sanction of marraige.

Mick said...

OPB has not discriminated against New Hope. They are not preventing New Hope from accessing any part of their service including the publicly funded part. OPB really had no choice. If Ira Glass was going to appear in Portland, he was NOT going to appear at New Hope.

I'm not going to comment on BlueOregon because I don't agree with everything that goes on over there - i.e. they're constant criticism of Gordon Smith for his stance on the war. BlueOregon does not speak for all of the left just as you do not speak for all of the right. What's more, if you are criticizing BlueOregon commenters for their lack of civility, perhaps you should first look at the comments that are posted here (see Matthew 7:1). Too many times my constructive (or at least that's my intention) or questioning comments are met with ad hominum.

Having said that, I'll never understoon the "thousand year old civic institution" defense. There have been many institutions that lasted that long but that really doesn't have any bearing on their right or wrongness.

I had this conversation in college once with a Christian friend about what is and is not a "right". The specific right in question then was the "right to drink" (drinking age was changing at the time). He claimed that nobody had a right to drink. Once I thought it over, I concluded that any "right" can be called "not a right" if you don't have a common frame of reference.

Let us call our frame of reference the Constitution. Does not that document guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Why are only heterosexual couples allowed full pursuit of happiness in your world-view while homosexual couples are not?

I don't think we're arguing about the government's legal authority to determine which relationships qualify. Measure 36 determined that beyond any argument. What we're talking about here (and disagreeing about) is how government should define qualifying relationships.

What governmental interest determines that marriage should be restricted to man/woman unions?

Anonymous said...

It was indeed Ira Glass who demanded a venue change. OPB did what any smart business would do -- they changed the venue, instead of surrendering the gig. No one's "rights" were trampled on. OPB made a sensible business decision.

P.S. It's spelled "marriage."

Anonymous said...

It’s interesting that when I was in college (some 30 + years ago) my abnormal psychology and sociology classes outlined decades of research showing the sociological causes of homosexual behavior as a deviant abnormal social behavior. Now you have a very difficult time finding this previously well documented and researched view of homosexuality. This was just before the gay movement took on the Marxist ideology of the women’s movement in the 70’s (oppressed by men and government blah, blah, blah – oppressed by heterosexuals and government blah, blah, blah…). Then the gay movement came up with very poor research trying to justify their behavior by showing homosexuality is caused by “genetics”. Very poor and statistically invalid research by any real standards (I’ve read a lot of it). With most people still seeing homosexuality as not the norm (and to many it’s deviant), the gay movement became very politically organized to socially and legally “norm” their behavior. It’s interesting that the gay movement has a number of factions – for example the older camp who for many don’t care about “gay rights” and just want to go about their homosexual lives in private. And the younger gay faction who have become very politically active trying to “norm” their behavior with significant legal activism, PR, and politicking. But what I think it’s really been all about over the past 30 years or so is that many liberals are mostly just old fashion selfish, hedonists, and/or narcissist (I just may re-read The Culture of Narcissism by Lasch). Their moral compass is basically this - whatever self gratifying whim they may have; well, they should have the right to have it, and the pleasure of it without any social stigma (or especially without any outdated notions of faith tradition guilt). And if your moral compass objects (i.e. a faith tradition), then God help you for objecting to their selfish, hedonistic, narcissist, or what ever you will, pleasure gratification. If you try to object and cause the guilt thing then you’re a "bigot" and "intolerant", and we need to out law anything that will cause a social stigma or guilt (for heavens sake). Pursuing life, liberty, and happiness doesn't mean legalizing ones whimsical hedonism and/or narcissism. At one time homosexuality may have been tolerated if left a private matter. But the gay movement has now come to the point of some very serious legal, moral, political, and social consequences… especially to those who will be labeled “bigot” or “intolerant” because they will never accept homosexual behavior as “normal”.

Dare!PDX said...

Rob,

Checked out the BO thread. Chrisolm goes to great lengths to justify his attempt to remove any voice that would aire a nonPC comment. He actually cites authority from Wikipedia.

Just a mention (as my IP is barred from posting on BO). I would have liked to see the response if you asked: "How am I a bigot for wanting you to actually expand on your perspective?"

Bigots after all being the closed minded ones. You after all wanting to engage them to expand an understanding of the issue.

Blue Oregon. A water cooler where Oregon progrevises go to be intollerant of religion and intollerant of ideas.

Mick said...

Dare:

I disagree. Kari (what a weird spelling for a male name) doesn't do anthing to remove any voice. As part owner of the blog he has the full ability to do that. He does attempt to quash the discussion claiming that Rob was trolling. Rob, for the most part admitted that here, when he said that he "baited them." What Kari doesn't understand, and evidently refuses to even consider, is that the best cure for "bad speech" (for lack of a better term) is more speech.

But again, to call them intolerant waters down the meaning of intolerance and what makes it bad. Disagreeing with someone and telling them you don't want to hear them may be a mild form of intolerance, but it is not the intolerance that we strive to avoid. Denying people facilities, services, rights and the like is the intolerance of which we speak and that is the intolerance that New Hope engages in.

I hope that the author and readers of this blog do not do so. But I suppose your votes on Measure 36 probably indicate that you do or at least have engaged in intolerance towards gays and lesbians. I'm trying to figure out why? What makes gay marriage a destructive force towards marriage in your eyes? What harm does it bring to our government and citizenry?

Dare!PDX said...

Kari Chrisolm goes out of his way to curb conservatives from chimming in on Blue Oregon to defend our position. It is his chosen career to forward a Democratic party line message which means constraining that of Republicans. Make no mistake about it.

He has barred several conservatives including me. He has also recently went out of his way to convince his regular base to not respond to Rob Kremer's thread comments (even going far enough to call him a troll attempting to minimize his crediblity).

There is history between conservative activists and BO that your unaware of. When my IP was barred he removed the whole thread of diablogue I had with his audience (not just barred me but removed all record of me representing in an even handed non-profain manner the views of a counter point to BO).

As for my "intollerance" of gays. I have never made a statement one way or the other towards M36 or gay marriage. I really don't care either way. (BTW I voted no on 36.)

If gays want to have what they consider rights in the eyes of the law. They can bring their case to court or better yet to the people of Oregon. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is when they try to sneak it through, illegally by passing the democratic process like Multnomah County attempted.

What I also have a problem with is the tactic in which those of us on the sidelines are attacked for not getting involved on their side.

I complain equally as much when the anti-Amnesty immigration crowd, religous right abortion crowd and other interest groups on the right do the same thing. Assuming I must line up with them 100% or else face character assasination.

I am not a biggot because I don't wave signs on behalf of gay marriage. I am not a biggot because I would attend a church whcih might have an opinion I disgaree with. I am not a biggot because I refuse to sign a petition, wear a button, apply a bumpersticker, or write a letter to my congressman.

What I am is unconvinced that they actually have a right to create a right out of thin-air without the delegated authority of the voters of Oregon. The method of ammendment created by both the founders of the US and Oregon.

There is a middle ground on this issue as there is with nearly every issue. Don't make it a tupperware box to store people's place on the political spectrum.

To do so would be intollerant.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to point out to Mick that the US Constitution does not guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Mick, it might help if you went back and read it. The Declaration of Independence mentions that phrase but (and here's the kicker Mick) it reads as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Bolding mine)

It's get's more interesting Mick...feel free to keep reading here:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

MAX Redline said...

I checked out the postings at BO, and saw that Rob entered a one-sentence comment that notes that the tolerant Left is exhibiting remarkable intolerance.

The next post labels him a bigot.

Rob replies "57% of Oregonians are bigots? ok."

In the next comment, blog owner Kari chimes in by labelling Rob a "troll".

Over and over, rather than discuss, they resort to name-calling - and thus truly do reveal more of their nature than perhaps they might have intended.

Now, on the subject matter itself - happy marriage - I believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness. However, when homosexuals wish to become "married", problems are bound to arise; in fact, one chilling example of the nature of the problem was demonstrated last Spring, when a lesbian couple, who were "married" and had a child by artificial insemination, grew apart and "divorced".

Guess who got saddled with child support payments (hint-it wasn't the lesbians)?

If my Bride and I were to divorce, I would be expected to pay child support. But that same consideration doesn't apply when it involves two lesbians.

The problems associated with homosexual marriage are many, and they are not addressed in any meaningful form.

Mick said...

Max:

If homosexuals were allowed to actually marry, they would be subject to the laws of divorce.

Rob Kremer said...

Mick:
You bring up a lot of perfectly valid points and questions that I think deserve a considered response.

I am against same sex marriage because marriage is not an institution that is intended to benefit the couple in the marriage - it is intended to help ensure a safe and stable home for children.

Now, I am NOT arguing that since same sex couples can't create kids they shouldn't have access to this insititution - because I know plenty of hetero couples marry and then do not have kids. That is not the point.

The point is that when we decide who can and cannot be married based upon groups rights arguments - when the question of who can get married is based upon which people get access to the benefits of the institution, we have stepped down a path that has a very, very unhappy end, because we will destroy the institution itself.

I believe your argument boils down to a civil rights issue: that two people of the same sex should be able to get married, because their is no legitimate reason to deny them the privileges that come from the institution of marriage.

When we accept that argument, not only have we changed the entire purpose of the institution, but we have then opened the door in a way that has a bad end.

If the argument is about who gets access to the various legal benefits that accrue to married people, then what legitimate reason is there to deny these benefits to yet other kinds of social arrangements?

There is none. You want to allow same sex people to get married. How about group marriages? What legal basis, if you accept that there is no legitimate reason to deny the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, would you use to deny group marriages the same benefits?

And to go further - would you say it is bigoted to oppose the right to marriage for people who desire a group marriage arrangement? Why not? It is simply an alternative lifestyle, as legitimate as any other, and if marriage benefits are the point of marriage, there is no legitimate reason to deny this group either.

So, Mick, I don't think it is bigoted to define marriage as between one man and one woman, any more than it is bigoted to oppose group marriages.

Bottom line, marriage is not about benefits for adults. When we expand the definition of marriage because different groups of adults argue they should not be denied these benefits, in my opnion they cheapen and eventually destroy the institution itself.

MAX Redline said...

Wrong, Mick - the homosexual couple in question was legally "married" and remained residents of that very eastern state.

Dare!PDX said...

Rob,

Do you really want to make that the definition of marriage: "A stable environment for children to be raised in."

Its almost as if your pushing civil unions just by not mentioning everything else that marriage is and should be(be it defined gender neutrally or traditionally).

It is a commitment that is legally binding and much more beyond that.

As somebody who disagrees wholely with liberal expansions of supposed living constitutional rights I'm on your side of the current gay-marriage debate.

Regardless though your above response is pretty lightweight for what your usually able to dispense. This being said with a great deal of respect for what you think.

Rob Kremer said...

Dare:

Clarification: I didn't say the definition of marriage was "a stable place for kids," I said that this is the PURPOSE of marriage.

The difference is more than semantic.

My argument is that when you argue from a civil rights perspective that the legal benefits of the institution should be available to different groups of adults, essenially on 14th amendment grounds, you have changed the purpose of the institution.

And that puts us down the path ... the same 14th amendment argument can be made for all sorts and manners of living arrangements, the end result being the institution itself is destroyed.

I don't think that is a lightweight argument.

Anonymous said...

No heterosexual couple ever got married because they wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital if they got sick. But this is essentially the argument gays and lesbians make to try and justify instituting gay marriage. There has never been a single "benefit" of marriage mentioned that is not available to gay or lesbian couples through access to a lawyer and at considerably less expense.

Furthermore, I have a right to be bigoted or prejudiced against anyone I choose and for any reason. Every person does this every day of the week and reject utterly the idea that we can be forced to accept behavior that is repugnant.

Mitchell said...

Anonymous:

How about being able to file taxes jointly? I don't think access to a lawyer would get you anywhere there if you were a gay couple.

Of course, gays and lesbians are not marrying because they want to visit each other in the hospital. They are doing so because they want to commit to each other in a loving relationship. But they also want the benefits that are given to heterosexual couples who enter into marriage for the same reasons.

If you are going to reserve the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, I will have to reserve the right to decry your actions and words to further your bigoted and prejudiced agenda. I admit that I hold prejudices of my own but I work everyday to not act on them.

Mick said...

Max:

In reading the Massachusetts court decision that led to homosexual marriages being allowed in the state, the decision makes it clear that one of the issues that would be resolved is precisely the one that you raise.

Are you, in fact, referring to Mass? Do you have a link with the story? Come to think of it, who are you saying payed the child support in that story?

(Note that the earlier comment from "Mitchell" was from me.)

Dare!PDX said...

Rob-

As someone who has chosen not to have children I think marriage is more than just a commitment to provide a proper and loving environment for children. It is far more complex than this simplified sociological argument. Its very deconstructionist of you actually.

Also, you would then also be forwarding an argument that gay couples would be incapable of providing the same. Logically your argument backs you into corners I would normally expect you to avoid.

I'm not arguing with you. I was really just asking if you had considered this perspective. I phrased my comment differently.

Mack-

I am not a bigot if I disagree with gay marriage. To put the majority of Oregon (and the US for that matter) into this category is counterproductive for your cause at best and at worst shows you too truly by the narrow one (equally as narrow as the most conservative member of New Hope Community Church that I've ever met - namely my mother).

Frankly, if those who oppose gay marriage are truly bigots than I see alot of two way bigotry towards Christians from the left in equal amounts.

The hate for Christians is clearly seen if you bring religion up in Portland in many circles.

If you have the "right" to decry theirs as you say, expect for this right to be reciprocal. When pushing for gay marriage usually the left goes out of its way to challenge organized religion directly. Those driving your agenda forward usually attempt to attack the "religous right" directly as an antagonist. If your side was pragmatic they wouldn't consider them enemies but those yet to see your side.

You’re not a victim of bigotry but instead an equal share participant. Its like the Klan and Black Panthers pointing fingers trying to prove who is the biggest biggot.

Thats the one thing that gets me about the gay-marriage debate. You act like your not dishing just as much as your getting. For those of us who don't particularly care either way its frustrating to watch.

Also, Tax reform is something democrats could do both federally and at state levels. Cohabitator tax returns should be easily to get through. Why isn't that being pushed for? Wait a minute, it might solve a large part of the debate so democrats won't push it forward. Or maybe they realize they will lose seats for such a proposal.

Phil Jones said...

The BlueOregon liberals are very emotional and easily provoked. They are like schoolground children who become excited when someone who is not in their clique makes a comment they don't agree with. The blog is not worth reading for most centrists, so I rarely ever go there. Only when someone links to BlueOregon do I check to verify what they charge. And, Rob is correct. They piled on him like fleas on a stinky dog.