Comments on: Corvino: Gay marriage and the bigot card

By: Wayne Wolfson

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:55:41 +0000

In terms of Professor Corvino’s 3 proposals for dealing with contentious issues, my position is that “2 out of 3 ain’t bad.” I agree with the limited usefulness, though offset by some catharsis, in name calling with the opposition. I also agree that a “holier than thou” approach is not helpful, especially since I firmly believe in strict separation of religion from civil law. So, with significant respect for his credentials and experience, I must offer substantial counterpoint to his 3rd proposal for difference remediation, i.e, “actually engage the substance of each other’s position.” That is based on the erroneous contention that all (or even most) beliefs are valid, that there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong, and most importantly that all such differences are safe. One simple counterexample is if some people believed (unequivocally incorrectly) that 2 +2 = 3 and not 4: even if millions held such a fallacious belief, there would be no value or effective way to convince or change them in that position, especially if held for “religious” or “personal reasons.” That difference or debate would of course have little societal repercussions. What if, however, instead of the firmly wrong but innocuous notion that 2+2=3, millions embraced the belief that Jews were so different and so undeserving that they must be exterminated as with the Nazi mentality? While not to the same magnitude (yet)—remember that while Nazism ended with the murder of millions it began less auspiciously with a campaign of bigotry, mis/dis-information, and elimination of basic equal rights such as interfaith marriages—what if that belief was that Gay Americans and their families were not as good as everyone else and therefore not deserving “equal protection under the law” (words promised by the 14th amendment, not my own). Isn’t such a view, no matter what the origin and no matter how popular, simply wrong and demanding of correction without debate? Should Hitler and the Nazis have had the “substance of their position” discussed rather than destroyed? As with the evil of Nazism, Racism, and Anti-Equality, some beliefs and those who embrace them are so sinister, so potentially dangerous, and so plainly wrong that their “substance” and everything connected to them must be vanquished. They will never learn the simple truths that 2+2=4 or that ALL Americans are entitled to equal protection and equal rights, including marriage equality. That’s why we all have the protection of the US Constitution and the 14th amendment. That’s why we have and need the protection of judges and legislatures. That’s why we need to fight each and every day to protect our freedom.

Wayne P. Wolfson, MD

By: Caleb

Caleb — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:00:13 +0000

Actually I completely disagree with the first comment on this piece they are not all bigots which is the point of what Mr. Corvino is trying to say. I admit quite a few of each side are strictly idiots, like the first poster, but those that can understand both positions can truly have an opinion worth hearing. I understand what oposers feel with strong moral beliefs and honestly I don’t belive we need the title of marriage based on the fact that that title came from religious leaders, and has nothing to do with human nature, but alternatively the same protections and treatment of gay relatioinships to heterosexual relationships is a civil right.

By: Tim and Earl

Tim and Earl — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:27:21 +0000

We are all taught, since time began, that heterosexual love is superior to homosexual love. These teachings have influenced every institution in the world.

Now that marriage is defined by love, vs., say, property, or male-dominance, heterosexual marriage itself has been turned into a political football by the heterosexual-supremacists.

As with any “ism,” heterosexism will lose its grip on society as time passes. We need to keep taking our vitamins!

Tim and Earl
Together in Love 33 years
Married in Canada in 2003
Legal strangers across our native USA

By: Richard Teasdale

Richard Teasdale — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:35:22 +0000

After being in a 7 year relationship, that ended over ‘unfaithfulness’, and then a 15 year relationship with a wonderful person who happened to have Multiple Sclerosis, my taking care of him in home for the last 5 years, and now after an 11 year abstense, I find anohter, tonight people I THOUGHT were my friend(s) began ‘flipping their wrists’ and using other ’stereotyipical’ gestures to describe and comemorate my finding a New Soul Mate, I begun to understand why so many gay people just choose to commit suicide.
Anyone, and I mean Anyone, who doesn’t understand GAY, needs to SIMPLY KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!!!
If Your Mind Can’t Bend Around A Subject, Dont’ Try!!!

But,

Don’t Stop US from Being US!!!

(And people, WE ARE BORN that way!!!)
Thanks GOD!!!

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:51:34 +0000

I agree that some opponents of same-sex marriage are raging bigots, pathological homophobes, dire straights. This has been our collective experience, but then there are the great brainwashed. People who believe the lies broadcast by this country’s reactionary, arch-conservative media. Not just Fox either; there’s lots of blame to go around and the FCC is probably as effective as the SEC or the Treasury Department. Therefore we CAN reach the brainwashed and indeed this seems to be happening. We should target the misinformed and leave the raging homophobes to spew and spittle.

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:37:55 +0000

Every fact that you can provide the straight population is out there already. If they intended to participate in a logical dialogue it would have already happened. I disagree with Robert that the issue is procreation. It is POWER and MONEY. And it always has been. It is an old tactic. Demonize persons not like yourself and make yourself feel superior, power. Strip us of the right to marry legally and you conserve the nations riches for the straights. A pay and don’t play policy, money. Time for the polite discussion is over in my mind.

By: Carol

Carol — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:16:48 +0000

I agree. An ad hominem is an ad hominem, no matter the side. Saying, “You are wrong because your statements are false” is much more effective than saying “You are wrong because you’re a bigot.” Even if you are right, you would only push them on the offensive and make yourself look bad.

By: Travis Hitchner

Travis Hitchner — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:12:32 +0000

I like to believe that legally disenfranchising a minority group scores a little higher on the moral reprehensibility scale than having consensual sex that some people think is gross. Opinions aren’t all equally valid.

By: gyzmo

gyzmo — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:33:15 +0000

Bravo! Intelligence will win out over ignorance and hate. It have in many other countries and will happen here. March on and we will prevail.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:03:26 +0000

I found some information on the term “spade” here:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=spade&searchmode=none

It’s also covered in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, although it is divided between two entries.