I AM ON RECORD in support of marriage equality for all Americans

I AM ON RECORD for Marriage Equality for all Americans.

I AM ON RECORD for Marriage Equality for all Americans.

Come on folks. It’s time to stand up and be heard on this issue. Marriage equality for same-sex couples is now before the Supreme Court.

Stand up and be counted.

PLEASE DO NOT stand idly by and hold the coats of those who would openly discriminate against the civil (not religious, civil) rights of other Americans!

 

I am ON RECORD as a professor of RELIGIOUS STUDIES at the UNIVERSITY OF IOWA in support of marriage equality for all Americans!


Read more (from most recent to oldest):

About these ads

20 Responses

  1. Thank you Bobby! You’re a good guy.

  2. INTERNET TROLL DETECTED. TROLL FILTER ACTIVATED. NO TEE-ROLLS.

  3. [...] good Dr. Cargill has posted his stance. The good Dr. West has posted his. The good Dr. McGrath may have won the internet today. You know [...]

  4. yeah, and let’s have the right to marry our fathers, our sisters, our mothers, and three triplets. wait, what does marriage mean?

  5. Wait. What? You want the right to marry your father? Your mother???

    You are aware that incest can produce some potentially moderate to serious genetic problems?

    Why do you want to marry your father?

  6. Why does “why” matter? If its all about civil rights then who is to determine the boundaries of marriage between consenting persons. Because of potential problems? Genetic issues are practically the least serious problem associated with the issue of marriage in today’s society.

  7. Why matters because civil rights in this country are determined by a society, with potential popular oppression against minority groups guarded by the courts.
    We determine (hopefully using evidence and data) what is healthy and permissible in any number of civil issues. Polygamy tends to perpetuate patriarchy and the suppression of women. Animals and puppets (mentioned above) and children can’t consent as adults. Incest can cause demonstrable genetic problems.
    However, interracial marriage of two consenting adults (once banned) is shown not to cause these problems. And now same-sex marriage between two consenting adults is also up for discussion.
    Why is ‘why’ important? Because why is everything.
    Why prohibit same sex couples from marrying? Why deny consenting adult same-sex couples the rights afforded to straight consenting adult couples?

    And I disagree with your statement that genetic issues are the least serious problem.

  8. So, basically, “society” should guard against actions that are clearly destructive–biologically and socially. Thus restrictions on polygamy, patriarchy, suppression of women, incest, and such. And you believe that “same sex marriage” is not destructive socially? Rightly interracial marriage is not, but what has been happening in the undermining and corruption of marriage (and gay marriage is only the latest in a long line of destructive actions) has clearly wielded tremendous destruction on a stable and just society.

  9. Jeff,

    You’ve now made two claims:

    1) “Genetic issues are practically the least serious problem associated with the issue of marriage in today’s society”

    and

    2) “what has been happening in the undermining and corruption of marriage (and gay marriage is only the latest in a long line of destructive actions) has clearly wielded tremendous destruction on a stable and just society.”

    I disagree with both claims. So, I shall now ask you to provide evidence to support your claims. Not just anecdotes, but hard evidence to support your claims that:

    1) genetic issues arising from “incest are the least serious problem”
    and
    2) that “gay marriage…has clearly wielded tremendous destruction on a stable and just society.”

    Please offer evidence to support your claims. Because that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    Please back up both claims.

  10. Not interested, because I don’t believe you’re at all really interested in the evidence. You’ve offered your opinion and allowed me to offer mine. Thank you.

  11. Precisely what I figured. You make two unsubstantiated claims. You refuse to offer evidence because you cannot offer evidence. So when called on your unsubstantiated claims, you take your ball and go home, regurgitating your unsubstantiated claims that are only believed by those who will believe anything. It’s a land occupied by racists and sexists and homophobes, one of claims based on likes and dislikes to be imposed on others because it’s what you believe, regardless of the pain it may cause to others.

    You have offered no evidence. I hereby dismiss your claims. Be on your way. Good night.

  12. Precisely what I figured. You’re not really interested in evidence, because you can easily find that yourself. You are only interested in spouting your opinion and then attacking, personally, those who express an alternative and rational point of view. I’m not one who will believe anything. I clearly don’t believe you. The obvious bigot in this dialogue is you.
    I hereby dismiss you. Be on your way, you arrogant blowhard.

  13. You know what’s funny, I was going to trash this, but then I remembered a conversation I had with a student last week. She said that they was giving presentations for a political science class, and she made a case for free trade, and she rattled off a bunch of statistics, some research, some polling and results, and some statements from some authorities on free trade. Another student in the class who disagreed with her position, but who offered little evidence of her own to support her counter claim, at one point called her “arrogant” because “she thought she knows everything” and that “she had a right to her own opinion too.”

    I told the student that while all humans are created equal, all opinions are not. Some claims are substantiated with evidence and rationality, and some are not. Some opinions are simply better than others. Some claims are bigoted, while sometimes others are not. And some people are smarter than others. I told her that I have found over the years that one of the favorite cards played by those who make unsubstantiated claims and hold to bigoted opinions when their claims are countered with evidence (or when they are called out for not having any evidence of their own) was to call their opponents “arrogant” and “closed minded” and believe it or not, “blowhards”. I told her that those who cannot produce evidence often resort to name calling, and often view knowledgeable claims supported by multiple facts and lines of reasoning as “arrogance”, because they often cannot admit that someone else might have a better opinion than their own on a given subject.

    I told her that the irony of the matter is that often times, those who speak don’t know, and those who know don’t speak (or at least don’t try to withhold from others certain rights they so freely enjoy). I told her that scholars learn not to make sweeping, unsubstantiated claims because they are used to always being called on their claims and asked to offer evidence. I told her what I tell my freshman classes: only the stupid are certain, while the intelligent are full of cautious doubt.

    Claims of arrogance are the ignorant’s favorite slur, because the ignorant cannot imagine that someone might be better informed on a particular issue. Anyone who disagrees must be wrong, and anyone disagreeing who provides evidence must be arrogant, because he is providing facts for what he knows. The uninformed often view those offering facts and evidence as arrogant because they sound so convincing, but do not understand why, and refuse to consider the fact that the one dissenting may be right.

    But mostly, I’m leaving your comment above as your testament for all to read of how frustrated, how resort to name-callingly irritated you got when asked to provide evidence for two sensational claims you made. I want people to read that Jeff Brunsman wrote:

    “Precisely what I figured. You’re not really interested in evidence, because you can easily find that yourself. You are only interested in spouting your opinion and then attacking, personally, those who express an alternative and rational point of view. I’m not one who will believe anything. I clearly don’t believe you. The obvious bigot in this dialogue is you.
    I hereby dismiss you. Be on your way, you arrogant blowhard.”

    And if you are a person of faith, I want others who know you to see how you handled yourself when simply asked to provide proof for claims you made. I want your words to be a testimony to your reasoning, and your professionalism, and your faith. I want what you said to be remembered, by them, and by you.

    Peace, and have a good night.

    bc

  14. I am wondering how the tide turned so quickly (relatively speaking). What was the catalyst? Usually social change happens incrementally but this seems to have happened all at once. Now, if we can just get Jesus married, we will be home free.

  15. Good for you! Sweet, and to the point.
    I agree.

  16. For a country supposedly founded on freedom we spend an awful lot of effort and time wrangling over who should have access to these freedoms…that everyone is entitled to.

    Jefferson and his posse said that all men were created equal and yet they owned slaves without shame because the bible said it was okay. Women weren’t allowed to vote because they were perceived to be incapable of grasping the complexities of politics and of course the bible said they were to be subservient men.

    The indigenous people of the Americas were nearly exterminated for being savages-again the name of God. Ole Christopher C. actually read a proclamation claiming the continent in the name of the Spanish crown to the natives who of course were fluent in Spanish. And then he and his men proceeded to introduce the locals to all sorts of new things like venereal diseases, small pox, genocide, and slavery all in the name of God. Immigrants to our shores were frequently treated more like indentured servants than citizens living in a free, God fearing country. Speaking of “fearing God,” If I were a parent the last thing that I would want is for my children to be afraid of me. The idea of fearing someone that you profess to love the same someone who only loves you when you behave in a certain way smacks of a seriously dysfunctional familial relationship. But then I’m not too surprised at the inherent hypocrisy: I still haven’t figured out celebrating the re-birth of a Jewish man by eating ham on HIS special day. Jewishness and ham are not an association my mind automatically makes. And then there is the whole rabbit thing.

    Here we have a male rabbit-Peter Rabbit-with a soft cotton “tail” skipping around with a basket on his arm carrying and delivering prettily decorated eggs that one must assume he designed himself. And folks got upset about a purple- purse- carrying Tel e-Tubie? Peter Rabbit has been an ambiguous gender icon in our culture for a much longer time. But such is the hypocrisy of the so called Righteous.

    Now we come to the least among you…gays. For surely it is better to be a murderer than a gay man for even a serial killer is still a MAN- at least he still uses his penis with a woman. So even if he has committed the most unspeakable crime imaginable against another human being he is still capable of being forgiven by God. While two peaceable folks of the same gender attempting to establish a loving relationship within the bounds of a marital ceremony are an abomination. It is indeed true: God made man in his image (Him, if you insist in holding on to the outdated and limited belief of maleness as the ultimate expression of humanness) and Man returned the favor.

    Once again we have to go through an endless round of historically familiar gyrations only to come to the same point that history has pointed out to us time and again…if you have to base your identity on whose back you are standing on then the first time that person/group makes a move you will feel threatened. Feeling threatened usually leads to fear and anger and then the baseball bat, the spear, the lynching rope, the gun, the fist.

    As a nation we profess to believe in freedom for everyone but in practice we extend it to one person/group while simultaneously denying it to others who typically have to fight tooth and nail for their “special rights” which are really the same rights that everyone else has and are only made special because they are being denied.

    We send our soldiers to fight for the freedom of peoples suffering under an unjust regime while we oppress and invalidate countless members of our own society?

    Fortunately the winds of change have been set in motion and one day this too shall pass

  17. [...] posts I’ve made about the Bible’s understanding of certain social institutions like marriage and slavery, a colleague of mine responded immediately, yet indirectly with a logically fallacious [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,001 other followers

%d bloggers like this: