Well, many people find others expressly suggesting that they
change their political terminology to be demeaning and dismissive. Indeed,
publicly asking people to change how they speak - and calling people bigots -
is often felt to be insulting. One might well suggest that people remove such
requests from their terminology.
Naturally, of course, Ms. Dudley might respond that she is
right in suggesting that Mr. New is a bigot, and that her comment should fit
within an exception to the principle I mentioned above. And Mr. New might
respond that he was right in calling homosexuality a lifestyle, and that it is
her comment that is insulting. (Or maybe these two people wouldn't - I can't
read their minds - but others on their side well might.) But that just
highlights, I think, how unproductive these sorts of demands are in public
debate, and how unlikely they are to actually persuade people.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
Add my intellectual curiousity to Dr. Finkelman's. Homosexuality isn't a
lifestyle, any more than heterosexuality is. Considering homosexuals vary
wildly in ethnicities, economic status, religions, moralities, the only thing
they have in common is their sexuality. Kinda like heterosexuals, it seems to
me.
We in the homosexual sector consider the term "lifestyle" to be demeaning or
dismissive. It is considered insulting and since it is often used by bigots, a
bigoted term. May I suggest you remove it from your terminology, Mr. New?
On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 8:00 PM, "Finkelman, Paul"
<paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>> wrote:
Dear Mr. New
I would love to know that the "homosexual lifestyle" is.
One of my former students is a law graduate and a sitting judge; her
partner/wife has and MBA; they have twin daughters (through a sperm bank); are
members of the local Temple, one is on the board of the Temple. They live in a
very nice house in the suburbs; They vote, pay taxes; send their kids to
school. They have been together since the mid-1990s.
Another one of my very close friends is an associate dean at a law school; his
partner/husband is a physician. They life in really nice apartment in NY City.
My law professor friend writes great scholarship and does a ton of pro bono
work. They have been together for about 14 years.
Both of these marriages (which lacked legal sanction until just a few years
ago) have lasted longer than many of the hetero-marriages I have seen and I
suspect have lasted longer than the average hetero marriage does in many places.
Is there something wrong with these lifestyles?
You talk in your post of the "homosexual lifestyle." I have no idea what you
are talking about.
Care to share this with the list? My gay friends have lifestyles very much
like my straight friends except their marriages seem to be longer lasting.
Maybe you are opposed to longer lasting marriages?
*************************************************
Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>
www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com>
*************************************************
________________________________
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
on behalf of David W. New [david_...@msn.com<mailto:david_...@msn.com>]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
Respectfully, I disagree with you. I just finished writing a 3,400 word article
making the case against homosexuality without using religion in any way. I
think a very strong case can be made against homosexual lifestyle without any
reference to God, the Bible, etc. As you can imagine, I am busy trying to find
a publisher because of its length and in some cases, its content. If I ever get
it published, the title of my article is:
"Listen To Your Body, 7 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Bad for America." I hope
that Americans will continue to be extended the courtesy to think for
themselves--even if its not popular. It seems that defenders of the gay
lifestyle who want us to be tolerant of homosexuality become very intolerant if
you dare to disagree with them. We are living in a Joseph McCarthy era in
reverse. Now it's the left who is intolerant. Sincerely, David W. New, Esq.
Member Maryland and DC Bars.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Dudley<mailto:jean.dud...@gmail.com>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
I'm with Eduardo; I can't believe this. Mr. Esenberg, it's not simply a matter
of disagreement, it's a matter of said arguments simply do not hold water
without a religious premise. Put another way, yes, I disagree with the
arguments, but that's because they're fallacious to the point of autoeroticism.
There are no valid non-religious arguments against homosexuality.
On Jun 30, 2013, at Sun, Jun 30, 6:38 PM, "Esenberg, Richard"
<richard.esenb...@marquette.edu<mailto:richard.esenb...@marquette.edu>> wrote:
You can certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from
theological premises.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
