« Human Rights Day | Main | Rangel me this »

"Day Without A Gay"

As Jennifer has already noted, a group of gay activists who are fed up with the "anti-gay" measures epitomized by California's Prop 8 has christened today the first official "Day Without A Gay." Originally this protest day was conceived as a formal boycott -- LBGT's were going to be asked to call in "gay" (i.e. call in sick) to work, and then stay home.

The idea was that the resulting economic and workplace vacuum would be significant enough to force a conversation about gay marriage and other issues. But due to our current economic problems, protesters are now encouraged to call in "gay" and then volunteer for a day at their favorite charity. This should be a boon to charity organizations because, as the Day Without A Gay home page explains, "Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success."

If you are curious (or is it "questioning"?) here is their helpful FAQ page. I suppose it's comforting to know that the protest day's organizers felt compelled to offer an advanced apology to anyone who thought that they were equating "gay" with "sick," and to bi or trans people who passionately resist the "gay" label; they explainined that "gay" was chosen simply because it rhymes with "day." How pathetic and self-centered is that? Then again, the designation-challenged members of the LBGT community throw hissy fits when you say "transsexual" instead of "transgender" ... although no one wants to be called "bi-gender". Hmmm. Okay, forget it. I'm not even going there. Political correctness makes my head hurt.

If you are trying to figure out what a workplace boycott has to do with marriage, well join the club. Outside of being a rather curious conversation starter, this event will probably accomplish little that is substantive, because regardless of the actual outcome it will automatically be hailed by gay rights activists as a triumphant success. Will productivity be crippled? Hair boutiques, cosmetics counters, the fashion industry, interior design firms, and fine restaurants may suffer, but a heavy impact throughout the workforce is doubtful. ( Smile, that was a joke.) Will we have a better idea of how many people self-identify as members of the LBGT community? Even more doubtful.

All of this brings up an interesting point. LBGT community leaders have worked steadily during the last thirty years to continually expand the definition of their community. That expansion has become so large that even people with diagnosed medical disorders like hermaphroditism have been (involuntarily) included. Those opposed to the encroachment of the "gay lifestyle" upon the culture at large have traditionally claimed that the actual number of gays and lesbians is very small. But we have never accurately determined the percentage of males and females who identify themselves as same-sex oriented. (We have a similar problem with homelessness. Homeless advocates have pulled estimates of the nation's homeless population out of a variety of hats over the years, yet they have continually debunked the US Census Bureau's official homeless counts.)

For what it's worth, I believe that neither side involved in the gay marriage issue wants to know the real answer. Gay rights advocates must fear that an accurate number would be smaller than what they are now claiming, which would make their demands for special rights less appealing. The gay opposition must fear that an accurate number would be larger than what they have traditionally claimed, which of course would bolster the case for gay rights.

Let me conclude by making some things clear. Discrimination of any kind, be it workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, ostracism by family members or peer communites -- whatever -- is wrong. Regardless of how many self-identified LBGT's there are, there is never an excuse for discrimination. It is sinful and it should not be condoned or tolerated in a free society.

But opposition to gay marriage is not about discrimination. It is about keeping a Christian sacrament sacred, and defending it from ne'er-do-wells who would eagerly use it to punish churches under the guise of "equal protection." If the LBGT community wants to have a conversation about marriage, then let's have one. But lets start with some tough questions. For instance, is marriage really compatible with the sexually-open lifestyle that so many gay men (even those in committed partnerships) prefer to live? (Yes, a tiny minority of straight couples "swing," but they are almost universally denounced by the remainder of straights.) And why are gays, who traditionally consider the Church to be the equivalent of a cockroach infestation or an outbreak of the bubonic plague, demanding participation in one of the most sacred Christian sacraments?

We've got questions; they've got answers -- anyone ready to talk?

- Michael Laprarie


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/33436.

Comments (62)

ANYONE been 'inconvenienced... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

ANYONE been 'inconvenienced' today? Looks like this is gonna be right up there with 'a day without an illegal alien'.

"Discrimination of any kind... (Below threshold)

"Discrimination of any kind,...ostracism by family members or peer communites -- whatever -- is wrong. ... there is never an excuse for discrimination. It is sinful and it should not be condoned or tolerated in a free society."

Is it 'sinful' to 'discriminate' against unrepentant pedophiles? Serial murderers?

If not, then discrimination IS permissible under 'circumstances' egregious enough to merit social disapproval.

Ostracism, is public disapproval and 'banning' of an individual from participation in social activities. Is 'ostracism' of a convicted pedophile from social activities...discrimination?

If so and, since you use the biblical concept of 'sin'...then by your logic, it is 'sinful' to discriminate against what the Bible clearly labels sinful 'behavior'...

Geoffrey, I am talking abou... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Geoffrey, I am talking about homosexuals, not pedophiles. They are clearly not the same thing. The Bible commands us to love everyone; of course love should not be confused with making foolish decisions or exposing oneself or others to obvious dangers.

"opposition to gay marri... (Below threshold)

"opposition to gay marriage is ... about keeping a Christian sacrament sacred, and defending it from ne'er-do-wells who would eagerly use it to punish churches under the guise of "equal protection."

Perhaps for you but you've used a 'blanket' assertion.

Is 'marriage' only a Christian sacrament?

As far as I know, all mainline churches recognize 'civil' marriages where a Justice of the Peace or even a ship's Captain has performed the marriage ceremony.

Are marriages between atheists in a civil ceremony invalid? Is their love and commitment to each other less because they are not christian?

You assert marriage to be a "christian sacrament"..is a Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. marriage less 'sacred' because it is not Christian? .

Putting aside your assumption about "ne'er-do-wells" future intentions, how does a gay man 'marrying' another gay man with ALL of the love and sincerity of a heterosexual couple, reduce the sacredness of the covenant?

Presumably, you believe in the 'sacredness' of the Constitution's separation of church & state, and most probably, you agree that a couple married in a civil ceremony can be sincere in their marriage vows...rendering that covenant 'sacred' also.

So, marriage's sacredness is not dependent upon a church ceremony or even in faith-based belief.

If all of this is true, then a rational, law-based society cannot use religious belief as the basis for excluding non-faith believers from participation in fundamental social institutions...for to do so is to reduce non-Christians to second-class citizenship.

If SSM is to continue to be banned, a non-religious rationale must be found, (one does exist) simply because laws based upon religious belief amount to the imposition of belief upon non-believers.

This non-sequitor protest w... (Below threshold)

This non-sequitor protest will do nothing but create animosity toward the gay population, or at the least make them a laughing stock. Had the protest been directed toward the issue and been organized, maybe it would have made a statement, but instead this disorganized mess planned by a couple of fitness trainers is just turning into a joke. Not sure how this works out in their favor.

Mike,I agree that ... (Below threshold)

Mike,

I agree that homosexuals and pedophiles are NOT the same thing. My intention was not to equate the two, but rather to dispute your blanket assertion that discrimination and ostracism are ALWAYS immoral.

I suspect that you simply 'draw the line' at changing the definition of marriage, to the changing of the institution to include SSM.

I happen to agree but disagree that a religion-based rationale is sufficient to make the case against SSM.

I am with Geoffrey, Michael... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I am with Geoffrey, Michael. Scripture, for example, commands believers to ostracize sinners if nothing else works, and to no condone sin. There is a very great difference between not judging a person (as in denial of employment, personal harm, or denial of common rights and standard legal opportunities) and permitting their standards to usurp clear morals. In the same way that communities can and have voted to deny alcohol sales and licensing of sexually oriented businesses in their jurisidiction, so too a community has the moral right to set and enforce standards to restrict or prohibit public behavior deemed inappropriate, be it public intoxication, lewd conduct, or some similar category of action which offends the community. What someone does in private with another consenting adult is one thing, but public behavior considered immoral in the main is quite another.

Hmmm. No wonder Wizbang Bl... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hmmm. No wonder Wizbang Blue is so quiet today.

While I don't necessarily a... (Below threshold)
Tif T.:

While I don't necessarily agree with your article, I really appreciate the dominant sentiment behind it. Something as simple (and, I'd thought, obvious) as the discrimination aspect of the gay rights movement is still rare to see from supporters of the other side. You've asked for a dialogue and I'd be happy to give it. Here's the answer as I see it; obviously I speak only for myself, based on what I've experienced personally and what I've observed.

Disregarding the fact that more and more Christian sects are beginning to support and perform gay marriages, weakening the defense that marriage is defined by the church as being between a man and a woman...marriage as the state and federal governments define it is not a religious institution. This is separation of church and state, something our government was founded on. Marriage as recognized by the government is a contract between two consenting individuals. It grants people certain rights/benefits/etc, most of which aren't granted by the civil unions or equivalent contracts that are available in some states.

Those rights are what most of us are fighting for. We're not attempting to force churches to acknowledge something that goes against their beliefs, and churches aren't required to perform marriages against their doctrines; gay people who want to and can get married will find a sect that's willing to do the honors or will get married by the state. But marriage under the law has nothing to do with religion. Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims--anyone can get married in the eyes of the law, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). As for why we'd want to do so, this article is an excellent demonstration of just how limited civil unions are (assuming, of course, you live in one of the very few states that even allow civil unions): http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

The gay marriage movement isn't about a portion of the population attempting to control or encroach on anyone's right to practice their religion as they choose. This is about separation of church and state, and the unfairness of separate but equal legislations. As you said, discrimination in any form is wrong. What rights are granted to some should be granted to all. I don't need the government to tell me that my love for my partner is valid, but I do need the legal protection the law grants to preserve that connection.

There should be a "Call in ... (Below threshold)
pvaughan:

There should be a "Call in Straight Day". Then we would see how the society would function. Then we could have a "conversation". Truly, it should be called a "Call in Normal Day" but if we were to do that the fur would really fly. We can't imply that homosexuality in not normal after all. Right....

Later,
-pvaughan

The marriage in question in... (Below threshold)
dave:

The marriage in question in California is civil marriage, not the Christian sacrament (which is up to each individual denomination or church to grant or withhold). The sacred Christian sacrament you are defending was the one engaged in, for example, a few hundred years ago by the crowned heads of Europe, which had nothing to do with love and everything to do with political alliances between such dynasties as the Hapsburgs and Bourbons. This sort of marriage, arranged by the families involved as a sort of property transaction, in which the bride and groom sometimes do not even meet and certainly are never alone before their wedding night, is now pretty much dead in most Christian countries, I think.

But some Muslims and Hindus, among others, still marry in this way. Which way of doing marriage is the sacramental one? Which does God prefer?

What about getting divorced? A legitimate option under civil law. OK for born-again Christians -- must be, since they do so much of it. Not allowed for Catholics unless they have clout and/or a good canon lawyer so they can angle an annulment. What does the sacred Sacrament say?

And what about separation of Church and State? The Catholic Church is reluctant to recognize the second marriages of Catholics, who must get remarried in civil (state) ceremonies. To respect the sacrament of marriage, California could refuse to grant marriage licenses to divorced Catholics. An unconstitutional entanglement of church and state, of course (makes you realize what a good idea the First Amendment is), but it would make a lot of the usual hypocrisies a bit harder to maintain.

The above should be taken as evidence that once again, an intelligent and religious person is deliberately ignoring things he well knows, in order to defend his religious prejudices.

Tif said it best. If and wh... (Below threshold)
max:

Tif said it best. If and when this issue gets to the SCOTUS they will have no choice but to rule that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Really max? On what consti... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Really max? On what constitutional grounds? Sexual behavior is not mentioned.

Tif T,Thanks for t... (Below threshold)

Tif T,

Thanks for taking a civil approach. That said, I take issue with a few of your assertions:

"the fact that more and more Christian sects are beginning to support and perform gay marriages"

Please name them. I am aware of only a very few. The United Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Methodist and Presbyterian churches are the only ones I know of and cumulatively, they make up 11.9% of the self-identified US Chritian pop. Of that 11.9%, the great majority do NOT perform SSM.

"Marriage as recognized by the government is a contract between two consenting individuals.

No, that is what you are agitating for...leaving out 'of the opposite sex' is quite revealing.

"Those rights are what most of us are fighting for."

It is social acceptance for which you are fighting and labeling SSM as a fundamental right based upon the discrimination argument is the tactic you are using to accomplish the goal of social acceptance.

The problem with legally removing the defining of the limitation of marriage to the union of two members of the opposite sex is that based upon the discrimination argument...ANY banning of ANY desired FORM of marriage between consenting adults becomes discriminatory...

And the problem with THAT is child rearing and social cohesion.

How about a decade without ... (Below threshold)
Charles Harkins:

How about a decade without a gay...a century...a millennium perhaps? I'm game if somebody wants to organize this.

Tif, the problem is that ev... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

Tif, the problem is that eventually some group - whether they represent the LGBT community as a whole or not - will go to the courts to force churches that do not condone gay marriage to perform ceremonies for same sex couples. eHarmony has been forced to change their business to accommodate same-sex dating, what's to stop the courts rom compelling the Catholic Church to do the same?

If individual holy men want to sanction gay marriages I say bully for them. A set of laws permitting civil unions would defuse the acrimony and give gay couples enough rights to live exactly as a "formally" married pair of breeders.

If you ask Mahmoud Ahmadine... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

If you ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad every day in Iran is a Day Without a Gay...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

"A set of laws permitting c... (Below threshold)

"A set of laws permitting civil unions would defuse the acrimony and give gay couples enough rights to live exactly as a "formally" married pair of breeders."

They ALREADY have that in California with civil unions. It is NOT enough because it is NOT the imprimatur per se of 'marriage' which they seek but rather social acceptance.

The legalization of SSM is the tactic being used to attain that GOAL.

It seems that unfortunately... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

It seems that unfortunately SSM will only be made legitimate in the eyes of the law through judicial fiat because as with anti-miscegenation laws as well as slavery, smart people with a proper understanding of the issue are a minority and people like PVaughan here will continue to mischaracterize, misunderstand, and vote down any attempts to legalize it through legislative channels. Thank goodness for the judiciary and all the seats on it Obama is going to get to fill.

Michael, I wouldn't take offense to your proferred stereotypically gay professions--hair dressers, waiters, etc., as my girlfriend and I live and work in the gayest part of Toronto, and my building is about 75% 25-50 year old men with expensive hair cuts and tiny dogs dressed up in matching hats and sweaters who cut hair, work in restaurants, groom pets, or design living rooms and kitchens. Anecdotally, though, both mine and my girlfriend's CEOs are lavishly wealthy gay men, as are their husbands. And a study my company (social/demographic/marketing research firm) did concluded that gay people are better educated, earn far more money (50% more, in fact), read more, are more politically aware, and travel more than heterosexuals of the same age demographics, though of course some of the gaps are less pronounced when we factor out heterosexuals who do not have children.

Baron, eHarmony was obvious... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Baron, eHarmony was obviously in the wrong for the same reason someone would not legally be permitted from preventing a gay couple from eating in their restaurant. That's disanalogous.

#14: Geoffrey, the legalisation of gay marriage is not a slippery slope to the legalisation of (e.g.) polygamy or incestual relationships, if that is what you are implying. Incestual relationships necessarily imply a degree of psychological harm to one or both who engage in such a relationship; and polygamous marriages do not follow the spirit of what marriage means in contemporary Western society: specifically, a bond of love between two individuals. It is conceptually impossible for someone to love two people with all of one's heart. (Hence the interesting role Don Juan DeMarco plays in debates on the moral psychology of love: there is no actual person who can be said to have simultaneously loved more than one other person. It is, however, quite possible to love someone with the same genitalia as oneself.

As for the child rearing component of marriage, that is a corollary of the institution, not a condition of it. Infertile couples get married all the time, and single people can adopt a child or go to a sperm bank and be fertilized without another partner being involved in the process. These practices are normal, socially acceptable, and not harmful to the children that are so produced. Gay couples can raise a family as well as straight. If you have any peer reviewed academic evidence that empirically disproves this assertion I would like to see it. From what I understand no such evidence exists.

There are, quite simply, no good arguments--empirical or conceptual--as to why two men or two women should not be permitted to be married by a judge, or a clergyperson from a religion that recognizes the unity of same-sex couples as no less legitimate. There is no threat to society as a whole, nor to particular religious groups. That case has not been made before, and you will not be able to make it now. But I expect you will continue to try.

"And a study my company.... (Below threshold)

"And a study my company...did concluded that gay people are better educated, earn far more money (50% more, in fact), read more, are more politically aware, and travel more than heterosexuals of the same age"

Better educated? You mean by the typical liberal school system? The one that wouldn't know real education if it bit them on the ass?

Earn far more money? You mean by parasitic "25-50 year old men with expensive hair cuts and tiny dogs dressed up in matching hats and sweaters who cut hair, work in restaurants, groom pets, or design living rooms and kitchens."?

Yes, those are all fine contributions toward a vibrant, healthy society. And, men such as those will certainly make strong defenders of democracy should the need to enlist their help ever arise.

But then, beyond lip service, gay men don't really place much value upon women and children, do they? After all, THEY have no investment in future generations...nor, given their inability to naturally reproduce is it reasonable to expect them to, right?

Read more? Yes, Vanity Fair, Variety and the NYT certainly give one a balanced, wide & in-depth degree of information.

More politically aware? You mean that the overwhelming support for Obama and his policies is not de facto evidence of an inability to think critically?

Travel more? Well yes, I guess greater income as the result of society disproportionately rewarding 'contributions' of pathetic worthlessness would result in the ability to engage in dissipative behavior.

Discrimination of ... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:
Discrimination of any kind, be it workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, ostracism by family members or peer communites -- whatever -- is wrong. Regardless of how many self-identified LBGT's there are, there is never an excuse for discrimination. It is sinful and it should not be condoned or tolerated in a free society.

No, it's not wrong. It's called freedom. If I'm renting out a room in my home, and choose not to rent to gays, cross-dressers, trannies, whatever; that's not wrong. It is me exercising my inalieanable right to associate with whom I choose. If you want to make another choice, well more power to you, but my choice is just as moral as yours.

hyperbolist, eHarmony is a ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

hyperbolist, eHarmony is a freaking website and not a public accommodation. Why should someone be able to force a web-based business to service a market in which they don't want to participate? Should I sue Democratic Underground for not permitting me to use their site to satisfy my need for conservative ideas?

And how is a church preventing a gay couple from marrying in their chapel different than a restaurant preventing a gay couple from eating in their dining room? Fundamentally it's not, and eventually a court will try and force gay marriage upon them.

Let me conclude by making s... (Below threshold)
RFYoung:

Let me conclude by making some things clear. Discrimination of any kind, be it workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, ostracism by family members or peer communites -- whatever -- is wrong. Regardless of how many self-identified LBGT's there are, there is never an excuse for discrimination. It is sinful and it should not be condoned or tolerated in a free society.

Do you think it might be alright if my family continues to ostracise those members who are murderers and pedophiles??

We would really not like to associate with them. As long as it is not sinful, we weren't going to invite them to Christma dinner.

I suppose if this ostracism were to really be intolerable, we could all get together in some murderous plot for the purpose of being inclusive.

Gays can call their union w... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Gays can call their union what ever they want, but I'm not buying "marriage". Courts can jam it down my throat but I'm not going to accept it.

Going to send me to a "re-education" camp because I disagree over the meaning of a word?

For a group that espouses tolerance and diversity, gays certainly are an intolerant lot when you don't agree with their program.

"Sexual behavior is not men... (Below threshold)
max:

"Sexual behavior is not mentioned."

Exactly. That means equal rights for everybody, regardless of who they want to sleep with.

This is from a newsweek thr... (Below threshold)
jmc:

This is from a newsweek thread. it's not mine, but it sure fits the point of keeping "Christian sacrament sacred,"

So we should see what the bible tells us about marriage and how according to the bible our marrige laws should look.


A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

I have to admit I'd vote for above

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)


D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

Well as an atheist I guess that means me and my Lutheren wife are in a lot of trouble.

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)


F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Lets protect marriage people!

hyperbolist,eharmo... (Below threshold)

hyperbolist,

eharmony provided another website for gay dating. It wasn't enough. The two websites HAD to be combined. Please explain why?

I would not continue to 'try' to make the argument against the imposition of SSM upon society by 'judicial fiat', if I believed there were "no good arguments--empirical or conceptual" to be made against it.

To be clear, it is the imposition of SSM by judicial fiat to which I disagree. Because of the unintended consequences. I fully agree that a same-sex couple can love and be as fully committed to each other as a heterosexual couple. And I have no problem with civil 'unions'.

That said, I disagree with several of your assertions:
"the legalisation of gay marriage is not a slippery slope to the legalization of (e.g.) polygamy or incestuous relationships"

It most certainly IS if the legalization is accomplished through the judicial finding that the banning of SSM is unconstitutional because it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution and therefore unconstitutionally discriminatory.

This is crucial and little appreciated. That finding necessitates the eventual 'slippery slope'. That is so because there would remain no legal basis for asserting that the limitation to two is anything BUT arbitrary and therefore discriminatory.

As for incestuous marriage, between consenting adults and with the precondition of sterilization, no constitutional basis would exist for declaring incestuous marriage to be 'illegal'.

How dare you discriminate and judge them! Who do you think you are? God?

"As for the child rearing component of marriage, that is a corollary of the institution, not a condition of it."

No, that is the reason for society's proprietary interest in the institution of marriage. In fact, procreation is the primary reason why marriage is not solely the province of religions. Secondary considerations such as inheritance are important but not as much as the proper societal assimulation of children.

"single people can adopt a child or go to a sperm bank and be fertilized without another partner being involved in the process. These practices are normal, socially acceptable, and not harmful to the children that are so produced. Gay couples can raise a family as well as straight."

There are independent studies disputing those assertions but common sense is sufficient to disprove them.

Single people adopting, or intentionally being fertilized without a partner may be a more and more common practice and may even become the 'norm' but that does not equate to socially desirable behavior.

To assert that a child does not need a mother or a father as any single parent must necessitate is to reveal your ignorance and/or discounting of the importance of suitable parental role models of the opposite and same sex for any child.

To assert that a gay couple can raise a normal heterosexual child as well as a loving, heterosexual, monogamous and committed couple is to assert that again, children do not need a mother or father for parental role models, that one or the other is sufficient.

To assert that is to maintain that men and women are virtually the same and that nature does not know what she is doing, defies reality itself. BTW, are you an environmentalist? If so, how do you square that circle?

There's a reason why almost all societies have evolved over thousands of years into the child rearing patterns that they have and for you to cavalierly suggest the overturning of society's most fundamental unit without long consideration of the most basic consequences is personal and generational arrogance and hubris on a quite breathtaking scale.

It does not speak well of you.

I find myself agreeing more... (Below threshold)
epador:

I find myself agreeing more with HB (19 and 20) than others in this thread. My boss is out today for real health reasons, and I am praying he comes through OK. His sexual orientation has nothing to do with his absence. Whether he is gay or not has nothing to do with his worth as a human or his job performance.

The militant organizations of any persuasion rarely have my approval.

All in all, if someone has a monogamous relationship with another human, I'm all for it. As far as why the groups impose their action on work, its because one of the areas they are concerned about is work related benefits for partnerships outside of traditional heterosexual marriage. Not that I approve of them or their actions, but it is NOT hard to understand.

I don't care if you marry a... (Below threshold)

I don't care if you marry a billy goat as long as you don't waggle the progeny of that union in MY face.

Actually, I care only to the extent that I have compassion for the goat.

So far, a day without gay i... (Below threshold)
Piso Mojado:

So far, a day without gay is going swimmingly well. I have not noticed a thing. Perhaps a year without queer is in order. That would definitely make me see the light.

/not

Managed a lifetime so far, ... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

Managed a lifetime so far, another day is no biggie.

No, that is the r... (Below threshold)
jmc:
No, that is the reason for society's proprietary interest in the institution of marriage. In fact, procreation is the primary reason why marriage is not solely the province of religions.

I'm sorry but this viewpoint is irrelevent to SSM. The union of Same Sex couples certainly in no way interferes with procreation, unless you are arguing that it is everyone's duty to procreate?

I mean, hetero couples will carry on just fine. In a modern society, whether a couple can produce children is irrelevant to marriage. To argue otherwise is to argue that couples who choose not have children or cannot have children are some how in a marriage that is counter productive to society.

To assert that a child does not need a mother or a father as any single parent must necessitate is to reveal your ignorance and/or discounting of the importance of suitable parental role models of the opposite and same sex for any child.

Studies show that children do better with two parents; whether those parents be two men, or two women, or a man and a womam. No noticible differences have been shown in the development of children reared by same sex couples.

To assert that a gay couple can raise a normal heterosexual child as well as a loving, heterosexual, monogamous and committed couple is to assert that again, children do not need a mother or father for parental role models, that one or the other is sufficient.

I will happily make that assumption and the science backs me up. I've read many in the psychology classes I have taken, and in medical journals for a few term papers I have written. However, much is also availible via google. here is one.

http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200511022/

To assert that is to maintain that men and women are virtually the same and that nature does not know what she is doing, defies reality itself. BTW, are you an environmentalist? If so, how do you square that circle?

Don't see the contradiction.


There's a reason why almost all societies have evolved over thousands of years into the child rearing patterns that they have and for you to cavalierly suggest the overturning of society's most fundamental unit without long consideration of the most basic consequences is personal and generational arrogance and hubris on a quite breathtaking scale

This is illogical. If the primary beneift of marriage to society is that the instituion provides a means to pro-create and then rear children, then in order to lose that benifit something about a change in marriage must make it happen. Translation: in order to argue that the family is harmed you need to demonstrate that something about Homesexuals marrying will cause heterosexuals to stop having and raising their children. I'm betting they will carry on just fine.


However, I must concede you may many good oits. I think you are right in arguing that this could remove the legal basis for say, polegemy.

However I would argue, that what adults (as long as they are adults of sound mind and body) do is their business. it's the libertarian in me.

Those figures included lesb... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Those figures included lesbians, Geoffrey. We sampled both groups equally. And no, most gay men don't have any particular disdain for women, though some might--as do some heterosexual men, the kind who like their women barefoot and pregnant. And I fail to see how middle-class gay yupsters are parasitic simply because they offer services that you do not want (expensive haircuts, poodle grooming) or work in upscale restaurants for which you lack either the taste or the money to eat in. They aren't parasitic, they just exist in a sphere of society which for whatever reason you are presently excluded from.

By better educated, I meant on average they obtain a higher level of education. And those who obtain higher levels of education earn more money, and thereby contribute more to society by paying more in taxes.

Anyway, the rest of your comment revealed you to have a very nasty opinion of gays (and presumably lesbians), although you do write very well. As I said, your opinion will mean naught once gay marriage is legalized by people with a much better understanding of the concept of marriage in its current social context than you seem to have.

As for the sociological implications you predict with abhorrence, gay people (again, by which I mean any homosexual people--including lesbians and the whole "rainbow" spectrum) can raise kids as well as anyone. There isn't academically credible data that contradicts this assertion, and as for your argument that it's "common sense", I think "prejudice" would be a better word for it. Men can't nurture? Women can't be assertive?

You think heterosexual couples might be better at raising "a normal heterosexual child"? Why? What evidence have you got that gay parents are more likely to have gay children? (Their gay children might be more open to admitting that they are gay, but that's not the same thing, is it?) And by what right do you imply that gay children are abnormal? That's despicable. Generations of gay people were completely fucked up because people like you kept telling them that their psychological impulse to love people of the same gender as themselves was deviant. Well, it's not. Penguins do it, whales do it, primates do it, and somewhere between 5 and 9% of humans do it (or wish they could do it but do not out of fear or shame).

I assume you're concerned about the possible effect the legalization of gay marriage might have on birth rates? That's putting "the greater good" ahead of the rights of individuals, and that sort of talk belongs in Maoist China. Gay people can adopt or have in vitro babies (using a surrogate in the case of gay men). Not to worry, the planet will still be overpopulated once moral decency prevails in America.

And finally, the slippery slope: the legalization of gay marriage by judicial fiat does not entail the eventual legalization of incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. Polygamous relationships are by definition contrary to the spirit of marriage in contemporary society (whereas gay marriage is an extension of an institution to those currently disenfranchised from it). Marriage symbolizes a bond between two consenting adults in love with one another; one person cannot give him or herself fully to two other people at the same time, thus polygamous "marriage" is incoherent at a conceptual level. Beastiality by definition lacks consent; same for pedophilia; and incest implies a necessary degree of harm to one or both parties, primarily psychological but potentially biological (especially if we factor in the probabilty of harm to any children produced in such a relationship). Homosexuality implies no such harms. So the slippery slope isn't there, much as the Mormons, goat/cousin fuckers, and NAMBLA wish it was.

There is a body of literature on this subject in academic journals that addresses the moral psychology of love in contemporary Western society. If you don't care to avail yourself of this work then I would appreciate it if you defer from insisting on making an argument that has been debunked by people who get paid to think about such things very rigorously. I would assume that you don't try and lecture astrophysicists on the nature of black holes, so please don't attempt to try and tell me what love is and the role it plays in our culture (and in our laws). While poets and painters might tell you that it's undefinable and ephemeral, that's not the case. Gay men or women loving one another does not imply anything for those among us who would like to marry a tree or a block of cheese.

"..polygamous marriages ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"..polygamous marriages do not follow the spirit of what marriage means in contemporary Western society: specifically, a bond of love between two individuals."

Why only two? Specifically, explain why only two? If you're going to change the definition of marriage, why not change it to mean more than two?

Kind of ironic to base your argument on 'what marriage means in contemporary Western society', when you are trying to change that very idea. If that idea is so pliable to include gays, then why not adult, consenting polygamists?

Once you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays, there's no logical reason to keep any other groups from getting 'married'.

Once you change it, there's no reason stop changing it again and again.

The gay 'leadership' doesn't want tolerance, they want acceptance.

Hyper, by we you mean you a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hyper, by we you mean you and your company?
Care to share the actual findings?
Don't pull a Hooson and assume we will accept what you say on faith alone :)

As for eHarmony, I disagree. The offered their services to the gay market under a different name. That wasn't enough to placate the agitators. Given that eHarmony is clear that they will not match people with any goal other than marriage, and that gay marriage is not an option in most US states (and nations), it makes sense.

Much of this is not about rights, or tolerance, or even acceptance.

Regardless of what is or is... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Regardless of what is or isn't found in our slowly disintegrating Constitution, homosexuality is against God's law, and I believe that is the same as breaking the law. I don't judge any one, because that is up to God, but I never will condone a same-sex relationship, so same-sex marriage is out of the question.

Leviticus 18:22-23

* "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
* Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."

God plainly calls it an abomination, a disgusting act that is abhorrent to God. It is declared along with other unnatural acts such as sodomy and bestiality. God commanded a severe punishment upon anyone who would indulge in this abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

* "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

2nd Timothy 3:1-5

* "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
* For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
* Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
* Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
* Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

1st Corinthians 6:9

* "...be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

Galatians 5:13

* "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."

Colossians 3:9-10

* "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
* And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"

Romans 1:26-27

* "For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the Natural use into that which is Against Nature!
* And likewise also the men, leaving the Natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; Men with Men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

Deuteronomy 22:5

* "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

1st Peter 3:1-4-7

* "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
* For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
* without natural affection, truce breakers, false ACCUSERS, incontinent, fierce, despisers of THOSE that are good. Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
* having a FORM of Godliness, but denying the POWER thereof: from such turn away."

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/homosex.shtml

He LaMedusa,You ar... (Below threshold)
jmc:

He LaMedusa,

You are being pretty selective about which parts of gods law you are paying attention to as I mentioned

when I posted other guidelines for marriage such as, getting to kill your wife when she is not a virgin and all those concubines you get.

Not to mention If I'm a buddhist, or a hindu, or an atheist. can I go ahead and ignore what god has to say on the subject?

LaMedusa,You are f... (Below threshold)
Dave Noble:

LaMedusa,

You are free to practice your faith and to hold whatever view of homosexuality your faith dictates. I respect your right to do that. However, America is not a theocracy.
Accordingly, what you believe to be God's laws are no more binding in our republic than Sharia law.

"union of Same Sex coupl... (Below threshold)

"union of Same Sex couples certainly in no way interferes with procreation,... In a modern society, whether a couple can produce children is irrelevant to marriage. To argue otherwise is to argue that couples who choose not have children or cannot have children are some how in a marriage that is counter productive to society. "

I never claimed that SSM would interfere with procreation, that is your assumption and I am not responsible to respond to it.

But in any case, procreation will go on with or without the 'sanction' of marriage. We're wired to reproduce and nothing can stop that.

I'm stating that the institution of marriage's primary societal function is the creation of stable pair-bonds, and among those able & willing, the creation of the optimum conditions for the procreation and raising of healthy, well-adjusted children into fully autonomous adults.

That is manifestly within the interest of any society.

Childless couples are incidental to that consideration. And as no one can know which couples will wish and be able to fulfill those conditions, society in the interest of fairness and stability treats all marriages as equal.

Additionally, secondary social considerations such as inheritance still prevail in any marriage.

"Studies show that children do better with two parents; whether those parents be two men, or two women, or a man and a womam. No noticible differences have been shown in the development of children reared by same sex couples."

Gay couples have hardly been raising children in large enough numbers, nor for long enough for any 'studies' to be statistically relevant.

Your willingness to blindly accept these 'studies' displays the suspension of skepticism, most probably in favor of an agenda. An agenda always reveals an immature desire that the world should be as you wish it to be. And typically you'll cling to that agenda, until and unless reality forces you to abandon it.

"There's a reason why almost all societies have evolved over thousands of years into the child rearing patterns that they have..."

This is illogical"

Labeling it so, does not make it so. Especially as you contradict yourself in the every next section.

If I have made a plausible case that judicial fiat "could remove the legal basis for say, polegemy." And if you admit that studies "show that children do better with two parents" then ergo; you agree that judicial fiat will open the door to more than just SSM between two partners.

I maintain that the 'slippery slope' then becomes legally inescapable and that social experimentation at that fundamental a level cannot help but have serious repercussions for our society.

And that it is the height of hubris for us to assume that our present generations are 'so much wiser' than all that have come before...

As for your libertarian bent, I too have one. At 60 years of age, I've just learned to mistrust 'simple answers' that conveniently overlook basic human nature.

JMC, did you look at what p... (Below threshold)
Chad:

JMC, did you look at what part of the bible both of those sets of verses came from? Old Covenant, or New. I'm not saying the old testament doesn't count, it does. However, I do believe that there is forgiveness offered under the new testament due to Jesus' sacrifice that was not offered under law of the old testament. I've got a bible right here, and I'm looking up what you've quoted, so here goes.

A.) one or more wives. Yep, it happened. God never intended or gave permission to the men that did it. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah, when he wanted to marry Rachel. The fact is he also supported Leah, and did not cast her out (divorce her) as he could have. David took many wives, true, and God punished him for it. Look at the rest of his life. The man was never happy or at peace again.

B.)Never once does God O.k. this. The men you are using as examples did this of their own free will, not in accordance with God's law. So where does this come off as biblical precedent that it's o.k.? Solomon especially is discussed as having turned his back on God because of the religions brought to his house by his concubines. I'd say that's not a favorable biblical comparison.

C.) The largest part of this passage is about what happens if the man makes a false accusation. Yes, the punishment for immorality was very harsh under the old covenant. However, read the new testament, where Jesus offers Grace and Forgiveness for sexual immorality. The "REAL ONE" gave us all compassion and forgiveness of sins and a "new" law. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that kinda stuff.

D.) Actually, your wife isn't in any trouble at all. Once again, you must look at the whole passage. Picking and choosing to make the point doesn't work. The people in these passages were all guilty or worried about people of their tribe (must remember "people of God" thing with the hebrews) worshipping other gods and bringing in Idolatry and Immorality because of their sexual relations with and marriages to people outside of God's covenant with Abraham.

E.) OK, learn to be adults and hold up to your vows. I don't have a problem with that. There were some cases when divorce was allowed, but once you make the promise, you stand and deliver. I don't have a problem with that.

F.)Once again, old testament law that was put in place to preserve the "People Of God", and to provide for the widow. Only (legally speaking) by having sons did they have any inheritance rights. Once God told his disciples that his new covenant was for all people, this no longer applies to how we are to treat one another. Goes along with going to the temple and offering a blood sacrifice versus accepting Jesus as the sacrifice for all sins.

G.)Where does it say God approved of the actions of these two women? The bible is full of examples of things NOT to do. I'd say this is a good one.

Try looking at what God says about marriage, family, and sexual immorality in the new testament. Might do you some good.

Well Boys,When you... (Below threshold)
daverrr:

Well Boys,

When you try to take a two thousand year old Biblical intitution and try to pervert it.
yes, I will get defensive, I must.

In fact, you will have to take marriage from my cold dead hands.

Which i must say by the sound of your comments your ready to do.

The rest of your grap simply put is personal.

Your true hatred is really aimed at your Creator.

Yes, I do not hang with gays, is that going to be your next project?

Hetro's take a gay to work day.
Hetro's take a pedophile...
Hetro's take a trany...

Your lost, scared and your reactions show it.

do we have numbers on how s... (Below threshold)

do we have numbers on how successful this day was yet?

hyper,"And I fa... (Below threshold)

hyper,

"And I fail to see how middle-class gay yupsters are parasitic simply because they offer services that you do not want (expensive haircuts, poodle grooming) or work in upscale restaurants for which you lack either the taste or the money to eat in. They aren't parasitic, they just exist in a sphere of society which for whatever reason you are presently excluded from."

There is much that you fail to see, including my 'pay grade' 'taste' or 'sphere's of society' that I may or may not be "excluded from" ;-)

Their parasitism is obvious, you simply refuse to open your eyes.

There is much more to 'contributing' to society than the paying of taxes.

As we have a difference of opinion regarding the consequences of SSM (if legalized thru judicial fiat) and the subsequent consequences of such and a difference of opinion as to the importance of both a mother and a father in the matter of parental role models...your assertion that, "once gay marriage is legalized by people with a much better understanding of the concept of marriage in its current social context than you seem to have." is premature at best and arrogant twaddle if I am proved right by subsequent events.

BTW, if neither a mother or father is important as a role model...then please explain why the absence of either in the early formative years of a child's life is so universally regretted, with negative psychological repercussions that reach well into adulthood?

Just asking? Food for thought and all.

"You think heterosexual couples might be better at raising "a normal heterosexual child"? Why?"

Ideally, for a heterosexual girl, the father properly acts as a role model for the qualities she should ultimately look for in a mate. The Mother acts as a role model for the qualities she should emulate so as to attain adulthood successfully.
Ideally and in reverse, the same for a heterosexual boy.

By definition, a Gay or Lesbian couple shall inescapably fail to provide that modeling.

What can a two gay men tell their heterosexual 'daughter' about being a woman? What can two lesbian women tell a heterosexual boy about being a man? Besides of course, in a limited and obvious way? How shall they provide the opposite of themselves role model to the child?

Of course men can nurture and women can be assertive, they simply can't be the opposite sex... And there is far more to that than whether your sexual plumbing is externally or internally oriented. If there were not more to it, then men and women would understand each other far more profoundly than they do.

What evidence have you got that gay parents are more likely to have gay children?"

Never implied that they would. In fact, the odds are that either by adoption or artificial insemination the percentages will reflect society as a whole. Which means that 90-95% of same-sex couples will be raising heterosexual kids. Children to whose sexual orientation they cannot fully relate and therefore to whom circumstance limits their empathy.

"by what right do you imply that gay children are abnormal? That's despicable."

Again , I never implied that they are or would be. You keep displaying a remarkable amount of obtuseness. Is it intentional?

Abnormal is defined as "outside the norm". Are you asserting that 5-10%... diametrically opposed to the greater 90-95% of the population is statistically inside the norm?

Reality is sooo inconvenient is it not?

"the slippery slope: the legalization of gay marriage by judicial fiat does not entail the eventual legalization of incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy."

Now we get to the heart of my assertions: Bestiality and pedophilia, no. Nor did I ever imply such. The consent issue does make it a non-issue.

The legalization of polygamy, polyandry, 'plural' marriages and incestuous marriages between consenting adults, who undergo medically certified sterilization...(to which I so labeled as such in this thread), are inevitable and legally inescapable consequences should judicial fiat impose SSM upon society.

You wish to open Pandora's Box and your agenda is so strong that you lack the intellectual honesty to confront the consequences of what you advocate.

yea! Equal RightsEqu... (Below threshold)

yea! Equal Rights
Equal Rights
Equal Rights
Equal Rights

:)

jmc,I have a feeli... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

jmc,

I have a feeling you would find anyone else's scriptural references you didn't like, selective.

"when I posted other guidelines for marriage such as, getting to kill your wife when she is not a virgin and all those concubines you get."

I wasn't talking about marriage, I was talking about sexual deviance. It also doesn't surprise me you would repeat a reference about killing one's wife in order to get concubines. That seems right up your alley. The biggest problem with America is how it has been deceived into turning it's back on God and his divine sanctity of relationships.

Thanks to the brainwashing by the elitist money machine, America is being destroyed along with it's sovereignty, and right under the noses of the American people.

North American Union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

North American Union and Super highway, our borders are being destroyed:

http://itshappeninghere.blogspot.com/2006/06/north-american-union-update-bush.html

The Amero replacing the dollar:

http://investment-blog.net/us-ships-800-billion-ameros-to-china-prepares-to-de-monetize-us-dollar/

Soon our dollar will disappear, next comes the cashless society nightmare that no one believed would take shape. Are you ready to be implanted with a chip that will not only monitor what you buy and sell, and eventually track your every move?

The last thing to go will be the freedom to worship as you choose, courtesy of the "non-existent" Satanic elitist agenda.

Don't ever say you weren't told.

wasn't talking ab... (Below threshold)
jmc:
wasn't talking about marriage, I was talking about sexual deviance. It also doesn't surprise me you would repeat a reference about killing one's wife in order to get concubines. That seems right up your alley.

it's in your bible. I don't subscribe to any of it.

I forgot to mention the con... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I forgot to mention the concentration camps all over America that are ready to house the "nonconformists". Maintained by FEMA, built by KBR and Halliburton. And of course, the mainstream media didn't tell you about the foreign troops stationed all over the USA, even as you read this.

They even have a new flag ready for the North American Union. Here it is and no, it's not a hoax:

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9329/na2ufq6.jpg

Civil unions already gave a... (Below threshold)
Chad:

Civil unions already gave an equal legal standing to same sex couples in California. By using the specific word of Marriage, this proposition targeted the religious act of marriage that is set aside as being between a man and a woman. Personally, I never thought a Justice of the Peace wedding should have a "marriage certificate" and that states should not charge for marriage licenses. That would be true seperation of church and state. Marriage as an institution started with religious rites, not as a legal function. The purpose was to be blessed by God (the gods, deities, or whatever). If you don't believe in that entity or entities, what is it you are seeking approval from by using the word marriage? Those of you that don't believe that judicial fiat would see this type of thing being forced on churches that don't want to perform the ceremonies obviously don't pay attention to the behavior of the crowd demanding that this is their right, whether the people of the state believe it or not.

Oh, is that why you selecte... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Oh, is that why you selected parts of it to defend marriage? Because you don't subscribe to it? Now who is being selective? I'll bet you didn't click on to the links, either, showing you what is happening to America.

I'm sorry, I don't have tim... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I'm sorry, I don't have time to respond to all of the comments in this thread--one of the best I've seen in awhile, for what it's worth--but I will say that John Stewart's conversation with Mike Huckabee on gay marriage last night was heartfelt and pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on the issue.

Geoffrey, children do poorly with only one parent. You have no data to suggest that they do poorly with two mothers or two fathers. Anecdotally, I have first-hand experience with same-sex couples who have normal, happy families, and I have no first-hand experience with same-sex couples with dysfunctional families; on the other hand, every single person who reads this surely has first-hand experience with dysfunctional families featuring heterosexual parents. I have read academic articles (second year Sociology elective) that showed no significant differences in the efficacy of same sex parents as effective educators and nurturers of offspring. I have never seen nor heard of any academic article that supports the contrary hypothesis. Gay or lesbian parents would only fail to inculcate their children into proper gender roles, if we accept the heteronormative roles you purport to be "normal" as proper and/or ideal. Again, there is no reason to accept these roles as such, and there is ample reason to extend the definition of "normal" to include same-sex couples. Your attempt to shift our use of "normal" away from something normative to something merely statistically descriptive is pretty weak as we could then say that blue eyes and red hair are "abnormal". Don't try to defeat my argument by watering down your own. Don't try to shift the goalposts from what is acceptable to that which is merely within the sphere of statistical likelihood, as that is completely separate from what we are talking about and, worse, it's uninteresting.

I am genuinely curious: how is a gay man who makes $50,000 waiting tables a "parasite"? How is a lesbian who grooms chihuahuas at $75 a pop a "parasite"? They contribute to society by paying taxes as well as by contributing to the vibrant social fabric that makes my city an interesting, colourful place to live. They buy things; they pay for services; they are neighbourly; some of them are involved in religious communities; some of them raise children. How else is someone meant to contribute to society? What more do you do beyond these things to contribute to your community? As someone with quite a few gay and lesbian friends and coworkers (and also family members), would you expect me not to be offended by such remarks? Of course, you are free to make them, but I fail to see why you would. Coming across as homophobic weakens your argument as it implies a bias that you surely would wish to avoid when discussing the pending legality of same sex marriage.

Hate to repeat myself, so I'll just briefly remind you that polygamy does not follow in the spirit of marriage as currently practiced in Western civilization, whereas gay marriage currently does (see: Canada; Netherlands; Massachusetts). You tell me how an institution that is fundamentally about two people loving one another could somehow be perverted to sanction unions between a man who would prey on two or more women, or a woman who would prey on two or more men. You see, it is impossible--conceptually, and empirically--for a man to love two women, and if the institution of marriage is to be changed to include those unions that by definition are inherently unequal, then that would be fundamentally unjust. You might see these conceptual distinctions as minor speed bumps down the slippery slope, but philosophical proponents of gay marriage--who, again, I encourage you to avail yourself of--convincingly disagree.

I will say, Chad and daverrrr and LaMedusa, that you probably shouldn't eat any shellfish lest you spend all of eternity in a lake of fire. It's in the Bible, right next to the bit about dudes having sex with other dudes:

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

In case it isn't obvious, the point of that website is this: the Bible might sometimes intersect with a decent and proper set of morals, especially when it comes to that Jesus character, but it does not define rightness and wrongness sufficiently for the intents and purposes of our civilization, and at times it is in fact diametrically opposed to the values we have rightly adopted for ourselves through trial and error and analytical reasoning. Find a better moral compass than the one in that book, for that one is bent beyond repair.

"bent beyond repair"? Heh. ... (Below threshold)
M:

"bent beyond repair"? Heh. Sez you. Question, Hyper: have you truly studied the Bible from start to finish? If not, from what do you take your faulty understanding of it?

Chad: Personally, I neve... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Chad: Personally, I never thought a Justice of the Peace wedding should have a "marriage certificate" and that states should not charge for marriage licenses.

No? Then change the law. Change the meaning of the word "marriage" to exclude atheists, which it presently does not. You don't live in a Christian nation. You are a Christian, living in a secular nation (though millions of people seem to forget that, so your confusion is understandable).

M, I've read the whole thin... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

M, I've read the whole thing. I went to mass for most of my life. Upon reflection I realized that certain claims within that book were irreconcilable with reality, and as such I don't pay attention to it anymore.

That most Christians do the right thing does not show the superiority of Christian morals; it is merely a reflection of how the Christian Bible--as well as the Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and Jewish holy books--generally gets things right, but does have quite a few threads of immoral nonsense running through it. That decent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are able to decipher which verses of their scripture are worth paying attention to, and which ought to be ignored, shows that morality is more fundamental than religion. We choose whether or not to be religious; we do not choose whether or not to have to coexist with other people. Morality transcends supernatural superstition. Does eating shrimp make you a bad person? No. Does the Bible say it does? Yes. What allows you to discern the nonsense from the common sense (common as in shared) in that book? It is your inescapable, evolved moral faculty that has allowed you and your ancestors to navigate civilization. Is this faculty imperfect? Of course. Sometimes it doesn't work at all! Luckily, we have laws.

First off Hyper, your firs... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

First off Hyper, your first comment seems to have needed you to claim you and your girl friend live in a gay community. Why did you need to add your girlfriend? Because you didn't want to be thought of as gay.

Secondly, hyper, you did not study the bible through. If you had you would not have really seen any inconsistances. Because you are unable to understand something does not mean that something is errant.

Thirdly, in God's eyes, homosexuality is a deviancy behavior and thus it is in my eyes. My goal is to achieve eternal life. So, my fundamental right of freedom of religion gives me the ability to do all I can to prevent my society from excepting diviant sexual behavior.

Listing your country and Mass. as an example did not help your debate.

And finally, it is you who consistantly prove you are a close minded bigoted man. You fail to accept another view other then your own. I know there are homosexuals out there. I know they are trying to legalize marraige. I know it is there right to try that. But it is equally my right to prevent it and my moral imperative. You are a waste of time buddy. ww

I will say, Chad a... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I will say, Chad and daverrrr and LaMedusa, that you probably shouldn't eat any shellfish lest you spend all of eternity in a lake of fire. It's in the Bible, right next to the bit about dudes having sex with other dudes:

I like the way you show a specific scriptural reference for the shellfish. That is a Jewish law, which you conveniently take out of context. This is what God says about food:

"Genesis 9:
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Only your ego believes the rest of us care whether or not you have time to respond to all the comments here, as you are not the author of this post. If you ignore everything else in my comment, it shows how little you care about what is happening around you. Sexual deviance is one of the primary weapons of the elite, and your flippant attitude shows just how out of touch you really are.

No, Willie, I mentioned her... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

No, Willie, I mentioned her because I didn't want to give the impression that gay people are somehow exclusive; that they shun heterosexual people; that they condescend to women. I have never met a heterophobic gay man or woman. Maybe some exist but they are far outnumbered by the opposite kind of bigot, like you.

You are incorrect: homosexuality is not deviant in God's eyes. Perhaps in your God's eyes, but not in the eyes of other people's God(s), and thus the point is moot as to whose deity cares about who puts what sort of genitalia where. You need a better argument than an appeal to religion if you want to participate in this conversation. If you want to live in a theocracy that condemns homosexuality, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. That gay people getting married makes you so worried reveals you to be irrationally insecure. Mentioning places where gay people can get married did in fact help my position because these are actual places that have not suffered any decline in social cohesion since legalizing the practice. I should have been more explicit because while the point would be obvious to most, one should always assume that dim-witted troglodytes might butt in to the conversation and interject their trademark variety of ignorance, and belabouring a point to make it as clear as possible helps to minimize the chances that someone like you might thusly embarrass themselves.

Anyway, your prejudice has been noted on numerous previous occasions so why don't you find a thread where you might conceivably contribute an iota of substance.

LaMedusa, that "Jewish" law is taken from Leviticus, and last I checked that book is still (unfortunately) in the Christian Bible. I'm glad it's not a Christian law because our society would probably have inherited it and I love me some shellfish. It's from the same chapter in Leviticus as the bit about dudes not having sex with other dudes, though, so why you are comfortable ignoring the line about shrimp but not the line about homosexuality seems curiously selective to me. Seems your worldview is informed less by scripture and more by prejudice, which you justify by selectively quoting scripture. A religion that takes the Bible to be the be-all and end-all of moral legislation, but then cherry picks what parts of it are to be taken seriously, is a religion for hacks, charlatans, and morons.

Sexual deviance is one of the primary weapons of the elite

Fuck the heck is that supposed to mean? Rich left coast billionaires keeping the Red States down by condoning consensual gay sex? You're a weirdo.

I vote WildWillie for Wizba... (Below threshold)
max:

I vote WildWillie for Wizbang's new author.

And LaMedusa is insane.

Don't lose perspective, hyper. WW still only represents a small minority in the US.

Hyper, a wedding is a relig... (Below threshold)
Chad:

Hyper, a wedding is a religious ceremony, or at least that was originally. That the government regulates it, and you have to pay for a "license" to get married is not seperation of church (any church) and state. It's that simple. I understand that property laws and inheritances need to be protected legally, but by using the word "marriage", you now cross into religious territory. That's the point i've been trying to make. Also, look up some verses in the new testament if you want to try saying christians are going to hell. Look up Acts chapter 11 and see Peter's vision in Joppa. Number 1, I'm a Gentile (non-hebrew) so the whole shellfish thing never applied. Number 2, The law of the old testament was re-made under the covenant of Jesus' shed blood. Not that the teachings of the old testament aren't true, but the old law does not apply anymore, as the sacrifice of blood has become pure and perfect for all time. The problem with your theological discussion is that you choose to pick verses, but don't reveal the whole story. I find it funny that you quote only the old testament, yet ignore the new testament. I have no limits on what I eat or drink so long as I don't "worship" food, or become drunk or a stumbling block to someone else. Keep bringing the verses, please, I need to spend more time in mine anyway. Look up some stuff from the new testament, that's actually what christianity (followers of Jesus Christ) is based on. Sure, it took the old testament to get there, but the story isn't finished at Malachi 4. Gotta keep reading. And yes, homosexuality is deviant behavior according to my God. I never said it was for any other system of beliefs. Bring me some verses, go for it. Remember, the old testament is the history and teachings of the OLD covenant, the hebrew law, and the prophetic foundation for the NEW covenant, the NEW law, and and the change from a law driven system to a love driven system. However, you must also remember that to love the sinner does not mean to condone the sin. If you're interested in using the bible as the basis for an argument, then I'll be more than willing to maintain a rational discourse on the subject. As for legality, well, if government demands that church and state have to be seperated, then so be it, and keep your hands out of church business, which marriage is. Once again, the act of marriage is a religious rite, and therefore, should not be mandated by the government, especially by judicial fiat. If a homosexual wants to get married, some churches will already provide that, don't make a law that will allow them to demand that ALL churches, whether against their beliefs or not, will have to. That is what prop 8 was about, plain and simple.

I vote WildWillie ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I vote WildWillie for Wizbang's new author.

And LaMedusa is insane.

Don't lose perspective, hyper. WW still only represents a small minority in the US.

max, you can't deny what is happening to our country. It's your own fault if you can't see it. Perspective is only gained when you see things from every angle. hyper, you and max are both a waste of time because you're stuck with the idea that if you ignore something, it will go away. I suggest you call up Lou Dobbs and tell him he is insane, too. When you see the elites take over and destroy your freedom completely, it will be too late. You are right when you say WW only represents a small minority in this world, and he is also blessed because he will survive the mass destruction coming to this planet.

And max, if you are one of the elitists trying to write me off as a nutcase based on facts and information I have already presented, you might as well give up now. Your side LOSES! I am definitely not the one to worry about when you see that microchip implanted in you arm or forehead, your fate is sealed. Again, don't say you weren't told.

And prop 8 is a joke, anywa... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

And prop 8 is a joke, anyway. It's not about the right for gays to marry. It's an agenda to perpetuate discord in a state. The proposition itself is only to generate state revenue tax. It's all about agenda and money, not equal rights.

Hate to repeat myself, s... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Hate to repeat myself, so I'll just briefly remind you that polygamy does not follow in the spirit of marriage as currently practiced in Western civilization,

true

whereas gay marriage currently does

not true

(see: Canada; Netherlands; Massachusetts).


When gay marriage first came to Canada etc.., it did not represent the spirit of marriage as it was then practiced. (it still doesn't)

But, fine. According to your logic, all's we need is some poligamists to get 'married', wait a couple of years, and then someone like you will say "Well, they've been doing it for a couple of years now, so it follows the 'spirit of marriage as currently practiced in Western civilization'."

Using that logic, you can call anything a marriage, eventually.

I still find it morbidly ironic that someone arguing for gay marriage would cite the traditions of Western Civ as a reason to exclude poligamy.

You tear down the traditions of Western Civ to get gay marriage, then say 'oh, no, those traditions are important and we can't change them' to poligamists.

har de har.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy