Gay Rights: Religious Justification And Condemnation Equally Irrelevant

LEP said:

"Instead of trying to make sure that none of us are too different, why not work towards a world where difference is not considered a bad thing?"

Different is not a bad thing to be sure.

But genetic anomalies than can be corrected should be.
Not because it sucks to be different. Because it sucks to be born a girl in a man's body or visa versa. No matter how tolerant the society you were born into is.

Admitting that we do not know how life could start from not life, does not mean that the theists are right.

Admitting that homosexuality is a defect does not make gay bashers right.

It just makes our conversation more honest and therefore credible.

Daniel,

I don't really get your point. If you do not dislike gay people, then why are you so against them?

I am not against them. Who said that I was?

YOU: When you are considering individual people, you do not really know what yucky sex acts that they may engage in unless you ask them, or you see them.

Everyone kisses. I assume that gay men kiss each other, and I have seen it go down. Two men kissing is a yucky sight to me. That is a natural reaction. It is in my genes as much as their attraction to each other is in their genes. It doesn't mean I think any less of them. I don't think that they are engaging in yucky behavior that they should not be engaged in. They are doing what is right for them, I am being open and honest about my visceral reaction to it.

YOU: I think you are passive aggressive in your support and rejection of gay people. Whichh is it? The "yuck" factor should be irrelevant.

The yuck factor is irrelevant to their rights. But denying that it exists does not help honest discourse. It is a defect. That does not mean anything other than the fact that it is a defect. You read everything else that you accuse me of into it.

It's just a scientific fact. And we should be honest about scientific facts when discussing these things. Pretending that it is not a defect out of sensitivity or political correctness is not helpful to an enlightening discussion.

Now can you see my point? Probably not. Sigh.

"Instead of trying to make sure that none of us are too different, why not work towards a world where difference is not considered a bad thing?"

I'm all for that - trying to do that here, as a matter of fact - but I'm also a realist, and I know how much mothers want to protect their offspring. I still think they'd take the pill.

Pamsm :
Timmy2 and Lep, I think you're both right, at least partially.

Yes, if there were a pill, I think mothers would take it. In our world of inequality and persecution, why would you want to subject your child to the heartbreak of being "different" if you could easily prevent it?
****************************************************************************************************
Instead of trying to make sure that none of us are too different, why not work towards a world where difference is not considered a bad thing?

Ever read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron?"

I don't mind gay people and I don't mind fat people. It's short people that bother me. They always walk slowly with their little legs, have these complexes like we all should get out of their way.

Err. I don't think so.

Timmy

I don't really get your point. If you do not dislike gay people, then why are you so against them? When you are considering individual people, you do not really know what yucky sex acts that they may engage in unless you ask them, or you see them. Otherwise, you are speculating on imaginary scenerios of what people, in general, may do. It is a speculation without purpose. I think you are passive aggressive in your support and rejection of gay people. Whichh is it? The "yuck" factor should be irrelevant. If you want to comment on yuckiness, just visit a pediatric burn unit of a hospital.

Now can you see my point? Probably not. Sigh.

Timmy

I don't really get your point. If you do not dislike gay people, then why are you so against them? When you are considering individual people, you do not really know what yucky sex acts that they may engage in unless you ask them, or you see them. Otherwise, you are speculating on imaginary scenerios of what people, in general, may do. It is a speculation without purpose. I think you are passive aggressive in your support and rejection of gay people. Whichh is it? The "yuck" factor should be irrelevant. If you want to comment on yuckiness, just visit a pediatric burn unit of a hospital.

Now can you see my point? Probably not. Sigh.

Timmy2 and Lep, I think you're both right, at least partially.

Yes, if there were a pill, I think mothers would take it. In our world of inequality and persecution, why would you want to subject your child to the heartbreak of being "different" if you could easily prevent it?

Moot point, because there won't be a pill. If it is caused by an anomaly in hormone production/developmental timing, which I think will turn out to be the case (nothing else makes as much sense), it happens too early in development for amniocentesis, and maybe even before some women know that they're pregnant. And no test would show it, because it's such a transitory happening.

Gay people have always been with us, and always will be - it's time for everyone to accept that and learn to deal with it. Properly. Meaning that you treat them the same as anyone else.

The "Christian" view that gays should change, or failing that, should simply not indulge in a relationship, is about as cold and heartless a prescription as one could possibly formulate. Could these Christians change from being straight to being gay? Would they like spending their lives without the love and companionship of a significant other? Christians are asking them to forego any possibility of happiness in the only life that we know for sure exists, in exchange for the possibility of happiness in one for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Lousy gamble.

As for what we find unappealing (I prefer this word to "yucky", which is juvenile, and "disgusting", which is too strong), if you give it some thought, I think you'll find that sex is only sometimes sexy, even when it involves partners that are the correct combination of sexes for your personal predilection. It all depends on the people involved, and the context.

What we're really talking about is voyeurism, whether imaginary, real, or commercial (porn).

To be a turn-on, it has to involve at least one person who is attractive to you, and it has to be in the right place, at the right time.

If you were to walk into your office and come upon two co-workers starkers and having at it on a desk, you would probably want to avert your eyes, if not turn around and go home.

If you aren't in the mood, in the right place, or with the right person, sex can be as much a turn-off as the reverse.

I concede that this might be less true for men than for women. :)

timmy2 :
Lep,

YOU: "Not having feet poses major mobility issues"

Not having a sexual attraction to the opposite sex makes reproduction (the primary function of the organism) impossible. Ergo, defect.
****************************************************************************************************
I don't see reproducing as my primary function. I have one daughter, and as much as I love her, I never found myself wanting another. The fact that I did not want any more children did not mean that I was no longer interested in sex.

Human beings are different from most other mammals in that our reprductive systems do not operate so that we only seek out sex when we are fertile. If it did, then once women reached menopause, their sexual desire would immediately end. Now that I'm menopausal, my libido isn't what it was when I was twenty, but it ain't dead either. Sex serves many other purposes in our species - recreation, stress relief, and emotional bonding being some of its important non-reproductive functions.

Timmy,

At one time, in another blog, I accused you of spamming. You were, in fact, rather verbose there. But it was an unjust accusation, and I apologize.

Now then. You said, "Not having a sexual attraction to the opposite sex makes reproduction (the primary function of the organism) impossible. Ergo, defect."

For the species, in the general biological view, this is correct. I would submit, however, that for the individual it is immaterial. And given our overpopulation, it could be a benefit. Anyway, the percentage of the population with this 'defect' is not important.

As to porn, I find it both boring and mildly offensive. Mind you, I am cheerfully hetero, and adore looking at naked women. But not when they are having sex. Give me a decent strip club (no prostitution!), or the real thing, a willing woman in bed, and I am happy.

So maybe in the overall species view, homosexuality is a 'defect'. But is it really important when viewed in our current situation?

Lep,

YOU: "Not having feet poses major mobility issues"

Not having a sexual attraction to the opposite sex makes reproduction (the primary function of the organism) impossible. Ergo, defect.

YOU: I'm not saying it makes you a bad person - just that for you to have such a visceral reaction to an activity that doesn't directly involve you and isn't harming anyone seems a bit odd to me

It shouldn't seem odd at all. It should seem natural. It is natural. Maybe it's because you are a girl. Girls are a little more bi than men.

YOU: Seeing other people kiss, regardless of their gender(s) does nothing to or for me - perhaps that's why I find porn boring.

In this case, you are definitely an anomaly.

I think that arguing that homosexuality is not a defect, is disingenuous for political correctness reasons. No one can argue that the purpose of sexual attraction is not for reproduction purposes only. If the sexual attraction is not to the gender that you can reproduce with, there is a defect. This has nothing to do with the fact that these people deserve all the rights any of us with all of our own defects (club feet) have.

timmy2 :
Lep say: For the record, I do think that denying people basic rights based on personality traits is every bit as bigoted as denying them based on skin color"

Me too.

Did you hear me say anything different?
****************************************************************************************************
No, I didn't, and reading back over that particular post, I can see where it looks as though I am accusing you of doing so.
My apologies.

That last should ahve been
"I would not take such a pill."

timmy2 :
Lep,

I didn't say that we needed a cure. I said that if we isolate a gene that causes homosexuality and it allowed people to have a choice to ensure that their child will not be gay, that everyone would chose that option. Would you not?
****************************************************************************************************
I would not even bother having the test for said gene done.

I never said disgust. That is what you heard because you have your back up. I said yucky. And if you don't find the thought of kissing another woman yucky, give it a try. How do you know it doesn't interest you until you try it?
****************************************************************************************************
For me, the desire to kiss another person (other than on the cheek as a greeting) stems from being sexually attracted to that person. Why would I want to give someone to whom I am not attracted a tonsil massage?

Am I a bigot because two guys kissing is yucky to me?
A homophobe?
You tell me. I'm just being honest. It doesn't mean I think any less of them. I don't think that they are doing something yucky to them. It's just yucky to me. Does that make me wrong, bad, mean..... what are you getting at?
****************************************************************************************************
I'm not saying it makes you a bad person - just that for you to have such a visceral reaction to an activity that doesn't directly involve you and isn't harming anyone seems a bit odd to me. Seeing other people kiss, regardless of their gender(s) does nothing to or for me - perhaps that's why I find pron boring.

There are no health risks to being born with a hairlip, or with a club foot, or with no feet. And yet we would do something about those things genetically if we could.
****************************************************************************************************
As someone born with a club foot, I beg to differ. It makes walking more difficult than for the average person, and in my case, due to the fact that the nerves in the club foot are under-developed, I often injure it without knowing that I have done so because there is no pain. Such injuries have resulted in my having had all five toes on that foot amputated due to infections that went into the bone.
A severe harelip can interfere with a person's ability to eat, breathe, and to speak clearly.
Not having feet poses major mobility issues.

I think you should answer this question.
If your doctor told you that there is a pill you can take when you're pregnant that will ensure that your child would not be born gay, and this pill has absolutely no harmful side effects whatsoever, would you say no to this pill? Should anybody?
****************************************************************************************************
I would not.

Daniel,

YOU: And by the way Timmy, how is the erradication of gay people going to come about?

You are a imature demagoguer. I never said anything about eradicating anyone. Grow up!

YOU: Is every pregnant woman in the world, without exception, going to undergo the "gay fetal test" and then take the "gay fetal cure" whose cost is yet to be determined"

If it is available and affordable, why wouldn't they is the question? can you answer the question instead of deflecting by bringing up cost issues?

YOU: and do this thing ahead of and instad of all the other preventative health maintentance things that most pregmant women should do, but do not currently get to do?

I never in a million years suggested this. You are an imature demagoguer.

YOU: Is this perfect "gay fetal gene detection and cure" going to be made avaliable to every woman, everywhere in the world?

Eventually it would be, just as every other scientific discovery and procedure should be.

YOU: I think this is just another red herring that has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is gay marriage, and the rights of gay people, and the fundamental respect that humans owe each other.

It does have nothing to do with gay marriage. I have stated plainly that I am 100% in favor of gay marriage and consider gay people to be every bit my equal.

That I am repulsed by the idea of intimacy with another man is as natural as being gay. If they discovered a gene, that stopped me from being repulsed by the thought of sexual relations with a man, I would take it. I'm not afraid to change for the better.

Most gay people have no trouble admitting that their lives would be better if they were straight. But alas they are not straight, nor could they ever be, so they certainly deserving of equal rights with the rest of us and all of our genetic defects.

Lep say: For the record, I do think that denying people basic rights based on personality traits is every bit as bigoted as denying them based on skin color"

Me too.

Did you hear me say anything different?

Lep,

YOU: Why do we need a cure for something that is not a disease? Do we need a cure for left-handedness as well?

I didn't say that we needed a cure. I said that if we isolate a gene that causes homosexuality and it allowed people to have a choice to ensure that their child will not be gay, that everyone would chose that option. Would you not?

YOU: Perhaps I'm an anomaly (wouldn't be the first time), but I don't spend a lot of time imagining the details of other people's bedroom activities. If I'm going to expend mental energy imagining sex, I'm going to be in the picture

Me too. But if I do imagine it. It is yucky.
I don't spend a lot of time imagining people flossing their teeth either, but if I do imagine it, or I see it in public or on tv, I find it yucky. Does this mean I am being insulting to people who floss?

YOU: The idea of making love to another woman neither disgusts nor tittilates me. I'm just not interested.

I never said disgust. That is what you heard because you have your back up. I said yucky. And if you don't find the thought of kissing another woman yucky, give it a try. How do you know it doesn't interest you until you try it?

Am I a bigot because two guys kissing is yucky to me?
A homophobe?
You tell me. I'm just being honest. It doesn't mean I think any less of them. I don't think that they are doing something yucky to them. It's just yucky to me. Does that make me wrong, bad, mean..... what are you getting at?

YOU: Obesity carries with it inherent health risks that I'm sure all prospective parents would like to protect their children from. Homosexuality carries no inherent health risks, any more than left-handedness does.

There are no health risks to being born with a hairlip, or with a club foot, or with no feet. And yet we would do something about those things genetically if we could.

YOU: And yes, gay people need equal rights, and they need them yesterday.

Here we agree, whole heartedly.

I think you should answer this question.
If your doctor told you that there is a pill you can take when you're pregnant that will ensure that your child would not be born gay, and this pill has absolutely no harmful side effects whatsoever, would you say no to this pill? Should anybody?

Arminius - actually that last line was part of Timmy's post that I just forgot about when I copied and pasted it in order to respond to it.

For the record, I do think that denying people basic rights based on personality traits is every bit as bigoted as denying them based on skin color.

Lep,

No bigotry detected at all. Better reply than mine to Timmy.

Yes, our gay and lesbian friends need their rights NOW.

By the way, happy Beethoven's birthday! I've been listening to his wonderful piano concertos. Some symphonies next.

Timmy, do you ever imagine your own Mom and Dad having sex? How does that make you feel? Why not tell us all about the images of them having sex in order to have you, and then tell us all about how it makes you feel. And then tell us all why any of us should care.

And by the way Timmy, how is the erradication of gay people going to come about? Is every pregnant woman in the world, without exception, going to undergo the "gay fetal test" and then take the "gay fetal cure" whose cost is yet to be determined, and do this thing ahead of and instad of all the other preventative health maintentance things that most pregmant women should do, but do not currently get to do?

Is this perfect "gay fetal gene detection and cure" going to be made avaliable to every woman, everywhere in the world?

I think this is just another red herring that has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is gay marriage, and the rights of gay people, and the fundamental respect that humans owe each other.

timmy2 :
I'm trying to see the dispute with CCNL here.

He is right that we may one day find a genetic cure for it, and that that would be a good thing not a bad thing.
****************************************************************************************************
Why do we need a cure for something that is not a disease? Do we need a cure for left-handedness as well?

He is right that gay sex is yucky to heterosexuals.

If you are straight, and you say that you don't find the thought of two members of your gender having sex to be a bit yucky, you are either lying to be polite, or you are a little bisexual.
****************************************************************************************************
Perhaps I'm an anomaly (wouldn't be the first time), but I don't spend a lot of time imagining the details of other people's bedroom activities. If I'm going to expend mental energy imagining sex, I'm going to be in the picture.

People aren't necessarily born all gay or all straight. There are varying degrees of bisexuality as well. And if you don't find the thought of gay sex yucky, guess what? Go with it sister. Explore. Don't knock it till you've tried it.
****************************************************************************************************
The idea of making love to another woman neither disgusts nor tittilates me. I'm just not interested.

I also find sex between fat ugly people to be yucky. I can't help it. I know that they did not choose to be fat and ugly. I know they were just born with those genes. It's still yucky when you visualize it.
****************************************************************************************************
So stop visualizing it - problem solved.

I would bet that when we find a way to isolate the obesity gene, (and we will) and give parents the option of ensuring that their child will not have weight problems (barring gluttony), that all parents will take that option. Same goes if we isolate the gay gene and have the ability to ensure that our children will not be born gay. We will all take that option. Gay will become extinct. And yet todays gay people need to be treated with absolute equality.
****************************************************************************************************
Obesity carries with it inherent health risks that I'm sure all prospective parents would like to protect their children from. Homosexuality carries no inherent health risks, any more than left-handedness does.

And yes, gay people need equal rights, and they need them yesterday.

Is there bigotry in what I've just said?

Timmy,

Well, nobody can argue with your honesty and forthrightness. That's for sure.

I'm not sure about CCNL. With his constant rants about homosexuality, I have serious problems believing that he in any way supports gay rights. He has, by the way, cleaned up his act somewhat. Early on, about a year ago, he made some very serious attacks on Islam. I blasted him with all the firepower I had - his post was really nasty. Since then, he has toned down. But he still cannot be reached on these subjects, and that will simply fortify my doubts.

Your comments on fat ugly people got a laugh here. I am, I must admit, somewhat ashamed of my reaction. It is a bias, to be sure. But I don't deny their rights, or their value as friends and neighbors, or call them 'yucky' in posts. But I think brussel sprouts are an abomination too. And I will stand by that! But, of course, non de gustibus disputandum est.

I'm trying to see the dispute with CCNL here.

He is right that gay marriage should be as legal as hetro marriage.
He is right that gay people do not choose to be gay but are born that way.
He is right that we may one day find a genetic cure for it, and that that would be a good thing not a bad thing.
He is right that gay sex is yucky to heterosexuals.

I haven't really heard him say that we should treat gay people poorly or with any less equality than any other human. Has he? I apologize if he has and I missed it.

If you are straight, and you say that you don't find the thought of two members of your gender having sex to be a bit yucky, you are either lying to be polite, or you are a little bisexual. People aren't necessarily born all gay or all straight. There are varying degrees of bisexuality as well. And if you don't find the thought of gay sex yucky, guess what? Go with it sister. Explore. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

I also find sex between fat ugly people to be yucky. I can't help it. I know that they did not choose to be fat and ugly. I know they were just born with those genes. It's still yucky when you visualize it. I would bet that when we find a way to isolate the obesity gene, (and we will) and give parents the option of ensuring that their child will not have weight problems (barring gluttony), that all parents will take that option. Same goes if we isolate the gay gene and have the ability to ensure that our children will not be born gay. We will all take that option. Gay will become extinct. And yet todays gay people need to be treated with absolute equality.

Is there bigotry in what I've just said?

Oh boy, here it comes.

Lep,

Bun-Bun is a classic case of repetitive stereotypes. The dude does have a brain, but is mystifies me that it is so locked down on certain subjects.

With continued posts like his, I cannot believe that he has never opposed gay marriage.

CC,

You've bought into the stereotype.
Do you also believe that all black people like watermelon and can tap dance?

Homosexuality is not a defect? Then what is it that makes gay guys so effeminate and gay gals so masculine?

Stem cells from both species should hold the key. Once found, the wonderful world of natural procreation will be opened to all.

I give my full attention to everything CCCNL says. He doesn't oppose gay marriage and has said so more than once. He simply finds it "yucky," but this is sometimes the case with men of a certain age who lack a certain (self-and-other) knowledge, or je ne sais quoi. Vraiment, je ne sais quoi and probably never will.

"CCNL doesn't oppose gay marriage."

Huh? Say what? Could have fooled me..... try reading his posts with more care. His bigotry is obvious.

Lepi,

CCNL doesn't oppose gay marriage. But, clearly, Dad didn't tell him all about the happy variety in heterosexual sex (his preferred type, he claims), anally and orally speaking. This dearth of CCNL knowledge has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, I confess, since I would not wish to deprive another of credit for such deep insight into CCNL's dark psychology.

Arminius,

It's bad enough when one has one's own head up one's arse.
It's even worse when one has so many other people's arses in one's head, as the poor boy seems to.

Hi, Lep,

As we have (hysterically) discussed before, the research needed is for a cure for Bun-Bun's cranio-rectal problem!

CCNL :
To reiterate:

And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research??

To assume too much? i.e. that Paganplace and Lepidopteryx have already donated a number of their eggs for this research??
****************************************************************************************************
First, I'm menopausal, so I'm afaraid my eggs are a bit stale.

Second, I don't consider homosexuality a disease, so why would I wish to support the search for a so-called cure?

Hear ye, Hear ye, Farnaz is getting this year's Protector of Yucky Award. She also will be donating some of her eggs for fertilization with gay guy sperm. The stem cells from these embryos will be used to treat homosexuality.

CCNL:

Sometimes, homosexual panic necessitates coming out of the closet.

CCNL:

Homosexual panic is extremely common and easily treated. It's just that you have so much going on, where to begin?

To summarize and add, I recommend the following treatment plan:

First: Alcoholics anonymous

Next: See an anti-flatulence specialist.

Next: Go for treatment of you OCD.

Finally: Go for sexual identity counseling.

I've given you search results for the first two of your several conditions, and will return anon with more.
_______________________________

Hi Observer12,

I think without a Scientologist on the panel, we are doomed to grope in vain for answers to your questions.

Requesting the assistance of the gay community to find a cure for the hormone imbalance/DNA variant of gays is offensive???

DITLD:

To complicate matters, TC and KH are scientologists. What does Scientology say about gay marriage? How come there aren't any scientologists on the panel?

Without one, how will we ever answer the question
WWTCKHd?

I have to go to sleep now.

Just to pursue the WWTCd question a bit further, perhaps both TC and his bride are gay. Then what?

I just went to google and found out that his wife's name is Katie Holmes. So, if both TC and KH are gay, the question becomes--

WWTCKHd? Am I right?

Thanks DITLD. It's good to know that someone else on this blog gives these questions the attention they deserve.

I can't boast of being the authority on WWTCd, but if I'm not mistaken, he married a girl young enough to be his daughter and then some, a child who dreamed of marrying TC when she grew up. Dreams do come true. It can happen to you.

At all events, TC and bride had a baby.

So, there you have it. I guess that we know what he would do since he did it. Unless he's also married to another man and we don't know.

In which case we are back to square 1: WWTCd

I think Tom Cruise would marry a woman, even though he is gay, and then get a divorce, and marry another woman, even though he is still gay.

But that happens alot, doesn't it?

So being married to someone of the opposite sex does not mean that a person isn't gay.

Once again, another stereotype busted!

I posted:

WWTCD? What would Tom Cruise do? Does anyone stop, think, and consider this question?

Posted by: observer12 | December 15, 2008 11:10 PM
-------------------------------
No one answered. I can only conclude that the answer is in the negative by default, or defacto, as it were.

Why bother to have this discussion at all, then?

WWTCD? What would Tom Cruise do? Does anyone stop, think, and consider this question?

Parker, you do not know a single thing about gay people that is true, but so far have only cited ignorant sterotypes. I do not blame people for being ignornant. Ignornace is a lack of knowledge, in the same way that poverty is a lack of wealth. In either case, we cannot blame them for what they lack. But then by your ignorance, yo positively lack the capcity to understand any of the issues or any of the agruments, and when you chime in with your well-intentioned but mis-guided opiinions, you only look foolish. If you are happy to remain in ignornace, and if you have no particular interest in acquiring some knowledge about gay people, then you should not be arguing any on any topics pertaining to gay people.

I have to admit that I cannot understand why you do not care about gay people, because the key word is not "gay" but the key word is "people." Being people, they are not so hard to be interested, and not so hard to understand, and not so hard to like.

If you have no interest, that is fine. But then, how does that square with being a Christian? This apathetic, and uncaring, if not hostile attitude, is far afield from Christianity.

But then again, I expect that you cannot possibly understand what I am getting at.

Great reading through these posts. I find that usually someone will say what I would have, had I been here.

I guess I could list my gay relatives. I can think of four - only one is "out." He was a dancer in hollywood. Every now and then he'd pop up in a movie.

I find it interesting that no one posting here is gay (unless I've missed something).

Just what gene is it that produces the CCNL? Has it been isolated yet?

Pamsm,

Bun-Bun (aka CCNL) apparently is genetically wired to offend just about everyone. He never changes, he never discusses, he just keeps posting his stupid lists and spewing bigotry. Some sort of compulsive-obsessive behavior, we would suppose.

Your posts here, Pam, are a breath of fresh air. Please continue.

CCNL, how hard do you have to work to be so offensive? Or is it effortless on your part?

To reiterate:

And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research??

To assume too much? i.e. that Paganplace and Lepidopteryx have already donated a number of their eggs for this research??

Parker,
Sorry for misremembering your religion.

For the record, I'm not aware of any gays in my family, either. At least the last three generations were all in heterosexual marriages - but we haven't been nearly so prolific as your family has (I have three first cousins, and no children), but I fail to see what this has to do with the price of tea in China (to coin a phrase).

No one has suggested that this happens at the same rate in all segments of the population. Perhaps it does, and is simply a developmental timing quirk. Or maybe there's a genetic propensity to produce some embryos with this quirk. I haven't seen any statistics.

But really, it doesn't matter, does it? If it's congenital (i.e., present at birth), how it came to be is a moot point as pertains to this discussion. Gays are citizens like anyone else, and should not have their rights abridged because of it.

Pam and Daniel,
I feel like I should make a final comment to clarify.

Daniel,
I'm aware of them being around in my community. I just don't know them personally, and it is neither here nor there for me: it is a non-issue.

Pam,
You're correct that not all of those cousins are of age to be married. If my count is correct, seventeen are married among the first cousins. I lose track among the second cousins. Moving back a generation, my dad has four brothers--all five married. My mom has three brothers and two sisters--all six married. I have two brothers and six sisters--all nine of us married. But this all gets statistically boring, no?

Peace to you both, sincerely.

CCNL:

Why are you so obsessed with who's on top when two men or two women make love?
If neither party is you, then what positions they use is really not your concern.

For someone who claims to be straight, you appear to spend an awful lot of time watching men make love in your head.

Pamsm

Parker is Mormon.

Parker, if you want to meet more than 3 gay people, then go to the park that is next to the State Capitlal in Sslt Lake City. That is a park where gay men go to meet each other.

The first time I visted SLC, I went on a tour of the Capital, and I saw this park; the Capital is sort of on a bluff, and you can look down from it and see the park. I knew immediately what was going on there, but those poor dumb, pitiful, naive Mormons who live there didn't have a clue.

Anyway, Parker, gay people are in Utah too, and if you have 400 cousins, then I would say probably 20 to 30 of them are gay. They just don't want you to know about it, which I am sure is fine with you.

But, isn't living in naive, ignorant bliss a big lie? Do you want your life to be a big lie? I don't want that for me.

And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research??

Parker says:
"As to the Wikipedia article, here is one of its leading premises:
'Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.'"

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that this was a leading premise. The prenatal hormones as the determinant were the leading premise. The second part of the statement above was just leaving the door open to other possible co-influences until the hormonal hypothesis is fully in the realm of settled science.

"The two people I spoke of had both strong controlling fathers and strong controlling mothers."

I don't think that was ever proposed as a cause.

"My children have some 90 cousins, none of whom has 'come out of the closet'. They also have some 300 second cousins, with the same statistic. My personal statistics don't corroborate your science."

I'm appalled at this rate of reproduction, but that's neither here nor there - how does this disprove anything? Even 400 is a fairly small sample size - I don't recall saying anything about the rate of occurrence in the population. And I have my doubts about how well you know all of these 390 people and the intimate details of their lives (are all of them already sexually mature?). And Catholics are well known for keeping it in the closet, as your religion considers it such a heinous sin - I do seem to recall from previous exchanges that you are a Catholic - right?

I think you end up with so many gay Catholic priests because when a Catholic boy realizes that he's gay, he knows how terrible it would be for him to come out, but he can't bear the thought of trying to fake it with a woman, so he looks to the priesthood as a way to just not have to deal with it. And we see what happens.

Paganplace, Paganplace, Paganplace,

Really????

I'll tell you one thing. Human life seems to be a much more sensible place when you aren't trying to account for the screaming, wailing, hear-tearing insanity that would appear to be the cognitive landscape of the anti-gay set.

See below.

Pam,
Investors should know what they are investing in, including long-term assumptions, should they not?Every investor in that crisis can look in the mirror when they seek whom to blame.

As to the Wikipedia article, here is one of its leading premises:
"Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions."

The two people I spoke of had both strong controlling fathers and strong controlling mothers.

Personal statistics:
My children have some 90 cousins, none of whom has "come out of the closet". They also have some 300 second cousins, with the same statistic. My personal statistics don't corroborate your science.

I've made my points. Thank you for your even tone, which to me suggests you have had Mars-Venus experiences in your life to learn how to communicate well. I'm tired of writing about this topic. I answered Arminius' and Carstonio's questions as best I could. Peace to you.

Parker,
" I have only known three personally, two of whom were raised by very controlling parents and an identity confusion was to be expected."

Actually, the "controlling mother/milquetoast father" theory was discredited decades ago.

Recent studies have shown similarities in brain structure between straight women and gay men, and also between straight men and gay women.

You can preview Diane F. Halpern's book, Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, which devotes a chapter to the subject, on Google Book Search, or go here for the Wiki version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

"You're right about the recession, though I don't know why other countries would 'blame' the U.S."

Maybe because we're the ones who did it - and the dominoes fell around the world (markets being interconnected). I don't think that China or France were bundling subprime mortgages and selling them to investors.

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,
"Procreation vitiates 'about everything'!! Then there are the issues of who plays the gal during the "mating" of the two guys and orifices used."

KeirGazelle was talking about the sex act - while it may, in a minority of cases, result in procreation, that is not a part of the act itself, not even in hetero sex. Nor it's aim, most of the time.

And yes, the same organs/orifices are sometimes used in hetero sex. You need to stop obsessing.

Manoo,

"The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions"

Atheism period is against all religions. No need to ad "neo" or "militant" to make it sound scarier. In reality, we are all just against irrational beliefs. This og course includes all religions.

"They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism"

Not to create doubts. But to point out the untruthfulness of all religions.

"Atheists do not have anything new to offer"

Same old rational truth.

"They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion"

These people are already confused by the lies of religion. We are here to expose lies not tell them.

"The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences,"

Scientism is really a straw man used to bash science. No one claims that science can answer philosophical questions. It's more accurate to say that whether gods or other supernatural beings exist is a scientific question and not a philosophical one. It's intellectually dishonest to try to answer a philosophical question by making speculations about the physical universe, such as postulating the existence of gods in order to have a meaning for life. While gods may exist, it's possible that they have no connection to such philosophical questions. It's possible for gods to exist that did not create life and the universe and that have no interest in human concerns.

"The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy".

Very funny. Manoo, in order to "EXPOSE" atheism, paleo- or neo-, you would have to show a little more general education.

God, as has been established pretty well in these threads, is a desperate human construct in the vain hope to explain all the natural and human phenomena that at a given historical moment are still unexplained.

The desire to freeze knowledge at a moment 2-3000 years ago, ignoring EVERYTHING that has since been researched, shows nothing but a lazy, fossilized mind, substituting an illusionist "truth" for knowledge and progress of the human race. This attitude is independent from the special brand of religion, Christian or otherwise, and it certainly has nothing to do with patriotism, morals or any other desirable human properties.

Athiests are also hard-working, moral, and patriotic people who love their children, family and community regardless of their beliefs.

Peace.

THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge (EXPOSED)

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.

Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.

Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

Peace and regards.

KeirGazelle notes: "Believe it or not just about everything two guys do are done by straight couples."

Au Contriare!!

Procreation vitiates "about everything"!! Then there are the issues of who plays the gal during the "mating" of the two guys and orifices used.

Pam,
Thanks for your perspective. I have only known three personally, two of whom were raised by very controlling parents and an identity confusion was to be expected.

You're right about the recession, though I don't know why other countries would "blame" the U.S. The malady is worldwide of letting self-interest get in the way of public policy that is best for the citizenry. That is precisely one of the reasons (I brought it up here before) that I think a policy change on this issue goes down the wrong road, and would have negative and lasting repercussions in other areas--in crime rates, in self-interest attitudes that lead to such things as we have seen on Wall Street and in Chicago.

I think Darwin got it right.

CCNL,
You keep on useing the term Yucky when talking about Gays. Well you know at one time I would have said the thought of my parents having sex was Yucky, but I grew up and got over it.

Loveing another person is not "yucky"...wanting to spend your life being there for that other person is not "Yucky". Get over your self on what sex is between two people. Believe it or not just about everything two guys do are done by straight couples. So gow up...and yes your Mom and Dad did have S. E. X...and might have swung from the ceiling fan.

terra

"You used "normal monogamous relationship" to describe gay marriages. Many would say unusual, different and yucky relationship more akin to mutual masturbation but safer than multiple partner mutual maturbation. "

*Sigh* We're going in circles - the relationship between gay partners isn't just about sex, any more than the relationship between married straights is.

Show the sex act - hetero or gay - to an innocent (think extraterrestrial, or child) and I'm sure you'll find that they think either one is "yucky." Time for you to grow up and stop using that description. Get over it.

Pamsm,

Sorry about that. That little icon used by WAPO covers peoples' webname sometimes and it is difficult to decipher.

You used "normal monogamous relationship" to describe gay marriages. Many would say unusual, different and yucky relationship more akin to mutual masturbation but safer than multiple partner mutual maturbation.

CCNL,
You wrote: "Paganplace,

Many "straights" as you know do choose the monastic/convent/commune life."

You're replying to the wrong person, but be that as it may, I think your definition of "many" must be different from mine.

You were implying that *all* gays should choose this option rather than to expect to live in a normal monogamous relationship with all the legal appurtenances thereto that straights enjoy. I think their answer would (or should) be a hearty F U.

Paganplace,

Many "straights" as you know do choose the monastic/convent/commune life.

CCNL says:
"Then these lovables should simply join a commune, convent, monastery or Buddhist group. Many vs. one!! A much more productive move!! And frugal too!!"

And why wouldn't this apply equally well to straights, CC?

What's that? You say it's not the way you want to live? Well, guess what - they don't either.

Parker,
Firstly, no one considers Darwin the ultimate authority on all subjects. Or on any subjects. He lived and wrote a long time ago, and while he was absolutely brilliant in his ability to see what so few others could, and was able to figure out natural selection without knowing anything at all about the ultimate mechanism by which it worked, a great deal more has been learned on the subjects of evolution and genetics since his time. You should try some more modern writers on the subject.

People don't learn who they're attracted to by sexual "experimentation." Did you? Was there a time in your life when you had to wrestle with whether you were more attracted sexually to boys or girls?

Most researchers are leaning toward a prenatal determination of sexuality. Early in the development of the embryo, the presence or absence of a second X chromosome determines whether the embryo will remain the default female, or will begin to have male characteristics. Shortly thereafter, the embryo begins producing its own hormones. If the timing is correct, the developing brain is flooded with the hormones pertinent to the sex of the embryo, and it becomes a male brain or a female brain. If the timing is off, the brain may not fit the body, as it were.

It's probably not PC to mention this, but have you not noticed that gay men are often in occupations that are considered feminine? Artist, designer, cook/chef, hairdresser, flight attendant? Have you not noticed that many of them act, walk, move, talk a bit like women? It's because they have female brains in male bodies.

The opposite is often true of lesbians. I know a gay female couple who both have many "mannish" characteristics. They wear their hair short, they prefer pants to skirts, they wear tailored shirts. One likes wood-working with power tools. They're into accounting and computer programming. They change the oil in their cars themselves. They have male brains in female bodies.

None of the above is done for effect. It's not learned. It's just who they are and can't help being.

If you think that being gay is a choice, you need to get out and talk to some gay people. And if you don't believe them, talk to their parents - many saw it coming long before puberty.

It is simply wrong, wrong, wrong to deprive any tax-paying American citizen of a right or privilege accorded to other citizens because of something that they have no control over.

As for the US being the greatest nation on Earth, that's open to debate, and depends on your criteria. You're right about it being a leader, though - it's currently leading the entire world into a nasty recession.

Now, I agree that there is some level of fear of the unknown when religious adherents claim an anti-gay marriage rant. However, attacking people whose religious ideologies, particularly attacking someone as blatantly idiotic for believing in a religious passage, does a huge disservice for the gay movement. Believe it or not; the gay movement needs the religious community to pass pro-gay marriage laws. In almost every state, except one, the people have spoken out against gay marriage. The gay marriage movement is on the losing side. You may hate it, but the truth is reality. The gay marriage advocacy groups are not going to be able to easily separate people from the religious beliefs, but if the gay movement did more to reach out to regular religious folk maybe something could happen; starting with job fairness dictation and health benefits. The battle for gay-marriage has proven that it cannot win without the support of social conservative people. I believe in traditional marriage; however, the actions of some from the gay movement have driven many moderates to be less consolatory.

I have heard the comment a few times now that religious doctrine should have no say in public policy. Wee guess what? It doesn't. That is not the problem. But religious people are citizens, and their vote counts. and they have every right to use their religion when deciding how they will vote.

We have succeeded in removing church from state. That is not the issue.

Hopefully all those religious apologists who think that their lives are only effected negatively by extremists not by moderates will think again. It is the religious moderates who keep gay marriage an issue when we have much bigger things to worry about. It is the religious moderate institutions that keep stem cell research in shackles. That vote a man like George Bush into power.

Separation of church and state is not all that we need.
We need to raise awareness that all Christianity is based on irrational beliefs no matter how moderate you take the Bible.

This is not about separation of church and state anymore.
We've accomplished that.
We now have to separate church and mind.
Because a democracy is made up of minds. and they all have a vote. And there is nothing we can do about them using their religion in their vote. But there is something we can do about their religion when they vote. What we can do is embarrass them out of their irrational superstitious primitive belief.

Moderate religion is not the problem???
Think again.
Moderate religion is a support group for extreme religious views. Because moderate religion says that it's okay to have beliefs that are not based on rational reasons or evidence or logic. And once you decide that, anything goes.

Carstonio,
I have no problem with G & L coming "out of the closet". I don't think they should be made to feel "shameful". Nor do I think a public ceremony will change the commitment level of two people.

Commitment comes from within. It is made by a decision and the determination to stick by the decision, come what may. The state can't guarantee that commitment, and granted in today's world it hardly fosters it at all. Again, commitment comes from within.

Carstonio,
This website has a limit to how long of an entry one can post, but here is some of what Darwin wrote:

“We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

“...With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, ..., and confirmed by instruction and habit.

“It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.

“We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man)

"If you read Darwin, I think you'll find that he doesn't agree that such a change is a good thing for society in general."

Would you provide specifics? Instead of legalized gay marriage harming society, I would expect it to benefit society in two ways - first, it cements the principle that gays are full citizens; and second, it encouragegs stability in gay relationships.

"Youth don't necessarily know what to do with their 'boiling hormones', so of course if there are no guidelines or social norms, they will experiment. That's nature playing itself out. "

It's normal for many straight youths to have a gay experience. But such experiences don't turn straight youths gay. Sexual desire is not inherently amorphous.

"I think our culture is weakening, in more ways than this. "

How does homosexuality represent a weakness in culture? I see the closet as an example of a cultural weakness, teaching gays that they are inherently shameful.

Carstonio,
You're right about the cultural norm changing. If you read Darwin, I think you'll find that he doesn't agree that such a change is a good thing for society in general.

As to "sexual experimentation," I meant both ideas. Youth don't necessarily know what to do with their "boiling hormones", so of course if there are no guidelines or social norms, they will experiment. That's nature playing itself out. Darwin thought strong cultures would resist such changes in norms. I think our culture is weakening, in more ways than this. But that doesn't mean I have to roll over and let it happen without questioning the policy-makers.

"I think changing the legal definition would imply changing cultural expectations."

Why? Perhaps the fact that the legal definition is even being reconsidered is a sign that cultural expectations are changing, and not the other way around.

"Are you also saying that you have had only one such intimate relationship during your entire life, and felt perfectly fulfilled in it, and does your partner?"

For information, I'm a straight married man. I'm confused by your use of "sexual experimentation." I cannot figure out if that means simply having many partners, or experimenting with different orientations.

Daniel,
I think it's great if G & L are in committed, caring, non-controlling long-term relationships. I just don't think those relationships should be called marriage. I don't sit around comparing myself to their relationship at all--I don't even think about it. It's their business.

I have never thought about it as an abomination, not once. People choose all sorts of things in this life; just because they choose differently than I do does not make it any less valid, real, and important to them as are my choices to myself.

Tonio,
I think changing the legal definition would imply changing cultural expectations. If you don't, then we disagree. Are you also saying that you have had only one such intimate relationship during your entire life, and felt perfectly fulfilled in it, and does your partner? (If that's too personal, then I would not hold it to you to answer that question.)

Thanks for the change in tone. Have a good day.

"A change in the definition would imply condoning and expecting an increase in sexual experimentation by teenagers."

First, the issue is changing only the legal definition, not the social or cultural definition. Second, why would changing it lead to that implication? People don't become gay through sexual experimentation.

Parker

Since I don't know you, I was not talking about you, personally. But you are the one who said that we should compare gay people, in general, to straight people, in general.

Other than that, you did not reply to my basic point. If you think gay people are an abomination and should never have sex, and if you think they should never get married, then it is hypocritical for you to comment on the inferiority of their relationships to your own.

If you want to reply again, then reply to that.

Hi, Daniel,
'Using a pretty broad brush, aren't you? I have never thought, said, or done any of the things you just wrote. My wife and I didn't have a wedding reception, and have been married happily (although I have had to learn a great deal about how to treat her better) for 28 years. If those feelings are what you carry around with you, then I think it's unfortunate, but nobody is making you feel that way. It's what you carry inside of yourself.

You can feel superior all you want. I don't, nor do I care if you do. I recognize and appreciate the strengths of people all over the world, and try to learn from them. Have a good day.

Parker

First of all, straight people are not superior to gay people. Straight people engaged in sex, sex, sex, condoned by religion, and illicitly, in private and in public, in parked cars, and in parks, and in porn movies. They are having babies, babies, babies, out of wedlock, and the they are having abortions. They are using the actual wedding ceremonies as an orgy of narcism, and as a way to collect loot from all their family and friends, and they freely divorce and remarry, over and over again. And they fight over the property and they fight over the kids. I am sure the REAL damage that straight people do to their children is alot worse than any imagined damage that gay parents would do.

And then you compare the behavior of gay people to this standard. Gay people are not allowed to get married; their life-long commitments are discouraged. Whatismore, according to your religion, gay sex is an abomination, and gay people are supposed to engage in sex at all, period!

So, aren't you being a little disengenuous to hold up the superiority of straight people over gay people? In fact, gay people are not inferior to straight people, and in fact, are probably supereior, in some ways.

Your religion is incomplete, because it cannot acknowledge in a real and adult way, the existence of gay people and how they should be treated. You need to look a little further if you want your opinions to be seriously regarded. If you are interested in this subject at all, then find out a little more about it. If your religion obligates you to live foreve in ignorance regarding important matters, then your religion is lacking, and needs modification.

That is where you should start.

Hi, folks,
I'm not a "fundie", nor was I a participant in the California situation, but I'll respond. I already gave some reasons way back down on about comment 50, that no one responded to. It included a reference to Darwin's Descent of Man. See chapters four and five. This involved long-term genetics and the strength of the country.

More:
1) A change in the definition would imply condoning and expecting an increase in sexual experimentation by teenagers. Some don't care about this outcome. I do. Among ten G or L, what percentage have had only one such relationship during their entire life?

2) The U.S. is the greatest nation on earth, a leader--not a follower. Leave the Bible out of it, and bring Darwin into the discussion, I say. He held a long-term view of the world and its countries.

Have a good day, all. I'm not worked up over this topic.

In Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Massachusetts and Connecticut, two consenting adults, whether they are M/F, M/M or F/F, can enter in a marriage contract (see Wikipedia). In Netherlands this has been happening since 2001, others more recently.

I’m not aware of any good or bad impact of the SSM in the traditional M/F marriage institution or in the society at large in any of those places. Can anybody with better information comment about this? Any reliable statistic?

Best wishes to all,

Hmmm, Pamsm notes:

"I have some gay friends who've been together for a long time in a committed relationship, who tell me that sex is a rare occurrence with them - it's about love.

Then these lovables should simply join a commune, convent, monastery or Buddhist group. Many vs. one!! A much more productive move!! And frugal too!!

Hi Globalone,

You asked at 12:59: “If the Constitution of the United States is the primary support for the legalization of gay marriage (under the doctrine of personal freedom, liberty, etc.), then why can't OTHERS (i.e., polygamists and those engaged in incestuous relationships) make the same argument? How is President Lincoln's federal law that polygamy be disallowed in "all U.S. territories" valid?”

Why on earth would anyone think that the US Constitution is the primary support for legalization of SSMs? Gay marriages (or, at least, civil partnerships) already thrive in many first world countries, and back when their legalization was being debated nobody called on the US Constitution for support.

The principle at stake here is one of universal human rights. It is that, if a society wishes to use the force of law actively to discriminate against one of its minorities, then it needs a damned good reason to do so.

It is not for supporters of civil partnerships to justify their plea to be treated (for the purposes of pensions, taxation, next-of-kin rights, and so on) equally. A truly free society presumes equality in the absence of good cause to deny it. It is for those who seek to deny that equal treatment to demonstrate overwhelmingly that society would be so damaged by the proposal that it has no choice but to discriminate.

Most of us think that case can be made against polygamy and incest. Fewer and fewer believe it can be made against SSMs

Making such a case is a tough burden. And if anyone believes that the views of a bunch of Middle Eastern nomads who lived 4,000 years ago should be taken into account, then they must logically also support polygamy for the reasons in my earlier post (4:57 am).

One last thing, Globalone. What is ‘globbing’ and why do you do it alone?

perspective4,
First off as a Hetro, who are you to say what should make a gay person happy?
Second, there are over 1100 benefits that married couples recieve that a Gay Union would not. That is not equal. There is no justice in Seperate but equal.

terra

"One could consider gay sexual relationships as being mutual masturbation. One wonders then why not just buy a lovable blow-up doll??? There have been reports of lovable robotic dolls in the D of of R&D. Do lovable blow-up dolls come in both gal and guy variations?? e.g. DeGeneres, O'Donnell, Hudson, McGreevey ??"

Oh, c'mon, CCNL - this is a new low, even for you. Don't you realize that relationships (hopefully including marriage, whether straight or gay) are about more than just getting your rocks off?? What about love? What about companionship? A shoulder to cry on? A warm body to come home to?

These are just human needs, and we all have them, regardless of whether we're oriented one way or another.

I have some gay friends who've been together for a long time in a committed relationship, who tell me that sex is a rare occurrence with them - it's about love.

EFave,
What you wrote -

"They believe that God also finds it icky, because experience tells them that God believes what they do."

Reminds me of an Anne Lamott quote:

“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

One could consider gay sexual relationships as being mutual masturbation. One wonders then why not just buy a lovable blow-up doll??? There have been reports of lovable robotic dolls in the D of of R&D. Do lovable blow-up dolls come in both gal and guy variations?? e.g. DeGeneres, O'Donnell, Hudson, McGreevey ??

A note on marriage and families.

In the future (now really) we need to get away from the paradigm of everybody breeding. We are on pace to massively overpopulate this planet, many would say we are now currently too over populated to live sustainably with our limited resources. We don't need to cull, but we do need to get away from the paradigm of every little girl and boy being told that it would be abnormal for them not to grow up and get married and have a kids.

In the future, this will not be the go to norm. Those who are "born to parent", will parent, like those "born to paint", will paint. And the rest of us (most people) would fulfill our lives in other ways and make other kinds of contributions to society, that are more beneficial than multiplying and breeding which is no longer the main necessity for survival of the species. In fact the opposite is now true. Selective breeding over "breed as much as you possibly can".

Again, this does not mean restrictions on breeding. Just a changing of attitudes. Most people make bad parents. The only reason they became parents was because "that's what you do". This should no longer be the paradigm.

Test tube babies, genetics. This idea that the marriage and family are a fundamental foundation to our society is very very old fashioned. 80% of heterosexual marriages suffer from infidelity at some point, or on going. About half end in divorce. How could such a failing institution be a fundamental building block of any future enlightened society?

Oh yeah, and let the damn gays get married. It's no big whoop.

Hi, Efavorite,

True, the fundies believe that SSM is against the bible. I, and others, and doubtless yourself, contend that any religious belief has no bearing on the law.

As to 'icky', even our benighted CCNL proclaims that. His problem, and also the problem of the fundies. Again, laws are not (usually) passed on the grounds of ickyness.

I hope you stick around. The brain drain here has been ferocious.

Arminius -- there's an important tangential factor to consider -- many fundies think gay marriage is icky. They believe that God also finds it icky, because experience tells them that God believes what they do.

Convenient, true, but it's their belief.

This is honestly about the most nonsensical argument about nothing I think I have read over the course of this debate. The main point of the article was not that we need justification or bibical support to argue for LGBT rights, but that if that is the game religious conservatives want to play it is very easy, as you point out, to find justifications on either side for anything. However, I don't really see anything in your article to suggest what other valuable argument should be used. In any case, the religious argument has always been the only reasonable, and I use the term very loosely, for restricting gay rights and gay marriages and if you with to withhold that argument (which for no other than the separation of church and state one should) one can only conclude a more inclusive and tolerant society that affirms loving monogamous couples should be granted and have legally protected rights, the point of the article.

GLOBEALONE wrote:

Good questions. From a personal opinion standpoint, I do have serious reservations about each.
*****

I share the same reservations about polygamy. For example, who decides when a new member is admitted? Is this solely the husband's decision, or do we need majority opinion? How is divorce handled when the husband wishes to divorce one of the wives? Is it his decision alone? Can one wife expell another? What about when the husband wishes to leave the "marriage"? Does the remaining partnership amongst the women dissolve?

Note that none of these problems applies to SSM.

Pagan,

"My earlier response was explicitly directed at Andrew."

If your opinions, Globalone, require a particular 'direction,' consider keeping them out of my life till you work out some way they don't require different rules for different people in this United States of America.

Eh. Let'snot dress it up.

Cowardly.

Pagan,

My earlier response was explicitly directed at Andrew. So if my posts are boring or they annoy you in any way - DON'T READ THEM. MOVE ON. I'm not trying to win a debate here. I'm trying to understand and gain perspective on how people support certain arguments. This isn't the Jerry Springer show so stop acting like it.

Wiccan,

"Do you have objections to polygamous or incestuous marriages? Why? Is your support/objection based on American Civil Law, or are they based on your religious views? What do you suppose would be the effect of these marriages being recognized as valid in America? What would happen if same sex marriage was recognized as valid/"
-----------------------------------

Good questions. From a personal opinion standpoint, I do have serious reservations about each. Now, I didn't come to Christ until I was finishing college, but my opinions in regards to marriage and abortion were the same long before I went to school. So I don't think my religious affiliation is important here.

From a legal point of view, I'm not sure - hence the dialog. I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV. A number of people, not named Pagan, have given me some good insight into what the legalities of these marriages might be. But, alas, I'm still undecided.

Big deal is, it's generally the same people who claim there's some 'nebulous threat' about gay marriage that also shake in their boots if they have to walk where my half-crippled grandmother did all her life, without some high-capacity firearm.

It's insane.

OK, religious right, it's lock and load time. Give us your best shot.

Explain how same sex marriage (hereafter known as SSM) hurts or endangers anyone.

Next, tell us precisely how SSM threatens standard marriage. Then tell us how it is more of a threat than divorce.

While you're at it, elaborate on your right to impose a religious belief on an entire country.

And while you're in the neighborhood, as for the absurd polygamy argument, please supply links to polygamist movement sites, demonstrations, court cases, etc. I can supply plenty of those regarding SSM. This is a movement, same as the Civil Rights movement. Polygamy ain't squat for movements. (Thanks for whoever here pointed that out.)

Note that SSM is legal in two states, and there is no federal law against it. Federal law prohibits polygamy, and it is therefore illegal in all 50 states.

What say, fundies?

No question the burden is on them.
Were all waiting.

"And I feel strongly that the burden of proof is on them to show how it does hurt people or society."

I share that feeling.

"The gun analogy doesn't work because Gay marriage never hurt anybody. Did it?"

I think that was one of the points I was trying to make; is that there *are* people who feel that GM does hurt people and the society in which they live. And I feel strongly that the burden of proof is on them to show how it does hurt people or society.

PaganPlace wrote: "If you get shot, it's probably not cause anyone was aiming at you"

Seems to be true even outside cities. Check out these recent news stories...

"The Scituate Rod and Gun Club has called off its holiday turkey shoot as tension simmers over stray bullets in a nearby neighborhood...
The decision comes three weeks after the club abruptly shut down its firing ranges when an errant 9 mm bullet smashed through a family’s laundry room window on Heritage Trail half a mile away, seconds after a woman left the room... Neighbors have tallied four bullets hitting homes since 2004."

http://www.patriotledger.com/homepage/x242066693/Scituate-gun-club-calls-off-turkey-shoot

"Stray gunfire from a Minnesota deer hunter plunked a window on a Stearns County couple's home on Saturday as the husband was on the roof stringing Christmas lights, the Stearns County Sheriff's Office said... The slug missed its intended target and traveled three-fourths of a mile before it grazed a window... "

http://www.startribune.com/local/34531019.html

I mean, it's not that I'm against reasonable gun rights, myself, ...as a Pagan, I believe that the use of power of any kind most basically is in the hands of the individual.

Still. I think most pistol-packing NRA members who come into cities where people actually *live* expecting a shootout were always far more of a danger to my stepdaughter in a committed relationship of mine than any nebulous notions about 'sin' ever were.

Cities aren't like the TV shows they broadcast constantly down here. If you get shot, it's probably not cause anyone was aiming at you.

"Example - the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. In the city of Chicago (and many others areas) it is illegal to own any type of handgun. The local government is restricting a freedom and liberty granted at the federal level because they feel it is in their best interest to do so (whether or not they are correct is another question)."

If you want the 'choice' to shoot firearms in settled areas, mind so terribly much if I have a snuggle and some fairness under contract law?

This should have been written in my previous post. The definition of "restict":

1 : to confine within bounds

DMZ wrote -
The Second Amendment establishes the right to bear arms - I don't particularly like it but it's right there in plain text. However, if you have one gun of some kind, your right to bear arms has NOT been infringed. There is no right to own handguns, have concealed weapons, have more than one gun, have guns that will fire more than one round without reloading or anything else. Try again.
*****

Here is what I wrote:
"Government has the right to restrict freedoms and liberties when the interest of the state or it's people is at stake."

Notice I said restrict, not take away. By not allowing handguns, a local government is *restricting* the right, not taking it away. The state feels that hanguns are dangerous and thus feels it has the right to restrict the freedom to keep and bear arms. We seem to be saying the same thing.

Another example - the right to free speech is not absolute. You don't have the right to incite a riot, yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or slander someone. Again, there are *restrictions* on our rights or freedoms. That was the main point I was trying to make.

The gun analogy doesn't work because Gay marriage never hurt anybody. Did it?

Carstonio replied:
"In the case of incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships, the state feels it has sufficient evidence that such practices are detrimental to the well being of the state."

I would amend that to say that such practices cause harm to others. "Well being of the state" is a nebulous concept at best.
*****

Yes, I agree. I think that the "well being of the state" is measured by the well being of it's people.

ebleas:

Nope, you're not winning me over with that gun whacko nonsense. The Second Amendment establishes the right to bear arms - I don't particularly like it but it's right there in plain text. However, if you have one gun of some kind, your right to bear arms has NOT been infringed. There is no right to own handguns, have concealed weapons, have more than one gun, have guns that will fire more than one round without reloading or anything else. Try again

Pagan,

"I'm actually not entirely convinced on that score, since 'sacred monogamy' is apparently so darn difficult for virtuous straights"

To clarify, we are all born S L U T S.
But not polygamists.

DMZ1 wrote:

Couldn't possibly disagree more. The rights and civil liberties of citizens as defined in the Constitution as amended are absolute. Government has no right whatever to limit or restrict those rights for any reason, and there is no section of the Constitution where that power is granted to government. The rights of citizens supersede the powers of government. I don't see how you can read the Constitution any other way.
*****

Example - the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. In the city of Chicago (and many others areas) it is illegal to own any type of handgun. The local government is restricting a freedom and liberty granted at the federal level because they feel it is in their best interest to do so (whether or not they are correct is another question).

"In the case of incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships, the state feels it has sufficient evidence that such practices are detrimental to the well being of the state."

I would amend that to say that such practices cause harm to others. "Well being of the state" is a nebulous concept at best.

I mean, do I really need to spell this out for you?

Under the 'Deninition of marriage' of the time, a single man who could marry (basically own, women weren't emancipated, then) ...could accumulate a lot of wealth and ower in ways inherently inimical to a democratic Republic based on guarantees of equal rights for all.

ebleas:

Couldn't possibly disagree more. The rights and civil liberties of citizens as defined in the Constitution as amended are absolute. Government has no right whatever to limit or restrict those rights for any reason, and there is no section of the Constitution where that power is granted to government. The rights of citizens supersede the powers of government. I don't see how you can read the Constitution any other way.

I mean, this is idiotic. It's just not that fricking complicated, Globalone.

Lincoln's law, in the particulars, and in the context of the only polygamy really extant at the time, was about preventing one man from *owning* a bunch of women, as some claimed the bible demanded.

It was about freedom from slavery.

That's all.

Globalone:

I have no idea what you are attempting to achieve via your comments, but I will respond directly to your questions. Full disclosure - I am an atheist, so Biblical or religious considerations mean nothing to me. Until my wife died a year ago, I was married to the same woman for 37 years. I am an absolutist on citizen rights, equality under the law, true religious freedom and other issues. Completely equal rights for all citizens is the foundation of a functioning society in which 300 million people of widely divergent views and beliefs can live together reasonably harmoniously.

I have no issue with polygamy. It is not for me, but it also not my business. If, say, 7 people want to execute the state-sanctioned civil contract, as long as all are consenting adults and there is no gender discrimination, then they should be able to do so. I'm not referring here to the Biblical or Mormon concept of polygamy which is really not much more than a rationalization dirty old men for raping 12 and 13 year old girls.

With regard to incestuous relationships, it is again not my business. Do I personally like the idea of brothers and sisters marrying, for example, no, but they have the same rights as I do to choose their relationship.

I hope this is helpful.

timmy2 wrote:
PEOPLE AREN'T BORN POLIGAMISTS!
*****

Well, I know of a lot of men who would not agree with that statement. If you believe in evolution, having promiscuous males was a survival advantage that helped propagate the species. I have no doubts there are remnants of that behavior today as judged by the divorce rate.

GlobalOne wrote: "How is President Lincoln's federal law that polygamy be disallowed in "all U.S. territories" valid?"

The 14th amendment language simply prevents states from taking away rights that the federal government grants. Since Lincoln's law is applied equally across all territories, that argument doesn't apply here, but absent that law one might argue that polygamist marriages should be allowed.

Personally - I would side with PaganPlace here. Show me how to write the law that would define polygamist marriage arrangements that are not inherently unequal, then we can talk about it.

Incestuous marriages are a different matter. There are valid public health reasons for the state and federal government to restrict these. Then again - a literal reading of Genesis, would seem to require a God that condones incestuous marriages.

globalone wrote:

If anyone can provide SUBSTANTIVE reasoning (i.e., personal feelings and opinions are irrelevant) to the following, I would be most appreciative.

QUESTION: If the Constitution of the United States is the primary support for the legalization of gay marriage (under the doctrine of personal freedom, liberty, etc.), then why can't OTHERS (i.e., polygamists and those engaged in incestuous relationships) make the same argument? How is President Lincoln's federal law that polygamy be disallowed in "all U.S. territories" valid?
*****

This was answered on another thread, but I'll try to reiterate the answer here. Government has the right to restrict freedoms and liberties when the interest of the state or it's people is at stake. In the case of incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships, the state feels it has sufficient evidence that such practices are detrimental to the well being of the state. Whether or not this is true is a separate question and discussion. It is really up to you (or those who would deny gays the right to marry) to provide SUBSTANTIVE reasoning as to why not allowing this freedom for one class of people (gays / lesbians) is necessary to protect the well being of the state.

timmy2

"PEOPLE AREN'T BORN POLIGAMISTS!"

I'm actually not entirely convinced on that score, since 'sacred monogamy' is apparently so darn difficult for virtuous straights. One would think such an omnipotently designed 'natural order' would generate less fodder for daytime talk and night-time drama.

But, I guess we're all in similar boats right now on that score. :)

"PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY! "

Can't really dispute *that.* Given my life experiences. But what do I know about my own life, compared to some random Republican, right?

Globalone

The demand for gay marriage is a grassroots mass movement, involving millions of people, both gay and straight. There is no similar demand for polygamist marriage.

This is your disengenuous, dishonest argument. It is impossible to argue with insincerity, bad faith, and dishonesty.

PEOPLE AREN'T BORN POLIGAMISTS!

PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY!

Just the lamest excuses for bigotry imaginable.

Hey religious community. Want to fade into obscurity? Just keep up the bigotry that you learned from your good book. It will happen in no time.

Merry Meet, Paganplace! Excellent response to Globalone, but he seems to be determined to be obtuse over this issue.

Globalone-

Do you have objections to polygamous or incestuous marriages? Why? Is your support/objection based on American Civil Law, or are they based on your religious views? What do you suppose would be the effect of these marriages being recognized as valid in America? What would happen if same sex marriage was recognized as valid?

I thought it was clear but let me rephrase it:

"And the coming out of the gay community was the result of the global community at large becoming more educated and more tolerant of what appears to be a natural variant in some peoples' genes and hormones."

This would have happened with or without the AIDS epidemic in the male gay community.

"QUESTION: If the Constitution of the United States is the primary support for the legalization of gay marriage (under the doctrine of personal freedom, liberty, etc.), then why can't OTHERS (i.e., polygamists and those engaged in incestuous relationships) make the same argument? How is President Lincoln's federal law that polygamy be disallowed in "all U.S. territories" valid?"

Again with you harping on polygamy.

Polygamy in the Biblical style, 'poly-gamy-one man-several-wives' is inherently *unequal.* The system was designed for when women were property and gives one man rights over several women that they do not enjoy with regards to him or each other.

You could have polyamorous marriage, in a way that recognizes full equality for all people involved, but you'd have to write a bunch of new codes and statutes to cover the numbers involved. Fine. Maybe we can do that one day.

It has nothing to do with whether or not a certain branch of a certain religion should be allowed to use the government to deny 'monogamous' civil marriage to some while supporting it for others.

This is equal protection under the law. The birthright of every American, gay, straight, bi, trans, nonsexual, Christian, non-Christian, or whatever.

Perspective 4

"I have a few friends that live this way"

lol. "live this way"

Correction "are this way" "were born this way"

There has never been a more delusional conclusion than the conclusion that gay people choose to live a certain lifestyle, as opposed to being born the way they are. As if all of these people would choose to be outcasts and persecuted from age 13 on, for a cheap sexual thrill.

Black people don't choose their skin color.
Gay people don't choose their sexual orientation.

Only bigots feel otherwise.

PBAndrew,

The confusion is not yours alone. I suspect that I am one of those "fundamentalist Christians" that you referred to (although I'm not making the argument you suggest).

If anyone can provide SUBSTANTIVE reasoning (i.e., personal feelings and opinions are irrelevant) to the following, I would be most appreciative.

QUESTION: If the Constitution of the United States is the primary support for the legalization of gay marriage (under the doctrine of personal freedom, liberty, etc.), then why can't OTHERS (i.e., polygamists and those engaged in incestuous relationships) make the same argument? How is President Lincoln's federal law that polygamy be disallowed in "all U.S. territories" valid?

"I thought homosexuals saw their relationships as special and unique.... why now the push for "equal" and "same"? Does the celebration of "diversity" really logically end in "sameness"? And what "right" is presently absent that the changing of the definition of marriage will all of a sudden confer upon the recipient??"

Actually, gays see their relationships, in most important ways, as just like the relationships of heterosexual couples, which is why they want to be *treated* the same for legal purposes. Yes, the celebration of diversity does (or should) end in the *government* treating everyone the same. That's what the Equal Protection Clause means. And the "rights" which are presently absent include the "right" to collect their life partner's social security survivor benefits when one dies, the "right" to pass their estates to each other free of estate tax, the "right," if one of them needs to go into a nursing home and needs Medicaid to pay for it, for the other one to stay in the home they may have shared for thirty years...these are just a couple I can think of off the top of my head. There are *many* others.

"CCNL - "And the coming out of the gay community was the result of AIDS? Hmmm, not really!! It just showed that the global community at large is becoming more educated and more tolerant of what appears to be a natural variant in some peoples' genes and hormones."

A natural variant in some peoples genes and hormones - interesting? A relative of mine, an MD, who works at the CDC in Atlanta would heartily disagree with you. It is NOT a natural variant of genes. It is a disease, contracted by exchange of bodily fluid, plain and simple."

I think what CCNL meant is that *homosexuality* is a natural variant that the global community is becoming more educated and tolerant about.

Every day, and in this blog, we use words like "rights" and "should" or "should not" or "ought". Ms. Jacoby uses such words several times in her article as well. My point is that, logically, in using these words, we are saying that there is some absolute standard (of right and wrong) against which we compare all things to determine if they 'should' or 'should not' be, to determine if someone has a 'right' to something (eg, their ability to do X should not be violated). The next logical step is to discover, not determine, what that standard is. Here, the Bible at least deserves a chance; to reject it without investigation is not logical. Likewise, atheism or other points of view deserve a chance. Again, if we are to use words like Ms Jacoby and say, "cannot and should not", then we need to discover what absolute standard determines what cannot and should not be (I use 'discover' intentionally, because something absolute is discovered, not determined). Sadly, Ms. Jacoby does not offer that answer; she points out what we CANNOT look to for answers (although does not give any support as to why, other than it is her opinion), but does not tell us what we CAN look to for answers. Finally, her presuppositions and assumptions (not tested) against religion are obvious: 1) it seems viewpoints should be discounted because they were written a long time ago (though I think she would say that her viewpoint would continue to be true if people read about it 2000 years from now); 2) it seems that knowing more about the 'material universe' today has something to do with determining who has the right to marriage (imagine how much more we'll know about Jupiter in 100 years; if her thinking is correct, then somehow that should affect whether we agree with her view on marriage). Ok, seriously, last point, just like she doesn't want us to "[swallow] the conservative religious line that everything needs some sort of sacral justification", let's be careful to not swallow her line w/o at least examining it and taking into account her, and our own, presuppositions and assumptions. And, at the very least, regardless of our view, let it at least be logically consistent.

Arminius,

Currently, aren't ALL individuals denied the right to marriage if the union is not of one man and one woman? (I guess incestuous marriages are determined at the state level and may not apply).

It seems to me, that if your guide is the Constitution, ALL marriage arrangements are valid because restricting any such unions would be an affront to liberty and personal freedom.

As mentioned if you don’t believe in the Bible than it is very irrelevant to hold a conversation that you need to follow the Bible. However to the people saying Christianity is a false radical practice needs to realize whether you believe it or not we find that extremism lives on both sides of the fence. I truly think the notion of marriage by allow same sex to take this oath and all responsibility behind it is wrong, but this comes from my moral compass that is usually guided by many biblical principles that tell me that it is wrong (please all the Sunday morning quarter backs that quote scripts as if they read before and after the quoted verse please read the whole context). I do believe in balance an that is the only practice that allows us to survive. Balance also needs to hold a strong belief but always learns others perspective and is sensitive to peoples beliefs.

I strongly disagree with many people that are on my side of the fence to push and throw the bible at disbelievers, but I strongly disagree that the Gay movement should be pushing their movement to threaten a Day without Gay day to make them feel expectable. I have a few friends that live this way and they feel the same as some African Americas who would rather distant themselves from Jessie Jackson.

Outside of any biblical principles the same sex marriage opens too many doors of future train wrecking events. I believe that civil-unions are exactly the prescription for the same sex relationship group. The idea that the rate of divorces will not increase forcing more strain on the government is a future possibility. The idea of a Man (Male) having a fatherly influence on his children or a mother’s (Female) love towards her kids are things we didn’t create and thinks we should not corrupt.

As far as the vote in California the people spoke just as on the same day the people spoke for change in a Presidency. A Country without an evolving perspective is doomed to not understand its people but A Country with out any drawn lines will end up eroding the foundation and meaning that make this such a Great Country.

In our country an individual is allowed to believe what they will about religion. Atheists have the same right to their belief as the religious. For an atheists, what scripture says about marriage is irrelevant as they do not accept that scripture is divinely inspired, or, for that matter, that there is a divinity to inspire it. In our society marriage can have a dual nature: firstly it must be a contractual agreement and secondly it can, optionally, be a sacrament. For the religious, it is both, but for an atheist, it is only the first. The state must sanction the contractual arrangement, but a church doesn't have to sanctify it. For atheist gays, this is not an issue, but for religious gays it is; however, this is an issue that they have to be work out with the church they belong to, not with the state. Unfortunately for them the only solution may be for them to leave a church with which they can not reach an accommodation for one which they can, of which there are several. I agree with you, Susan, that in the secular realm of the state, the question is one of law, not religious belief, and the whole issue of divine sanction is moot. Perhaps we should adopt the French practice of requiring a government wedding to seal the contract, truly leaving sanctification by the church as an option (i.e., abandon our practice of allowing a church wedding in lieu of a state wedding). The state should only be concerned that a proper contract has been entailed, not whether the union receives a sacramental blessing.

CCNL - "And the coming out of the gay community was the result of AIDS? Hmmm, not really!! It just showed that the global community at large is becoming more educated and more tolerant of what appears to be a natural variant in some peoples' genes and hormones."

A natural variant in some peoples genes and hormones - interesting? A relative of mine, an MD, who works at the CDC in Atlanta would heartily disagree with you. It is NOT a natural variant of genes. It is a disease, contracted by exchange of bodily fluid, plain and simple.

To DGBLUES...

You want governemt to stay out of religion then you should keep religion out of government.

Also, "marriage" is more than a "sacrament of faith". It is a social and civil contract. All gay people are asking for is to be treated the same as heterosexual couple when it comes to the legal aspects of "marriage". They want to be able to inherit the same way a heterosexual spouse inherits. They want to be able to sit with their loved one when he is in the ICU. They want to be able to cover each other as "family" on insurance policies.

Very few that I know want or desire any kind of blessing or sanction from any religious organization.

Religious people should be not be able to dictate the civil or social rights of people who do not believe in a certain, or indeed, in any religion.

And contrary to the opinions of the typical "evangelical" no one has any obligation to listen to their preaching or any oblication to live by the teachings of their dogma.

Government belongs in the civil rights business, not in the sanctification business. People should apply for civil union licenses, giving the same civil rights to all unified consenting adults couples. Then, if those couples want their union sanctified as a marriage, they can contact their house of worship. It should be the choice of that religious institution as to which kinds of couples they feel they can sanctity as a marriage under God - or not. Government should not be wasting time battling this divisive issue. Let the churches have their intramural battle. The separation of church and state protects the church from the state's tyranny - and protects the state from religious tyranny - and both kinds of tyranny exist in reality and can serve to abridge rights, with inequity as the by-product.

Stopping gay marriage or helping the poor: WWJD? Answer's pretty clear to me.

This is a Civil Rights issue and we need to make sure that little boys and little girls who are growing up gay do not feel alienated and scared in our society. We will all be safer and more productive as a society when realize that this is a natural occurance in humans.

The Holy Books of the world have many positions on many subjects as would be expected in this very complex situation that is life.

Bottom line: Do unto others as you would want them to do to you.

For many people, as with abortion, genetic modification, and cloning, it is just incomprehensible that such aberrant behavior and prurient pursuits should hold any sway whatsoever.

It has been said that "man is the highest of the beasts and the lowest of the spirits." There is obviously room in the bestial sphere for those who would look to descend to find new lows.

Reiterating:

"Beyond what the bible may or may not say, the general population to include many California voters, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activies to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong . Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community. "

What is it some of you do not understand about the words, "which is of course wrong".

And the coming out of the gay community was the result of AIDS? Hmmm, not really!! It just showed that the global community at large is becoming more educated and more tolerant of what appears to be a natural variant in some peoples' genes and hormones.

New definition of Marriage - the union between between two non-related, legal-aged human beings.

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."
*****

It seems the bible is telling Christians that they must kill homosexuals. If the bible is the literal word of God, why aren't Christians obeying the bible if they believe it?

Churches should be free from government intervention. Marriage is a sacrament of faith. If a body of faith chooses to recognize gay marriage, people should be free to join that faith or leave it as their beliefs would have them do. That's a cornerstone of our foundation, the very core of the rationale on which we've been schooled that America was founded. That's why we eat turkey on Thanksgiving: because we thought the religious pilgrims did.

That government would intervene and tell that church they can't do that certainly must be extra-Constitutional.

I thought that the government cannot make a law that prohibits people from practicing their religion freely, and that federal law supersedes state law to the extent they overlap, correct?

Clearly we need a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution of the United States, not a Supreme Court influenced by Opus Dei, surely a cult among cults.

MarkV3 wrote:
I thought homosexuals saw their relationships as special and unique.... why now the push for "equal" and "same"? Does the celebration of "diversity" really logically end in "sameness"? And what "right" is presently absent that the changing of the definition of marriage will all of a sudden confer upon the recipient??
*****

This is like saying "blacks see themselves as unique, so why was it necessary to give them equal rights and allow them to vote"?

Am I alone in being confused by one aspect of the fundamentalist Christian argument? Many people (including some on this thread) say that to allow gay marriage means logically also to allow polygamous marriage.

But the Bible observes with equanimity many examples of polygamy . For example, King David had six wives, King Solomon 700, and Solomon's son, Rehoboam, 18.

Moreover, Exodus 21:10 says: "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." And Deuteronomy 21:15 discusses what should happen: "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children..."

If fundamentalist Christians insist that one form of marriage they dislike is unacceptable solely because the Bible supposedly condemns it, how can they claim that another form of marriage is equally unacceptable when the Bible endorses it?

The reality is that marriage has been a rapidly evolving institution for some time. It used not to be exclusively for one man and one woman. It used frequently to be between people whom we would now regard as children. It used to be permanent with almost no opportunities for divorce.

What these self-styled traditionalists demand is actually very modern. They revere a very recent institution on the mistaken grounds that it is ancient.

"Those who go around searching for scriptural support for gay marriage, and other liberal causes, are really swallowing the conservative religious line that everything needs some sort of sacral justification."

Jacoby - they don't. They are merely trying to communicate, to ease the way for religious homophobics to get out of the medieval dungeon.

Whether one should do that or not, is another question. But the attempt to reason with other people is a feature of liberalism that I generally like.

God's Word Clearly states that the Homosexual lifestyle is an Abomination before Him. Romans 1:24-32, Leviticus 18-22, Leviticus 20:13 (NIV), 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 (NIV). I think they should check these verses out. Yes we must love the person and pray for them but putting them behind the pulpit while living in this sin no way.
2 Timothy 4:3-4, 1 Timothy 4:1-2 indicates in the last days some will depart from the faith. This article shows The Word of God is coming to pass on whats happening." But he who endure to the end shall be saved" Matthew 24:13(NKJV).

;

Very well said Susan. I would add the liberal/evangelical battle over scripture has a rightful place in this debate, and that is inside churches and other houses of worship. Each sect needs to determine for itself if they will allow these unions within their belief system.

We're seeing this very battle being played out in the Episcopalian church. It's also being fought in many other christian denominations. And it is the right of the believers to wage these theological battles concerning church doctrine.

As an secular humanist, this matters not to me. As long as scripture is not used to decide who can get married according to the law.

I'm with Susan. As with blood money or fenced goods, even if you need it, it's wrong to take it, and if you don't, it's crazy to privilege a system that can't be trusted not to renege, after which you can hardly argue it has no right to decide right and wrong.

I thought homosexuals saw their relationships as special and unique.... why now the push for "equal" and "same"? Does the celebration of "diversity" really logically end in "sameness"? And what "right" is presently absent that the changing of the definition of marriage will all of a sudden confer upon the recipient??

CCNL,

You are partly correct about the AIDS epidemic being a detriment to gay. What you have left out, or might not realize, is that the AIDS epidemic catapulted the acceptance of gays to the forefront of American social conscious. If it weren't for AIDS we would not be taking about gays getting married.

Before the AIDS crisis, only large metropolitan cities were hospitable to gays. At that point, homosexuality was not openly expressed and most homosexuals were not open about their lives.

But AIDS exposed them, and exposed the extent in which gays were present in every facet and walk of live and in every level of government and in every institution. And as it exposed them, it killed them. America quickly learned that homosexuals were not some weird predatory animal but were our brothers, sisters, spouses, fathers, uncles, mentors, fraternity brother, gardeners, neighbors, team members, etc.

As a society, we had a choice to make. We could hold tight to our belief that gays were monsters and attach that label to our loved-ones, or we could preserve the memory of our loved ones as we knew them to be - productive and human members of society. We chose the later and rejected the pervert label.

It's truly sad that so many people had to die to allow such a large % of our society live in peace. So yes, some will always associate AIDS with gay sex, regardless of the facts. Just as some will always associate pervert or "yucky" with gay sex. However, these souls are being left behind as our society continues to develop a better understanding of human nature and incorporate this new knowledge in how we treat each other.

So feel free to blame AIDS on gays, they certainly have contributed to its spread. But if you do, blame every other disease on straights, lord knows they do the fast majority of the spreading and dying in this world.

As she so often is, Susan is spot on. As a gay, I always get a kick out of overhearing fellow gays talking about how the bible actually supports gay marriage, or homosexuality in general. What a hoot!

Unfortunately, they don't find it as funny when I point out the bible clearly vilifies homosexuality (and yes in the OLD and NEW testaments). The bible doesn't say we should be nice to the gays or add them to our prayer list with extra stars by their names, or debate whether to let em have civil unions or some hospital visitation rights, or allow them to teach, or not. Doesn't really shed much light on whether we can fire them or rent to them. Nope. The bible CLEARLY says they must be KILLED. I assume you can inferred that they are to be killed before they are allowed to marry each other.

It will be interesting to see which institution (gay marriage or the evangelical churches rejection of it) survives the latest change is social morals - I have my money on the gays. I think history is on my side. In these great battles, the churches lost:

Flat Earth
Earth as Center of the Universe
witches
Evolution (ok, death throes)
Interracial Marriage (google Falwell for the fun history)
Segregation
Slavery
male domination of every facet of life
divorce
etc.

Bun-Bun, the Flatulent One:

Your obsession with passing gas, as recently exhibited on Eboo's blog, has long infected your poor efforts at posting. As per all right wing religious types infecting America, you brand AIDS as a homosexual disease. Have you ever heard of a continent called Africa? Perhaps you are like St Sarah the Moose Slayer, who thought it was a country. No, it is a large continent, where AIDS originated, and AIDS is epidemic there to a point that makes our home problem small. And you know what? ALL the AIDS there is transmitted by heterosexual sex. I suggest that, once and for all, you withdraw your cranial appendage from the orifice from which your farts are expelled, and try to join the human race.

Beyond what the bible may or may not say, the general population to include many California voters, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activies to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong . Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

Globalone, I have not yet begun to rant. You want to parse Constitutional letter and intent, we can parse.

On a purely human level, I can see no good reason for two lovers to deny themselves the comfort of their beloved, based on someone else's interpretation of an ancient text. There is no reason at all to allow that interpretation to "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This is not negotiable.

Tboyer33, you said, and said well,

"It is easy to picture Jesus picketing the headquarters of James Dobson, trying to break down the doors of Rick Warren's church, and visiting the Liberty University campus to urge students to put down their Bibles and open their eyes to the world instead of trying to encase themselves in their conservative cocoon."

And this Christian loves that picture! I'd be right there with Him. Sadly, there are too many so-called 'Christians', some on these blogs, who, if that happened, would be cheerfully gathering timbers and nails for another crucifixion.

Susan, as in law and philosophy, making one argument does not preclude making another simultaneous and even contradictory argument.

A Biblical response to right-wing Evangelical Christians is critical because, as the Newsweek article so rightly demonstrates, their theology is so patently flimsy. The Gospels simply do not support right wing politics in any way whatsoever. Jesus was a radical egalitarian, a reformer, one who spent his entire ministry comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. He was the diametric opposite of the rich, self-satisfied, power-lusting and frequently corrupt conservative Evangelical leaders -- in fact his foils were pharisees who acted just like the modern Republican Evangelicals. Jesus would be appalled by the average suburban megachurch with its monumental sanctuary, giant TV screen, slick music and marketing mentality.

It is easy to picture Jesus picketing the headquarters of James Dobson, trying to break down the doors of Rick Warren's church, and visiting the Liberty University campus to urge students to put down their Bibles and open their eyes to the world instead of trying to encase themselves in their conservative cocoon.

The bedrock foundation of morality in Our Christian Nation is Holy Scripture. There. I took a swing through the Bible Belt and came back with that one. The avid church goers are not completely happy unless they are able to point and shame people they think are Godless and evil. I'll take a loving gay couple raising a few kids down the street over your predictions that redefining marriage so as to include that couple will bring God's wrath down upon us. Where is your Christian charity?

Globalone,

True, there are laws against polygamy and incest. But they are laws throughout America - therefore, no one is being deprived of a right that is granted to others. As far as same-sex marriage goes, gays and lesbians are being deprived of a right granted to others. This is not a religious issue - it is about civil rights. It does not threaten traditional marriage - divorce does. [disclosure: note that I have contributed to this - I am divorced.]

Wiccan,

Thank you for your comments. Although I find it somewhat funny that you completely misconstrue my comments and then turn around and wonder why I did the same thing. But I digress..

I believe that I missed your answer to my question as I got distracted by your long winded rant.

Again, if the Constitution is your guide to the sacrament of marriage, then why are there federal and/or state laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous marriages (among others)? Keeping in mind that this has nothing to do with personal opinions about non-hetero, non-homosexual marriages.

(BTW: I am searching for talking points from the "Constitutional" side of the argument. If you would like to twist that into some sort of personal attack or insinuation that I believe you're some sort of a degenerate for thinking that way, well, maybe that's to be expected.)

Thank you, Arminius. If I may flatter myself, it was an argument worthy of my father. He had a seven-year-old's finely honed sense of justice, and the debating skills of a Daniel Webster.

I wonder how Globalone would like to live in a country governed by an interpretation of "The Golden Bough". Might give him a spark of Christian compassion.

Hi, Wiccan,

That was quite a broadside you fired at globalone! Well done.

You are, of course, absolutely correct: The 14th Amendment says it all, and religion has nothing to do with equal rights. It is a clear case of a minority being denied rights granted to a majority. As to polygamy and incest, as far as I know, neither one of these is legal anywhere in America, so no one is being deprived of a right granted to others.

Susan - this is my favorite line from your essay: "I don't care whether the Bible says that gays should be drawn and quartered before being publicly boiled in oil."

The bible is a fine old book of ancient myths. We should stop treating it like an encycoplopedia that needs to be consulted before making important decisions.

"Globalone:

Wiccan,

Just to clarify, you also favor polygamy and incestuous marriage, correct? In fact, I'm assuming that any "marriage" deemed appropriate by an individual should be allowed under the constitution? Thanks."

Translation:

"Let me be clear, if you support homosexual marriage, you are surely so mentally deficient or morally degenerate that you would not object to such heinous acts as polygamy and incest. In fact, you're so morally lax that you'd accept any definition of marriage as constitutionally correct. Heathen."

I think that's about right. Now what on earth provoked this? My only post was a straightforward quote of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ah, I have it now! "Our Constitution trumps the Bible every time."

Well, what further proof do you need? Anyone who would favor anything over the Bible is obviously an amoral twit.

Globalone, I shan't dissappoint. Marriage is a contract, a legal and cultural construct that has evolved legal and cultural rights and responsibilities, with legal and cultural consequences should those rights and responsibilities not be honored. However, there is no inherent barrier in the legal and cultural definition of marriage to this contract being entered into by multiple parties (polygamy was acceptable in many human societies) or by related parties (pharoahs in Egypt married their sisters, royalty married only royalty). Modern Western society limits marriage to two unrelated parties. Same sex marriage would also be between two unrelated parties. The Fourteenth Amendment is unequivocable. It defines who is a citizen, and proscribes the States from abridging the rights of any citizen. Pay attention to the qualifiers in the Amendment:

All persons
No State
Any State
Any person

Notice that other qualifiers are markedly absent. Now, if you accept that the Constitution is the supreme governing document of the United States, then under the Fourteenth Amendment there is no barrier to same sex marriage.

As to polygamy and incest, not for me, thanks, but whatever floats your boat.

Marriage as we know it in the US has little to do with Christian marriage. It is not a sacrament (only true in Catholicism) - only a legal recognition of a form of domestic partnership. The state has deemed that bestowing legal privileges on certain people is beneficial for the common good - e.g. visitation/care rights, tax benefits, etc.

Since marriage is such a deeply rooted and religiously meaningful union, the state should immediately stop recognizing marriages and should stop providing special rights to married couples. Instead, the state should permit anyone to name one single other person as a domestic partner with the same rights currently bestowed to married couples.

The second person may be male or female, but must be of legal age in order to enter a legal arrangement. As blood relatives already gain special legal benefits, the single person deemed a domestic partner should not be a blood relative.

As such, there can be no silly arguments about the religious underpinnings of marriage, etc., etc. Incest will not be condoned. Polygamy will be excluded due to the "one other person" rule. We'll all have the same rights, Christians can claim marriage has been preserved, and there won't be any reductio ad absurdum arguments about people marrying their pets.

Impartial- glad you got a few bong hits in you, sound more civil.

The truly sad thing is that the GLBT's cannot accept it when they do not get their way. Prop 8 in CA was voted on by the people and decided by their peers in the same state. Can they accept it? Of course not, and they blame the "fundies" and all other Christians who supported Prop 8 as denying them the same rights as the rest of America. Bull!!! If they cannot accept the outcome of the democratic process, then move to country less democratic but which already accommodates their demands. This is not a legislated matter to be reviewed by the CA Supreme Court, but a state constitutional amendment determined by a fair vote. In addition, they have threatened numerous churches, ministries, posted death threats on web sites and blogs with in the "lifestyle". In one Chicago church, several lesbians disrupted the service by rising up in their pews and beginning to kiss and make out, clearly mocking the church and it's beliefs. They should have been arrested, but probably no grounds; they just wanted to be an obnoxious pain in the neck and flaunt their lifestyle. I do not speak from a vacuum, for I have a cousin who is a lesbian and I respect and love her, yet disagree heartily with her. They need to respect the law of the land. I know that things will change sooner or later. When they do, as law of the land, I will respect the opinion of the majority, though I do not have to like it. What is an abomination to our system is when a judge or mayor gets a wild hair and wants to get all of the GLBT's of a ciry or county married before due process has had a chance to run it's course; that is typical of the GLBT agenda and how they get things accomplished.

In a sad way, much of this may be moot as we are about to inaugurate a very liberal president who seems poised to do all he can to give GLBT's what they want (the same can be said of abortion). If that happens, I will be very curious to see what the next rung on the GLBT ladder will be that they will strive for and try to push on the rest of us. GLBT education in the elementary grades? What's to become of a bi person who marries, then falls in love with a person of the opposite sex? A legal threesome? Friends with legal benefits? What happens when the post op transgender realizes years later that he/she would really have his appendage back and not the indentation he/she is stuck with?

Concur. Not sure why folks are so confused about the Bible having anything to do with the actual laws of this country or the rights of its citizens.

Thoughtful, logical piece. Thank you, I look forward to sharing it with others.

Markpatro,

"Law is based on logical discernment, religion is not"

---------------

I have to admit - that's funny. Can I assume then, since the crux of your argument is Constitutional law, that ALL marriage arrangements are now valid and that ALL federal and/or state laws prohibiting as such are VOID? That you are in favor of establishing federal law granting "marriage" rights to polygamists and those involved in incestuous relationships, among others?

As an aside, why do you think we have laws outlawing such marriage arrangements as polygamy?

Not a sermon, just a thought.

You either follow the teachings of the new testement or you don't.If you don't then you are none of the lords children.
The lord loves his children only if you follow his teachings, if you don't follow his teachings stop calling yourself a christian.Make up your own rules maybe you could call your book the canterbury tales and preach from that.

Beliefs are very personal things.

In the U.S.A. we believe all men are women are created equal. We believe that everyone should vote and we believe everyone should pay his or her share in taxes. What the Bible says or doesn’t say about marriage is a Christian belief system.

The Declaration of independence is also a belief system. And it states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

If in fact we hold that all “men” (hereinafter referred to as “people”) are created equal and then we cannot deny that people of African ancestry are equal to people of European ancestry. If all heterosexual people have the unalienable right to get married then so do homosexual people.

And secondly, if we uphold the Constitution as our American legal authority, we then uphold that the church is a separate entity having no force in civil law.

As an American I encourage all other Americans to stop arguing Biblical arguments. Its time we stopped giving religion any credibility in the civil arena. Law is based on logical discernment, religion is not.

I would also encourage every American tax payer to consider insisting that churches begin paying taxes just like we do if they continue to meddle with our civil liberties. Lets just decide they have traveled past the point of return.

The Bible should only matter inside the Christian Church, or we can argue that churches can and shall only exist in America in a democratic fashion. We can do these things with our law.

Who believes as I do?

Wiccan,

Just to clarify, you also favor polygamy and incestuous marriage, correct? In fact, I'm assuming that any "marriage" deemed appropriate by an individual should be allowed under the constitution? Thanks.

KPAIGE1,

So it's okay for the people to reject biblical laws as long as the majority opposes them but if you are in the minority you must accept religious tyranny by the majority?

Are you nuts?

Another in a long line of useless discussions. Homosexuals want to marry so they will embrace anything that supports them and reject anything that doesn't. What I never hear is a discussion on the many existing restrictions on marriange (age, familial relationships, multiple partners) and why homosexuals should be given the only say on which changes to the definition of marriage are valid. I know of no society, culture, religion or tribe that ever had marriage be same sex. Must be a reason. I think its the human species recognizing what nature intended for its survival.

I agree with Dr. Anderson. He is correct in his assessment. Marriage is a sacrament of the church of the first order. The Church is the Bride of Christ not the groom of Christ. Marriage is fundamental, foundational and of the first order. If marriage for homosexuals were approved by God then he would have included it somewhere in the text of over 6,000+ years. Women were oppressed in the first century but Jesus' interaction with them, seeing them as equal, were not edited out so why would a practice that was happening on Mars Hill? It is simply not part of God's design.

I, as a voter, allow my faith to inform my views and I will vote based on this - just as all people do whether their faith is rooted in religion or not. The individual becomes a block of people, like in California, who will vote as their faith informs them - out voting another block of voters. It's called democracy.

However, if it had gone another way then I would have been satified that democracy had occurred on a state level and would have lived with the results. I would then have left it to rest once and for all. It would be a case where the people were ready for a change that was not conducive with Biblical principles but was what the people of the country wanted.

Finally, this support of marriage between a woman and a man is something the church itself must grapple with. It's an internal issue that needs more attention than it does on the civil side of things. But don't ever tell me that as a voter I cannot vote my conscience or allow my faith to inform my views and votes. You allow yours to inform you and your votes.

Well said DCNYHunter!!

"Impartial" does not mean "believe everything I read". Only the brainwashed and/or delusional could believe in the tripe that you people peddle. "Impartial" means I have the ability to fairly consider your teachings, including the lack of supporting evidence and mountains of contradictory evidence, and come to a reasoned and rational conclusion - that it is a bunch of BS. You people are just in too deep to see that.

I pity you all.

Right on, Susan! Of course, your point applies to straight marriage too, which can be exclusively civil and therefore abiblical.

For Christians, there must be a hierarchy for interpretation of conflicting messages, and that hierarchy ought to start with the Gospels and their undiputed and unconflicting attribution to Jesus of the two Great Commandments, love God above all, and love your neighbor, on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. All of Paul's moralizing, or that of the Pentateuch, must be construed consistently with the Great Commandments. The struggle in the time of Paul of Tarsus to reconcile Jewish "cleanliness" practices and traditions with "conversion" of the 90%+ of the world who were Gentiles was just that, a struggle, and Ms. Jacoby is right to see the flaws of humanity in some of the teachings, perhaps, or in the human (and war) councils that settled disputes about the content of the Bible. Sobeit, they must all answer the two Great Commandments. I don't hear any religious person opposed to Gay Marriage speaking in those terms, and that reveals a fundamental (fundamentalist?) weakness. In any event, Ms. Jacoby is also righht that it is futile to seek an answer to a question unasked at the time, and also to seek a Biblical answer to the lay question: the civil law creates a status of marriage with rights and benefits with no pre-condition (no test, no qualification), open to all, sinner and saint. There is no requirement to procreate or parent, much less to do so better than anyone else. Artificial means of insemination are lawful, as is single-parenting. This may strike some as less than ideal (I disagree, as many marriage "traps" are much less healthy for the trapped children and the marital partners). But so long as the institution is open to the wife-beater, the deadbeat dad, the sex offender, the geriatric, the infirm, the infertile, the angry, the unwilling to parent, then it is beneath contemptuousness to argue it should be denied to the loving, committed, same-sex couple.

IMPARTIALOBSERVER

Not too impartial, are you??? Did you forget to take your medicine today? You sound like you need some serious bong hits to calm you down and mellow you out.

I totally believe in Jesus and you are given room not to. So why so bitter and angry? Really, back to your medication...

"Well, if you assume that it's just a bunch of documents written by fallible humans, then you've already assumed that Christianity (or whatever faith you use this argument to discredit) is wrong."
*****

Just because it was written by fallible humans does not necessarily mean that it's wrong. It just means it's not necessarily perfect, as some would ascribe to.

From Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

by Thomas Jefferson

"that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_vsrf.html

Talk about a moot point... Who cares what some outdated piece of trash literature like the bible has to say about ANYTHING?!? The jesus myth is just that - a myth - and anyone who bases their decisions on "what jesus would have done" is a pathetic, delusional whackjob. This is a lot like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Angels don't exist, god doen't exist, and you jesus freaks just make yourselves look really foolish. Get a life, people.

If you are married by a person of faith that person needs to register the document with the municipal authorities. I think that is correct.

I was married by a municipal judge and had a "hippy" religious ceremony with my wife.

So if my statement is correct, the municipal authority has the final say anyways, not the religious person.

"You might as well ask whether there is a religious or biblical case to be made for or against slavery"

That might be the most intelligent thing I've ever read about gay marriage. If you were to remove the religious argument against gay marriage, you're left with no excuse but bigoty. The real righteous and holy men and women in the world are the ones who recognize this, and have the courage to stand in opposition to their religion's views.

People who refuse to allow government to either:

A) include all people in civil marriage regardless of their gender or sexual preferences,

or

B) adopt the term "civil union" for all legal unions and cede the term marriage to the private sector,

... are just a bunch of theocrats, plain and simple.

They want government and religion to remain entangled even when this arrangement clearly discriminates against their fellow citizens.

Shameful, pityful theocrats have always been on the wrong side of history and this case is no different!

Hi Lepi,

In Germany, and I think in other European countries as well, you have to get married legally in front of a JP because pastors have no legal right to marry you. So, in order to have your union blessed by a pastor you have to be legally married first. The other stuff is "fluff" for those who believe in God (or Godesses).

Only the legal paper tranfers any rights and obligations that come with marriage, the religious ritual does not.

I really believe it's time to install the same system here in America. It would definitely solve a lot of problems.

Gaby

Seems to me that part of the problemn is that we have clergy acting as agents of the state.

Since marriage is a legal status, the inly thing that really makes sense is to require that ANY consenting adults,regardless of gender, wishing to legally unite should be able to, and that legal unions can only take place in the presence of a judge. After all, clergy can't legally dissolve a marriage; only the courts can.

Anyone wishing to have their union blessed by their religious comunity could arrange an appropriate ceremony with their minister, bishop, priestess, etc. But the religious ceremnony would have no legal import.

That's what we did, even though it wasn't necessary. We had a religious ceremony at our home in which we pledged ourselves to each other in the presence of friends, family, and our gods, and later went to the courthouse, bought a license, made an appointment with a JP, and signed the license in his office with my daughter and her boyfriend as witnesses. We celebrate our wedding anniversary on the date that we held the wedding at our house, not the date on the paper.

I asked this on another thread, but I'll post it here too.

I went to the courthouse to get married. I've never had a religious service.

So, for those who are insisting that marriage is strictly within the purview of religion, where do we fit in?

Are we married, or not?

Admittedly, the government views us as married because we filled out the paperwork. I have no idea if any religious denomination does or not.

to dwatson01:

"....but if "marriage" is now to be religious in meaning,..." I would reply that the current poltical/religious meaning of "marriage" is only that which furthers the anti-gay position (in the political arena) most efficiently; witness the "between one man and one woman" stance. Note the "till death do us part" has been chucked for political expediency--at least for this political cycle--so they have effectively changed the "religious" meaning of marriage. We gay folk aren't asking to change the religious meaning of marriage, we only want access to civil marrige--please, can't we at least use the "Elvis Chapels" that give couples those 1200+ civil rights??? No Dwatson, "marriage" is NOT REALLY to be "religious in meaning, don't be fooled. I would also point out that homosexuals and marriage both predate Christianity; Christian forces should not be allowed to influence rights of gay citizens outside the church.

to "charlesbakerharris": "cherrypick[ing] Scripture" is nothing new; it has been used in both sides of religious arguments for centuries...that's why countless innocents have been persecuted under the guise of "God's Word." And that is one of the reasons why religion should be kept out of politics. Political decision should be based on LOGIC, not on FAITH which, by definition, must be devoid of logic.

Why is religion an issue at all when entering into a civil contract in a secular democracy? The Bible preaches against usury but no one seems to have trouble with credit card interest rates violating scripture. Most fundamentalist women I know don't cover their heads in church (a stricture on the SAME list as the abomination of homosexuality in the Old Testament). On the other hand, isn't there a "freedom of religion" issue here as well? Why can't churches who have no trouble with same-sex unions perform them as part of their exercise of freedom guaranteed in the First Amendmen??

charlesbakerharris wrote:

"So, by charlesbakerharris' rationale, you would also have to have a thorough understanding of Astrology and Greek mythology to be able to dismiss their usage as basis for public policy."

No, you'd have to have a thorough understanding of them to write as if you have a thorough understanding of them. Jacoby makes pretense at being knowledgeable about Christianity, when at best she represents a minority view, and in reality all she does is cherrypick Scripture, interpret its words devoid of any context or learned analyses, and ultimately, contribute to the dumbing-down of religious discourse."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Intruding on your baliwick, eh?

This article has it exactly right. It is clear that there are churches that sanction gay marriages and those that don't and never will. That is as it should be, but neither should influence public policy about legal relationships between couples.

The only thing that matters here are the actual responsibilities/benefits of civil unions - and I hold the heretical view that, unlike racially segregated education, this is a place where separate could conceivably be equal, at least for most gay people. It would be an unfortunate concession, but if "marriage" is now to be religious in meaning, let it go and focus on legal equality for civil unions. All would still be free to pursue religious sanction within their own faith traditions - or enjoy the freedom of just being human beings living freely.

Separation of church & state is apart of this country's foundation for a reason. An excellent commentary Ms. Jacoby, which unfortunately will fall on deaf ears - on both sides of the argument. As a married, African American, Christian I'm constantly appalled & disheartened by the attacks members of my faith perpetrate against "others."

Jesus had a message of love & forgiveness; his father spoke of vengeance & judgment, which was his sole prerogative - not his followers.

Christianity, as practiced, in a small majority of this country, is that of a bigoted, hypocritical, hateful religion that has turned our faith into a caricature of while simultaneously contradicting itself.

I agree. I don’t care what church you belong to. I don’t care about your sexual preferences. These are irrelevant. If there is a connection between you and me it will have to be on a much higher level. You might call that level intellectual, or even spiritual, but these other considerations simply do not matter.

charlesbakerharris wrote: "Either there is a moral law revealed to people by a divine being or there is not. If Scripture has no divine origin, it's no more interesting than any other moral framework. If it does have divine origin, then it's incredibly and overridingly important."

I eagerly await your proof of the Bible's divinely inspired origin. [sound of crickets chirping] In the meantime, however, I'll agree with Ms. Jacoby that whatever the Bible asserts, or can be made to assert, by *any* particular group, is *completely irrelevant* to questions concerning the US Constitution.

If the case is being made that the Bible is the final word on marriage, then it would seem to follow that marriage is a religious rite/sacrament. Consequently the state has no business interfering
one way or the other. The state should offer civil unions - period end of statement. Go to church if you want to get married.

My Dad, a devout Roman Catholic, had an entertaining idea for resolving the gay marriage issue. He thinks that "marriage" is a genuinely religious ceremony, and therefore it should not be performed by our secular government.

His proposal is to ban civil marriage entirely, and replace it with the much-maligned "civil unions." Marriages can still be performed, but only by churches willing to execute them. This gives religious conservatives literally everything they claim to want - a permanent ban on gay marriage, and a protection of a church's right to perform only the marriages it approves of. And, of course, it completely spits in their eyes - the will always be open-minded churches willing to perform gay marriages, but the government would be (technically) keeping its hands free of the whole mess.

"I don't regard LG as second class citizens at all, not in the least. If they regard themselves that way, then changing a definition in state law isn't going to change their own internal perception or anyone else's. It will open the door for a lot of litigation, though."

It's not a matter of them regarding *themselves* as second-class citizens, it's a matter of society *treating* them as second-class citizens...by, for example, refusing to change a definition in state (and federal) law, a definition that results in them being denied many rights and benefits that straight couples take for granted.

"Well, if you assume that it's just a bunch of documents written by fallible humans, then you've already assumed that Christianity (or whatever faith you use this argument to discredit) is wrong. Here's an abridged version of her argument:

Christianity is invalid, therefore [some opinion based in Christianity] is wrong. Solid logic there. Deep thinking.

Susan Jacoby's issue is that she's writing about Christianity without much understanding of what Christanity is, where it's based, what moderate Christians believe... and she's enabled by a bunch of head-bobbing people cut from the same cloth, ironic since that's often the exact accusation used against Christians by those same folks."

I think you missed the point of the essay, which is not that Christianity's opinion on gay marriage is right or wrong, but rather that, when it comes to the issue of whether our secular government should allow gay couples the civil, legal status of marriage, Christianity's opinion is *irrelevant.* Our government should not make decisions on this or any issue based on what any religion believes.

Hi, folks.
I'm glad to see others are discussing both sides of this issue here. I'll add a few more comments, then go away.

Wiccan, I have enjoyed your "truth necklace" analogy. Thank you. All, thanks for the kind tone in the writing. I hold no animosity or ill-will toward any of you writing here.

Several ironies are at work here. One is that for some of us, the Fourteenth Amendment applies more manifestly to the rights of the unborn than to the issue at hand here. Another is that I would hope that Descent of Man be required reading in every sex education or biology class in the country, whereas Susan brought evolution into her essay to strengthen her position. I think that's funny.

The U.S. Constitution was written with a similar long-term view as the Descent of Man premise that if a collective society will act in the best interest of the highest social "good," then individual perceived rights and self-interest will be subordinated by the collective good of the entire group, and the society that does this will excel over other societies. That is one of the reasons it was written the way it was written.

Read the preamble. What decision by government will "promote the general welfare" and "ensure domestic tranquility", and look toward "our posterity" with forethought? The general position taken here will promote continuous domestic litigation.

I don't regard LG as second class citizens at all, not in the least. If they regard themselves that way, then changing a definition in state law isn't going to change their own internal perception or anyone else's. It will open the door for a lot of litigation, though.

Darwin would say there are natural laws at work here--nothing about the Bible or governments. By creating incongruency between a natural law and a governmental law, government will foster the notion that individual rights trump the collective good of society, and that attitude will likely become the prevalent attitude, societal good be ignored. We already see that in the behavior of children and youth across the country. This adds to the collective drift toward that attitude.

Ah, well. I take the long-term Darwinian view that a society that doesn't go down this road will succeed more readily than one that does, or learn from its mistakes. So may it be, and may Darwin be prophetic when he said virtue would be triumphant.

Peace to you all, and have a good day. Kind regards.

The general population, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activies to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong . Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

"Not necessarily - parts of scripture have value irrespective of the documents' origins. The burden of proof is any claim that scripture was written or inspired by some entity or entities other than humans, and that claim is separate from the value or relevance of scripture."

It's not really separate. Either there is a moral law revealed to people by a divine being or there is not. If Scripture has no divine origin, it's no more interesting than any other moral framework. If it does have divine origin, then it's incredibly and overridingly important. The question of its relevance is entirely and unambiguously coupled to its origin.

"So, by charlesbakerharris' rationale, you would also have to have a thorough understanding of Astrology and Greek mythology to be able to dismiss their usage as basis for public policy."

No, you'd have to have a thorough understanding of them to write as if you have a thorough understanding of them. Jacoby makes pretense at being knowledgeable about Christianity, when at best she represents a minority view, and in reality all she does is cherrypick Scripture, interpret its words devoid of any context or learned analyses, and ultimately, contribute to the dumbing-down of religious discourse.

"Well, if you assume that it's just a bunch of documents written by fallible humans, then you've already assumed that Christianity (or whatever faith you use this argument to discredit) is wrong. "

Not necessarily - parts of scripture have value irrespective of the documents' origins. The burden of proof is any claim that scripture was written or inspired by some entity or entities other than humans, and that claim is separate from the value or relevance of scripture.

charlesbakerharris says:

*** "Susan Jacoby's issue is that she's writing about Christianity without much understanding of what Christanity is, where it's based, what moderate Christians believe...

If you don't know enough about Christianity to know why this article is deeply flawed and, ultimately, irrelevant, then you shouldn't make any sort of pretense at having an authoritative opinion." ***

So, by charlesbakerharris' rationale, you would also have to have a thorough understanding of Astrology and Greek mythology to be able to dismiss their usage as basis for public policy.

"the Bible can be cited in support of or in opposition to any human behavior and human need."

No, not really. Not really at all. This is a hypersimplification used by people who don't really know the Bible on anything more than a cursory levels, and it's a facile trick.

"Yet there is something fundamentally illogical about attempting to justify love that needs no justification by parsing ancient documents, written by humans as morally fallible as humans are today (and much more ignorant about the material universe)."

Well, if you assume that it's just a bunch of documents written by fallible humans, then you've already assumed that Christianity (or whatever faith you use this argument to discredit) is wrong. Here's an abridged version of her argument:

Christianity is invalid, therefore [some opinion based in Christianity] is wrong. Solid logic there. Deep thinking.

Susan Jacoby's issue is that she's writing about Christianity without much understanding of what Christanity is, where it's based, what moderate Christians believe... and she's enabled by a bunch of head-bobbing people cut from the same cloth, ironic since that's often the exact accusation used against Christians by those same folks.

If you don't know enough about Christianity to know why this article is deeply flawed and, ultimately, irrelevant, then you shouldn't make any sort of pretense at having an authoritative opinion.

I just think you are one of the best public intellectuals around. Thank you for always being the voice of reason when it comes to these types of issues. By the way, I keep recommening your book, THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON, to everyone I know. Keep up the good work!

I fully understand the irony in saying this, but when I read your article, Susan, the first thing I thought was "AMEN!"
I guess I didn't feel 'Bravo!' was emphatic enough.

You've gone and stated exactly what I have been thinking, just like when Colin Powell stated the rationally obvious, "So what if Obama were a Muslim?" Regardless of what the Bible says why should we be looking to a 2000 year old book for guidance rather than use our own minds.

Although, one interesting topic the Newsweek article mentioned was the relative one sided-ness of religion in the gay marriage fight unlike such dual sided religious approaches arguing for and against slavery when that topic was popular. Why the relative silence of the religious on the morally correct side of the equation?

Sparrowhawk,

Well said, this Christian agrees. My friend Wiccan hit the proverbial nail on the head, with a sledge hammer. This is all about the rights of citizens, and is in no was related to religion. See the 14th Amendment, dissenters, because it is crystal clear on this matter.

Parker: you are correct in saying that our laws and government do not just arbitrarily follow the will of the majority. Where you are wrong however, is that you don't seem to recognize that the "arbiter" that keeps us from doing stupid things just because the majority wants to, is the Constitution. I'm not constitutional scholar, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the founders foresaw the whole "will of the majority" problem, and created the constitution specifically to deal with this kind of thing: a document that we all agree to follow (that's what makes us the "United" states). See Wiccan's post to illustrate my point. The bottom line is this: homosexuals are human beings and citizens. If you disagree with that proposition, then I'm afraid that our debate will end there. As citizens, they deserve to be treated as citizens, and any attempt to relegate them to a separate or lesser "class" of people is an attack on their dignity and their status as citizens. Since the very act of denying them this would place them in a secondary class as citizens, we shouldn't do it. That's it.

I completely agree. Dragging religious texts into this debate does NOTHING constructive for us, since you can come out with any interpretation you want. So throw it out the window and use that lump of glop between your ears that your god gave you.

The people of California who decided not to approve gay marriages were probably more influenced by the "yuckiness" of the sexual activity in such marriages than they were by any biblical do and don'ts.

Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

When it comes to the LAW of the land, it seems mighty clear to me. Susan is right, any religious arguments for or against "gay marriage" are moot. Our Constitution trumps the Bible every time.

Parker:

You have it exactly wrong. There is no such thing as moral legitimacy in the laws - all laws must be derived from the Constitution which deals in rights and powers, nothing much else. Read the 14th Amendment - it is unambiguous. It is you who are ignoring and trampling on the core values of our country. When you seek to deny equality under the law to American citizens, all you do is demonstrate your un-American and anti-American view of the core values of our country.

What Susan fails to recognize or acknowledge is that one of the things that has encouraged the United States to thrive for so many years (albeit imperfectly) has been that the government derived its authority not only arbitrarily from the consent of the governed, but morally because the laws have had moral legitimacy. Take that away whether little by little or through bold strokes, and any moral authority is gone. The behavior of a great many rabble-rousers after the vote in California foreshadows what I am talking about, in spades. They view government as an instrument to get what they want, and if they don't get what they want, then the laws be ignored and trampled upon.

As to Darwinian evolution, I wish his writings were thoroughly studied in every biology class in the country. He cited Greek history to prove his point, that virtue would excel within the process of evolution.

Susan, you are certainly the most sensible essayest, by far, on this panel. What you said is exactly right. Gay people don't need a defense from the Bible or from any other source. Gay marriage does not need to be justified. It is all a no-brainer.

Gay people are done being the all-pupose scape goat for everybody else's heart-burn. That is not much more to say on this subject than that.

CCNL, Bagel,

To each his own. At least you don't oppose gay marriage, and for that I'm grateful. Nevertheless, one could argue have certain of your co-religionists that heterosexual sex is undesirable. I mean think about what goes where and what else is done in said locales amongst straight folk.

Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

William Butler Yeats

Susan Jacoby:

Excellent essay, Susan.

The question as posed to the panelists is irrelevant. Those gay persons who are citizens of this country have the rights of citizenship, including the right to marry. If they are deprived of any of their rights, they are facing institutionalized discrimination.

The solution is simple. All gays wishing to marry must be allowed to do so in civil ceremonies.

Should religious institutions wish to decide whether they would like to have an additional ceremony, one to sanctify the marriage, or honor it in some way, they should be free to do so.

No institution of organized religion has the right to weigh in politically on this issue without violating its tax exempt status. If, as a nation, we wish to move morally forward, it is high time we enforced the rules for religious tax exemptions, or, as I strongly recommend, eliminate religious tax exemptions altogether.

I mean, and I really do mean, why would a secular society, which separates church and state, look to the Bible on this matter? There are many texts that actually go to the issue, among them, "Hear Us Out!: Lesbian and Gay Stories of Struggle, Progress, and Hope, 1950 to the Present."

Susan - before I totally hijack this thread - I want to say that I agree with everything you said here!!!

Margaret Marshall's majority opinion in Goodridge v. DPH drew heavily from the 1949 California decision in Perez V Sharp. The CA court overturned the state's anti-miscegenation statutes based on the equality argument I summarized below. Interestingly, they rejected Perez's alternate argument that she should be allowed to marry because her church allowed it!

Hi, Notsogreatscot,

No problem, I understand completely. By the way, I enjoy your posts - they are a breath of fresh air here, amid the stench of CCNL (aka Bun-Bun), and other sad people.

CCNL wrote: "Gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts!!"

That is EXACTLY the visceral reaction that Karl Rove was counting on when he made gay marriage the central issue of the 2004 election.

Sorry Arminius - you are right. I think some Episcopal churches here do marry gay couples.

I wasn't trying to draw a distinction between Episcopalian churches and UU churches. I was trying to underscore that marriages and "blessed unions" (or civil unions for that matter) are inherently unequal.

The gist of our court ruling was as I said before, our state constitution doesn't allow the state to discriminate against someone who wishes to marry based on the race, creed or sex of their chosen spouse.

Gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts!!

Hi, Notsogreatscot,

I'm pretty sure that Episcopal churches in states that will allow gay marriages will often perform them. Here in Georgia it's a definite no-no to do a gay marriage, but the blessings can happen.

Arminius wrote: "we do this, and the blessings of gay unions, ... simply because it is the right thing to do"

Speaking as a UU from Massachusetts - we allow gay couples to MARRY in our church - because our state law allows it - and it is the right thing to do.

I hope readers will see the difference between my statement and Arminius' (not that I disagree with his, but that our statements carry a different meaning).

Separate is not equal. A state should not discriminate against someone who wishes to marry based on the race, creed or sex of the chosen spouse.

Great essay, Susan!

I'll give the viewpoint of Episcopalians, since I am one. We have, as is well known, a gay bishop, a number of gay priests, and at least one lesbian priest. (Never mind the ongoing schism over this - that's off topic.) To the best of my knowledge, we do this, and the blessings of gay unions, not because of any biblical argument beyond the preaching of universal love by Jesus, but we do it simply because it is the right thing to do. Equal rights for all, equal love for all.

This makes a lot of sense!