Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Though I'm basically on your side of this issue, David, here are a couple of other questions I don't know how to answer:

1. Assuming *everything else is equal*, do you think it's better for a child to be raised by opposite-sex parents than by same-sex parents?

2. Suppose *three* people in a committed, loving relationship wanted to marry? Should the state oppose or forbid it? If so, on what grounds? Would those grounds be any different from the ones now being used to oppose gay marriages?

Following onto Stu's comment (as someone who freely admits he hasn't made up his mind on the issue, as he has issues with both sides of the debate)

What if cousins want to marry? Brother and sister? Parent and child?

Should mentally disadvantaged people be allowed to marry? (can they give consent?)

Obviously society has to have some boundaries on what it considers acceptable behavior and condones. Where do we decide to draw our line? Is that point logically consistant?

Good comments here.

And there *are* good technical reasons for disallowing marriage between relatives for genetic reasons. But if they chose to marry with the stipulation that there would be no offspring, why should any of us object?

I don't buy the arguments that people in hetero marriages lose anything by gays marrying. That would be like saying that because someone reads a book somehow your reading a book means less. The two things have nothing to do with each other, and the fact that the opponents of gay marriage clutch at this straw shows that they don't have any valid reasons to block gays from marrying, just mystic reasons, which isn't good enough to stop people from doing something they want to do that hurts no one. Sorry control freaks, worry about your own lives, stop meddling in other people's lives.

We should allow gay marriage because it's going to be allowed eventually, our values are changing, indicated that some people stand up for this now, when in the past no one would and -- we have MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS to deal with, and any time wasted on this is a distraction from global warming, loose nukes, hunger, and coming up with antibiotics to replace those that are becoming obsolete. While we're at it, let's cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes. And let's help kids whose parents abuse them, and alchoholics, and how about universal health care in the US, etc etc.

In other words understand this debate for what it is -- a political tactic to distract us from things that we should be worrying about and doing something about.

I think that a lot of people would argue that your questions are irrelevant. They would say that there is only one question that needs to be answered: Does God define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman? I'm not one of them, but there are a lot of people in this country and in the world for whom God's wishes (as they understand them) override all other considerations.

I personally try to follow Occam's Razor when it comes to neologisms: don't coin a new word when the old one will do. So I'm puzzled by your use of the term "contra-sex". While the prefix "contra" literally means "opposite", I believe it conveys more of a sense of "against" or "opposed to". So, even if "contra-sex" were a word, "same-sex" and "contra-sex" wouldn't be mutually exclusive. In fact, I have a lot of "contra-sexual" relationships with many people of my own sex.

Jim, that's why separation of church and state is so critical.

Ezra, I think the same thing could be said for calling it "homosexual marriage" instead of just "two people getting married".

I invite you to read a real-life story about the dangers of not being able to marry.

Stu: Marriage of more than two people is a thorny legal issue, because it would make things like divorce and inheritance very complicated. Say you have a five-way marriage and one person wants out. Does everyone in the marriage have to give the person who is leaving 1/5 of their stuff? Say someone in the marriage has a death in the family. Whose kids get the inheritance?

Jason: Comparing gay marriage with incest, and gays with the mentally retarded is pretty insulting. Did it make you feel better to do that?

Dave: You are a god. We're not worthy.

Jim: Then those people's churches don't have to perform gay marriages. As private religious organizations, they are welcome to discriminate against whomever they want. There are plenty of churches that will do gay marriages already, and no religion's views should control what goes on in city hall.

I know this will upset people, but I think my opinion is one that many people share but are afraid to voice out of fear of being seen as bigoted. Yes, of course same sex couples can fall in love, no their love is no lesser than "conta-sex" couples (that is an interesting term that I have never heard or read before...), yes both types of couples are most likely equally capable of forming strong lasting valuable commitments and they can most likely do an equally good job raising children. All of these are excellent reasons in my opinion why same sex couples who are willing to make a lifelong commitment to one and other should have equal protections and rights as married couples. But I don't think they are good enough reasons to redefine marriage. Any dictionary defines marriage as something along the lines of "the state in which a man and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together (usually in order to procreate children) and with certain legal rights and obligations" (Oxford American). Of course, plenty of couples live together without marrying, plenty marry and don't have children, why should they have these legal rights and obligations and a same sex couple should not? I've already said that same sex couples should have the same rights and protections as married couples but redifing marriage doesn't seem the best way to go about it. Here's where I become a backwards cavemean in my thinking. The relationship between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple, even if both relationships are equally healthy, strong and loving are different. Men and women are physically and chemically different. Many heterosuals find that a relationship with a member of the opposite sex can bring out qualities in themselves that they would otherwise not be able to express. Qualities that are fundamently male or female. Also, feminine qualities can temper male qualites and vice versa. Of course these qualities change as society changes, society allows men to express many more and more complex emotions now than they were fifty years ago, for example -- and women are less afraid of the social stigma of being more assertive. I mean in no way to imply that the societal standards that both sexes are held to are now fully tolerant, just to say that standards change. But if one were to strip away all societal conditioning, we would see fundamental differences based on certain levels of hormones, etc. I believe this is why even a secular society views the joining of a man and woman as something very close to sacred and why most religions view it unashamedly as sacred (even when, as was the case for most of human history, the institution had little or nothing to do with the concept of romantic love). This is why the institution deserves a seperate classification from the state in which a man and a man or woman and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together (usually in order to procreate children) (or for whatever purpose and reason) and with certain legal rights and obligations.

Jim, you're probably right that for many "God's wishes" trump everything. (But save us from people who think they have insider knowledge about what God wants.) In that case why not make 'marriage' solely a religious institution -- defined, managed, regulated by the various churches in whatever way they want. The state can then join all us couples, straight and gay, in 'civil unions'. End of problem.

How do you think THAT would play on Beacon Hill?

Well I have to say that in my opinion all of your questions miss the whole point and that is the issue of homosexuality being a moral wrong. Yes, I am one of those "old fashion" people that believe that right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter what society says is acceptable.

So because I believe that homosexuality is wrong, naturally I don't want to see gays and lesbians married and accepted in society the same way that me and my spouse would be. I also don't want to someday have to explain to my children when they see a picture of two guys holding hands the whole perverted concept of homosexuality and that it is wrong.

And if you don't think that two homosexuals raising a child would not distort that child's view on society and relationships, you are kidding yourself. Also what are the chances that that kid grows up and is not a homosexual as well?

1.1 It seems to happen all the time, that combination of infatuation and admiration

1.2 If you believe that men and women are essentially the same, then it follows that their love is no lesser than the love of opposite-sex couples. But men and women are so, so different. I, as an American male, have more in common with a tribesman in New Guinea than I have with my wife.

1.3 While I reject the view that David and Jonathan in the Bible had a homosexual relationship, their friendship was strong, lasting and valuable. But again, the real strength and value is in a lasting commitment with someone really different than one's self, someone of the opposite sex.

1.4 No, they are not, for the same reason that single parent households are less likely to raise children well. A child needs both a mother and a father. Is this not intuitively obvious to the most casual observer?

2.1 Yes, and in a negative way. For evidence, see the February 2 Weekly Standard article "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" by Stanley Kurtz. Andrew Sullivan is a smart guy, but he's wrong on this one.

2.2 Yes. For evidence, google the word "heteroflexible."

2.3 I would hardly call this a discriminatory culture, where homosexuals are a privileged class, the darlings of the media (where they take up way more bandwidth than their tiny numbers would justify), academia, and judiciary. But even if the culture were neutral, heterosexuality would be better than homosexuality. It is better for moral reasons (not just the Bible, but many other faith traditions condemn the practice). It is better for psychological reasons (better for the partners, better for the kids). As an adopted child, and the parent of an adopted child, I can personally vouch for the difference between the way parents treat their adopted children and their biological children. It is not the same, and if you think it is, you are only deceiving yourself.

2.4 I reject the very premise of the question. The question is not about the relative merits of homosexuality versus heterosexuality, but about the institution of marriage. It is as if you asked the question, "Is it ok to alter millenia of tradition to fulfill the desires of a tiny minority of Americans?"

3.1 Yes, I would react differently, but in your thought experiment, I've been reacting differently for the past six years.

Living three blocks from ground zero of SF gay marriage, and being gay, I guess I have a bias. Hell, I even attended Rosie O'Donnell's ceremony... So, as a gay ghetto-living homoboy, my answers to the above would be obvious.

But I think the issue is that marriage is, and will always be, a loaded word. It's been pointed out on other blogs that in Europe, marriage is a two step process, you go to a civil ceremony to be recognized by the state, and then to a church to be acknowledged in your faith. Whereas, in the majority of cases in the US, the civil step is just paying for a piece of paper for a religious official to initial. That is where the problem is.

We made the civil and the religious one thing in America. So, if gays want equality, we have to fight for marriage, since that is one civil/religious entity now. Laws are written to acknowledge benefits for married couples, not legally-recognized couples. And, when you say marriage, people think religion, and a lot of religons are down on homosexuality, so then you have this issue. Do I want a big Roman Catholic wedding? Of course not.

If anything, I have always liked the fact that many gay couples stay together year after year out of desire and not obligation, legality, and guilt. I am all for defining and creating our own ritual if need be.

But too many laws exist that benefit people based on their desire to wed. An amendment a while back actually tried to end the gay marriage debate by removing all tax breaks given to married couples. As you might imagine, it got nowhere. This fight has always been between privilege and equality mixed in with religious conviction, a pretty nasty mix.

Of course, Dave is also right, that it is an issue used for distraction. I mean, we aren't hearing more about abortion, flag burning, and gays for nothing... it's an election year. It is a time when a president (put into office by rogue judges and not the people) get to criticize decisions made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court (whom he calls rogue judges, because he disagrees with what they say).

So, I guess it is just a bit taxing to go from site to site and have to take same sex marriage "one step further" into whether people will next want to marry their siblings, cousins, dogs, trees, etc. Maybe I'm way too gay to think about myself in the abstract, but it seems... irrelevant.

Not to be ageist, except the polls show it to be true, but the age group most opposed to same sex marriage is over 60. So, technically, in 20 years... the issue will be moot. Of course, in 20 years of Republican environmental policy, so will the planet, so I guess it's good we have issues like this to keep us looking away from the bigger picture.

"Sorry control freaks, worry about your own lives, stop meddling in other people's lives."

That'd be great!! However, it leads in the opposite direction of what you posted before and after, Dave. Btw, when ARE the "gays" or homosexuals (or non-contra-sexuals if you prefer...?) and their supporters gonna stop trying to control the definition of marriage, which is meddling in my life so much lately??

TIA.

And, since one-a the Dave's is "God" according to some, Occam's Razor would suggest the plain evidence that for many, Many, MANY (even uncognizant) it's a strong tendency "that for many '"God's" wishes' trump everything." (Extra '"' added.)

"Living three blocks from ground zero of SF gay marriage, and being gay, I guess I have a bias."

You DON'T s'POSE...!?!

"Not to be ageist, except the polls show it to be true, but the age group most opposed to same sex marriage is over 60."

The group that, commonly, has the most life-experience and common sense, afaik.

"So, technically, in 20 years... the issue will be moot. Of course, in 20 years of Republican environmental policy, so will the planet, so I guess it's good we have issues like this to keep us looking away from the bigger picture."

Glad you do NOT see the big picture (nor small one like these posts) with much clarity nor any optimism whatsoever, Mr. Walsh. Your pov being valid does not imply that what you see and predict is happening nor will happen, afaik.

Or is all this-here too "mystic" for some-a you???

I'm in the group Dave Winer describes. Some people may consider the Supreme Court of the United States of America the highest authority in the land. I, however, believe in a much higher authority - Jesus Christ. Thanks :-)

Btw, I'd be curious if there were any answers to the some of the other questions. Meaning, answers from people opposed to different-sex marriages???

"Marriage of more than two people is a thorny legal issue,"

Yeah, marriage of two people is also a Real thorny set of legal issues. So are Civil Unions and Common-Law and/or non-Unions, as well. As well as non-legal issues.

Question STILL remains, besides genetics which is a moot point in the debate, where DO you draw the line and why??

Kevin, it is worth remembering that some people do believe that right and wrong exist apart from what society says is acceptable, but do not believe that homosexuality is wrong.

I would say most defenders of gay marriage are not trying to destroy morality, but to make the law reflect morality more truly. Now, I'm sure you wouldn't agree with this, as you've already indicated, but perhaps you can say just why you'd disagree? What in particular about homosexuality makes it immoral? Because I hope you will agree that these questions aren't entirely outside the realm of reasonable discussion.

(I think this is what question 2.3 was getting at, so perhaps it doesn't completely miss the point after all?)

JayT writes "the [aged 60-and over] group that, commonly, has the most life-experience and common sense, afaik."

Oh honestly. Try that argument on any of the issues that really impact people of that age group and see how far you get: Social Security, Medicare. No one suggests that their experience or common sense have anything to do with it, and if anything, those qualities are ignored in the arguments.

Kevin, yes, there are other questions and concerns people have with gays in general. But the reason that *these* questions were asked is that they have legal bearing, and yours really don't. You simply can't deny someone rights because you personally don't like something about them.

This issue oddly reminds me of the political-correctness arguments of the early 90's. Then, conservatives were angered about liberals' sensitivity to hurting the feelings of minority groups: questions like "if we have an Asian Studies major, does it somehow hurt those who consider themselves South Asian?" were pretty much laughed at by many cultural conservatives. But here, the argument against gay marriage is really quite similar: "if gays get married, does it hurt those who aren't gay?"

I'm opposed to Gay Marriage. But you are missing an important point; I have no problems with marriage being between two people both born men, as long as one is now a woman (transgender). I believe that most Americans feel the same. It's about semantics, not about "rights". Here are my answers to your questions:

Set #1

>Do you believe that same-sex couples can fall in love?

Of course

>Is their love lesser than that of contra-sex couples?

Of course not

>Can same-sex couples form commitments as strong, lasting and valuable as those of contra-sex couples?

Of course

>Are same-sex couples as likely as contra-sex couples to raise children well?

The sex doesn't have anything to do with it. Now, the people who make a big issue of their sexuality, probably not.

> If yes to all of the above, what is the relevant difference

The relevant difference is that the term has semantics, and precise use of language is essential to society. If someone objects to a certain legal right being given to "husband and wife", then he should challenge the law and have the right extended to "domestic partners" instead of attempting to redefine "husband and wife".

>Do you believe that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, it will affect contra-sex

Yes, and I believe there is evidence. When marriage is no longer seen as having a sense of exclusivity, then people who would have otherwise been married will opt for domestic partnerships instead. This seems to be the case in Scandinavia, and matches my anecdotal undrstanding of why heterosexuals get married. Heterosexuals do not get married as a way to collect legal benefits, they do so because of religious and social influences, almost all of which would be seriously weakened by broadening the definition of marriage.

>Do you believe that which gender one finds sexually attractive is a matter of choice?

I do not believe it is a binary switch; anyone can find any gender attractive sexually. It's nature and nurture that leads to the choices people make.

>If it's a least partially an element of choice, are there reasons — other than the discriminatory culture in which we live — to

The dominant choice (heterosexuality) is probably both cultural and genetic. We could engage in apologetics as if nature and nurture obey reason, but what's the point?

>sufficiently negative, to ban same-sex marriage?

This is missing the point. Nobody wants to "ban" same-sex civil unions. On the other hand, there is no point in redefining words which have had perfectly clear semantics for millenia, especially when alternate and more precise words exist.

> and you share your daughter's joy. In case #2, Pat is a woman. Do you react differently? How?

If the question that was "popped" was about making a civil union or long-term commitment, then no I would not react differently. But if the question was about "married", I would be disappointed at having raised someone with weak mental faculties. The whole idea doesn't make sense, given the current definition, it would be like marrying a candy bar, which is a desire we outgrow very early.

>Is the difference in reaction justifiable? Why?

Yes, it's important to insist on clear semantics for the words we use.

BTW, I also think it's wrong to focus so much on the "sexual attraction" part. Sexual attraction is an orthogonal issue to marriage. Unless you want to start presuming that gay people should only be sexually attracted to the person they form a civil union with, which would be silly considering that gay people had to fight against people telling them that "you can only be attracted to the opposite sex", what point would there be after breaking free to then willingly throw on an even more restrictive set of legal/societal shackles?

I'll admit it, I like the easy path. So when the Creator says "DO NOT", it makes my life easier to just trust and obey.

Throughout the Bible, it always talks about a man and a woman when discussing marriage. No where (in the Bible)will you find same-sex marital instructions given. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because that same-sex couples were never "designed" to be married? That seems obvious to me.

Adam & Steve = 0 people
Adam & Eve = 6 billion people

After reading the comments here, I wondered what, just for the sake of argument, the people opposed to gay marriage would think if, in 2016:

1. We elected a gay president.

2. He or she took the position that only gay people could marry.

3. And that all hetero marriages were immediately anulled.

He or she explained that your hetero marriage is rogue and an offense to all good people.

What do you think?

Hmm, my viewpoint is the over-60 crowd is the generation that grew up with the least amount of gay relationships, as far as people in their lives being openly gay (except of course for people like me making their grandparents deal with the issue). But gay friends at that time would largely go off to urban centers and be gay, and out of their lives. So, yes, on this issue, I do think they are disconnected, not because of age, but because they were less like to ever have been connected.

As for the Bible as justification for your life? Fine. Good for you. As the justification for our laws? Sorry, got a problem there. Not to mention that everyone's favorite Old Testament verse against gays (Leviticus) also goes on to speak out against other atrocities such as planting two different crops in one field, wearing fabrics made out of two types of cloth (although all gays know from birth to avoid poly-cotton blends), and eating shellfish. So, same-sex relationship/eating at Red Lobster, it's all a problem.

As for Jesus, Bush's favorite philosopher, he had nothing to say about homosexuality. Not a thing. But he certainly hated divorce. Didn't mince words about that.

So, if you like the good books, really, you have to use the whole thing, not just the highlights.

"You simply can't deny someone rights because you personally don't like something about them."

Glad to hear that also. So you admit you can't deny me my right to see a legal marriage as obviously being between a man and a woman?

And you can't deny that right, just because you don't like something about me, right?

Thank you.

"So, if you like the good books, really, you have to use the whole thing, not just the highlights."

You shouldn't discuss books with which you have neither knowledge nor any direct experience, as you so obviously indicate in your posts above, "Mr." Walsh.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"After reading the comments here, I wondered what, just for the sake of argument, the people opposed to gay marriage would think if, in 2016:

1. We elected a gay president."

Well, if you'd be so kind as to give me the names of the first Black President and the first Woman President, AND THE YEAR, and then I'd cogitate my navel some more. One being essential and the other highly indicative, if you're gonna muse.

"2. He or she took the position that only gay people could marry."

I don't think he'd or she'd be elected in the first place in the year 2016.

"3. And that all hetero marriages were immediately anulled."

Well that's pretty easy to extrapolate, based on what's going on now that that IS being done in SF and other places.

"He or she explained that your hetero marriage is rogue and an offense to all good people."

Yeah, that's the part of the current discussion that I abhor. Don't care for that attitude, especially from snot-nosed punks.

"What do you think?"

You see what you see. You get what you see. Dunno what YOU think you think, tho.

I will focus on the final question of set #2, which basically asks if there is a sufficiently strong reason to ban gay marriage. My opposition is based on the following beliefs.

1. I believe that a homosexual lifestyle is harmful to the participants, and is harmful to society.

2. Those who are psychologically vulnerable to homosexual temptations are more likely to give in to them if society tells them it is ok or normal.

3. Legalization of homosexual marriage sends the message that the homosexual lifestyle is valid, which will result in more people choosing a lifestyle that is harmful to themselves and society.

Of course, we wouldn't elect a gay president today. (Well, Buchanan was likely gay, but that was a different time; and Lincoln was likely bi, but again, different time).

Merely asking these questions reveals, if not "partisanship", then a fundamental difference in viewpoint, which lies at the core of the so-called "culture wars". The Enlightenment ideals of critical skepticism and humanist concern for individual autonomy (i.e. liberty) is at the heart of these questions. Very non-Enlightenment values, attitudes and beliefs are revealed by some of the answers from those inclined to argue against "gay marriage".

The absolutist, who claims that right is right, and wrong is wrong, but can give little more than references to arbitrary religious faith, tradition, or a non-rational moral "sense" occupies a very different worldview than someone, who thinks public policy and notions of right and wrong or good and bad ought to rest on some kind of appreciation of the consequences in terms of the life experiences of individual human beings. Someone, who asks, "what's it to you if a stranger makes personal choices and government provides reasonable accomodation for those choices?", has quite a different worldview from someone, who is upset that a "tiny minority" is getting "too much" attention from Big Daddy Government.

There are many dimensions to these differences in worldview, but they come down, in the case of marriage, to a stark bifurcation. Marriage, as a "legal" institution, up to 50 years ago, was predominantly, part of an authoritarian system of control over sexual behavior. Marriage was a license by the State, and by the Church, to engage in sexual behavior. All sexual behavior outside of marriage, and not "open to procreation", was sinful, and not incidentally, probably illegal as well. Fornication, adultery, sodomy, even masturbation in some States, was illegal; contraceptives, even for married people, were regulated; divorce required obtaining the approval of a court, an often difficult proceeding.

The current controversy over "gay marriage" marks a new high water mark for the non-authoritarian concept that marriage is primarily a special kind of contract between two people and fundamentally, a voluntary and private relationship, entered into by personal right.

License or contract? These are very different "memes" for marriage, and contract has achieved predominance to the extent that contract is often the assumed basis for debate. But, many people opposed to gay marriage are holding on to the license model, whether they realize it or not.

Only last summer the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, with the majority asserting that the sodomy statute targeting homosexual intercourse had "no rational basis". Both the majority and the dissenters asserted the primary purpose of the sodomy law seemed to be merely to indicate that the State thought homosexuality was a morally "bad" thing. The majority said that did not constitute a sufficient rational basis for intruding on personal privacy and autonomy. Dissenters could not understand how a State declaration of moral "right" and "wrong" could not be "rational" and further asserted that without such essentially arbitrary assertions of "right" and "wrong" there would be no basis for State statutes prohibiting any number of other sexual behaviors, including prostitution, incest, bigamy, etc.

Essentially, the Supreme Court majority asked itself the kinds of questions asked here about "gay marriage" and came up with nada, and struck down the sodomy law.

The conservative dissenters, led by Scalia, could not understand what the majority was talking about. 1. The dissenters see moral concepts of good and bad as being somewhat arbitrary and not derived solely from a rational assessment of consequences for individual human beings; 2. the dissenters do not see individual autonomy as a paramount value.

It is a remarkable contrast. I don't think rational skepticism and valuing individual autonomy necessarily lead to political approval for "gay marriage" per se, just as they don't necessarily make a person a "liberal" instead of "conservative." But, the debate among people, who accept skepticism and autonomy as a foundation is very different from the non-conversation one can have with true believer, who can't believe people he doesn't know in distant places are not willing to live their lives in such a way as not to disturb the equanimity derived from his arbitrary notions of right and wrong.

>You shouldn't discuss books with which you have neither knowledge nor any direct experience, as you so obviously indicate in your posts above, "Mr." Walsh.

Using that logic, almost no one could use the Bible as their justification.

But, really, Leviticus says shellfish is an abomination, judge for yourself:

Leviticus 11 (9-12)

9   These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10   And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11   They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12   Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

So, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to going from that being the divine word of God, yet I don't know anyone who follows that advice, to Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 being the main supposedly antigay passages in the Bible. Did Leviticus just get off to a bad start, but it's all good from the teens on?

Like I said, "Mr." Walsh, you are better off hiding your ignorance of these things. But, as you wish:

You are aware that some of the prohibitions sewn into Religious Scriptures are based on VERY sound dietary advice during the times they were written. And those times they were lived by, served them well.

Refrigerators and stoves does a lot to "invalidate" passages in the Bible and other similar Scriptures. So?

Your point is that you have little frame-of-reference to be quoting things you don't understand, in order to supposedly make a point about a tangential issue.

"Merely asking these questions reveals, if not 'partisanship', then a fundamental difference in viewpoint, which lies at the core of the so-called 'culture wars'."

VERY TRUE!!

"License or contract? These are very different "memes" for marriage".

I believe that identifies the crux of the issue, because mature, intelligent and logical people are more-than-a-little beyond the point of looking at marriage as a "meme".

Of course, anybody can believe any ignorance they choose.

"The Enlightenment ideals of critical skepticism and humanist concern for individual autonomy (i.e. liberty) is at the heart of these questions. Very non-Enlightenment values, attitudes and beliefs are revealed by some of the answers from those inclined to argue against 'gay marriage'."

I'm outta here.

There is a limit to how much ignorance I can keep up with.

Iow, there should be (and are) laws against the ignorant discussing things about which they have no knowledge to discuss.

Then there's the other question of whether a person has direct experience of what they claim to know, or are they quoting the PC or CW.

Then there's the further question of how much a person lives what they claim for others to live by.

However, these latter two issues are moot considering people ignorant people are discussing "Enlightenment". Thanks for the chat, but no thanks.

For those that think civil unions are good enough, you may want to read the article in TIME magazine from last week (or the week before?).

Basically, a civil union is worthless. You don't get any of the legal rights and benefits of being married. And it turns out there are many aspects of Federal law alone where being married conveys significant rights and benefits.

Basically, I think it's sad that people like Douglas feel their personal belief system is so important that it justfies not allowing gay marriage. In the end of course, it won't matter. Eventually they'll gain the right. So why fight it now? Why force pain?

As to whether or not it's ok to alter millenia of tradition... yes, of course it's ok. Just because it used to be that way doesn't mean it should continue to be that way.

If you truly believe in God, then step aside. Let gays marry. If that's an abomination. Fine, God'll send them to hell right? Let him be the judge. Isn't that what you believe after all?

"So, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to going from that being the divine word of God, yet I don't know anyone who follows that advice, to Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 being the main supposedly antigay passages in the Bible. Did Leviticus just get off to a bad start, but it's all good from the teens on?"

Hi Jeff, Jeff here.

No knowing anyone that follows God's word doesn't really disqualify it, does it? That's like saying I don't really have to stop at the stop light, because no one else does.

I wouldn't say that Levitcus is the main passage for this issue. I think the Bible in its entirety is clear. But specifically, Romans 1:25 thru the end. But as I mentioned before, whenever the Bible discusses the marriage issue, it refers to a man, and a woman (or husband and wife, to be more specific). The Bible gives clear commands on the role of a man and woman in a marriage. Because it never gives commands for a man and a man (or two women) in same-sex relationships, we can logically deduce that that type of relationship is not considered 1) a marriage and 2) viable.

No, Brian it isn't.

We believe that those that reject Jesus Christ will suffer hell.

OK, now I'm confused Jeff.

Are you saying that gay people can't accept Christ?

Regardless... let them marry! Let God sort everyone out at the end. If you're right, so be it. And if your wrong, well, hopefully he'll forgive you your sins :)

> Some people may consider the Supreme Court of the
> United States of America the highest authority in
> the land. I, however, believe in a much higher
> authority - Jesus Christ. Thanks :-)

I've read through all the red-letter print in my Bible, and I can't see that Jesus had much of anything to say about gay folks, one way or the other. And this is rather odd, because Jesus lived in the Roman empire, where homosexuality wasn't exactly rare. (Actually, Jesus lived in the portion of the Roman empire which spoke classical Greek--another reason to suspect he was perfectly aware of homosexuality.)

So if homosexuality is such a great sin, then why the big silence on Jesus's part?

> Yes, I am one of those "old fashion" people that
> believe that right is right and wrong is wrong,
> no matter what society says is acceptable.

Well, I'm glad to hear you believe in morality. You might or might not be surprised to learn that most of the gay folks (including the ones getting married) believe in right and wrong, too.

You are confused, Bryan, as you admit.

In more ways than one.

"Are you saying that gay people can't accept Christ?"

Can pedophiles accept Christ? Apparently TO AN EXTENT (in our society), so...??

"If you truly believe in God, then step aside. Let gays marry."

And this would be FROM someone claiming to believe in God, or not? If not, then why do you speak on the issues from this viewpoint?? Now THAT's pretty sad, Bryan.

(In answer to my question: Because your viewpoint Bryan is illogical, and so lame that this is, apparently, your best way to express it's validity, no doubt. By attacking something you admit you're confused about and obviously know nothing about and don't claim to know. As many others have done.)

Regardless... let them not marry, if it's gonna all be sorted out at the end, anyway, Right Bryan?

Mr. Joshua Allen nailed it, except with regard to banning civil unions. I'm starting to lean that way, NOT so much because the pseudo-points of those opposed to different-sex marriage (unintentionally, of COURSE) are SO self-contradictory and illogical, btw.

But because I keep hearing that "this is gonna happen no matter what", and "civil unions are a good FIRST STEP", over and over again. This is, I believe, the PRIMARY reason (and my only reason on this aspect) why more and more people are opposing, not only homosexual marriage but, homosexual civil unions.

Yep, it's sad...

I think gays can accept Christ. I personally separate spirituality from religion. I think the former is useful, and the latter destructive at times.

Give gays all the tax breaks, inheritance rights, and everything else associated with marriage, and like 80% of people will be like call it whatever you want. Since everything has been codified to the word "marriage," it is just easier to attach to what exists already.

Sure, you will always have people who want marriage and the whole package, but... really, never has been my fight. If I can visit my lover in a hospital room, benefit from our estate after he dies without having to prove in court that our legal arrangement surpasses his family's interests, and all of this other stuff people take for granted, that's fine. I'm fine staying with someone I love out of love, and building something of our own.

I could care less what you call that.

And, jayT is gone now, but why was I always addressed as "Mr." Walsh. Why the quotes? Was he trying to get me to call him Mr. T? I pity the fool who sets traps like that.

"Well, I'm glad to hear you believe in morality. You might or might not be surprised to learn that most of the gay folks (including the ones getting married) believe in right and wrong, too."

I'm not surprised. Doesn't mean a homosexual has any more likelihood of practicing right and wrong well, of course.

And what a person believes in wrt right and wrong and what a person practices are not always the same or even similar. In fact rarely. That's why hypocricy is one of the CENTRAL points of ANY discussion of ANY topic of ANY depth. That's why it's best to view discussions from more than just the single pov of "morality", btw.

I apologize Mr. Walsh... I slipped back in fer a sec.

"I'm fine staying with someone I love out of love, and building something of our own.

I could care less what you call that."

Funny, but there are apparently few of this kind of common-sense understanding, especially young folks.

I called you "Mr." Walsh from feigned respect, because you do not respect your elders in experience (let alone the obvious data-point of age, and yeah.. I actually DO know that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between age and wisdom). You forget that I learned, with time, being raised on the motto "Never trust anyone over 30" and seeing how it ended up being pretty shallow "words of wisdom".

You can know something, without KNOWING it very well.

Heh. Can't be quoting gendered terms in sexuality debates, though. People look for other messages. :-)

"My bad"...;-D

Guess I forgot to ferget I happen to be of the Male "persuasion" of the Species...

(snort... but seriously, this comes up within discussions between Males and Females an AWFUL LOT, ya knowhaimean? Comes up in "strictly technical" discussion, too!?! Like personality is separate (and CAN be totally and completely separated, let alone should be) in a technical discussion, right?...;-)

I thought you were outta, JayT. It's "couldn't care less" by the way.

"Bible discusses the marriage issue, it refers to a man, and a woman (or husband and wife, to be more specific)"

That's interesting, considering that "husband", for example, isn't necessarily a "male".

Ah we "meet" again, "pb".

I'm not sure what planet you come from, "pb", where "husband" isn't necessarily a "male". Is there an exception (in the Bible, common-usage, or any other writing and/or any Scripture that one has experience of)...???

Perhaps, but that exception wouldn't signify except to "outta here" folks like "pb".

Just wondering if you're afraid to be more public about who you are "pb", and what "persuasion" of the Species you happen to be.

(I'd guess young, flippant, well-educated and spirited but light on logic, male-geek... Could be entirely wrong, of course. I'm sure people who know you better than I MEBBE could guess more accurately.)

I'm similar to what I describe "pb" as, btw, except 49 and (hopefully) stronger on logic and weaker on mouthing off without the facts.

Well, as someone who actually does take Leviticus seriously and won't eat shellfish or knowingly wear a mixture of wool and linen.... I'm pretty amused by people who want to take their peculiar misreading of the Bible and make it into law.

I really don't understand why American law should reflect an inherently anarchic, heretical 20th century Protestant viewpoint, rather than, say, a traditional Jewish (no shellfish), Catholic (no divorce) or Founding Father (freethinking unitarian) perspective.

But the real question is: If we were in a militant homesexual regime, and heterosexual love was forbidden.... would we try to pass? Would we remain celibate? Or would our other-sexual attraction overcome our desire for propriety and societal respect?

Guy on radio today: "first this, and then animals and dead people..." Yea, Sir, did one of us forget the meaning of "love"? Did you also know that pizza leads to fattier foods, like cheesecake and ravioli!

Kevin:

I am one of those "old fashion" people that believe that right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter what society says is acceptable.

I'm one of those new-fashioned people who believe that right is right and wrong is wrong in spite of what your bible says. Try putting it down and seeking some empirical facts about the world around you and then go at them with some sound logic. Keep the well-being of your fellow human beings in mind while you do. You may be surprised how far that'll take you. And with no supernatural beings or ancient people to guide you!

Even if you won't try my suggestion, there's no reason why the law of this country we share should reflect your viewpoint when it clearly is based on religion and nothing much else.

Kevin:

I'm not Kevin, obviously but:

I am one of those "old fashion" people that believe that right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter what society says is acceptable.

Seems logical so far.

I'm one of those new-fashioned people who believe that right is right and wrong is wrong in spite of what your bible says. Try putting it down and seeking some empirical facts about the world around you and then go at them with some sound logic.

You are one of those new-fashioned people that refuses to use your mental faculties. That's obvious by the fact that I have never been much of a Bible reader, compared to some, and apply sound logic in my posts which has yet to be adequately addressed, let alone refuted.

Keep the well-being of your fellow human beings in mind while you do. You may be surprised how far that'll take you. And with no supernatural beings or ancient people to guide you!

Speaking of using your intellect as a tool, have you read much pre-Gutenberg, "scott"...?? Or even read any pre-2004 lately...???

Even if you won't try my suggestion, there's no reason why the law of this country we share should reflect your viewpoint when it clearly is based on religion and nothing much else.

Since we share this country, there is no reason why the law of this country should reflect your mistaken viewpoints either, right?

The points debated being considered to reflect SOLELY RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS, AND NOT MUCH ELSE is a convenient straw man to build, I would observe. Or did you skip over the posters that might disagree, or misunderstand them, Scott..??

Gays can not form a lasting relationsip.. Tey are sick in the head. They go crazy and can't comit and eventually die of aids.

It's Pat!

The whole issue looks like a fine example of wedge politics, where during an election year, divisive and emotional issues are focussed on, so that votes are more easily split and weakened. Dave Winer's point that there are much bigger problems than this issue is, I think, correct, and those are the issues we should focus on.

It is also interesting to see that David poses his questions to "reasonable, good-hearted Americans who oppose same sex marriage", but quite a few unreasonable and less than good hearted Americans responded too.

Of course sodomites (to use the biblical term) can accept Christ as Saviour, that's why He came, so that none would be lost.

The only thing that leads a soul to hell, according to the bible, is the rejection of Christ.

Will you accept His death on the cross as the payment of your sins, or will you not?

The key to understanding the entire Bible lies in your relationship with Christ. It is a spiritual book, one that the natural man (unregenerated) does not fully understand.

Try it yourself, read the Bible without knowing Christ as Saviour.

Then ask Him to forgive you of your sins, accept and receive His death on the cross as the propitiation of your life and follow Him.

Now read the Bible again.

See the difference?

It's been fascinating watch this discussion expand out more than focus in. I'm going to continue the expanding out...

I don't read the Bible the way some of you do. In fact, my tradition insists that reading the Bible is always and necessarily and gloriously an act of human interpretation of a divine text, guided by a history of learned, community interpretation. So, I can't point at passages and say "See!" because, without interpretation (my tradition says) there is literally nothing to see.

I note this not so we can argue it. I state it as a premise that I think we're stuck with: Our traditions differ not only about the content of the written revelation (i.e., my testament looks "Old" to you, and your "New" testament I don't accept as applicable to me) but also about our understanding of how to appropriate these texts. We're not going to change one another's minds about this. That's my premise.

So, given that premise, how can we live together in a civil society? Do I have to live by your moral code? Is there any room for differences in interpretation of the written revelation? Is the separation of Church and State a mistake?

I understand and respect the belief that the Bible provides unerring and unarguable guidance for human moral behavior. But in a pluralistic world, I just don't know what to do with that belief. So, help me. (And "Accept Jesus as your savior" is no more helpful than is "Get a Mac" when your PC is broken.)

Fook.

Wrote a detailed reply and goofed it.

I dunno...

Hi David,

Even after reading your entry, I'm not sure where you stand...

But I wonder if my point was lost or vague.

The point is this, God desires a realtionship with us. Jesus came to close the gap between man and Diety.

When we allow that gap to be closed by Christ, we begin to see God's point of view.

So my suggestion to "accept Christ" was an attempt to say listen to the Bible. Even in the Old Test. all sign were pointing to Christ.

The thrust of the scripture is to get us to see God's point of view, understand him and get on his side of the gap." He says "Come now, let us reason together..."

He's willing to work with us, bring us along, grow us up. In my mind, (and in scripture)accepting Christ is where it all begins.

Up until age 27, I was a practicing heathen, even pro-homosexual. 10 yrs after meeting Christ, I'm on his side.

JayT:

Why does it bother you so much when I suggest that we base our ethical decisions upon actual, observable, real world events rather than the dictates of imaginary supernatural beings? Is it too much to ask that when we make these important decisions that we weigh out the costs and benefits to humanity as best we can, rather than argue about the rules of our ancient, barbaric ancestors and their superstitious cosmology?

Basing ethical decisions on anything except the most reliable facts we have on hand, plus the proper application of logic and critical thinking, is morally wrong. Yes, it is morally wrong to base ethical decisions on the New Testament, or what the pope says, or what we divine to be God's wishes. Morally. Wrong.

To put it another way, I don't give a rat's behind what the pope says (for example). I know darned well that people should be using condoms to stop the spread of AIDS. And so do you. Basing a moral decision on "what God wants" is disgusting. Whatever Jesus said, you can have it. I'll stick to mere rational analysis of the facts. No child should die to please your imaginary sky friend.

And I have yet to hear one - even one - compelling argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on tradition or religion as its anchor. Not one. Don't you think that's odd? That in all this debate, I haven't heard one argument against gay marriage that stands up to the most cursory anaysis of the facts?

I said that the government is under no obligation to adopt your religious viewpoint. You counter that they are under no obligation to adopt my view either. So we're at an impasse. That is, if you consider our views to be equally defensible morally and constitutionally. I don't. My view is superior on both accounts: morally because it tries to weight out issues with regard to the well-being of real people in the real world; constitutionally because doing so doesn't require stepping over the church-state wall of separation like yours does.

"Why does it bother you so much when I suggest that we base our ethical decisions upon actual, observable, real world events rather than the dictates of imaginary supernatural beings?"

It doesn't in the least. That is my point. You are, unfortunately, NOT basing your ethical decisions upon actual, observable, real world events.

Nobody does. The brain is an amazing filtering device, that filters almost everything out by "design", evolution, happenstance or serendipity matters not one wit.

"Basing ethical decisions on anything except the most reliable facts we have on hand, plus the proper application of logic and critical thinking, is morally wrong."

That would imply that you have a better understanding of ethics than I do, Scott. Facts, themselves, being a matter of interpretation, you confound your own logic to impute that you have much understanding of what is moral and what is not.

If it WAS a problem that could be decomposed in a logic-tree of verifiable facts (which this is NOT, btw), then morality wouldn't come into play, would it??

Thus your reasoning itself is flawed, yet you say (and/or imply, whatever) that your reasoning is more sound than mine.

"Basing a moral decision on "what God wants" is disgusting."

Perhaps to you, Scott. To me? Perhaps, perhaps not, but either way it's a WHOLE LOT less disgusting than basing a moral decision on what Scott wants.

Which is where your logic begins and ends, Scott.

"And I have yet to hear one - even one - compelling argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on tradition or religion as its anchor."

Now that would be because...??

1) You don't adequately hear what you are reading
2) You MUST impute that the arguments against gay marriage are solely based on religion (otherwise you might induce yourself to hearing another pov)
3) You have little understanding of tradition and none whatsover of religion, as you show
4) Even if you did have some intellectual understanding of traditions and Religions, you would need to also have some direct experience of same besides an intellectual semi-awareness, in order to even partially-intellectually-understand whats involved.

"That is, if you consider our views to be equally defensible morally and constitutionally."

That would be two issues corn-fused as one issue.

"I don't."

Obviously, I don't either.

"My view is superior on both accounts:"

That this is where your pov begins and ends and leads to impasse is not surprising, in the least, Scott. Goes back to arrogant children telling their elders what is what, as I've posted before.

Scott,

You say that you've yet to hear an argument based on an analysis of the facts...

Okay, try this, and I really don't intend to be crude...

A man has a penis, it is designed (primarily) for reproduction. A woman has a vagina, it is designed (primarily) to receive seed from a man's penis and allow the sperm and egg to develop into a real, live, human being. After maturation, the newly formed human emerges from the womb. When this human is fully grown, they will be able to continue the process of reproduction, thus perpetuating our kind.

On the other hand, a man's penis was not designed to fit into a man's anus. Most will fit, but that was not the apparent intention. Natural selection tells us that the act of inserting a penis into an anus has no reproductive benefits and will therefore not survive as a species. (Same with a vagina-on-vagina sernario.)

If it was a natural intention, why do not other kinds (or species) also insert their penis into one another's anus. The dogs don't do it. The horses don't do it. Why not? Are they just ignorant to the pleasure and fullfillment of such an activity?

They must be, because they ignorantly plod along inserting their penises into vaginas.

Just by observing the animal kingsom, we can see it is not a good idea to insert our penis into an anus, or rub vaginas together. It is illogical based on the design, function and purpose of the penis and the vagina.

[Wrote this last night, saved to Notepad, but have decided to post after all.]

Btw, I occasionally go to look at the blog of a poster, Scott, but errored out on trying yours for some reason. If you're the same Scott who posted on a different thread here on Hyperorg, then I've been meaning to ask:

How does three consenting adults work for you (and your (heterosexual) mate, too)...?!? How does a 40-year-old Step-Father and semi-consenting teenage Step-Daughter work?!?

How does a 20- 30-something and a 2 1/2 year old girl work for you, Scott?? (A 2 1/2 old girl having a body of an "adult-enough-woman" [according to more than one person, not including me] and being UNABLE to NOT consent, nor even partially-realize for decades later that something was much remiss about the relationship(s).)

No, accepting ANYTHING two (or three or 5 or hundreds of Jonesian) consenting quasi-adults want to do hidden behind their own walls is MUCH too imprecise and/or too dangerous and/or too "liberal".. for my views and does NOT work for me (and I'd imagine some other logical people regardless of Religion).

Land of the free and the home of the brave...I think not...

Here you go, JT:

hus·band ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hzbnd)
n.

1. A man joined to a woman in marriage; a male spouse.
2. Chiefly British. A manager or steward, as of a household.
3. Archaic. A prudent, thrifty manager.

Wow, that's quite a slippery slope you've imagined there, JayT. From two consenting adults to a 30-year-old and a 2-year-old! Do you seriously think the latter scenario would ever be recognized legally, let alone condoned by society?

Jeff T, there's quite a bit of documented evidence for homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Try reading something other than the Bible, you might learn something.

>>If it was a natural intention, why do not other kinds (or species) also insert their penis into one another's anus. The dogs don't do it. The horses don't do it. Why not? Are they just ignorant to the pleasure and fullfillment of such an activity?

Since I have been chastized in here for answering questions without sufficient knowledge, I will be clear that I am not a zooligist or naturist. But to say homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom is a bit much. I also hate to say that I don't only think people are gay because of and during anal sex. I also don't think heterosexuality is entirely about vaginal penetration, one would hope there were a ton of feelings, emotions, life experiences, friendships, and a ton of other subtleties tied to sexuality. Seems strange to tie everything to the one thing you seemingly dislike. I only officially dislike things I've tried at least twice.

But here is a whole book on Animal Homosexuality, and umm, you know there's a whole thing called Google with information. Although I do realize research kills speculative posts (and, no, JayT, I'm not reading the Bible for you).

"Bruce Bagemihl writes that Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was a "labor of love." And indeed it must have been, since most scientists have thus far studiously avoided the topic of widespread homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom--sometimes in the face of undeniable evidence. Bagemihl begins with an overview of same-sex activity in animals, carefully defining courtship patterns, affectionate behaviors, sexual techniques, mating and pair-bonding, and same-sex parenting. He firmly dispels the prevailing notion that homosexuality is uniquely human and only occurs in "unnatural" circumstances. As far as the nature-versus-nurture argument--it's obviously both, he concludes. An overview of biologists' discomfort with their own observations of animal homosexuality over 200 years would be truly hilarious if it didn't reflect a tendency of humans (and only humans) to respond with aggression and hostility to same-sex behavior in our own species. In fact, Bagemihl reports, scientists have sometimes been afraid to report their observations for fear of recrimination from a hidebound (and homophobic) academia. Scientists' use of anthropomorphizing vocabulary such as insulting, unfortunate, and inappropriate to describe same-sex matings shows a decided lack of objectivity on the part of naturalists."

Jeff T: You might want to take a look at http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html. A select quotation: "There are homosexual and bisexual animals, ranging from charismatic megafauna like mountain gorillas to cats, dogs and guinea pigs. There are transgendered animals, transvestite animals (who adopt the behavior of the other gender but don't have sex with their own), and animals who live in bisexual triads and quartets."

Whoops. Looks like the other Jeff found the Salon link before I did. Sorry about that!

Thanks, fellas, thanks for pointing that out to me.

I will confess my post was dependent on my (limited) analysis of the facts.

On the issue of homosexuality in animals, I stand humbly corrected. And you made some good points also Jeff Walsh.

"Wow, that's quite a slippery slope you've imagined there, JayT. From two consenting adults to a 30-year-old and a 2-year-old! Do you seriously think the latter scenario would ever be recognized legally, let alone condoned by society?"

You apparently failed to read well, "Bob Roberts", because it was "condoned" by the society the young woman lived in. That's how such things as incest happen. By definition, homosexuality is not incestual, of course. Case of similarities and differences, as always.

"Jeff T, there's quite a bit of documented evidence for homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Try reading something other than the Bible, you might learn something."

I knew somebody was going to bring this up. There are cases of murder within the animal kingdom, as well. So??

You heard-a Cain and Abel, right? And people wonder why that missing link has been SO HARD ta-find, fer some daggone reason...!?!

(Same questions to anybody else, btw.)

"pb", I figured you'd show of your intellectual understanding of these things, but getting back to the definition of "common usage", practical definitions vs. textbook and all that... ?

Yeah, "a manager or steward, as of a household" can be a Female, but was commonly construed as Male in times past, right?

"3. Archaic. A prudent, thrifty manager."

Yeah, that's archaic as in both sexes. Point is how this tail-end-a the thread avoids discussion of any major issues, imv.

(Btw, I goofed the italics on that last paragraph in my prior post above, assuming it hasn't been deleted. Entirely, put the emphasis on the wrong sil-aaa'ble...;-)-;

Bob Roberts,

I will try to take your (mean spirited) advice and read other books. But I will never quit reading my Bible. I've only read it fully through three times, but it just keep getting better!

I really get to go to Heaven, dood!

Oh... Forgot to ask:

Given the percentages of known homosexuality, bisexuality and murder in the Animal Kingdom, and given that Homo "Sapiens" is, in some small or large part, a naked ape:

Well, given the estmated percentage of same found in (Wo)ManKind, what is your best guess as to the chance that these behaviours are exclusively genetically inclined???

My guess is near-zero.

I can read perfectly well, "JayT". In what society is pedophilia condoned? Yes, it certainly occurs, but does any society at large actually condone it? Can you give me an example?

We don't chose our sexual orientation & we have no control over what makes our you-know-what hard. Did you at some point decide you wanted to be attracted to women or did it just happen?

Being gay doesn't mean anal sex - it's about attraction, not action. I've never had anal sex & I find the idea sort of distasteful, yet most straight gay-bashers are obsessed with it.

Redefining the meaning of the word marriage is a very weak argument. Meanings of words always evolve over time. What we call "marriage" actually has two meanings: religious marriage & the civil contract (the marriage license) which gives married couples many legal benefits non-married couples don't have. Some churches do perform gay marriages, so banning gay marriage will be going against those churches. The real issue is the many legal benefits that piece of paper gives the "married" couple, such as hospital visitation, filing a joint tax return, etc.

JeffT, I wasn't being explicit about my position, which is probably why you left the post unsure of where I stand.

1. I don't believe Jesus is my savior or my messiah. I am delighted (truly) that he is yours. I'm a Jew, albeit an agnostic one. Our idea of a messiah is different than yours. Further, Jews are a people. You're born a Jew or you're not. Judaism (as I understand it) is not primarily a set of beliefs one can adopt, any more than one can decide to become an Italian or Romanian. Many of those beliefs apply only to Jews: There's no reason for non-Jews to keep kosher. Y'all can go ahead and follow your own laws.

2. There is one particularly Christian belief that IMO we need to curb in order to allow us differently-religioned people to live together: Universalism. I believe God reveals Himself differently to different peoples, and He's one smart dude for figuring that out. In order to get along, we can't claim our revelation is the only true one. Even if we all accept that there are multiple revelations and multiple ways of being religious, we'll still have plenty to work out and talk about. But this idea that any one of us has an absolute, irrefutable, undiscussable lock on the one truth really makes it hard for all of us to share a planet. Would it really damage your religious experience so much if you were to acknowledge that God is amazing enough to reveal Himself differently but truly to different peoples? That God is mysterious and rich enough in meaning that someone can not believe in Jesus as savior and be in some important sense right? If this is an argument one religion has to win, well, we're doomed.

3. Consenting adult pairs who are in love ought to be allowed to marry. Alternatively, the government ought to get out of the marriage business and leave that to religions. Why not extend this to adult threesomes? Because I'm not working blindly to some principle. I know too many happy, committed gay couples to think that discriminating against them is ok. I do know one happy, committed, long-term menage a trois, but it's too freaking weird to make normal. Inconsistent? Yeah, well, I don't much believe in the power of principles. I do believe in the power of love. (Wait, Jews are supposed to believe the other way around. Do I have to become a Christian now? :)

JayT:

You are, unfortunately, NOT basing your ethical decisions upon actual, observable, real world events... Nobody does. The brain is an amazing filtering device...

Huh? Look, it's simple. I am for making ethical decisions based on our best information about their actual impact on real people in the real world. You, on the other hand, place the dictates of God above all this. Do you deny it?

That would imply that you have a better understanding of ethics than I do, Scott.

It would, wouldn't it.

...but either way it's a WHOLE LOT less disgusting than basing a moral decision on what Scott wants.

Actually, it woudn't. Because Scott is a real person with a real interest in his own well being. God is imaginary. See the difference? Therefore, a moral decision based on what Scott wants, as selfish as that would be, would at least please one real person. Basing it on what God wants pleases...an imaginary person.

You have little understanding of tradition and none whatsover of religion...

Actually I studied religion at Carroll College as an undergraduate. I was one project away from claiming the major, but for pragmatic reasons had to claim it as a minor and move on. I did, however, get inducted into theta alpha kappa, the national honor society for religious studies/theology. I don't say all this to establish myself as an expert in anything, but rather to dispell your idea that I know nothing about traditional religion. Try some other way to discredit me.

Bob Roberts, in the family I spoke for one and some Catholic and Buddhist communities I am familiar with for a few more.

"We don't chose our sexual orientation & we have no control over what makes our you-know-what hard."

I'm sorry to hear that, as my understanding is that the Male awareness tends towards awarenessing sex once every 9 seconds. I do not know the methodology of these assumptions/conclusions, and it may have been 7 seconds, iirc).

That some churches perform homosexual marriages is, therefore, unsurprising. That most Churches do NOT is not surprising, to me, anyway.

"Being [a Male] gay doesn't [necessarily] mean anal sex - [as sexual attractions, well..] it's about attraction, not [only attraction in] action. I've never had anal sex & I find the idea sort of distasteful, yet most straight gay-bashers [and some percentage of Males (both gays and otherwise)] are obsessed with it."

Imo.

David,

Thank you for your delight in me as I delight in my Saviour!

Sincerely, thank you!

Jeff T

Doc W:

If this is an argument one religion has to win, well, we're doomed.

3. Consenting adult pairs who are in love ought to be allowed to marry.

So, I say apparently, these two are some how related???

If so, then why is your religion which encompasses homosexual marriage being demanded to win out over those that don't...???

Given: "But this idea that any one of us has an absolute, irrefutable, undiscussable lock on the one truth really makes it hard..."

Jay T -- do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that some Catholic and Buddhist communities condone pedophilia? Links please?

Jeff T:

You say that you've yet to hear an argument based on an analysis of the facts... Okay, try this, and I really don't intend to be crude...

What say we leave this part of the discussion to the biologists who actualy study these things? I'm not suggesting we accept what they say based on authority, but rather on the fact that they use the scieintific method for discovering the truth about the world. What the biological facts are must be determined by those who use empirical analysis to discover them, as opposed to religious pseudo-scientists with a religous agenda. Let's agree: we'll accept as "the best facts avaiable" whatever the scientific commuinty can establish a reasonable consensus on.

And as others have noted, homosexuality is indeed observed in other species, especially in those most closely related to homo sapiens. Intereseting, no?

Btw, I occasionally go to look at the blog of a poster, Scott, but errored out on trying yours for some reason.

Thanks for visiting! Yeah godaddy has apparently screwed up my DNS record so my domain name doesn't resolve to my server. They're "working on it."

If you're the same Scott who posted on a different thread here on Hyperorg, then I've been meaning to ask: How does three consenting adults work for you..

Uh, perhaps I'm not who you think I am because I've never in my life suggested that 3 or more people could or should get married. In fact I have elsewhere on the web posted the exact opposite opinion. In great detail and with much emphasis, even. And suggesting that allowing gay marriage somehow leads to incest and child rape is just willfully ignorant and belies the ugliness of your mind and heart.

"Look, it's simple. I am for making ethical decisions based on our best information about their actual impact on real people in the real world.

You would be oversimplifying, considerably, to use a word "our" without defining it even imprecisely.

Btw, I wasn't questioning whether you were a real person or not, Scott, and find that assertion somewhat amusing.

You, on the other hand, place the dictates of God above all this. Do you deny it?"

I not only deny it, but assert that I wouldn't even dream of discussing "G-d" or eyn sof or whatever on and around and through a forum called "JOHO the blog".

You misunderstand a lot of what I'm writing, Scott, afaik.

Uh, perhaps I'm not who you think I am because I've never in my life suggested that 3 or more people could or should get married. In fact I have elsewhere on the web posted the exact opposite opinion. In great detail and with much emphasis, even.

Perhaps you are the same Scott that posted "How does that work for YOU..." !! over on another thread here-abouts?

At any rate, that was my point, also! :-D

On what point of logic was it decided that two's company, three's a crowd when it comes to marriage?

This, I still look for.

And suggesting that allowing gay marriage somehow leads to incest and child rape is just willfully ignorant and belies the ugliness of your mind and heart.

Uh... Imputing that I wrote that one leads to the other is a twisted set of affairs, in my mind.

But I would ask if you thought I was implying that homosexuality leads to murder, as well, Scott?? And whether these things are related or not is not at issue, because they occur on the same planet, but in what way is central to the question.

Leave this kind of question to.. say.. Dr. Linus Pauling (if still alive, of course)...?? Now, I value a wider range of views, Scott et al.

Bob Roberts,

"If your Mother says she loves ya.. CHECK IT OUT...!"

"Jay T -- do I understand you correctly? "

You understand correctly, afaik.

"Are you saying that some Catholic and Buddhist communities condone pedophilia? Links please?

Uhhh... I forgot to mention the Hindu ones, as well. Those are just some that I'm (at varying) familiar(ity) with. It's been in the papers and Net over the (not so) past years.

To allow something is a form of condonence, unfortunately.

Scott,

Sure man, that's cool...

However, do I really need to be a formally trained biologist to deduce that my penis (specifically) fits better into a vagina (my wife's, specifically) than an anus?

Look, dude, I've already confessed my ignorance above, must I do it again?

Keep up with us here!

(hee-hee)

(my post above)

The penis, from whece did it come?

I feel like my (ignorant) response to the animal homosexuality was hi-lighted by responders to show my...(once again)...ignorance.

I would now at this time like to hear responses to my simple analysis of the penis and the vagina, their relationship to each other and one another.

(My analysis pasted here:

A man has a penis, it is designed (primarily) for reproduction. A woman has a vagina, it is designed (primarily) to receive seed from a man's penis and allow the sperm and egg to develop into a real, live, human being. After maturation, the newly formed human emerges from the womb. When this human is fully grown, they will be able to continue the process of reproduction, thus perpetuating our kind.

On the other hand, a man's penis was not designed to fit into a man's anus. Most will fit, but that was not the apparent intention. Natural selection tells us that the act of inserting a penis into an anus has no reproductive benefits and will therefore not survive as a species. (Same with a vagina-on-vagina senario.) End of pasted analysis)

rant - Am I also wrong about this? Was my analysis way out of line for you people? Do I have to research Google to understand my own penis? -end of rant

JeffT, I'm happy for anyone who has found more evidence of God than I have and who lives a life accordingly.

So, Jeff, do you believe that those who reject Jesus (as I do and as my orthodox Jewish wife does for different reasons) can nevertheless worship God in ways as full, complete, joyous and sacred as your ways? Are we incomplete because we haven't accepted Jesus?

I'll answer my own question: No, not all true religions accept Jesus. Some of those other religions are as deep and true as Christianity. How can that be? If there is a God, He's done some stuff we just can't understand, but have to admire Him for. (No, I don't believe that any dumbass creed someone comes up with is worthy of the same respect. How do I know? I don't. I'm just a guy, so I have to make decisions, some of which undoubtedly will turn out to be deeply wrong. Comes with the territory.)

JayT, I wasn't clear enough. If one religion can't rest until it's established itself as the world's only religion, then we're doomed because we simply can't share the planet.

My belief about same-sex marriage doesn't come from religion. Judaism generally is against it, especially the Orthodox brand. On the other hand, Orthdox Judaism doesn't consist of an orthodoxy, so my wife feels free to support same-sex marriage although her rabbi doesn't. Anyway. I'm in favor of it primarily because I know too many gay couples. don't see the harm that would come from it, do see some good that would come from it, and don't see a sufficient relevant difference to want to treat these couples differently under the law.

Note, that's not an argument. I'm not trying to get you to believe what I believe. I'm explaining (briefly) how I came to these beliefs. The argument I'd give is related and you won't find it convincing: At this point in our history, in this culture, the differences between same-sex and hetero relationships do not justify differences in treatment when it comes to marriage. And, those differences in treatment are not justified by relevant differences. Thus, the differences in treatment are not justified. Yawn.

Jay T

All right, I'll take it as a given (for now) that there exist some Catholic, Hindu, whatever sects that practice and condone pedophilia.

Is it your assertion that if we as a society condone homosexual activity, then we pave the way for the condoning of sexual activities between an adult and a child? I really don't see that happening. Leaving aside the issue of gay marriage, I'd say a good chunk of the US population condones homosexual activity; that is, the private behavior of two consenting adults. You'd be hard pressed, however, to find any support for pedophilia, aside from the NAMBLA crowd. And I don't see the attitudes toward pedophilia of the vast majority of Americans changing, gay marriage or no.

David,

No. Yes.

But I don't come to those answers on my own. Because I believe the Bible to be infallable, it just makes sense (to me) to let the LORD answer those questions, and He already has.

And I know that sucks, and makes me narrow-minded and intolerant, etc, etc....I know.

But as the scripture says, "Let God be true and every man a liar."

It's not a matter of me making God conform to my ideas, it's just the opposite.

Jeff

JeffT, your argument that the penis has a natural and right use depends upon our accepting that the penis was intelligently designed. (Mutatis mutandi for the vagina.) If it was "designed" through natural selection and all that, then no "ought" follows from the "is". After all, the human body wasn't designed to sit in chairs -- they're a late development -- but that's hardly a moral argument against sitting.

Further, if the penis was "designed," it's the very definition of a multi-purpose tool, so to speak. Not only is it great for peeing, it also seems designed to spring to life according to the vagaries of one's sexuality, sometimes at awkward moments. But wait, there's more! It's a veritable orgasm machine: Just rub it and watch! I mean, what's more natural than masturbating -- penises fit great into hands as well as into vaginas -- but I seem to recall an apparent Biblical injunction against it (Gen. 38:9).

So, I don't see how an argument based on choosing one prominent penile function and declaring it to be God's reason for making willies is going to fly, especially with people who don't believe that God designed anything.

I knew someone could crap on my parade!

It amazes me. It really does. The amount of unbelief on this one page alone.

"GOD?! GOD who!? There is no GOD! If there were, I would have to change my way of thinking! So, I say, no! There is no GOD! (crack, thunder, lightening!)

Let me punch you in the face and then see if you believe in moral absolutes!

"I'll answer my own question: No, not all true religions accept Jesus. Some of those other religions are as deep and true as Christianity. How can that be?"

Intellectually, anyone of any Religion (including the Atheist sect of the Unitarian (U/U as it's now called) religion I was raised on), would need a concept of Jesus in order to answer this question.

Meaning, once a limited-concept of Jesus is defined, then by self-definition even a Christian speaking of their view of Jesus would be partial, as is all writing anyway.

"If there is a God, He's done some stuff we just can't understand, but have to admire Him for. (No, I don't believe that any dumbass creed someone comes up with is worthy of the same respect. How do I know? I don't. I'm just a guy, so I have to make decisions, some of which undoubtedly will turn out to be deeply wrong. Comes with the territory.)"

Although natural to conceive of Jesus and/or G-d as a Male, that would be an example of limited-concept.

JayT, I wasn't clear enough. If one religion can't rest until it's established itself as the world's only religion, then we're doomed because we simply can't share the planet."

I agree, as I've implied.

"My belief about same-sex marriage doesn't come from religion."

Nor does mine, left unspecified as much as humanly possible.

"Judaism generally is against it, especially the Orthodox brand. On the other hand, Orthdox Judaism doesn't consist of an orthodoxy, so my wife feels free to support same-sex marriage although her rabbi doesn't. Anyway. I'm in favor of it primarily because I know too many gay couples. don't see the harm that would come from it, do see some good that would come from it, and don't see a sufficient relevant difference to want to treat these couples differently under the law. "

You've expressed your point of view before, as have I, Dr. W.

"Note, that's not an argument."

Having studied some of the samenesses and differences between a conflicted statement, a debate, an argument and a fight and a violent conflict..

..Well there is, at least, a difference of views.

"I'm not trying to get you to believe what I believe."

Then who would be?

[snip a bit]

"Is it your assertion that if we as a society condone homosexual activity, then we pave the way for the condoning of sexual activities between an adult and a child?"

I don't believe that a person's behavior is "paved" in any sense of the word, in any way. In that sense, no, I wouldn't assert a cause-and-effect relationship a-tall.

"I really don't see that happening. Leaving aside the issue of gay marriage, I'd say a good chunk of the US population condones homosexual activity; that is, the private behavior of two consenting adults."

Agreed, while a much, Much, MUCH larger chunk does not.

"You'd be hard pressed, however, to find any support for pedophilia, aside from the NAMBLA crowd. And I don't see the attitudes toward pedophilia of the vast majority of Americans changing, gay marriage or no."

It's hard to say how much things change based on any single criteria, afaik.

Don't think it takes much to recognize an "anything (between 2 or more) pretty much goes" attitude or frame-of-reference, and one that is not.

(yawn)

Jeff, you think we're just being stubborn? I'd love to change my thinking and believe in God. What's stopping me is that it seems like an omnipotent, good being would prevent babies from dying of randomly-contracted viruses. All He has to do is wave the bad air away.

Obviously I don't have complete access to the facts. That's why I'm an agnostic.

Yawn all you want, Jay T

According to a Gallup Poll released July 2003, six out of ten adults believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. Maybe the 700 Club survey says differently, but I'll go with Gallup.

I'm not sure what you meant by your last comment. "Anything goes" between consenting adults? I'm fine with that. "Anything goes between an adult and another unconsenting person, adult or minor? 99.99% of the population find that unacceptable, and nobody outside of NAMBLA is arguing those rules ought to be changed.

"Yawn all you want, Jay T"

My yawn was in reply to the end of your post of 03/12/04 at 2:57 Eastern Blogaria Time)

"According to a Gallup Poll released July 2003, six out of ten adults believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. Maybe the 700 Club survey says differently, but I'll go with Gallup."

Legal and defining the relationship as being Marriage two different things, by most reasoning adults, Doc.

"I'm not sure what you meant by your last comment. 'Anything goes' between consenting adults? I'm fine with that. 'Anything goes between an adult and another unconsenting person, adult or minor? 99.99% of the population find that unacceptable, and nobody outside of NAMBLA is arguing those rules ought to be changed.'"

That's why I don't see the basis of the disagreement being phrased in your terms, Doc. I think what's being roughly equivocated about is how many think that Marriage is most generally between a man and a woman....?

That question has been unskillfully avoided, by the Gallup Poll and others. The question as to which is better has, also. I'm skipping this question until the prior question has been sufficiently cleared up.

Ooops, just noticed I wuz replying to Bob, in addition to Doc W.

It amazes me. It really does. The amount of unbelief on this one page alone.

Allow me to positively astound you then.

Jay T,

You said "Agreed, while a much, Much, MUCH larger chunk does not," referring to those who do/do not approve of homosexual activity, not gay marriage. I quoted Gallup to refute that assertion. I realize there's less support for gay marriage.

And you were the one who introduced the slippery slope argument, remember? To paraphrase, "if we let them gays marry, then we'll have to let the pedophiles and incestophiles(?) do what they want too." Sure, anything can happen, but it's really, really not likely to.

When you say "less support" for gay marriage, then why do you and others lean so heavily on the argument that it's a good concept because it is so widely accepted and practiced, then???

Btw Scott,

You are astounded by the most unusual things. Must be because you put an extreme emphasis on the delta, rather than the percentages for some unknown-biased-reason.

I would say the figures you cited are skewed, but 81% to 14.3% makes a rather convenient argument that Religion should not be considered one way or the other wrt gay marriage. But does indicate something about the (incorrect) view that "the only idiots who are against gay marriage are those hayseed-religious-folk".

Or do you presume to know precisely which of the 81% are "so stupid and deluded" to not understand the issues surround homosexual marriage?

Back to Bob, who are you quoting who said "if we let them gays marry, then we'll have to let the pedophiles and incestophiles(?) do what they want too."

That was somebody else besides me, if you'll observe.

I don't generally use the phrase "have to" that undiscerningly, but it could-a happened. More 'n likely you are misinterpreting my words to your heart's content, Bob.

"He firmly dispels the prevailing notion that homosexuality is uniquely human and only occurs in "unnatural" circumstances. As far as the nature-versus-nurture argument--it's obviously both, he concludes."

As the rest of the eminent biologists obviously-biased rant on lack of objectivity shows, he asserts a fact "homosexuality *NE humans" and a partially-deduced "fact" "obviously both" without any discernment of HOW MUCH BOTH, and then SELF-defines what is or is not "unnatural" to make a point of debate, which is a non-sequiter, afaik.

Jay T,

From your post of today at 12:24 pm --

"How does three consenting adults work for you (and your (heterosexual) mate, too)...?!? How does a 40-year-old Step-Father and semi-consenting teenage Step-Daughter work?!?

"How does a 20- 30-something and a 2 1/2 year old girl work for you, Scott?? (A 2 1/2 old girl having a body of an "adult-enough-woman" [according to more than one person, not including me] and being UNABLE to NOT consent, nor even partially-realize for decades later that something was much remiss about the relationship(s).)

"No, accepting ANYTHING two (or three or 5 or hundreds of Jonesian) consenting quasi-adults want to do hidden behind their own walls is MUCH too imprecise and/or too dangerous and/or too "liberal".. for my views and does NOT work for me (and I'd imagine some other logical people regardless of Religion)."

As I stated in my previous post, I was paraphrasing; that is, constructing a "shorter Jay T" statement. No, you never used the phrase "have to" -- you got me there.

If the private activities of consenting adults (let's leave aside the "quasi-adults" for now, nobody's seriously arguing their legality/morality)"does NOT work for you," then who decides what is acceptable? And how do we enforce the laws against such unacceptable behavior?

"If the private activities of consenting adults (let's leave aside the 'quasi-adults' for now, nobody's seriously arguing their legality/morality)'does NOT work for you,'"

That's my point. You begin this debate by circumscribing it. "Let's leave aside" [insert this-that-or-the-other point] "for now"...

And the problem is precisely what follows, which is that "nobody is seriously arguing" [insert this-that-or-the-other point] "legality/morality..."

That would be the problem definition, afaik.

Who decides?? Gimme a break.

The individual decides for the individual, and then often does the opposite... Likewise communities and the societies the communities form in, in many respects.

To say that, because community and/or society/culture is hypocritical therefore means this is "right action" or whatever is myopic, as far as my eye can see.

Now, you wanna get into a discussion revolving around "right action" regarding how police and/or State should ENFORCE laws...???

Whew... How many cultures do you want this debate to extend to, btw?? And I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to take that discussion on, at any level of sincerity.

Mebbe time once again to be backin' away into the sunset for now, anyhoo...

Jay T,

We're never gonna agree. You apparently see homosexuality as a perversion on par with incest and pedophilia. I do not.

I was merely trying to get a feel for your opinion on how to handle the "homosexual problem." That is, if that kind of activity is so problematic, what, in your opinion, should we do about it?

I've gotta move along too, so I probably won't see your reply, if any. Have a good day, I guess.

"We're never gonna agree."

Perhaps, perhaps not.

"You apparently see homosexuality as a perversion on par with incest and pedophilia. I do not."

No, I do not see or feel or believe that homosexuality as a perversion on par with incest and pedophilia. I believe that SAYING homosexuality is just as natural and normal as the day is long, however, is an exaggeration that is a perversion of logic... It's the EXAGGERATION wrt to both Legal and Biological logic, primarily by hypocritical heterosexuals, that I find "a deep perversion".

"I was merely trying to get a feel for your opinion on how to handle the 'homosexual problem.' That is, if that kind of activity is so problematic, what, in your opinion, should we do about it?"

To refer to a "homosexual problem" as separate and distinct from a "whole host of heterosexual problems" which both do, and don't, relate intimately with the very "homosexual problem" is, to me, impossible.

Having said that, gays are not particularly problematic to me, personally. Guess because I've lived in the U.S. city with the highest (reputedly) per capita gay population for all my adult life. (Columbus, the one in OH.)

Not everybody is in my situation (iow, precisely nobody is in my precise situation), nor life experience.

As a citizen of many spheres, one is Ohio. So, personally, I would need to decide how active to be (politically and/or writing) in the issue of how much (and/or whether) gays should continue to share the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexuals.

Since they have most, even in Ohio, I'm not sure how all active I, personally, would end up being.

"I've gotta move along too, so I probably won't see your reply, if any. Have a good day, I guess."

Hm. Okee-dokee...;-D Have a good day as well, Bob. "Unfortunately" I've gotten hammered at work yesterday ("hammered" meaning buried in a lot, not drunk...;-) and I "desparately" could use some money... "Fortunately", according to some like Ms. Fiorina (sp?), I have a job.. which is getting to be rarer and rarer in the computer "game" in the U.S. and Europe.

Forgot m'self, fer a sec:

"I was merely trying to get a feel for your opinion on how to handle the 'homosexual problem.' That is, if that kind of activity is so problematic, what, in your opinion, should we do about it?"

I left unsaid that I continue to learn a lotta new things in a lotta areas, daily, (although I have to eat so can't devote quite SO much time to takin' it easy surfing the Net). These subjects and situations change over the decades, anyhoo, so continued study is necessary for that reason, as well.

I wuz wondering if a Female was ever gonna join this "sausage factory", as their called in the bars I (used-ta mainly) hang out in.

I think it would be difficult to measure, but not so hard to guess, what the effects would be of "60% of children born out of wedlock" would do a country of the size, diversity, and economic strata as the United States is.

If that's called "conservative", then I don't see why that would also be called "against life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" when, rather, it is a view in favor of these.

Iow, if you do NOT believe that "60% of children born out of wedlock" isn't something the U.S. is trending towards, and that this is and will cause a DECLINE in the overall pursuit of happiness..

..then do you suggest that we will ALL be EQUALLY able to pursue happiness, and find life and liberty in the U.S. (and/or the planet) at any point in time...?!? (Let alone the present or future?)

This would appear, to me, to be a mathematical improbability of such high order that I call this dream "mathematically impossible".

The above seems a hard concept for some to wrap their heads around...

But to the rest, common sense would dictate, then, that it is a question of how equal inequalities can be, (and how and/or whether they can be made more equal yet balanced,) and how they can be more-or-less appropriately-more-equal than they are currently.

Imo.

444

Having sex the same way can be really boring in marriage. My wife will only lie on her back in the missionary position. It is the same sex every night. I am against same sex marriages. Sex in marriage should be diverse and different. Come on lets' experiment and try new things! It times to make a change.

I have a pretty big problem with the "slippery slope" arguments: They never address the circumstance at hand. They horrify us with fears of 3-person marriages (ye Gods), beastiality and whatever else they think will scare us, but they don't pass judgment on gay marriage itself.

Let's say we can have gay marriage and it stops right there. Nothing more. That's it. The bottom of the slippery slope. Would it be okay with you guys then?

Aside from this, what rails me about this whole argument is those who presume to tell others what to do--in fact, not only to instruct them on what's right and wrong, but to write their moral view into our laws.

For me, the bottom line is this: We're all free to do whatever we want so long as we don't hurt someone else. And I'm not talking about philosophical or moral distress here. I'm speaking of actual injury.

You may wish to believe in the Bible or the Koran or any other collection of moral lessons. That's fine with me. But, as George Carlin said the other night on the Bill Maher show (you should never miss it!), "Keep it to yourself."

All the rest of us have the absolute right not to be lectured, sermonized--and especially not to be dictated to--on moral questions by you or any group of you, however large. Here's the deal: you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.

When it comes to right and wrong, every religion has its own beliefs. Let's say there are 5,000 religions on earth. They all disagree, except for one thing: each and every one of them is certain it is the right religion and the others are wrong. That gives us, what, a 5,000 to 1 chance of chosing the right religion--assuming ANY of them are right.

As for those of you who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, I think you're really in trouble. The book has a thousand contradictions, not to mention 10,000 vaguenesses and double meanings. And who can estimate the number of mistranlations? What criteria do you use to choose the right meaning? How can you be sure you're right?

Article for research

Some times I think that straight people are just scared of sodomy. I'm scared of sodomy, and I'm only 60% straight, but that doesn't mean that I am going to stop others from doing it.

I'm all in favor of the don't knock it until you've tried it. I haven't tried it, so I'm not going to knock it.

But then again, I'm a crazy protestant liberal college student with purple hair, so what does my opinion matter?

It has probably been said here, but could someone explain to me WHY and HOW they think heterosexual marraige will suffer if homosexual marriages/unions/whatever are legally permitted? Maybe in detail. Extreme detail. Without emotional appeal. Just the facts. I don't see the other side to that point, and I hate not seeing the other side.

"Let's say we can have gay marriage and it stops right there. Nothing more. That's it. The bottom of the slippery slope. Would it be okay with you guys then?"

Well, where does this leave people in a bigamist relationship then?? According to this theory, can a heterosexual marry a bi-sexual?? You're right, most of these discussions don't discussion the situations at hand. And if the argument is that a homosexual marriage is pretty-much just-the-same as a heterosexual marriage between two people of different race, religion or nationality I would suggest that's pretty obviously otherwise.

"Aside from this, what rails me about this whole argument is those who presume to tell others what to do--in fact, not only to instruct them on what's right and wrong, but to write their moral view into our laws."

I agree, so I don't see why homosexuals then want to write their moral view into our laws, but then mebbe that's just me.

"For me, the bottom line is this: We're all free to do whatever we want so long as we don't hurt someone else. And I'm not talking about philosophical or moral distress here. I'm speaking of actual injury."

Again, I agree. Sorry if I'm causing moral distress with my comment, btw.

"It has probably been said here, but could someone explain to me WHY and HOW they think heterosexual marraige will suffer if homosexual marriages/unions/whatever are legally permitted?"

See above thread, for one example.

"But then again, I'm a crazy protestant liberal college student with purple hair, so what does my opinion matter?"

Everybody's opinion matters, as does their self-image. I have mostly dark-with-grey hair and beard, and I've outgrown "I'm all in favor of the don't knock it until you've tried it. I haven't tried it, so I'm not going to knock it."

That would be lacking in some severe common-sense, no matter what age or hair-color you wear, in my observation. Unless you are kidding about saying I have to try sodomy in order to even have a comment on it.

And I think you sometimes need to experience the other side of a story, to understand it... Not always, 'course.

"As for those of you who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, I think you're really in trouble."

And for those who base their arguments exclusively on the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, either one, well I've recommended against it above. Apparently to no avail.

Perhaps this is unemotional enough to make a point: The meme that defining a marriage as "pretty much anything ya want, because we can't have ANYbody telling ANYbody what is right or wrong" is just plain wrong.

First off, the meme itself that defines a marriage as "pretty much anything ya want as long as it's between two people" is still determining what is right or wrong. So please don't tell me "it's wrong to say what's right or wrong, and btw, this is right and this is wrong". And please don't then tell me "there is really no such thing as right or wrong, at least according to me, and btw, this is right and this is wrong".

Furthermore, the meme that "we can't have ANYbody telling ANYbody what is right or wrong" is mathematically impossible. One does not eliminate disagreements by saying "there aren't gonna be any disagreements, because anything goes". Don't work, although some pretend it does.

So, as I've said above, I'm still looking for some semi-logical explanation for why a homosexual coupling SHOULD be considered a marriage, other than "because I want it" or "because there isn't enough love in the world". Some other reason that isn't quite so self-referential and isn't quite so self-centered. And then some semi-logical explanation defining what does not constitute a marriage stops and why.

SARCASM(*ON)
Btw, I want to be retired and live a life of leisure someplace where people exhibit some modicum of common-sense. I'm a "grasshopper", not an "ant"... It's "unconstitutional" that I hafta work for a living, and furthermore it's "unconstitutional" that some people I relate to (both homosexuals and heterosexuals, in my experience and frequently family and such) have no common-sense a-tall... That is, according to the meme that anything that prevents MY life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and/or YOUR's (insert your name here) is "unconstitional".
SARCASM(*OFF)

According to that meme, EVERYthing that EVERYbody does is going to be "unconstitional" according to SOMEbody else's "civil rights", right?

Seems to me, Jay, that you have a problem with right and wrong.

Who decides which is which?

Based on what?

I can imagine only two possibilities:

1) practicality--that is, what works and provides the greatest good for the greatest number and,

2)faith and religion.

Where should we go for reliable information on what is universally right and wrong?

Why cant people just leave same sex couples alone and let them find happyness like the rest of us...

I want to go back to Kevin's comment from March 11......

Kevin have you met anyone who has been raised by gay parents? I will admit my experience is limited, having only one friend. He is a wonderfully balanced young adult with dreams of being an engineer. He has a healthy relationship of over two years with a wonderful young lady which he plans to marry.

I know coming from a household of a single parent, I would have rather had two people home. Also, if straight parents can have gay kids then why can't gay parents have straight kids.
Yours truly,
Bea

responding to Bea's comment.... I know of an uncle (cough cough) that has two children, my cousins (repetitive cough). This man is a homosexual and unlike the rest of those stated above, he is not in a devoted and committed relationship. He is on the prowl. He leaves little, if any, time for his kids and is always out partying. This not only results in little attention from a father figure at home, but it also sends waves of hatred coming at them at school, in forms from their students, as well as teachers. This might be a sign of progress, for in every movement to a more diverse society, we have experienced hatred. But I don't believe for one, that a homosexual parent (or parents) can provide as well as two hetorosexuals. My reasoning: children watch and manipulate the entirety of their parents' lives. They watch their every move and for this reason, and mother AND father influence is critical in their maturity. A homosexual couple may provide a better home and environment than a poor, unloving, white-trash, heterosexual couple, but the fact still remains. Children need both a male and female figure in their life in order to gain both viewpoints and personalities. I believe that the regulations and standards we have set for gays parents at the present time are correct. They should have to endure more strenuous regulations and put out more effort in order to gain a child because of the reason stated above. They most prove they want a child badly enough to raise it under the proper standards and moral values. A parent that puts that much effort into their work will prove simply worthy enough to house and raise a child. If we allow some bad homosexual parents to adopt children, they not only will recieve a bad home-life, but will enter a life where they recieve only on sex's viewpoints and are influenced by one set of hormones. Having ripped on gays enough, I do believe that there should be some legal document stating the unity of a man and man or a woman and woman. But i feel that Mack, on March 11th, stated the it perfectly, "...same sex couples who are willing to make a lifelong commitment to one and other should have equal protections and rights as married couples. But I don't think they are good enough reasons to redefine marriage."

replying to Harvey Ardman's comment. Im sorry i have to quote but I'm going to so that everyone gets a sense of what I'm answering. "Let's say we can have gay marriage and it stops right there. Nothing more. That's it. The bottom of the slippery slope. Would it be okay with you guys then?"
If i were to relate this to any other topic... it would be the legalization of marijuana. It would be so extremely hard to stop it just at that. While some fight taht it is not THAT harmful.. it leads to other thigns. And while today, our values point in the direction of children (how will they react to legal pot?) we also must take into consideration that they will fight just as we are right now, that it will stop right after cocaine, or Ecstasy. Times change.. but i would like to think that our values don't. It gets a bit sketchy when talking about values, but we all agree that the legalization of marijuana would lead to bigger and better (worse) things, so why do we feel that gay marriages wont? Arguments are thrown about currently, that time has fused the gay and hetero-societies together, meaning it is more acceptable for a gay couple. And time has also changed the definition of marriage. I guess I might have elongated my point a little, but I think that if we legalize same sex marriages, it is inevitable to push the boundaries further, meaning multiple peoples or even including animals. HEY! they shouldn't be discriminated either should they?

Here are my views on why Homosexual marriage is wrong:

1) It is harmful to society as a whole and focuses instead on the happyness of a minority. This could be compared to the concept of affirmative action in which on group is favored above another, not taking into account the consequences of such actions. I, being a South American can see the argument from both points of view (affirmative action) and I can tell you that it is indeed unfair. A fair system is one that rewards based on personal achievement instead of the common good (do you want a minority surgeon or a competent surgeon?).

It is of course necessary to explain why it is harmful to society (gay marriage) and I will give you my input on it. Gay marriage does not simply go against the will of God, it goes against the will of humanity and the species as a whole. Homosexuality is a deviancy, a perversion of the mind or simply an error in how you are wired. No it is not morally wrong to be gay and no it is not a bad thing when seen from an individual's point of view. Look at it from the point of view of the species. What is wrong, procreation or the selfish desire of happyness and denying the survival of the human species? I am afraid I must introduce this dilemma as it is a necessary fact that you must take into account when weighing the argument. This is not an issue of personal happyness but an issue dealing with the survival of society. It s not a civil rights case, nor a case that deals with racial inequality because after all, no matter what race, everyone is equally capable of benefitting humanity. The difference between both then? Gay marriages cannot produce children.

It is therefore a bad idea to make gay marriages a "normal" part of society, a normalcy which will encourage further deviation from people who may just be doubting their own sexuality and look for acceptance. It is not acceptable to commit genocide. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

2)The question of how being gay is viewed by society depends on many factors. To determine the rational viewpoint of something we must make a few judgements and base our decisions on those same judgements. Take for example mental retardation, is it inherently evil? Are people affected by it worse than "normal" people? Is it considered a sickness or is it a benefit to humanity? The answer is no to all of those questions. While people affected by it are not less human than others it does not constitute or create any benefits. In fact it is something avoided actively because it affects a person and society negatively. Now ask yourselves, would you want to further encourage the development of mental retardation? Is it in your interest to help it advance? No, on the contrary, you need to avoid it because humanity needs to avoid it.

My argument against gay marriage is similar. There is no fundamental benefit gaiend from gay marriage instead of individual happyness at the cost of the many. It infringes upon our right, humanity's right to grow and expand. Our right to SURVIVE. What would the world be like if straight marriages were illegal? Simple, there would be no world, humans would die out because gay marriages cannot reproduce. There is no comparison between the two, they are entirely different institutions which therefore require different analysis. A world without children is a world without a future. It all comes down to the theory of evolution, the survival of the fittest. I predict someone would argue that "homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and it hasn't died yet" but then again, who said evolution was fast? It may be simply getting slowly erased as it goes along or maybe it's just being maintained by our society artificially. Clearly it could not survive in a wholly natural environment.

Rico, thank you for the careful explanation of your beliefs.

Rico:

on your point #1: How does giving gays the SAME thing that everyone else has "focus" on the happiness of a small minority?

Also, since you believe that the harm that gay marriages does stems from the fact that they are barren -- do you oppose straight marriages between people where one is sterile? Where the couple elects not to have children?

Finally, do you really believe, since gays are such a small minority, that their inability to bear children will really have any effect on the human race as a whole?

There you go again: not thinking about what love truly is.

#1a If they were acting in true love they wouldn't be using each other for unnatural sexual gratification

#1b Is their non-love the same as any kind of love? Clearly not.

#1c1 Can immoral people forge commitments? Sure why not

#1c2 What value is there in an act contrary to love?

#1d Can counter-nature moral deviants raise morally grounded children as well as morally grounded parents could? Most certainly NOT.

#2a samesex associations cannot be married as this is contrary to the definition of marriage. Can a circle ever be square? (hint: not yes)

#2b A modicum of common sense shows that males and females are to pair, and no other combination. Males are attracted to femals and visa versa. One can willfully override nature. Being able to do something does not necessarily justify an action.

#2c..d Culture is not the authority on the good. This is a fallacy of liberalism.

#3 case2: false premise

###

I'll monitor this url in case any reasonable and rational person would like to pursue civil discourse. To discourage impersonation I will shortly archive my comments from here and elsewhere on http://moralphile2004.tripod.com

Wrote a detailed reply and goofed it.

I dunno...

MiC

Regarding the Bible and homosexuality being a sin, and thus opposing gay marriage, the "Christian" right has it wrong.

I invite you to read: "Connecting the Biblical Dots: Why Jesus Is For Same-sex Marriage." It's a biblically grounded paper that gives a convincing argument why homosexuality is not a sin to God and why marriage, including same-sex marriage, is the acceptable standard. You may read it here: www.purplepew.org/biblical_dots.html

Kind Regards,

V.L. Carey
The Purple Pew
Stand Up For Truth
www.purplepew.org

http://www.a210.com/fuck-her-throat.htm

Well.. I actually read all of the opinions posted in here, and there is only one assumption I can make. All of you who can't accept gay-marriage don't do not because God says so, or because penis+vagina=good/normal, but because you can't deal with the image of how homosexuals have sex. Last word of advise; "Deal With It"

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa."
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals, so this nulified diversity of life claims on sub-continental Africa, zebras being a fine example.

god is a computer
And we're all on auto-pilot.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management –
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere ("On planets where they approved evil.")

Then we come to terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

We support same sex marriage! to the max.

GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!!!!

GAYS ARE JUST DISGUSTING PEOPLE!!