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 be