August 12, 2004

• "Activist" Judges, clearly.
• Finally someone is standing up to the gay agenda!
• Dude, I'm not sure if you knew this, but in America, we hate fags. To Americans they are nothing more than perfume niggers. Me, I love them. I practically am one. I think it's barbaric that they can't marry. But most people don't like them. What will it take? People my age running the world. Give it fifty years.
• Fuck.
• Goddammit. Part of me wants to go nullify my own marriage in protest, although Mister shinything might have a few objections.
• Do I get my flowers back? (I'm joking but this sucks.)
• It's going to take people realizing that the value of marriage is between the people involved and that anyone outside the marriage has no say in it whatsoever. Yep, it's a pisser. Unfortunately, I live in Texas, where such realizations even less likely to happen. Too many "conservative moralists" living here.
• I noticed that all of the dissenting opinions came from two of the three female justices. Once again lending credence to the "stupid white men" concept.
• And I'm moving out of Massachusetts WHY again? :(
• How are these judges being "activist", when they are clearly UPHOLDING the law of California?
• I noticed that all of the dissenting opinions came from two of the three female justices. Once again lending credence to the "stupid white men" concept. Except for the fact that the legal issue at hand wasn't gay marriage...rather it was the more general question of whether a Mayor has the authority to circumvent state legislation. Maybe the two women in question didn't understand that.
• Not California, but I heard Alan Keyes on NPR today talking about why one-man-one-woman-no-gays-or-chihuahuas marriages need to be the law of the land. Basically his argument was that marriage is for procreation, and if you remove at least the theoretical possibility of procreation (he magnanimously excepted those who couldn't procreate for medical reasons), then you reduced marriage to an arrangement based on hedonism and self-gratification (not a direct quote, but he did use those terms). And that, he argued, would undermine the concept of The Family (
• Allowing homosexuals to marry probably did more harm than good, since it brought the issue to the attention of a nation ruled at the time by George Motherfucking Bush.
• How are these judges being "activist", when they are clearly UPHOLDING the law of California? I was answering es el Queso's question, not making an acusation.
• Yes. Promising that I won't bone another woman ever until one of us is dead -- that's my idea of hedonism and self-gratification. I'm sure my wife agrees, too. Precisely why I got married.
• How are these judges being "activist", when they are clearly UPHOLDING the law of California? I think "activist judges" was originally a Bushism. What the President meant to say was active judges. He prefers inactivist judges, who just sit on the couch and eat chips and let him do whatever he takes a mind to. :) (and also :( )
• middleclasstool: As long as you at least TRY to knock her up, you're in the clear. Or if you're the victim of sterility as a result of standing in front of your microwave in the buff waiting for that bag of popcorn to be done, that's fine too. Or if you had them pulled off in an accident.
• We got sodomy earlier in the year. Maybe we got greedy?
• Well, there was the time I had to pull that carload of nuns to safety...
• MonkeyFilter: We got sodomy earlier in the year. Maybe we got greedy? BOO-YAH!
• My mistake, shawnj. I read your response as a sarcastic appraisal of the judges' decision.
• Y'know what, speaking as a heterosexual in a long-term relationship who even occassionally entertains thoughts of marriage, I hope those goddamn gays do kill this holy matrimony bullshit. I'm sick of people like Keyes trying to tell me why exactly I'm getting married, and what exactly my cock has to do for the marriage to be valid. Fuck that. Sure, gays should be able to enter into the tradition of marriage if they want (I even wrote a tongue-in-cheek editorial advocating mandatory marriages for gays), but I think we'd have a much better society if all us straight people gave up on gettin' hitched until everyone could do it for whatever goddamn reason they want. The reasons justifying the treatment of gays as second-class citizens are so much bullshit and fallacy (appeals to tradition or divine authority should be roundly cast out of any serious discussion on public policy) that a moratorium should be declared until there's a compelling reason for anyone to involve people other than the couple in question in their romantic activities. No state, no church, no relatives.
• f8xmulder: I don't know. Perhaps you can explain to me why judges in Mass. were being "activists" when they upheld the law of the land allowing such marriages? Perhaps you could explain how exactly the same judges were "activists" when ruling the pledge in schools as unconstitutional? Or perhaps you could have a proper think about shawnj's comment.
• Saving marriage by preventing marriages. Destroy the villiage to save it. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Bigotry is love.
• js: (I even wrote a tongue-in-cheek editorial advocating mandatory marriages for gays) Whose cheek?
• Someone should sue the state of California and demand that they reimburse everyone who spent money on wedding gifts that are no longer valid.
• A clear and smart dissection of the ruling from my favorite legal scholar on the blue. All hail Monju
• Maybe we'll just have to wait for the courts to rule on this, rather than the executive branch. That's the route other states have taken to invalidating discriminatory laws such as "straight only" marriage laws. Gavin Newsom may have had his heart in the right place, but I doubt if he thought it would stand up under judicial review. While it did get him interviews on national television, and bring a lot of us around who didn't think we liked him as a candidate, it also caused a lot of people to get their hopes up -- hopes that were at least damaged today. (I don't mean by this, by the way, that people shouldn't "get their hopes up," or that the marriages shouldn't have happened -- they had good effects in other ways, both for the people involved and the country) The problem is that, under separation of powers, we don't entrust the executive branch to interpret the constitutionality of our laws. California law says one thing, and Newsom felt, correctly, that it was unconstitutional. But he's not allowed to act against those laws on that basis; courts need to invalidate laws. Now this may seem counterfactual after four years of Bush, Ashcroft et al., but that's precisely the problem with those guys; in addition to being right-wing (which plenty of other people are who nevertheless seem to be able to respect laws and the constitution), they believe that they get to decide what is or isn't required by the constitution. Viz. the Guantanmo detainees. This is not to equate Newsom and Bush, but rather to say that what the court did is not in itself a bad thing. Now, you could certainly say that the court should have ruled on the constitutionality of the law. Courts have a policy of avoiding claims of unconstitutionality if at all possible, which is what they did here. But they won't be able to duck forever. Cases are in the pipeline as we speak that will treat that issue directly, and those are the cases we should focus our effort on.
• flagdecal: in the meantime though, states like mine are rushing amendments to their state constitutions through. The one in Arkansas not only outlaws gay marriage, but specifically states that gays cannot be afforded ANY of the rights and protections of marriage, in effect blasting even the possibility of civil unions. I think this kind of backlash would have happened just the same 15 years from now as today (though I hope I'm too pessimistic about this), but it's still down-bringing. ***So if I hope I'm too pessimistic, am I optimistic about my pessimism? Or about my possible future optimism? My brain hurts...***
• rodgerd, since I never made the assertion that Massachusetts judges were being "activists, I don't feel I need to answer that. And since the 9th Circuit Court judges ruled on the constitutionality of the pledge in schools, NOT the California Supreme Court, perhaps you could stick to the current court case. Or perhaps you might at least be a little less antagonistic.
• I'm with js.
• It looks like I'm the lone Christian. And since this country was founded on Christian principles and Biblical teachings I think it's clear why people take offense at gay marriage. Some people in this country, believe it or not, actually believe in the Bible. Myself being one of them. We believe that marriage was instituted by God as between man and woman. Now to change this would mean fucking with God's will. Consequently, some of us believe God has blessed this country and fucking with God's will wouldn't be prudent. Now for those who don't believe in God or the Bible, I can understand your viewpoint. Why would you want some God or some book telling you how to live? This is why people, even with GW's blunder in Iraq will vote for him. He protects what they hold dear, ie. marriage, rights of the unborn etc. Just my two cents.
• Basically his argument was that marriage is for procreation Has someone pointed out to Mr. Keyes that it's very easy to procreate without being married?
• California judges, including those on the supreme court, are subject to re-election, and while it's rare for them to be put out of office by voters, it has happened at least once that I can recall. So if they let us down on the second pass, there's always that option.
• It looks like I'm the lone Christian. Wrong. f8x is one, and he's conservative. I'm one, and I'm liberal. Now for those who don't believe in God or the Bible, I can understand your viewpoint. Why would you want some God or some book telling you how to live? Precisely the point of living in what was from its inception intended to be a religion-independent democracy, as opposed to a theocracy. And as I said, I'm a Christian, don't have a problem with God telling me what to do. A book, now that's another matter...
• Just for the sake of continuing the tangent, what do we know about the procreation habits of California judges?
• I thought they were grown in fungi farms...
• The biblical argument would be well and good, IF marriage were JUST a religious institution. But it's also a legal institution, and you don't have to be Christian to join. Or you do, apparently. Or at least have to screw like one. And what about consistency? While we're reinforcing biblical principles through constitutional law, how about divorce? Jesus said very clearly that a man who marries a divorced woman has committed adultery with her, and a man who puts aside his wife has caused her to commit adultery--that is, he was explicitly down on the whole idea. And yet I hear no cry to make divorce illegal. Hey, you may not like it, Divorced Senator, but we were founded on Christian principles! That means we have to go by the Book, even though our culture has changed a bit in 2000+ years. On the upside, you can stone your kids now if they sass you.
• I'll stone you, if you don't shut your sass hole, Wang Chung.
• Yeah, divorce happens, nobody is perfect, and with marriage as devalued as it is today, divorce feels better. "don't have a problem with God telling me what to do. A book, now that's another matter..." How does God tell you what to do then? Just curious. "But it's also a legal institution, and you don't have to be Christian to join. Or you do, apparently. Or at least have to screw like one." Yep. So maybe gay people would be better off instituting their own type of union, Something that better fits their beliefs about what a union should be. My thoughts are: save marriage for those who believe in it. Not for those who want to change it. Marriage is sacred to me and many others.
• And since this country was founded on Christian principles and Biblical teachings I think it's clear why people take offense at gay marriage. X It looks like I'm the lone Christian XX He protects what they hold dear XXX
• My thoughts are: save marriage for those who believe in it. Not for those who want to change it. Marriage is sacred to me and many others. I say we will have no more marriages! ;) Actually, I'm totally behind this idea. Call everything a civil union. Gay, straight, whatever. Since it's a legal institution, apply the antidiscrimination statutes, etc. Then, if someone want's God's blessing, he and she can go to Church and have a "marriage," with a religious certificate suitable for framing and all the associated Pauline admonitions. I seriously think that would work. Which is why it will never fly. :)
• So maybe gay people would be better off instituting their own type of union, Something that better fits their beliefs about what a union should be. Yes, because we all know how well that concept worked last time.
• How does God tell you what to do then? Reason, conscience, golden rule, decency, etc. The Bible is a significant part of Christianity (my wife and I probably own a dozen of them), but I don't believe that it's dictation from God. Not to say that it has nothing to teach, but as TP pointed out above, there's a whole lot in there that even literalists don't accept (stoning your children, slavery, etc.) So maybe gay people would be better off instituting their own type of union, Something that better fits their beliefs about what a union should be. (1) Precisely the point. They're not signing up for Christianity, they just want to get married. More to the point, they want some kind of status that confers the same legal (and not necessarily religious) rights of marriage. We accept atheists marrying, don't we? (2) Interestingly, they share the same beliefs about marriage, save one: that a love that powerful can only exist cross-gender. My thoughts are: save marriage for those who believe in it. Not for those who want to change it. Again, the point is that they do believe in it. That's why they want it, because they believe in it. They don't want to change it, they just want to participate. Meanwhile, my wife and I are just as married as we were before. Nothing gets threatened or changed.
• Surely the "theoretical possibility of procreation" argument would deny marriage to post-menopausal women? To kwonsar, when you say you "believe in the bible", do you mean in its entirety (Genesis -> Revelations)?
• MCT is much calmer and more well-reasoned than I am. And, rumor has it, more handsome. Quit hogging the marriage, dudes.
• "I say we will have no more marriages! ;) Actually, I'm totally behind this idea. Call everything a civil union. Gay, straight, whatever. Since it's a legal institution, apply the antidiscrimination statutes, etc." Why call everything a civil union? You make it sound as though all gays want is the legal benefits of marriage. Hey, maybe you're on to something. Um,shawnj, for the first X: liberal rhetoric. for the second XX: thanks for clueing me in. for the third XXX: what does the environment, job loss, and housing shortages have to do with this discussion?
• To kwonsar, when you say you "believe in the bible", do you mean in its entirety (Genesis -> Revelations)? *sensing a logic trap, scurries back to the underbrush*
• Roryk, Yes.
• "*sensing a logic trap, scurries back to the underbrush*" I know, but I can't not answer him truthfully.
• Um,shawnj, for the first X: liberal rhetoric. Bullshit. Do some research. for the second XX: thanks for clueing me in. You're welcome. for the third XXX: what does the environment, job loss, and housing shortages have to do with this discussion? You made the claim that Bush protects what Americans hold dear. And I gave you three examples (of which there are more) where the things that people hold dear are not being protected, like their jobs, their children's education, or their privacy. What Americans hold dear does not end at the pulpit.
• I agree with tenacious one hundred percent. This has been my position for sometime. "Marriage" is a term that is used to refer to a set of rights conferred onto two people by the state. It is also a term that is used to refer to a religious ritual that is viewed as holy or sacred in our society. There can certainly be one without the other. Language is a very powerful force. Different terms need to be established between the set of rights and the religious ritual. If that is effectively done, then I believe that more people would agree that the State should not be able to deny this set of rights to people based on their gender. Religions would be more than able to choose who can partake in their rituals and ceremonies. They always have been. They always will be.
• The founding fathers weren't nearly as Christian as the Christians would have you believe. I'm particularly fond of this quote from Benjamin Frankling "...I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to [Christ's] Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."
• No logic trap. Just a question. I recall that during one of the "shock horror gay marriage" news cycles in the U.S., the story of B. Spears's weekend nuptials broke. Really, if she can avail of this institution for all of 30 hours, while a committed same-sex couple who've been together 30 years cannot, there's something seriously, seriously
• You make it sound as though all gays want is the legal benefits of marriage. Have a read of this: it's about recognition, but yes, it's also about the legal benefits.
• If that is effectively done, then I believe that more people would agree that the State should not be able to deny this set of rights to people based on their gender. I wish that were so, bernockle. Unfortunately, my state is pushing through an amendment to the state constitution with this text in it: Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. Boo, says I. :(
• "You made the claim that Bush protects what Americans hold dear." No I didn't, read what I said again. "Again, the point is that they do believe in it. That's why they want it, because they believe in it. They don't want to change it, they just want to participate. Meanwhile, my wife and I are just as married as we were before. Nothing gets threatened or changed." They believe in it? Believe in what, marriage.? Which definition? Define marriage please. "Yes, because we all know how well that concept worked last time." Why are you trying to present to me gays as a minority? I believe it is a choice, unlike being African American. "Really, if she can avail of this institution for all of 30 hours, while a committed same-sex couple who've been together 30 years cannot, there's something seriously, seriously
• "Yes, but she didn't try to change what marriage is. The definition is what I want to protect and hold dear." In which case you're prioritizing man's creations over god's creations.
• tracicle, I don't believe homosexuality is inherent. I believe it is a choice. And with any choice comes reprocutions. Now, what you are trying to do is present this matter to me as though it were not choice, which would change everything. If you choose to be gay then accept the choice and all that comes with it. This is simply my opinion.
• marriage (n): a lifelong committment between two people who love each other. Continue.
• "In which case you're prioritizing man's creations over god's creations." How do you figure. God defined marriage, imo. You knew this right?
• kwonsar, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? I have close relatives who are gay, and believe me, at least in high school, they would much have preferred being straight. They're okay with it now, though, no thanks to crap like this. I think people can choose to have homosexual sex, but actually being a homosexual imo is not a choice. Whether genetic or early developmental, it sticks.
• "marriage (n): a lifelong committment between two people who love each other." If that were the definition, then people would not be fighting to protect it. Now if you add to that definition "between man and woman" then it becomes an issue of great contention. I believe God did add that for a reason.
• Didn't a lot of the patriarchs in the Bible have multiple wives? I know Abraham did, which caused no end of drama. Kind of shoots the old "one man one woman" thing in the foot. Can't be that it's culturally and not divinely defined, can it? :)
• If that were the definition, then people would not be fighting to protect it. On the contrary, that is a definition that people ARE fighting to protect. People in California and Massachusetts, for example.
• So I get to choose when I get an erection? That's great. I choose to....now! Huh, nothing. I sure could have used that superpower back in high school, kwonsar. Teach it to me, please?
• Gays have always been able to get married. Just not to each other. Despite my flaming heterosexuality, I work for a gay community organization. I've thus heard every argument possible for gay marriage... and the one that gets repeated the most often is the acquisition of those legal benefits as listed in the article tracicle linked. I'm with Tenacious P... civil unions for everyone! Hooray! On preview: I believe it is a choice, unlike being African American. Um, I'm around gays and lesbians all the time, have had a gay uncle (who died of AIDS back in the '80s) who was fully accepted by my family... and the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion among people of my acquaintance who are actually gay is that they had no choice in the matter... except maybe a choice to live a lie. But in the matter of who they are sexually attracted to, and who they wish to pursue lifelong emotional relationships with, there's no choice. Kwonsar, you obviously can believe what you like. But then you are discounting the experience of a vast amount of people as delusion at best, and an outright lie at worst. Since I have a hard time believing that every single gay person who has told me that they were born that way was talking out of their ass, I'm going with the assupmtion that in the vast majority of cases it is something inherent. and now i'm off to run a rehearsal for the gay men's chorus i direct. toodles, all!
• "kwonsar, when did you choose to be a heterosexual?" I didn't choose. It just came Natural. Meaning according to nature. "I have close relatives who are gay, and believe me, at least in high school, they would much have preferred being straight. They're okay with it now, though, no thanks to crap like this." Crap like what? Someone who believes different than you. Someone who doesn't think like you. I don't call your beliefs crap. I just don't agree, respectfully. I don't hate or discriminate against anyone. However I do have a belief system by which I try to live.
• "God defined marriage, imo. You knew this right?" I did not know that god defined marriage as it exists under U.S. law. I thought that man defined marriage as it exists under U.S. law. Can you point me to god's definition(s) of marriage?
• Crap like what? Someone who believes different than you. Someone who doesn't think like you. I don't call your beliefs crap. I just don't agree, respectfully. Crap like being demonized and called the downfall of society because they love somebody with the same equipment as they have. Crap like something they have no control over being used to make them second class citizens. And they have no control over it, kwonsar. Do you honestly believe that if you wanted to, you could CHOOSE to be gay? And just choosing to let some guy kiss you doesn't count. They're two different things. Crap like not being able to visit their partner in the hospital, not being able to adopt, not being able to share taxes or insurance. You know, crap like that. And when beliefs lead to all that kind of crap, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em.
• "Um, I'm around gays and lesbians all the time, have had a gay uncle (who died of AIDS back in the '80s) who was fully accepted by my family... and the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion among people of my acquaintance who are actually gay is that they had no choice in the matter... except maybe a choice to live a lie. But in the matter of who they are sexually attracted to, and who they wish to pursue lifelong emotional relationships with, there's no choice.' First off, congratulations on being around gays and lesbians all the time. So am I. Like I said, I believe it is a choice and you don't. Why try to convince me of your opinion as though it were fact, as though this were something you were willing and able to prove. If you guys want me to leave I will. But don't start talking down to me. That bullshit.
• "Crap like being demonized and called the downfall of society because they love somebody with the same equipment as they have." You aren't talking about me. I have demonized no one. Or called anyone the downfall of society. "I gotta call 'em like I see 'em." I feel the same way.
• "Do you honestly believe that if you wanted to, you could CHOOSE to be gay?" Are you serious? Of course If believe that.
• Clever edit, kwonsar. :) Please let me make clear I don't want to force my beliefs on any Christian. I just want them to extend me and my family and friends the same courtesy. Besides, how does a gay marriage affect your everyday life? Really? People disobey God all the time without getting amendments thrown at them--why is this one so special? I'd wager that if gay marriage were legal tomorrow, and kept quiet, no one would even notice. Except the gays.
• Kwonsar: I don't think anyone wants you to leave. I certainly don't. Debate is good, and I'm trying to keep it civil (and recognize that you are as well). That being said, I'm not certain how anything I said could be construed as talking down to you. First off, congratulations on being around gays and lesbians all the time. So am I. I think it's pretty clear that the point of my post wasn't to pat myself on the back for tolerating homosexual company or anything. Why try to convince me of your opinion as though it were fact, as though this were something you were willing and able to prove. The facts I bring to the table are the experiences related to me by dozens of people whom I respect. Not empirically provable perhaps, but at least as valid as a passage from Deuteronomy or Romans.
• Kwonsar, I'll ask again, can you point me to god's definition(s) of marriage? I've just trawled through leviticus and deuteronomy and although there is lots of very harsh stuff about punishing various sexual behaviors, I have found nothing that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
• Are you serious? Of course If believe that. I am serious. You could say "okay, I'm gay now," but that wouldn't make you attracted to men. I think there may be a confusion here, which is common, between being gay and having gay sex. One can choose the latter, as I've said, since it's just a putting together of parts. But I do not believe one can choose the former, since it's an intrinsic attraction--which comes "naturally" as you said--starting around puberty. Your thesis requires that gay guys just one day decided to like other guys. And why? Just to piss people off? Just to be sure they would always be maligned and in some cases hated (even if not by you)? That makes no sense.
• I hate to leave the debate, but I gotta go now. Kwonsar, peace and love. And yeah, stick around. Debate is good.
• On the upside, you can stone your kids now if they sass you. Your kids are probably already stoned.
• "Besides, how does a gay marriage affect your everyday life? Really? People disobey God all the time without getting amendments thrown at them--why is this one so special?" Marriage represents a union blessed by God. It is the basis of everything a true Christian believes. I believe God instituted marriage because He, as the our creator, knows what is best for us. I know my beliefs don't hold much water with a lot people, all the more reason to affirm them. "I'd wager that if gay marriage were legal tomorrow, and kept quiet, no one would even notice. Except the gays." Doesn't make it right.
• The facts I bring to the table are the experiences related to me by dozens of people whom I respect. Not empirically provable perhaps, but at least as valid as a passage from Deuteronomy or Romans. And lest I forget... my statement that homosexuality is inherent is no more or less provable than a blanket assertation that it is a choice. Therein lies the problem.
• It is the basis of everything a true Christian believes. Not me. I guess that proves that I'm "not a true Christian." (I've scribbled a little more about that in the religion derail thread. Since I'm unconvinced that a series of posts on Monkeyfilter will ever change anyone's mind I'm stepping back for a bit... besides, I've really got to go to rehearsal. Ta-ta.
• "The facts I bring to the table are the experiences related to me by dozens of people whom I respect. Not empirically provable perhaps, but at least as valid as a passage from Deuteronomy or Romans." I know your beliefs differ from mine but don't think I am unaware of the issues gays face. I also know well several gay men and women. They know my beliefs and understand that I accept them as people but don't approve of their choice of lifestyle. On the second part, To me the validity of something is found in its truthfullness.
• I think the crap TP was referring to was just generally being treated like a second-class citizen -- second-class rights, abuse, discrimination, etc. Kwonsar (where's quonsar/quonset, btw?), you're of course fully entitled to believe whatever you want about the nature of God/Christ/sexuality/etc. Understand that your views *are* welcome here, though f8x and others will tell you you are in the minority here. Nevertheless, welcome. Dissent keeps us sharp. Back on point, the whole issue as far as the government goes is that we're debating U.S. law, not the law of Moses, not the law of Christ. You want to keep gay marriage out of your church? Fine, that's your call. It's perfectly legal for churches to discriminate. But this is not a Christian theocracy. The government is supposed to represent all of its citizens, and treat them all equally. It recognizes no single God over another, nor does the Constitution say that theism is a prerequisite for citizenship. You may not like homosexuality, you make think it an abomination. But you could be wrong. It's not your call to dictate how others live their private lives, and your disapproval of a different lifestyle is not and should not be the basis for federal law, if for no other reason than that you are not the only citizen represented under the law. Meanwhile, those gay couples who got their marriages taken back don't love each other any less. But their government tells them that they should go hide somewhere while we pretend they don't exist. And that ain't equal treatment under the law.
• "And lest I forget... my statement that homosexuality is inherent is no more or less provable than a blanket assertation that it is a choice. Therein lies the problem." Yep, I'll agree with that.
• I'm still waiting patiently for a pointer to where in the bible god has defined marriage. While I'm waiting, here's an excerpt from Black Books: Bernard: Why didn't you just say you were gay? Manny: What? But I, I'm not. Bernard: But you're interested in lamps. Manny: Yeah but I'm interested in, in women, and lamps. I thought you were actually (points to Bernard). Gay, I mean. Bernard: So did I for a bit. Then I found out about the prohibitive standards of hygiene. And all that dancing!
• It looks like I'm the lone Christian...Now to change this would mean fucking with God's will. Consequently, some of us believe God has blessed this country and fucking with God's will wouldn't be prudent. I'm so fucking immature, but I just have to say - "fucking with God's will"? That just seems...like the wrong words to use. ;) *attempts to inject levity into thread*
• middleclasstool, I agree with what you said above. And never asserted otherwise. Except, "Meanwhile, those gay couples who got their marriages taken back don't love each other any less. But their government tells them that they should go hide somewhere while we pretend they don't exist. And that ain't equal treatment under the law." You speak of their love to which you are not privy, and also you speak of what the goverment is telling them, we are the government.
• "I'm so fucking immature, but I just have to say - "fucking with God's will"? That just seems...like the wrong words to use." And the point is...
• "I'm still waiting patiently for a pointer to where in the bible god has defined marriage." Roryk, sorry, lost track a little, um, you can look in Genesis 2:18-25. That should give you a pretty good idea of what God intended. If you want the verses in which God disaproves of a sexual union between two men, I'll look those up too.
• kwonsar I'll take your complete inability to biblically support your claim that god defines marriage as only between a man and a woman as an admission of defeat on your part. Cheers.
• "kwonsar I'll take your complete inability to biblically support your claim that god defines marriage as only between a man and a woman as an admission of defeat on your part." The entire bible supports my claim, you should read it sometime. I'm done for now. Cheers.
• So, kwonsar, if you believe that marriage is an union blessed by God, does that mean that you believe that non-Christian heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry in a non-Christian ceremony?
• "The entire bible supports my claim, you should read it sometime. I'm done for now." My point is that the entire bible does not support your claim, anywhere. There is no statement that marriage is exclusive to opposite sex couplings. As you claim to have multiple copies of the book, I would have expected you to know this. Thanks for the suggestion that I should read it sometime. I have done. Perhaps you should pick up one of your multiple copies? Why do you need so many copies, anyway?
• i've been following the discussion for a while, since i posted the link, and it's about time i spoke up. kwonsar- i am a gay man. i didn't wake up one day and say to myself, "Heterosexuality is SO five minutes ago, i think i want to become a member of a group of people that is oppressed and discriminated against." Saying homosexuality is a choice is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to belittle a state of being and make it seem as transitory as a whim or a phase. Let me be perfectly clear. I am and always have been a gay man (well, i was a gay boy at one point, i suppose). There was no choice involved, other than to accept who i am and move on. My identity as a gay man and my behavior in my sexual life are two entirely different concepts. I did not choose to be gay. I DID choose to have relations with other men, and I still do. I am not in a polyamorous relationship, nor do my relationships involve non-humans. When the time comes for me to settle down with the right guy, what possible justification is there for he and i to not receive the same societal support as any other committed relationship? I have no interest in "fucking with God's will;" I don't want a church wedding. What i want is the right for my spouse to have all the rights of any other spouse- taxes, inheritance, property, visitation, etc. The bottom line is that the Bible is not the Constitution, and the US is not a theocracy. Those who feel their religions are threatened are choosing to feel thusly, or were they born that way? The worst part about ALL of this is the poor loving couples who have been together more than double or triple some of our current lifespans who actually were FINALLY able to marry the one they loved, only to have that yanked away from them. Whether or not Newsom overstepped his bounds, it's cruel to dishonor these unions which were so sacred to those united. Hiding behind the Bible is just a red herring.
• ... speaking of red herrings, how about we deny southpaws the right to marriage? same approximate proportion of the population, and the probably chose to be left-handed, those filthy lefties...
• theY
• "Why do you need so many copies, anyway?" Roryk, back off, perhaps this is the quote you saw from middleclasstool,"Reason, conscience, golden rule, decency, etc. The Bible is a significant part of Christianity (my wife and I probably own a dozen of them)" "I did not choose to be gay. I DID choose to have relations with other men, and I still do." See, es el Queso, you just defined gay. A man who chooses to have sexual relations with another man=gay. Homosexual=gay=sexual involvement with same sex person. So to me it looks as though, in your statement, you contradicted yourself.
• "Hiding behind the Bible is just a red herring." You've got your beliefs as to what is right and I've got mine. It's that simple. Don't discriminate against me just because I don't believe what you believe.
• "they probably chose to be left-handed, those filthy lefties..." Not too long ago, the sinister ones were obliged to learn to write with their right hands (northpaws?). My dad is a leftie by birth but wasn't allowed to be in school. He was basically forced to develop ambidexterity. I'm not aware of any evidence on the effects this has on a child's development, but I doubt they're benign. Forced handwriting preference is no longer common. Maybe in time we can hope for the disappearance of forced gender-union preference.
• "Roryk, back off, perhaps this is the quote you saw from middleclasstool,"Reason, conscience, golden rule, decency, etc. The Bible is a significant part of Christianity (my wife and I probably own a dozen of them)" Fair enough, my bad. I confused middleclasstool's comment with yours when you smarmily suggested I should read the bible sometime.
• i'm not discriminating against you Kwonsar, i am telling you that you are categorically wrong about homosexuality as a choice. as for contradicting myself, again, you're wrong. even if i never had physical relations with another man, i would still be gay. gayness as a state of being does not equal the act of gay sex. there are celibate gay men (see clergy, Catholic) just as there are celibate heterosexual men. A state of being is different from an action. lets say (perish the thought) you and i were to have sex. you would still be a straight man having gay sex, and i would be a gay man having gay sex. why does sex = marriage anyway? marriage as a civil covenant is pretty much about financial and personal security. marriage as a religious act is about being blessed in the eyes of God. so what about older folks who are past their sexually active days getting married? they're not procreating, so is their marriage invalid? or people who choose not to breed? The difference between your position and mine is that I am trying to advance equality, while you're trying to suppress it. Really, if you're against gay marriage, then please, by all means, please don't marry someone of the same gender. But keep your damned nose out of my personal life, and try to find something better to do with your time than persecute me and find ways to deny me life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• So, kwonsar, have you found that bit in the bible where god defines marriage as only between a man and a woman? I'll take a verse reference, web link, whatever you got.
• Didn't you hear the man? The whole thing. Except for the parts that he deems irrelevant to the conversation.
• roryk, the Bible says some of the patriarchs had many wives. Maybe we should alter the definition to accept one man-->many women as well as one-man-one-woman. After all, it's in the Book. :) There's also an interesting bit about shellfish...aw crap!
• Ok my 2 cents worth...Kwonsar (not to be confused with my secret crush Q), you said previously that you believed "God defined marriage, imo." So by this definition and by reading your various posts on the issue, how does marriage between non christians fit in this equation? How about those that get married in the courthouse? Is their union any less of a marriage because it is not sanctioned by God but "by the power vested in me by the state of [insert said state here]..." Secondly, whats wrong with giving 2 people that love each other the opportunity to legalize their union. After all that is what it is about. Legalizing their union so that they gain the same legal and societal benefits (note, i am not talking about religion) that other couples that are legally joined together enjoy? I sincerely doubt that gays want the church to recognise their unions. I think its more about being able to fill a governmental form that doesnt automatically assume that a life partner is of the opposite sex. Its about having the opportunity to file joint taxes, being able to make a life with another person so to speak. Your religion may take a dim view of that union - fine. Your religion takes a dim view of anyone that isnt Christian...but still doesn't care if they get married or not! So why not gays? After all come judgement day, they are the ones who will have to answer for their action, not you. By the way, just in case you forgot, marriage exists independently of Christianity. Muslims get married. Jews get married. Buddhists, Hindus, Zorostrians, Animists, Wiccans, Atheists, Toothfairy believers...they all practice the institution of marriage. Different cultures view marriage differently. America is supposed to be a melting pot of different cultures and religions where everyone can agree to co-exist peacefully. These days however, its seems toleration is in short supply!
• I just skimmed this thread so forgive me if I am covering some ground that has already been gone over, but here I go: 1. The use of Christianity as a reason for a legal prohibition on gay marriage. Well besides the whole seperation of church and state, there are a large number of Christian churches that will marry gay people. Of the gay people I am friends with a great number of them attend Christian churches on a regular basis. 2. The whole nature vs. nurture debate. Well, for one, I fail to see why that is relevent any more than if one likes short people or tall people. However, untill there is any sort of evidence (which I don't hold my breath for) then it is just a matter of opinion. I'm left handed though, and I don't remember "choosing" to be left handed. Additionally, if one can "choose" to have an attraction to someone of the same sex as they, then that doesn't really say much for how strong our urge for heterosexuality is. I don't know if I've said this here before or if it was at another site, but there are lots of things I HATE. HATE, HATE, HATE. Some of you may remember that I hate capri pants and flip flops. I also hate SUVs. I find them litterally obscene. I hate lots of things and find lots of things morally offensive and even Unamerican, BUT I am not trying to make them illegal because as much as they irritate me and make me mad, they really don't have much of an impact on my daily life. Let people be happy.
• This whole "Presumed innocent until proven gay" thing seems a bit silly to me. If sex = sexuality, how about virgins? Do they have a sexuality? Man, where did this thread pop up from, anyway? I went away for a few hours and all of a sudden it's MONSTRO, THE COLOSSAL THREAD FROM THE MOON squatting on the front page.
• Oooh, ooh, my turn to poke it with a stick! Leviticus does have a few harsh words against gay people, true. But if you truly believe that every word of Leviticus is God's sacred mandate, you surely already know that the "sin" of homosexuality is precisely equal to the "sin" of eating shellfish, pork, wading birds, and all manner of other forbidden foods. And you can't have sex with a woman who's menstruating -- or even touch her, because she might contaminate you with her bloody cooties. And the bizarro-world list goes on... So, yeah, I think Jesus was a good guy. He helped the prostitutes and lepers, after all, and if he were still around today I doubt he'd have any problem with gays and lesbians getting married. Although he'd definitely be kicking some money-lender butt. If Christians were proposing constitutional amendments to outlaw such major Ten Commandment issues as adultery, disrespecting the parental units, coveting neighbors' asses, etc., I would have a teeny bit more respect for their evil unChristlike attacks on the basic civil rights of my nonbreeder brothers and sisters. But yeah, not very much respect. Whatever happened that whole "do unto others" thing? And, whoops, I've been legally heterosexually married for seven years and we're still childless by choice -- wheee, look at me, I'm FUCKING WITH GOD'S WORD! Bad, bad, wicked spackle. On preview, yeah, capri pants and flip-flops are clearly the spawn of Satan. It's our Christian duty to shun all wearers of these unclean accoutrements.
• DAMNIT. AGAIN with the flip flops. SCREW you all!
• I blame Kerry.
• Now for my serious comment. It's hard not to be patronizing, when at the other end of the table is someone who doesn't recognize logic. Which is basically where the divide is in our culture war--people who make sense, and people who ignore sense to the pursuit of their beliefs. No matter how many logically fallacies you point out, or how many brilliant analogies you make, nothing short of God coming down and saying "look, why can't you assholes just leave each other alone" will make those who fear The Gay, stop. And the last time God DID step in and say something, someone got nailed to a tree. So. People learn and grow at their own pace.
• And, of course, if he came down and said "Look, why can't you just leave each other's assholes alone", us on the other side of the table would look pretty silly.
• The issue of choice is a red herring. One chooses their religion, as well, and at least in the United States of America one isn't (well, shouldn't be) discriminated against because of that choice. What the Bible says is or isn't marriage is also irrelevant. We live in a secular democracy with freedom of religion, not in a theocracy. You are free to believe that two gay people are not married, just as the Catholic church is free to believe that two people not married in the church are not really married, despite a government certificate saying that they are.
• And honestly, which would you rather have, a bunch of people walking around in flip-flops, or a bunch of people taking off their shoes to reveal GROSS WHITE PASTY FEET. Tan thyself, you animals.
• Since "marriage" seems to be such an important word in the minds of both sides of this issue, would a separation between civil and religious marriages be all that awful? As was pointed out in that other thread, many European countries require a civil marriage, and if they want, the bride and groom can also have a religious ceremony. Though I don't know that any or all European countries recognize homosexual marriage, this separation of church and state seems eminently reasonable to me. I truly can't see how a civil marriage would threaten Christian marriages - or Islamic, or Jewish, or.... I mean, kwonsar, do you think the marriages of other religions are not valid? Kinda seems to me that you might, since it might not make it "right" according to your stated views. Even if you think that, wouldn't you be more comfortable with people with opinions that differ from yours who make a civil commitment which could be as seriously and emotionally meant as that of a couple who marries in the church of their choice? Seem to me, that denying that not only denies the rights of people who don't believe as you do, but could also trash society's goal of familial stability. You may think that gay unions are iky, and I think fundi xtian fears are silly, but isn't there a neutral ground out there where we can compromise? From my earliest education, and, I'm really old, and from a time when the general society was much more religious than now, I was tought that we are not a Christian nation. (If you read the links provided above, this will make sense.) And my mother, and grandmother were tought the same way. That takes us back to 1865, and you can read history books by real historians to see it goes back to the beginning of this nation. The intent of our founders in my opinion, was to ensure that a particular religious view couldn't force us to say that those who disagreed didn't have the same rights as the believers. I loved the description of the deist, George Washington, attending church with his wife, out of respect for her beliefs, then waiting outside for her to take communion. How thoughtful he was in doing that. Separation of church and state is really a good thing. As are really good manners.
• From MeFi, I can't resist: Alan Keyes sings Somewhere Over the Rainbow Windows Media
• "kwonsar, when did you choose to be a heterosexual?" I didn't choose. It just came Natural. Meaning according to nature. Two things that I thought when I saw that: 1. You are attracted to the opposite sex, and it wasn't a choice. But someone who is attracted to the same sex chose that? Perhaps it's just badly phrased, but that sounds a whole lot like double standard to me. 2. So, what's natural? This might be a bit of a shocker for you, but in nature, animals too exhibit a diversity of attraction, including homosexual unions. To quote:

  In a recent, widely acclaimed work, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Dr. Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist and researcher, draws upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries. The Kirkus Review describes Dr. Bagemihl's work as "a scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human sexuality is an aberration of nature." Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. It is found in every major geographic region and every major animal group. Animals engage in all types of non-reproductive sexual behavior. Same-sex sexual expression includes courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting - even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

  From page 15 of The Bluebook, a research effort made by the members of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Kisco as a helpful and healing resource.
• As A heterosexual who as already attended 3 marriages this year and has 4 more to go I think the only qualification for a couple (homo or hetero) to get married is the ability provide a full bar at the reception.
• also, kwonsar is a troll.
• yeah, but if we provided a full bar, Spooky, it would basically consist of Zima, Cosmopolitans and Shiraz... and thanks for that blue book link, Christophine, very nice resource. and duh about the hairy-toed sub-bridge dweller, but it's a mindset that i encounter daily.
• Well, kwonsar's been pretty civil, so let's cut him/her some slack. No judgement of trolldom until he/she exhibits some kind of really trollish behaviour (other than not making any sense). Ok, have just spent the last hour speed reading through Genesis. Dun see anything that states that God says anything about marriage being between a man and a woman. Although I have seen cases of a man marrying his half-sister, a man impregnating his daughters and a couple staying together into old age even though they didn't have any children (although they did have some in the end). Ok. Can I ask a few questions please? Although I have to leave soon, and won't get to see the answers till hours later. 1. Kwonsar, do you believe that the laws of the United States should conform to the Bible? 2. If yes, which version of the Bible? 3. Christianity is not a monolithic entity. Which denomination has the real 'Truth'? Which denomination is the one closest to God's Will? (eg. Presbyterian, Baptist, Adventist, Latter-Day Saints) 4. Should this denomination have the right to dictate what the laws of the United States should and should not be? 6. What is the difference, if any, between the legal document of marriage, and religious marriage? If there is no difference, why are non-Christians allowed to have that document? That's about it. Thank you.
• Wow! This thread was a good read. I have to say kwonsar you sound like a hard core bible thumper to me. You show your prejudice against others then ask others not to discriminate against you in the same breath. Are you my neighbor? I am smack dab in the middle of the bible belt. I hear this type of backwards thinking daily. It is a shame. But who am I to care what you believe, you got the right to beleve whatever you wish, just as everyone does. Our government is not a Christian government, at least not yet. It should never be. No law or amendment should be based on a religious idea or definition. Just as no law or amendment should be made that discriminates against religious choice. I say civil unions for all, no matter what gender, with the same legal benefits for all. No ceremony, just a legal license. If a person's belief systems call for a ceremony, then that person is free to pursue that in the private sector, in the church of their choice. It amazes me that not everyone can see this. It is a fair solution for everyone imo.
• Damn, I came from work hurrying to write something but I see ramix said coverend pretty much the same ground than I (kudos ramix!). Anyway Kwonsar, I don't believe you are trolling, you are welcome here. Some people seem to get worked up too easily to (quite fundamentalist in my opinion) christian thoughts and forget this is an open discussion forum were we aren't supposed to agree on fundamentals. Just to restate what ramix said. The lawful institution of marriage (that imposed by the government) isn't supposed to be attached to any religious beliefs. It's just a formal way to give people that feel a special bond between themselves (this being love or whatever you may call it) the posibility to receive a sort of special treatment, benefits and obligations as a couple. It isn't supposed to have any dependence on any religious book or belief. That law was made to acknowledge the existence of a deep human instinct that seems to be independent from religion, race, or sex. An instinct that defines how we relate to each other so strongly that governments are obligued to legislate in a way that permits the free expression of that instinct and help in a special way those that are bonded by it. So it shouldn't in any way depend on your particular beliefs. Although, as you have said, you live in a democracy so is really the majority who finally decides (via electing leaders and representatives who supposedly favor their points of view) which forms of marriage are accepted and which are not.
• Damn, I came from work hurrying to write something but I see ramix said coverend pretty much the same ground than I (kudos ramix!). Oh my, where is preview when I need him!?
• I think that if any of our elected representatives had any guts they would submit an Ammendment proposal to make divorce illegal to show how hypocritical this "sanctity of marriage" thing is.
• Glad I could provide it, es el Queso. It came up in a discussion I had a while ago with a Christian friend on this same subject, and it seemed like a good time to share it here. And MMmmmm, Cosmo! Where's that bar?
• I'm also in favor of bratcat's idea of civil unions for everyone instead of state sponsored marriages. Marriages are religious institutions that shouldn't have nothing to do with laws, neither the other way around.
• Alnedra, you accidentily omiitted Catholics from your Christian pantheon. Which is what some of the more fundi believers do in the US. It's so sad that they do, since Catholics were way close to being the original Christians. One could make the agrument that all the sects that came later were heresies. I've known immigrant Catholics who thought the weren't "Christian", even though they believed in Christ, because of the pirating of the term by fundis. Even though I'm not Christian, I've found the fundi tendency to take over the "Christian" designation for whatever sect they adhere to very upsetting. It seems to me to be a kind of marketing technique that they should be ashamed of using. It would be so much more honest if they said "I'm a Prebyterian" or "Baptist", or "Foursquare" or "Jehova's Witness" etc., when discussing tenets that vary greatly among the various churches.
• path, I didn't omit it. I put "eg." as an acknowledgement that these are only a few examples. I thought choosing (to me) the less common denominations would be more appropriate to my question. Over here, it's largely Catholics and Methodists. Heh, I spent 14 years in Catholic schools, I'm not likely to forget it.
• Also, many denominations broke away from Mother Church because they felt that Catholicism had diverted from the Word of God. Hence the term "Protestant" - to protest against the deviations of the Roman Catholic Church from the Ways of God. (uh... no research done recently on these two statements. Feel free to knock me on the head if I'm wrong) So whether they're heresies is another sticky issue. I'm fairly comfortable with the term Christian in most circumstances because my friends belong to many different denominations. However, when they - or anyone - starts talking about "Christianity" or "Christian values", my reaction is to ask "which denomination?", since not all churches and denominations have the same beliefs for specific issues. Birth control, for one. And marriages for another (gay/heterosexual, or between believer and non-believer).
• Bah. Anybody who can't claim apostolic succession is nothing in my book. *waves censer, chants in Greek*
• Response to roryk regarding marriage in the Bible, I'd like to offer up a Biblical defense of marriage as solely between men and women. Again, this is just a biblical defense, not a legal or social defense. Matthew 19, Jesus cites Genesis in his defense of marriage. Nowhere does he mention men and men cleaving together to become husband and husband, or likewise with women. He concludes by saying, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." The key here is that God expressly built men and women to be joined together, and that God's hand in that combination is more important than any of us, including Christians, probably consider. Genesis 2:24 states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." To speak of homosexual 'marriage' is a constuct fallacy, since marriage can only exist between man and woman. Going back to God's part in marriage. Not only is marriage a commitment to each other, but it's also a covenant with God. See Malachi 2:14-16 to see God's displeasure at his people displaying unfaithfulness to him and to each other. Since marriage is a holy covenant with God as well as with your spouse, Paul warns us in Hebrews that "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled", which implies a couple of things. Combined with Paul's exhortation for Christians to obey the laws of the land we extract the following: Romans 13:7 "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Marriage is, I think we can all agree, an honorable arrangement. Thus in marriage, we may honor both God and the state, since the state has laws regarding the commitment that marriage implies, and all legal ramifications thereof. Since our laws recognize that marriage is only between a man and woman, the Biblical implication is that it is and both legally and spiritually appropriate. No other precedent, legal or spiritual, exists to predicate the legalization or spiritual rationalization of homosexual "marriage", since it can't exist in the spiritual sense, and doesn't (currently) exist in the legal sense. Then there are the parallel that the Bible offers to indicate that at the very least, homosexual marriage isn't exactly standard. Jesus refers to the Church as his bride, while he is the bridegroom. As I said before, take this as my interpretation of the situation as it stands in my mind. Hope it helps illuminate the mindset behind opposing gay marriage.
• you know, f8xmulder, it is people like you who make me really appreciate forums like this. we may categorically disagree, but i am grateful for your ability to put forth your views in a way that is non-confrontational and illuminating... i have always said that i loathed political correctness because i learn more from discussing with people that i do not agree with than when i am preaching to the choir. thanks for proving that point nicely :)
• Thanks f8x. No other precedent, legal or spiritual, exists to predicate the legalization or spiritual rationalization of homosexual "marriage", since it can't exist in the spiritual sense, and doesn't (currently) exist in the legal sense. And that precisely what's, hopefully, about to change (a few decades more I guess).
• I'd be careful about endorsing or putting all one's weight on the Homosexuality in the Animal World premise, since it's pretty rife with conclusions that don't support homosexuality as a normative state any more than examining human homosexuality does. Not to mention, that rather places us on equal footing with animals; not something that would fly in a court of law, for instance, when defending yourself from murder charges. As for homosexuality being considered a circumstance of genetics, even if that is true, and choice was not part of the equation -- that still doesn't prove that it's normal, any more than a gene for cystic fibrosis or autism is *normal*. I am by no means endorsing a view that homosexual are somehow lesser persons by dint of their sexual orientation, BTW.
• My Stepfather is really opposed to gay marriage. we've had many spirited discussions about this issue, much like this one. He has cited many of the same things as the dissenting view in this thread. It's difficult to discuss with him because it's very personal he is family afterall. I personally believe it offends his masculinity. Anyway, I found this essay "The Arguments Against Gay Marriage and Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue." It sums up my position almost spot on. On preview, thanks f8x. I have to say that was one of the first/best Biblical defenses I have heard.
• es el Queso: I'm glad that was helpful. And believe me, I think I totally understand your opinions--to a certain extent I even sympathize. Clearly, there is a disconnect between what we may believe to be right and the cultural and social realities that present themselves--the difficulty is presenting one's beliefs in such a way that do not inflame, but rather illuminate and provide a means of discussion. I think most Christians are guilty of inflammation rather than illumination, and it's led us to a ideologically peninsula.
• Fox, thats all well and good...but what about the non christians? What about the Buddhists? What about the Hindus? They dont believe in the bible. They predate Christianity, AND they also have marriage rites. No one is denying Christians the right to marry. No one is expecting Christians to accept homosexual christians who want to marry. The argument is for NON religious marriage "civil marriages" if you will...where the judge or whomever the state vests power in CAN declare that 2 loving adults can spend the rest of their lives in a LEGAL court binding union! Thats different from "civil union" that is being proposed. How? Remember separate but equal?
• I'm not going to bother addressing the many comments made by trolls here, as they don't deserve any further attention. I will state, though, that prejudice and bigotry are part of the reason I emigrated from the U.S. I've been married to my wife for 25 years. We have children and we're both hopelessly heterosexual. My marriage is good, I'd even say it's great, wonderful and thoroughly fulfilling most of the time. I can't see anything about same-sex marriages that could possibly threaten my marriage. One of my oldest friends in the world is gay, and he and his partner have been together for longer than my wife and I. My son is gay, and he's been with his partner for a long enough time that they've discussed marriage. My wife and I (and the parents of the other man) have even started planning and saving up for the wedding. My niece, who is a lesbian, got married last summer, and I was happy to be in the wedding party and celebrate her love and commitment publicly. Other gay friends of ours have considered marriage, some are planning for it, and a few friends and acquaintances have been married for a while (including our bridge partners, a couple in their late 60s). You know what? None of these marriages threaten mine or lessen its value in any way. Not that I consider 'relative worth' to be at all an honest argument from anyone opposed to same-sex marriages, anyway. I was raised Christian and my wife was raised Catholic. We're both agnostic now, but share an interest in Quaker beliefs. What I've learned of God (or the gods) over time is that it's extremely unlikely that any supremely benevolent force would advocate prejudice and prefer that we not love one another. Is the love of a homosexual different from the love of a heterosexual? Absolutely not, and anyone who makes such an assertion clearly has a biased agenda. We moved to Toronto in the last couple of years, and I have to say that we're very proud of the governments here who have extended full legal recognition to same-sex marriages. We've been privileged enough with loving family and friends who have invited us to share in their weddings and their lives. I agree with some of the comments up there -- I don't think that back in the U.S. people are prepared to drop their biases yet, and that's profoundly sad and disturbing. I've had this debate so many times over the years, and I have yet to hear a rational explanation of the opinion that same-sex marriages should be kept/made illegal. I've been called gay for lending my support (my wife loves that one), dismissed as a 'liberal' (not even close, I'm probably far more conservative on many issues than my accusers) and seen family members threatened, harrassed and vilified because they are open about who they love. I am glad I never had to deal with the kind of hatred and persecution my gay friends and family have -- I honestly don't know if I'd have been strong enough to get through the day (every day). Also, I have a nephew who's a researcher working in the field of human and animal sexuality. His take on the idea of choice is to laugh heartily and point out that not one study ever performed by a credited and respected team has been able to find any evidence supporting the theory that any of us are capable of choosing our sexual orientations. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary, but since we are discussing behavioural science, we need to allow for more research and to be aware that it is currently an inexact science.
• Went to softball practice. I'm glad that I wasn't here for the lambasting. Anyway, there was no way possible for me to possible answer all the questions directed at me. Kindof glad f8xmulder balanced the thread a bit. Not only am I a newbie here but also a minority, and I don't want to come off as a troll just because I have seemingly illogical beliefs and am not shy. I know I'm not always the most sensitive person in the world but I have tried to be courteous in this thread. There was a few things that caught my eye in the thread since I left but f8xmulder covered most of em. So perhaps I don't need to add anymore unless there is something that someone just absolutely has to ask me, I will do my best to answer honestly. Otherwise,I'll see ya'll around.
• sex<->marriage?->gay marriage<->gay sex<-?sex
• Again, for what it's worth I don't see kwonsar as a troll. This is (unfortunately) a volatile topic, and I'm pretty impressed that folks in this thread have kept it as civil and thoughtful as possible.
• I just have to answer Alnedra's questions that he so politely listed numerically so that I can answer them in order. Hey its easy. Question 1:No the laws should conform to whatever democracy dictates. 2:n/a 3:I don't believe in denomonations. To me they are just clubs to join. Each one has their own requirements and I beleive God requires nothing but the simple choice of accepting Christ. 4:No 6?:2 part question. a.I really don't know, I eloped if that tells you anything. b.My guess is because they are man and woman not same sex. I hope these answers suffice.
• To clarify something I said earlier. This is my view on the definitions of gay and homosexuality; A gay person is someone who has incorporated the ideas of homosexuality into their lifestyle, incorporated to me denotes choice. Homosex(ual)(ity) is an act of sex with same sex or feeling of sexual attraction with the same sex. I don't believe humans are naturally homosexual, rather, heterosexual,while they can choose to participate in acts of homosexuality. If you are gay it's not because you had sex with someone of the same sex, it's because you have incorporated that behavior and way of thinking into your lifestyle. If you are attracted to the same sex fine, but to act on that attraction is a choice. Also, with the whole animals partaking in homosexual activity. I believe animals act on natural instinct and do not choose. So their acts of homosexuality are natural. I know my opinions aren't popular among Mofiers, but you asked so I told. This is not trolling, it's responding.
• I never understood the whole "homosexuality is a choice" concept. I've had opportunity to have sex with PLENTY of men and I'm sure I would've gotten off and had a good time... except (no offense) I would've been so completely and utterly revulsed by the very prospect that I would've gotten ill. Homosexuality isn't a choice. It chooses you. It's genetic. Period. Yes, different people have different degrees of predisposition, but that's a GENETIC predisposition. Now, if you're then going to argue that we shouldn't ACT on our predispositions because of a moral code (and assuming that these predispositions are not causing anyone harm), then you're telling me that people should surrender their freedom solely to appease someone else's moral constructs. If "acting on that attraction is a choice" then EVERYTHING we do is a choice and the argument breaks down like a jalopy. I'm late to this and didn't read the thread, so disregard if this is superfluous.
• The answer is right in the bible people: you just need the right verse: It's Ezekiel 23:20 : a segment of the famous Two Sisters.
   And it's a verse I often call upon, ever since I discovered it.
  
• "Homosexuality isn't a choice. It chooses you. It's genetic. Period." I will respectfully disagree. "then you're telling me that people should surrender their freedom solely to appease someone else's moral constructs." No, I'm not. I just happen to beleive in right and wrong. "If "acting on that attraction is a choice" then EVERYTHING we do is a choice and the argument breaks down like a jalopy." How does it break down?
• I'm with forks, I get hit on by guys regularly, most of 'em fairly hot. I'm not attracted to them unfortunately and so I don't have sex with them. Does that mean I chose to be hetero? Not really. Hell, to be totally honest, I'd probably get along with another guy better because I wouldn't have to deal with the majority of the crap I get from women. Being gay is not a choice, if it were, I'd be gay if for no other reason than I'm lazy. Secondly, what about all those heathe...er, non-christians that get married all over the world? (and pretty much outnumber the christians on this planet to boot) Are they not married either? Heh, I spent 14 years in Catholic schools, I'm not likely to forget it. Eight years here. I'm scarred for life
• No, I'm not. I just happen to beleive in right and wrong. But who made you final arbiter of right and wrong?
• "Secondly, what about all those heathe...er, non-christians that get married all over the world? (and pretty much outnumber the christians on this planet to boot) Are they not married either?" It depends on how you define marriage. "But who made you final arbiter of right and wrong?" Nobody, never said I was.
• So, then the question arises, what's really right and what's really wrong? Who knows? You may be right, you may not be. None of us will know 'til we shuffle off this mortal coil to whatever reward awaits us. But to completely rule out the possibility that others are right because you believe you are, well that's not very christian, is it?
• It depends on how you define marriage. I think what Surlyboi was asking is, how do you define marriage?
• The question of gay marriage really highlights another very serious problem in this country - that the freedom of religion in this country only applies to those citizens of the U.S. who are Christian. Not to mention that separation of church and state is complete bull. I'm an athiest and I am sick of other peoples god being on my country's currency, in my flag's pledge, and being on the deciding end of who I can and cannot make a life commitment to. It is my most sincere hope that if and when I have children they grow up in a world where all types of love are valued equally and where they are free to marry whomever they wish.
• I've been reading the commentary re: gay marriage here and have a question re: Christianity vs. any number of subjects. Do Christians have the right to pass judgement on anyone? This applies especially to the question of gay marriage, since opposition to it implies a judgement on the nature and/or choices of another human being. My interpretation says no, that is a right solely reserved for God and that to pass judgement on anything not specifically mentioned by the Commandments is, for lack of a better word, a sin. For reference, see Matthew 7:5, which is an admonishment against those who live in glass houses by Jesus, as related by a faithful disciple. There is nothing that says a Christian must participate in the acts objected to, but I don't see anything where the Christian is allowed to pass judgement on a given act.
• So many questions...do I dare jump in again with both feet?
• *waits, listens*
• *ignores*
• I'm all about the judge not, lest ye be judged...
• ramix: I'm not sure what you're asking. From what I can tell, God never precludes marriage as limited to those of the Christian or Judaic faith. That God considers human beings to be sacred creations extends past mere cultural or religious boundaries. That is how marriage, as defined in the Bible, and as a holy covenant and legal commitment, can apply to all faiths and cultures. That it has done so, and that it has been pretty much solely the purview of men and women only since the dawn of humanity, is at least historical argument for keeping marriage between members of the opposite sex. As for civil unions - I wouldn't oppose the concept of everyone being subject to a civil union that is a state-sanctioned union between two adults. Then a marriage could remain the sacrosanct institution it is considered to be, whilst gays can have the benefits conferred upon a legally recognized coupling.
• I'm now convinced that the reason Christians feel threatened by gay marriage is that it's only the first step toward mandatory tanning for flip-flop wearers, a Constitutional amendment to require that all alcoholic drinks must contain tropical fruit and/or little umbrellas, and the forcible makeover of people like kwonsar so they resemble rational human beings instead of some kind of Spanish Inquisi (drum roll) NOBODY EXPECTS THE...
• Should Christians judge? Matthew 7:1-5 - "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." Leviticus 19:15 - "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." John 7:24 - "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 - "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." It seems to me what is paramount is that proper and righteous judgment be meted, and not to be hypocritical in passing unfair or uneven judgments upon different people. Yet clearly, even Jesus passed judgment upon the Pharisees when he called them a brood of vipers, and he smashed the money lenders' booths and then berated them for sullying the temple. Jesus judged quite a few characters from the Bible, including his own disciples ("O ye of little faith!").
• forks and surlyboi (NB: not an angry dyke, but apparently a straight man) make a very good point about their unchosen straightness. Being bisexual (capable of being attracted to a man or a woman), I don't necessarily grok the way that gay or straight people feel about their orientation. But I do believe my fiance when he says that he could never be physically intimate with a man - he likes men a lot, but their bodies just turn him off in the same way that women's bodies turn him on. What makes one natural for the straight, and "chosen" for the gay? It is the same for gay people - they just aren't attracted to the opposite sex. They would like to be - who would not want to be part of the majority, to be respected, to be able to show off the one you love to everyone with never any fear of rejection? But they cannot. I once had a very good friend whom I think I could have happily dated - and him me, but I wasn't a boy - and he couldn't change how I was or how he was - sexually, I may have well been an inguana or a tree. (And he was not a lizard or flora phile) Gay people could live in a straight relationship, sexually frustrated and unattracted to their partner - but if you've seen that movie with Jennifer Anderson, you'd see why that's just not good for anyone. So many gays tried to "choose" (always to be straight, which is far more desirable) - and fail. In some ways, bisexuals get some of the fallout from that lack of choice - because we can "choose" in a sense,* we can get accused by gay people of being pretenders in either direction (really gay, but pretending to be straight - "bi now, gay later" is the saying" - or as straight people pretending to be bi for fashion, as has been the habit among some clubgoing women). My fiance does wonder though: if there are straight people who believe that gay people choose to be gay, maybe they aren't actually completely straight? He knows that he cannot help being straight, and that orientation is inborn - but maybe the people who claim that one has a choice are all actually bisexual? *I am not saying that we can choose not to be bisexual - I will always be aware of my attraction to certain women. But by becoming involved in a permanent male-female relationship, I have become for society's purpose straight, with all the benefits that entails (yes, I do feel guilty).
• Hi. Back. First off, my apologies for not being able to count. Apparently there is a number between 4 and 6 that I've just learnt about. Secondly: 1:No the laws should conform to whatever democracy dictates. Ok. You are against homosexual marriage for religious reasons, but you agree that law should conform to what democracy dictates. Which means you agree to a separation between state and religion. So why should religious definitions of what marriage is influence what the legal definition of what marriage is? 3:I don't believe in denomonations. To me they are just clubs to join. Each one has their own requirements and I beleive God requires nothing but the simple choice of accepting Christ. But denominiations are far more than just clubs. They may all accept Christ, but they have different practices and approaches to issues. Some churches accept homosexual marriages. Some accept marriages between Christians and non-Christians; others demand that the non-Christian convert before marriage. If you assume that all Christians and churches have the same response to all issues, you are either incredibly ill-informed, or naive. If accepting Christ is the only criteria, shouldn't a more relaxed view of the laws in the Bible be taken? After all, Christ himself overturned many of the Old Testament laws (such as the "eye for an eye" one). 4:No If not, why should religious definitions of marriage make it wrong for homosexuals to marry legally? 6?:2 part question. a.I really don't know, I eloped if that tells you anything. b.My guess is because they are man and woman not same sex. 6a. Hope that you and the Mrs are happy, that's what matters most. If you do not know, do you think it is right to impose the Christian idea of what is right to the legal document of marriage? Because doing this will mean that Christian definitions of right and wrong can be applied to other laws (gambling, divorce, meat-eating on Fridays, mixed religion marriages). 6b.But non-Christians do not marry according to the Will of (Christian) God. They may be divorced and remarried. They may marry and not have children. They do not honor the Christian God when they marry or in their marriage. Also, if you take the Bible literally, then do you eschew shellfish and blended fabrics? After this, I'm not going to respond any further, apologies. Too tired and I've learnt that religious discussions don't lead anywhere 99% of the time. Welcome, kwonsar, and hope that you don't mind all the antagonism. Religion and politics are surely two of the most aggravating topics to discuss.
• I think it's very important to point out that the "straight is natural, gay is a choice" viewpoint was advanced in the mindset that heterosexuality is about attraction and homosexuality is about action. Under those guidelines, it IS a choice... because of those guidelines. (Except for cases of rape, perhaps - but that's a giant digression.) So if anything needs to be debated it's the guidelines, the semantics, not the question of whether being attracted is a choice. Kwonsar never said that being attracted to the same sex was a choice, because he never addressed being attracted to the same sex at all. He only addressed having sex with the same sex. I don't quite understand that setup, because it doesn't seem parallel (apples and oranges, straight attraction to nonstraight action) - but my POV is strange, and maybe I missed something. In other words, his definitions of gay/straight/etc. are not the same as most other people's, and so his conclusions can't be approached without first realizing what his definitions are. Used to have a partner who argued with semantics all the time; I'm used to this. ;)
• Also, this thread has been fascinating to read and think about. Thanks all around.
• From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), no-one's against the idea of same-sex secular civil unions, to give gay couples the same rights as married couples. And no-one's suggesting that the Christian Church should allow same-sex Christian marriages. So it rather seems that we're debating about nothing.
• To follow on Alnedra's good point that some Christian churches want to be able to marry gays (bringing up the possibility that this is a religious freedom as well as civil rights issue) - the court case that became the basis of legal gay marriages in Ontario was begun a church who married two gay couples by the ancient Christian method of "reading the banns". (The link also has an interesting discussion of gay marriage from the point of view of two men who wished for something more religious than a civil union). So it's not just a matter of states disagreeing with religions, but some religions disagreeing with other religions - and the question is: which take precedent? Or none? I did think that the legal statements about San Francisco are correct - the mayor didn't have the authority to defy the law. But if Calafornia has anything like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (under which the discrimination against gay marriages was found to be unconstitutional), then the next step should be to challenge the law at court, in front of judges who do have the authority to change the law, as in Massachusettes.
• For "some religions disagreeing with other religions", you can also read "some sects disagreeing with other sects". Also, Calafornia is an imaginary place roughly the size and shape and in the same place as California, only there are elves and wizards there.
• C'mon, folks. Love and marriage. They go together like a... wait for it... horse and carriage. Ask the local gentry. They'll tell you it's elementry. If premise a= Homosexuals can experience love for members of the same sex, and that premise is true, then the rejection of marriage for gays must be on the premise that marriage is not based on love. To treat heterosexuals as if they have the presumption of love in relationship that they wish to codify culturally, but to assume that homosexuals do not meet the true love test without actually being in that relationship is flawed. If marriage is not about love, well, what exactly is it about? Procreation? That can be dismissed in two ways: we let the sterile marry, and that the Earth's population is in no danger of dropping. No harm, no foul. If marriage is about property rights, then there are no reasons to keep homosexuals from property (c'mon, you Lockian conservatives, libertarian up a moment). If marriage's meaning is not inherently, inextricably tied to any of these concepts, then it becomes a subjective matter. Which is best left to the individual. More to the point, while it is understandable that people with strong religious beliefs would act to protect those beliefs, it's really none of their damn business. QED. Further, the presumption of values being made in this thread is interesting if considered from outside of a western tradition. Many, many cultures have accepted homosexual unions in their societies, for reasons that seem more anthropologically based than anything else. I don't want to get all Tobais Schneebaum here, but the simple presumption that just because that's the way Judeo-Christian culture has addressed sexuality homosexuality is immoral is seriously flawed. Aside from dogma, there are no reasons to prohibit homosexuals from getting married. And as far as living within the whole cloth dogma of the Bible, well, I think the Amish are the only ones who have a leg to stand on, and they don't have enough of an internet presence to get their opinion. And really, I hope that no one who cites Leviticus happens to be wearing more than one type of fabric at the time. Otherwise, they're going straight to hell.
• the Earth's population is in no danger of dropping hey... psst...
• Oh my goodness, I go away for a day and you've all gone gay again. Lordy. Only another sixty or so posts and we'll have matched the glorious 953... (238 that reached, by the way) My tuppence - this decision was always coming, and like it or not, it is lawful. As we chatted about in 953 and the associated civil disobedience thread, this move was largely an act of protest against an unjust law, and the nature of civil disobedience is that one must eventually submit to the law. It is to call attention to the unjust nature of the law, and this move - the happy couples, the queue stretching round the block, the flowers - to my mind, did that. It may have hardened some people's hearts against gay marriage, but it also forced a lot of people to wonder what could be so wrong with it. Oh, and with regards to what BBF said (hi Blaise!) about no-one's against the idea of same-sex secular civil unions, is it just me who wonders if it's the strength of opposition to gay marriage in the States that also accounts for the strength of the demands for it? In Britain, we seem to be fairly contentedly going for the civil union option, and by and large the fundamentalists are being dismissed as extremists. In that position, quibbling over the word "marriage" seems irrelevant (after a few years, everybody'll be calling it marriage anyway). However, in a country where such importance is being attached to the word itself, by those who oppose gay marriage, it seems like a far greater denial of rights to opt merely for civil unions. In effect, if they think they're denying you something by not letting you call it marriage, then they are. Does that make sense to anyone? Also, what jb said.
• hi guys! just got in. what did I miss?
• * However, in a country where such importance is being attached to the word itself, by those who oppose gay marriage, it seems like a far greater denial of rights to opt merely for civil unions. In effect, if they think they're denying you something by not letting you call it marriage, then they are. Does that make sense to anyone?* Flashboy, yes it does make sense. Thats why I say civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. Not a marriage license but a civil union license. No legal marriages, just civil unions. Strike the word marriage from the laws, equal rights for all. Those who want or need a religious ceremony in order to feel *married* would be free to have that ceremony, in the private sector. I know, its a pipe dream, but I really think it is the solution. Just my opinion.
• "Kwonsar never said that being attracted to the same sex was a choice, because he never addressed being attracted to the same sex at all. He only addressed having sex with the same sex." Well, this isnt' the first time in this thread that someone has accused me of something I didn't say. Wurwilf, here are two previous quotes of mine from this thread. " Homosex(ual)(ity) is an act of sex with same sex or feeling of sexual attraction with the same sex." "If you are attracted to the same sex fine, but to act on that attraction is a choice." It's all good though. I've enjoyed this thread, my first MoFi thread. Thanks.
• Glad to have dissenting opinions on board dude. Even if I DO totally disagree with what you're saying.