PeterDavid.net

I love it. (Ban Divorce proceedings)

To bad it will never see the light of day. Just consider this akin to the scientist that invents the hydrogen powered engine...he and his idea will die faster than you can say J.R. Ewing.

The Lone Gunman has spoken.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Anybody else have simple answers they'd care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?

War - Ban it.

Poverty - Ban it.

Terrorism - Ban it.

Et voila! It is all solved.

There was actually an article in last week's Chicago Sun Times asking whether "Gay Marriage" is the new "Divorce" in terms of it being a sin in the church.

Here's the link to it: http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-fals25.html

Personally, I feel if all those people who are against gays being being able to marry because they truly believed it "destroys the sanctity of marriage", they too should start speaking out against divorce. A marriage, regardless of the couple, is about 2 joining their hearts a 1. Divorce is about ripping those hearts out.

Now which one is it that destroys again....?

Worked for the New York homeless...

Isn't this what we would refer to as a "modest proposal"? I mean, shouldn't we just eat the gays and divorcees? "Solve global starvation - Have a Queer n' Beer!" anyone care to suck one down with me?

All kidding aside, my state, Oregon, has voted to ban gay marriage. My response...isn't this a matter of the separation of church and state? Marriage is a legal union recognized by the government because of paperwork you fill out with the state/county in which you wed. It is not recognized because of the church in which you get married. No church should be forced to marry anyone who does not mesh with their religious doctrine. gay marriage does not force this. it only forces states to give the same recognition, rights, and responsibilites to all its citizens. what could bbe wrong with that?

It's not like we live in a society where people can be held for years on end without bail, acces to lawyers, or be charged with a crime. What kind of society would that be? definately not a society that would be in favor of the rights of its citizens. glad we don't live there!

Got a simple answer for lousy comic book sales?

PAD,

There is no doubt that divorce is a much greater threat to marriage than allowing "gay marriage." But to take your suggestion seriously, you would have to then ask the following questions:

1.) Do you allow divorce if one partner is violent and/or abusive to the spouse and/or kids?

2.) Do you allow divorce if a partner is consistently unfaithful sexually?

3.) If divorce is allowed in such limited cases, how do you protect the rights of those being harmed (most of the time, women)? How do you not make it so burdensome to prove that you condemn someone to a violent and abusive situation, or to monetary ruin if they try to leave?

From a moral standpoint, your point is sound. But your solution is not really a solution at all.

On the other hand, some very effective strategies HAVE been used to dramatically reduce divorce. One strategy has been having the couple get pre-marital counseling before getting married. Whether with a "secular" counselor or a religious counselor, pre-marital counseling greatly reduces the number of divorces.

Your point is valid that those who oppose gay marriage should also seek for the reduction (and hopefully the eliminiation) of divorce. But to suggest we must vote to end all divorces to be consistent is to set up a false dichotomy.

Iowa Jim

I propose instant road-side executions for anyone driving slow in the fast lanes. I mean really, anyone doing 40 on a freeway through a major urban center with no traffic holding them up deserves to be thinned from the herd. Force them off and cap 'em.

Is that simple enough?

Let's see, what else? Oh, yes. Bring back public flogging. For who? Those stupid imbeciles who go into a convenience store and try to pay for a candy bar with a 50 or 100 dollar bill. If you're that dumb that you can't ask the bank for twenties, maybe a cat o' nine tails will imprint that lesson onto your memory. And if your so vain that you need to show off by flashing large bills around, we can beat the vanity out of you.

Simple, eh?

As for war, we just put those plastic dividers they use at supermarket checkouts along national borders. "Sorry, but you can't play. This is the twelve WMD's or less line."

Poverty? Make me rich. One less poor person.

Terrorism? Hmm... That's a toughie, but I know the solution involves Carrot Top and the pre-neurotic Alanis Morrissette (or the pre-Playboy Debbie Gibson). How all that works I'm not sure.

Howabout just banning no-fault divorce? You make a binding commitment, you see it through unless there is a COMPELLING reason not to (infidelity, abuse, abandonment).

For the record, I'd say all my church-going friends are more concerned about divorce than gay marriage for the reasons already stated: it rips out hearts and destroys families.

Another topic: if we're going to claim separation of church and state, let's go all the way: No welfare or state aid (alms are the realm of the church, not the government, where accountability can be expected) - it would reduce taxes, too. Gotta love that.

Personally, I feel if all those people who are against gays being being able to marry because they truly believed it "destroys the sanctity of marriage", they too should start speaking out against divorce.

Um, from what I've seen, the people speaking out against gay marriage ARE the people who've been speaking out against the prevalence of divorce. For decades.

I can semi-agree with Jim for a change...

Ban divorce and watch Spousal Abuse, Spousal Murder, child abuse, people "snapping" and shooting up home/work/7-11/etc thousands of time more commonplace and everyday.

Divorce isn't a problem.
Marriage is NOT sacred.
As far as the government is concerned, marriage is merely a legal contract that grants different Income Tax status, certain legal entanglements (work-provided benfits such as health care for spouses), and some decision rights when one partner is incapacitated. (Although some morons want to keep feeding tubes in vegetables that are accomplishing nothing but milking the victim's insurance/familiy for millions in medical bills when the spouse recognizes it's time to pull the plug.)

When a couple wants a divorce, then that legal status is ended, and the for the government's purposes (taxes, rights), they are single again.

There is NOTHING complicated about this.

Some non-existant and totally incompetent god-figure has NOTHING to do with marriage.

There is no reason to "protect" marriage, no reason to make divorce difficult.

Anybody else have simple answers they'd care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?

I say, we take off and nuke the site from orbit.

Its the only way to be sure.

PAD,

These people are full of shite. It's not about saving marriage or whatever. It's about their opposition to being gay .. period. They don't come out and say it but that's what it is. With the divorce rate as it is.. with no fault divorce.. I don't see how they can say saving marriage with a straight face. It's all about the line in Leviticus that they use too much.. " man shall not lay with man as he lays with woman " but if you ask them about not eating kosher as it's an abomination to God.. they shrug it off because these hypocrites absolved themselves of that part of Leviticus in the book of Matthew. They pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. It boils down to one section of the population being intolerant and mean to another section because of organized religion based on a book written by man for man to have power over the hearts and minds of man. bah.

"They pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. "

Damn right Ben, but then again, what religion doesn't do this?

Maybe this comes from growing up in a "broken home" and still turning out relatively okay (and marrying a divorcee for that matter), but why is divorce considered to be "a problem?" Two people who decide they don't want to be together anymore break it off rather than spend the rest of their lives making each other miserable. This is a bad thing?

And don't give me that "for the children" stuff - most kids I know of who live in family environments where the parents should stay 100 miles away from each other would be more than happy to see their parents just divorce and get on with their lives. Mommy and Daddy fighting all the time can be far more painful than not seeing one parent or the other for days at a time.

That's not to say parents shouldn't at least try to work things out, but sometimes you just gotta let go.

"Your point is valid that those who oppose gay marriage should also seek for the reduction (and hopefully the eliminiation) of divorce. But to suggest we must vote to end all divorces to be consistent is to set up a false dichotomy."

No, it's really not. The dichotomy comes from hypocrites who are so concerned about gay marriage as a threat to marriage in general that they would ban it, but are NOT so concerned about divorce as a threat to marriage that they won't ban it.

I know you oppose gay marriage, if for no other reason than that I support it, so therefore it's guaranteed you'd oppose it. Just as you oppose a woman's right to choose. But suddenly when it comes to divorce, you're concerned about special circumstances. So if your opposition to gay marriage is truly based on concern over the sanctity of marriage in general, would you:

A) Support a woman's right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother.

B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.

PAD

There is a very simple solution how to get rid of any divorce problem: Don`t get married in the first place.

Maybe instead of calling for a ban of divorce, people should simply stop getting married. Problem solved.

(I hope everybody understands that I am sarcastic here)

"I know you oppose gay marriage, if for no other reason than that I support it, so therefore it's guaranteed you'd oppose it. Just as you oppose a woman's right to choose."

I've never seen anything from IowaJim that would indicate his worldview is shaped largely by the "What Would PAD NOT Do" philosophy. Can't you give the guy credit for making his own choices, even if they don't match your own?

RE: Suggestions for War

Not that I'd ever advocate it - since I and all the people I like live here - but I have this feeling that if America ever bombed the hell out of itself somehow, that every other country around the world would just stop fighting and get along with each other. Either out of shock or spite or just some kind of weird intuition, but I just see it happening.

So you're all with me in supporting the legalization of illegal drugs(or at least the decriminalization)?

Cause, y'know, the Drug War has worked about as well as Prohibition did.

And nobody's in prison because of divorce.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but:

"A) Support a woman's right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother."

By this do you mean rape, or just that the parents don't want to take responsibility for their actions? If rape: by the time a trial is held, the pregnancy is too far along. Either way, no.

B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.

If you include infidelity in that, then yes, I'd agree (infidelity exposes the spouse to potential life-threatening disease).

Two people "who fight all the time" need to act like responsible adults and seek help. It called taking responsibility for your own actions. :)

Dammit Bill, as much as I hate Iowa Jim and his beliefs, you went and defended him before I could on PAD's claim or why Jim feels the way he does...

Coyote,

I've been on that bandwagon for years (and this from a guy who has never used nor is interested in using drugs)...

Robbnn,

Abortion is between the woman and the man (well, ultimately it IS the woman's body), so her right to choose abortion is rather ABSOLUTE.

Just get rid of "Marriage" altogether. Just adopt the legal construct of "Civil Unions" and the marriage problem is solved. Why should couples be forced to legally stay together (via a ban in divorce)? Both parties agree to dissolve the Union, and the contract is over.

I think the main problem with many couples that divorce is that they don't get to know each other by living together first. This is only my opinion, but it's an opinion that comes from someone that lived with his wife before marrying her. I lived with my wife and got to know her for 4 years before we tied the knot. You want you know something? It worked, and everyday with her gets better and better. We have similar interests and never have had a fight. We compensate for one another. When one of us has a moment of crisis, the other provides the strength. I feel that if a person gets to know the person they want to make a commitment to by living with them for a period first, they can reduce the chances of a messy divorce if it doesn't work out.

JHL

I've never seen anything from IowaJim that would indicate his worldview is shaped largely by the "What Would PAD NOT Do" philosophy. Can't you give the guy credit for making his own choices, even if they don't match your own?

Gotta second this one, PAD. There are certainly a few folks around here who seem to go for knee-jerk opposition to most of what you say, but I've never seen Jim as one of 'em.

TWL

Bladestar,

You're forgetting the children in each instance. THAT makes the difference.

Stats say, IIRC, that the divorce rate is higher for those who lived together first, not lower.

Another topic: if we're going to claim separation of church and state, let's go all the way: No welfare or state aid (alms are the realm of the church, not the government, where accountability can be expected) - it would reduce taxes, too. Gotta love that.

Um ... huh? Since when is welfare the *exclusive* provenance of the church? Does that mean impoverished atheists are simply SOL?

This just strikes me as more of a bizarre non sequitur than an actual change of subject.

"A) Support a woman's right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother."

By this do you mean rape, or just that the parents don't want to take responsibility for their actions? If rape: by the time a trial is held, the pregnancy is too far along. Either way, no.

Jesus.

You wouldn't even support abortion in the case of rape?

I'm sorry, Robbnn -- but that's not supporting the fetus, that's damning the woman involved.

Let's even take this further. What if the pregnancy is putting the woman's life at risk, so that it's literally her life or the fetus's? Are you willing to at least consider abortion THEN?

B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.

If you include infidelity in that, then yes, I'd agree (infidelity exposes the spouse to potential life-threatening disease).

Love it. So rape is not "at risk" in terms of abortion, but simple infidelity is "at risk" in terms of allowing divorce.

Man, oh, man ... there are some worldviews I simply Do Not Get.

Two people "who fight all the time" need to act like responsible adults and seek help. It called taking responsibility for your own actions. :)

And if after seeking that help, it becomes clear that the relationship is simply a non-starter?

People change, Robbnn. My folks split up when I was 11. Initially, I couldn't understand how they could do that. Now, quite honestly, I'm much more surprised that they managed to stay together for 17 years in the first place. The divorce resulted in a significant improvement in the quality of life for pretty much all people involved, at least over the long term.

Why exactly is that something you feel should be denied people?

ECoyote:

So you're all with me in supporting the legalization of illegal drugs(or at least the decriminalization)?

Count me in. Decriminalize 'em and regulate the heck out of 'em. (Most of them, anyway.)

TWL

You're forgetting the children in each instance. THAT makes the difference.

So you're okay if childless couples divorce, then? Just checking.

TWL

"I've never seen anything from IowaJim that would indicate his worldview is shaped largely by the "What Would PAD NOT Do" philosophy. Can't you give the guy credit for making his own choices, even if they don't match your own?"

No, you're assuming cause and effect where I didn't intend any. When I say I know he opposes gay marriage because I support it, I make that statement not based upon "I said black therefore he feels compelled to say white." I say that because Jim and I are historically 180 degrees apart on virtually everything. If I believe strongly in something, I know that he's going to come down on the other side simply because his beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine on just about everything. My beliefs are an easy guide to Jim's, because whatever I believe when it comes to anything remotely controversial--sex, politics, religion, anything--I just KNOW he believes the opposite. It's just a given.

PAD

I know you oppose gay marriage, if for no other reason than that I support it, so therefore it's guaranteed you'd oppose it.

Sorry, I was brainwashed at an early age so I can't use you as an excuse for my wild and wacky views.

Just as you oppose a woman's right to choose. But suddenly when it comes to divorce, you're concerned about special circumstances.

Actually, I was asking you this question, not stating my view. I personally would favor and would vote for a change to no-fault divorce. I am able to comprehend that sometimes two rights conflict. Protecting the woman (or man) does come before protecting the marriage.

So if your opposition to gay marriage is truly based on concern over the sanctity of marriage in general, would you:

A) Support a woman's right to choose where the conception was against the will of the mother.

No, because the issue is a woman bearing a child for 9 months versus taking an innocent life. I realize that this is a huge burden and life changing event for the woman, but it is a life ending event if you abort a child. You can't compare the two. No matter what happens, if she is pregnant, she will be forever changed, whether she gives birth or has an abortion. So there is no "winning" solution to this tragic problem. (That said, this is not a perfect world, and I could live with this as a compromise to abortion on demand.)

On the other hand, if the mother's life is in danger, then abortion is self defense and should be allowed.

B) Support banning divorce except in cases where one of the spouses or children is demonstrably in danger.

Yes, although determining the danger to a spouse or child would be hard. I would err on the side of protecting the spouse rather than making her (or him) have the sometimes impossible situation of proving the abuse.

Iowa Jim

My beliefs are an easy guide to Jim's, because whatever I believe when it comes to anything remotely controversial--sex, politics, religion, anything--I just KNOW he believes the opposite. It's just a given.

Fair enough if you are talking about politics and belief systems. I suspect you are right that our presuppositions and core beliefs are almost (but not quite) 180 degrees different. But when you get to whether truth, love, hope, etc. are important, then we would agree. But as is often said, the devil is in the details. How we apply some common shared principles will differ.

The reality is, if we were truly 180 degrees different on absolutely everything, I would not enjoy your books as much as I do. (Not trying to kiss up, just stating the facts.) I could respect your skill as a writer, but I would not enjoy your writings (including on this site) as much as I do. Even how you analyze TV shows demonstrates to me that we share some common ideas.

Bottom line, I do not come to this site for the fun of opposing your viewpoint but because I often enjoy your work.

Iowa Jim

Peter David: "Anybody else have simple answers they'd care to float about for difficult problems?"

Hi Peter,

I have an easy answer for alot of problems. I've been saying it for years: Bring back the Duel.

In fact, let's get Divorce Court (feeble attempt to stay on topic) off the air and put a dueling show in it's place. No, screw that. Let's replace Survivor.

Really, there would be many advantages to bringing back the duel. Especially on T.V. It would free up court time, we'd only have to listen to one self-important ass in the post show interview, the Parents Television Council could have something else to gripe about (AKA free advertisement)... The list could go on for quite a while.

Ok, I admit that I just want Judge Judy to have more free time to make appearances on sitcoms.

But, in all seriousness, Peter, you've pointed out some interesting correlations between the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to marriages between blacks and whites, Catholics and Jews, etc... It seems to me to be the same mindset that eliminates the 13th floor from tall buildings.

On the subject of divorce I just want to say this: I believe that many divorces/bad marriages could be avoided by the advent of a reset button. When pushed, the reset button wipes away any delusions about living happily ever after. Take away the fairy tale notions that we're peppered with in love songs and movies and maybe more of us would be prepared to accept that marriage takes work and resposibility to be successful.

Don't mind me. I've just seen many marriages in which the participants behave as though they've finished the 'work' part and they no longer have to try.

Bladestar: "Just get rid of "Marriage" altogether."

I agree. After all, marriage IS the leading cause of divorce.

(Tongue firmly gamma-welded to cheek)

PAD:

I have a better question. Why not simply do away with marriage al together, beyond just making it the province of the church or private ceremonies?

After all, marriage is simply a form of legalized discrimination of any and all single people any way. Children have other laws to protect them as far as getting support from their parents. Illegitimacy is a product of a bygone era.

Why is a spouse's testimony any more damaging than any other intimate pairing? And companies shouldn't care who you sleeping with beyond giving out benefits, which a person can should designate.

So really, what purpose does marriage even serve anymore?

Robbn:

>You're forgetting the children in each instance. THAT makes the difference.

This is a seemingly straight forward response, but I've worked with several kids that prayed for their parents' divorce simply due to the extreme turmoil that was ongoing during an unhappy, unsalvagable (in other words, neither parent unwilling or unable to make the compromises needed.) marriage.

Fred

Forget about making divorce illegal, I say make it manditory.

Think of it as a job contract. You wouldn't sign a job contract that forbids you from ever leaving said job or company, you would want some thing that is re-negotiatable every few years. So every, say seven years, a divorce would be manditory and if the couple wants to re-marry that's their choice.

I don't really believe this, it just seems as feasable and ridiculous as some of the other propositions I've read in this thread.

Maybe it's just because I'm not christian, but I don't think there is anything wrong with divorce. Why would I want someone living in a loveless mariage? That seems to be a cruel and unusual punishment, something outlawed by the constitution.

In other matters, I say we give the poor people the rich peoples moeny, To stop war we should just stop fighting people, and terror, well that's a hard one, I say we just call it something else, like happiness. How many terrorists do you think will stop because they don't want to cause an act of "happiness" on this country?

Forget about making divorce illegal, I say make it mandatory.

Think of it as a job contract. You wouldn't sign a job contract that forbids you from ever leaving said job or company, you would want some thing that is re-negotiatable every few years. So every, say seven years, a divorce would be mandatory and if the couple wants to re-marry that's their choice.

Dave Sim, is that you?

When I say I know he opposes gay marriage because I support it, I make that statement not based upon "I said black therefore he feels compelled to say white." I say that because Jim and I are historically 180 degrees apart on virtually everything.

Ok, that makes sense. I thought that sounded uncharacteristically harsh coming from you.

War :make it so that each country's designated leaders have to duke out on their own.Dick cheney
vs Kim Il jung ,Bush vs Saddam,osama,etc.Of course Bush will probably end up looking like Barry "I never used steroids "Bonds to give himself an advantage.
Lawsuits :Amendment against being stupid(bear with me)If you decide to trim hedges with a lawnmower or imitate something you see on Fear Factor or the WWE your stupid ,dont pass go ,dont collect 200 dollars get out of my court room.This only applies to adults.
Gay marriage,abortion,etc:You know if its so bad the only people who will ultimately suffer are the ones participating,they aint hurting you move
on. Legalize it.BTW for all the antiabortion folks,hows about you adopt a kid from one of the people who you are barring from preventing an unwanted child being born????
Divorce:And this kinda solves the gay marriage thing to,abolish the ritual of marriage.If you are truly in love the ceremony doesnt make it more so.For your own protection go into a legally binding contract with the person ,power of attorney etc,but the whole "sacred ritual" thing is the problem not divorce.
Drugs:You could do as much drugs as you want but only in designated facilities and you sign a waiver so that any an all damage done to your body is on you and any medical expenses that come from it are on you.
Im sure there are more solutions to the worlds problems ,but i must go now.

Simple Solutions for:

War-Act Spineless like the UN when it comes to diplomacy.
Poverty-Lower prices, lower taxes for the middle and lower classes, raise taxes for the upper class. If lobbyists or legislative opponents get in your way, mention IRS audit.
Terrorism-Tell France and Russia that either they get rid of the black markets that provide terrorists with weapon otherwise we'll do it, and we'll not be nice about it. (either that or mention IRS audit.)

I've had this idea, too, as a way to help preserve marriage. I'm now preferring the idea of, not banning divorce, but making it prohibitively expensive. If you get divorced, rather than splitting your posessions, you have to give them all up. You want a fresh start? You got it. The posessions are sold off, and the money goes towards allaying the taxes of couples that are still married. Would Newt have divorced his wife if it cost him everything? No, that family would have been preserved.

As long as we're tossing out all of our ideas, I've thought long and hard about the whole drug issue. I've seen the effects of drugs on family, friends and students and I've also seen the tremendous amount of resources wasted in what seems to be a hopeless attempt to control the trade. So, a modest proposal, but one that I'm semi serious about.

People of legal age could register as drug users. They would be given a supply of cheap, clean drugs but would, in exchange, have to give up certain rights. In effect they are choosing a form of slavery so they should not have the right to vote, bear arms, serve in the military or public sector and, obviously, certain other jobs would be off limits (air traffic controller, laser eye surgeon, that sort of thing).

Public housing could be set up for those who get so hooked that they can't function, nice places set away from the other members of society. Cable TV and cheap but nutritious food. Pretty high turnover rate, if you get my drift (but there are worse ways to go than an accidental heroin OD).

(obviously, I'm not including pot here, this is for coke, heroine, crystal meth, and whatever new yummies the boys in the lab cook up).

Downside--lot's of people would sign up for this, effectively returning us to pre-civil war status of a nation part free, part slave. At least this time the slavery would be chosen. Lots of sad stories about husbands, wives, children, siblings, etc, lost to the government camps.

Upside--cheaper than the war on drugs, the freeing up of law enforcement to pursue everything else, crippling the cartels, cleaning up the streets.

I'm not big on the "anything has to be better than what we have now" philosophy but I'm willing to try something new on this one. What we have now just doesn't seem to be working on any level that I can see.

// body else have simple answers they'd care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism? //

War: I'm reminded of an old episode of Taxi where someone (I think it was Tony Danza's character), suggested that world leaders should just get in the ring and go ten rounds. Think of how much easier this would be, wouldn't need a draft because you wouldn't need an army. All the money that goes into defence could go for better causes, (education, health care, ect). Elections would be more interesting, no one would care about what a canidate said in a debate, they would just care about which one of those guys could beat up the others.

Provery: Kill any person making under a certain amount a year. This would fix a few things, not only would it get rid of poverty but it would solve the population problem and the minimum wage would have to go up as companies would realize that all the people who did the minimum wage jobs are suddenly dead. Sweatshops would also disappear over night.

Terrorism: Any Terrorist threat should be responded to with full nuclear weapons. This includes domestic terrorism, some gun nut blows up a federal building because he doesn't want to pay taxes and we have to blow ourselves up.

Note to the humor impared: Chill out!!!

// Got a simple answer for lousy comic book sales?
//

Years ago I was at a Neal Gaiman reading where he was asked a question very simular to this, his answer was something along the lines of "Do better comics".

I think the main problem with many couples that divorce is that they don't get to know each other by living together first.

Oh, that'll send the religious folks into a farking tizzy.

Yeah, when my father's mother-in-law and his church's pastor (at a Methodist church) talked to my future wife and I about where we lived, we knew the shit would hit the fan if we told them we were living together and not yet married.

That said, obviously, I don't care if people live together before marriage or not. Hell, I knew one couple that refused to marry because they were both divorcees, and saw no need for the term 'marriage'.

I have a better question. Why not simply do away with marriage al together, beyond just making it the province of the church or private ceremonies?

What the hell would the point of that be? A church isn't required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can't stand to see two people of the same sex be happy?

Civil unions? Gimme a break. Marriage of another name.

Marriage is already outside the church. The problem is that stupid religious are DICTATING what marriage should be to our government.

And that is bullshit.

"My opponent, Lisa, says there are no easy answers! I say ... She's NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH!"--'Candidate, Bart Simpson', THE SIMPSONS.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Peter, you forgot banning trolls, bad weather, no-nothing book critics and general all-round no-goodness.

// After all, marriage is simply a form of legalized discrimination of any and all single people any way. ///

Bill Maher has been making this point for years, and the older I get, (and the more single I stay) the more I agree with him. Especially in the workplace where being single makes one a second class citizen in a lot of really subtle ways.

Hey Bill ,I like your drug proposal better than mine.My idea was kinda close but yours was much more definitive.

First, I'd like to know how many straight married folks will divorce if gay marriage becomes legalized. It's a "defense of marriage" like banning minorities from a country club is a "defense of golf." Denying a minority group the rights enjoyed by the majority is discrimination; it's only defending and perpetuating discrimination.

Incidentally, here's a question for all those people against gay marriage: Do you support extramarital homosexual sex? If it's not homophobia but only a defense of heterosexual marriage, then you should have no problem with gay folks enjoying themselves physically. Unless, you know, this whole marriage thing is only the first step in making homosexuality illegal and restricting it legally as much as possible.

Bill Mulligan said in his suggestion of licensing drugs, "Upside--cheaper than the war on drugs, the freeing up of law enforcement to pursue everything else, crippling the cartels, cleaning up the streets."

Bill, I believe that shutting down the enforcement of the War on Drugs altogether wouldn't be cheaper than running it...because all the War on Drugs is one of the few Federal programs that's actually operating at a profit. Losing all that confiscated equipment and money means that it costs money to just stop worring about it...at least directly. That doesn't take the tragically overcrowded prison system into account.

My modest proposal for a solution to all problems that afflict humanity: Exterminate all human life. No humans means no human problems. Simple.

More seriously, to (mis)quote Steven Brust, real problems are always complicated. Simple things may be unfortunate, but they're not problems.

Incidentally, here's a question for all those people against gay marriage: Do you support extramarital homosexual sex?

Why do people insist on asking this stupid loaded question? It's like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?".

What the hell would the point of that be? A church isn't required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can't stand to see two people of the same sex be happy? And how would it become less than it is? Because there would be no DIFFERENCE between an single couple living together and a married couple? Really, what would change? Would you get divorced because of it? Would your marriage change one bit if an unmarried couple had all the same legal benefits, few as they are, as a married couple? In case you haven't guessed, I'm turning your argument around on you. And the fact that you would view your marriage as LESS than it is because it was no different than just shacking up is very telling to me.

Bill,
I simply agree with legalizing/decriminalizing drugs altogether. I don't think the steps you are proposing because we would simply treat "potheads" or others who test positive at work the same way we would treat those who show up for work drunk.

David Hunt,
I believe if we eneded the War on Drugs we would immediately benefit from more tax revenue, less emergency room visits, less related crime, less stigma and more attention and manpower being directed toward more "pedestrian" crimes.

Being in the process of a divorce now, I would say that allowing it if both parties are in favor of it should be permitted, but not if it's based only the whims of only one party, without any substantive reasons.

As far as war is concerned, I think we need to just slightly alter how we wage it.

I mean, the only problem with war is the violence. Eliminate the violence and you've got a fun time.

Do a Geneva convention type thing and set new rules for war. Make it illegal to use any weapons during war other than water balloons, water pistols, super soakers, spitballs, and in EXTREME cases...paintballs. You'd have to get referees of course to make sure everything went fair and square (our Swiss friends would be helpful here), and there you go. No hospitals or schools accidentally/on purpose being demolished, no dead people, no burning villages, and since it's still a competition, you've still got the whole violence-as-extension-of-penis thing going on.

Peter said: Anybody else have simple answers they'd care to float about for difficult problems?

OOOOHHH! I've got one. Easy solution to gun violence. Make bullets illegal.

What the hell would the point of that be? A church isn't required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can't stand to see two people of the same sex be happy? And how would it become less than it is?
Because there would be no DIFFERENCE between an single couple living together and a married couple? Really, what would change? Would you get divorced because of it? Would your marriage change one bit if an unmarried couple had all the same legal benefits, few as they are, as a married couple? In case you haven't guessed, I'm turning your argument around on you. And the fact that you would view your marriage as LESS than it is because it was no different than just shacking up is very telling to me.

Except, of course, that you've used selective editing to reach that "telling" conclucion. Since the response you've chosen to quote came from the proposal to eliminate marriage altogether, not one to grant gays cicil inions, which is how you're trying to make it appear.

Sorry to let facts get in the way of your self-rightousness... ;)

Aaack.. 'cicil inions' should read 'civil unions'. What can I say, it's early here... *g*

"There is no reason to "protect" marriage, no reason to make divorce difficult."

Given the 'disposable' nature of our consumer society where we're brought up thinking it's easier and more convenient to dispose of something which doesn't work and buy a new one, rather than try to get the old one fixed, I would say there are perfectly good reasons to have people need to work to get a divorce, if only because it *might* make them more inclined to make the marriage work in the first place.

"There is a very simple solution how to get rid of any divorce problem: Don`t get married in the first place."

A 'solution' which more and more people seem inclined to follow. Given the disproportionate number of people in jails who come from broken or single family homes [yes, someone looked into the numbers], is this really a good thing?
"Abortion is between the woman and the man (well, ultimately it IS the woman's body), so her right to choose abortion is rather ABSOLUTE."

Isn't this interesting? The WOMAN is the only one who decides whether to have the child or not. The MAN has no legal recourse. Ah, but, if she DOES decide to have the child ... guess who pays? Yes, this is fair. [/sarcasm off] (Have there been any cases of a woman being impregnated via a sperm bank, and then going after the donor for support? I wouldn't be surprised if someone was silly enough to do so.)

There was, by the way, a case years back in Canada where the father-to-be took the woman to court to stop her having an abortion. It made it to the Supreme Court ... and then ended when she ignored the court-imposed ban on her getting an abortion until the end of the proceedings [which had been going rather quickly, by the way] and had it anyway. Last I heard she hadn't spent so much as one day in jail for her obvious contempt of court. Again, yeah, that's fair. Feh.

"War: I'm reminded of an old episode of Taxi where someone (I think it was Tony Danza's character), suggested that world leaders should just get in the ring and go ten rounds."

There was a public interest spot broadcast on tv back in the 70s (or late 60s?) which featured an Uncle Sam figure wrestling with a Kruschev send-up atop a hill. The voice-over pretty much followed what would eventually be said on TAXI.

"// Got a simple answer for lousy comic book sales?

Uh ... the fact that my salary went up 600 % in the same period that comics went up 1700 %?

And on a topic-related note, I wish i'd have recorded, or at least written down a discussion which took place on a local radio station yesterday afternoon. This station, not know for extreme right-wing views, had the participants pointing out that, however much supporters of homosexual marriages may claim otherwise, once the basic definition of "marriage" has been changed, the all-important legal precedent has been set, and then people who support polygamy have a much easier case as the arguments being made in favour of "same-sex" marriage laws apply just as well to polygamous relationships. They did admit, however, that pedophilia and beastiality are not a concern as other and different sets of laws exist to cover (i.e. ban) those.

Yup, the next few years should be interesting indeed.

BTW for all the antiabortion folks, hows about you adopt a kid from one of the people who you are barring from preventing an unwanted child being born????

I’m glad someone else asks that question. A few years ago, there was an anti-abortion rally near where I worked. I went to it and asked some of the people there, “How many children born of unwanted pregnancies have you given a good home to?”

Amazingly, all but one said, “None.”

(I have to give kudos to the one lady who adopted a baby from a teenaged mother who was planning to have an abortion.)

I also ask any person between the ages of 18-34 who tells me they are behind the war in Iraq, “So why haven’t you joined the military yet? Why haven’t you signed on to fight this cause you say you believe in?”

So far, I haven’t gotten a single answer worth mentioning.

Gay Marriage. Best summed up by Jack McCoy on Law and Order. He's all for gay marriage. Why shouldn't they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us?

Domo

I'm a bit confused Mr D if you would really outlaw divorce or if you were kidding. Without divorce we wouldn't have the fair Lady Kathleen running the House of David not to mention Princess Caroline...

Todd Morton

They say that half of all marriages end in divorce, and yes, I can see how that could be viewed as a bad thing.

But remember: the other half end with someone dying!

Ooo, a lot to cover and so little time:

Abortion and rape: Why I'm against it - well, for starters, anyone wanting an abortion would lie about being raped (Roe v. Wade anyone?). That's not the compelling reason for me, though, it's much more personal than that. My grandmother was raped and my mother was the result. In addition, my neighbor across the street was adopted because his mother was raped but chose not to punish the baby for the rapist's sin. As I recall, one of our president's has a similar story, but I don't remember which one.

In life threatening pregnancies, I would give leeway, of course. Most LT pregnancies these days are from inviable implantation anyway, so the baby isn't likely to survive.

A note, though: I would be very concerned if abortion were outlawed. I think while there has been some valiant effort on the part of conservatives to provide workable alternatives, not ENOUGH has been done. The social infrastructure would have to be drastically built up to support the illegalization of abortion and wouldn't work very well anyway. Change people's hearts about abortion, and the law won't be necessary.

Why I don't support gay marriage: to avoid hypocriscy. I do believe homosexual behavior is wrong. I also believe divorce is most often wrong. So to vote for gay marriage when my fervent hope is that the individual gay person would repent and require a divorce would be hypocritical. I figure gay marriage is a matter of time whether I vote for it or not, though. It won't end my life or marriage.

Tim said "people change". True. They don't change in a vacuum, though, and they can work to a change that works for both. That's what marriage is: a commitment to spend lives together for the good of each other and any offspring. That commitment has to be kept in mind while you grow and change. Obviously, it behooves us to choose our mate carefully, and to seek guidance when we're struggling (and every marriage struggles at some point).

Tim said "Um ... huh? Since when is welfare the *exclusive* provenance of the church? Does that mean impoverished atheists are simply SOL?

This just strikes me as more of a bizarre non sequitur than an actual change of subject."

Well, everyone else was throwing out non-sequiturs, why not me? I am more or less serious, though.

Yes, welfare was the provenance of the church and the individual, as it should be. Government welfare cannot offer accountability and that is necessary in welfare. It's humbling to go to a church for support; it isn't to go to the government (at least not much). If you're destitute, chances are something needs to change within you as well as in your situation (and yes, I was destitute once, so while I speak from limited experience, it is from experience).

Are atheist SOL? I dunno, are atheists unable to form their own societies? Do they have no friends? Family? Just so you know, most churches will provide relief for anyone who comes to their door, even atheists. You may have to hear some stuff you don't want to, but there it is (I was working with the homeless awhile ago, and asked one fellow why he refused to go to the mission. He said he didn't want to get preached at. His buddy said, small price to pay for food and a cot)

I'm not a Christian because it makes sense to me, I'm a Christian because I need God, in a physical/material sense as well as a spiritual one. The government seems intent on pulling that physical/material need from the CHURCH to ITSELF (in fact, that's the democrat's creed isn't it? Become dependant on government so you HAVE to vote for me?). If I die tomorrow without life insurance, who is to blame that my wife is suddenly penniless?

I do my taxes on TurboTax and get a big red flag on my charitable deductions. The average giving for my demographic is 2%. 2%! I feel guilty for my paltry 17 percent. I know for a fact that some of my atheist friends give more than that and that some of my Christian friends less.

I feel for atheists (I was one, once) but pushing the government to take over church functions because they aren't comfortable in a church weakens both the government and the church.

:)

I have to say, I don't really see why we should have marriage at all, between or among any combination of people. I don't see why the government has created this business arrangement known as marriage. I guess it has to do with property rights, but that seems to be a pretty poor reason for creating a whole slew of legislation and creating this bizarre category of business arrangement. I, for one, believe that marriage is the most personal event I can possibly imagine, and I don't see why anyone should have to validate it- government, religion or otherwise. It's like creating legislation to codify "best friends". If I want to be best friend with a monkey, an old man or my sister- it doesn't matter. There is no paperwork to fill out with the government, no contracts entered into. I just decide. I believe it should be the same way with "marriage". There should be no tax benefits or penalties for people who choose to have a life partner (or partners). There should be no silly rules about who gets my stuff if I die, or who can see me in the hospital if I am sick (my wife can see me, but my best friend cannot, simply because of a government sponsored arrangement?!) I am of the mind that marriage is a vestigal remains of an antiquated system. I think all marriage should be banned. It would make things so much easier, it would be fair for all parties, and it would be so logical.

Tim Lynch wrote
You wouldn't even support abortion in the case of rape?

You see, I've never understood the "Abortion is okay in cases of rape" argument. It's not consistant.

What you're basically saying is, "It's okay to kill you, if your Dad is an asshole."

I also ask any person between the ages of 18-34 who tells me they are behind the war in Iraq, “So why haven’t you joined the military yet? Why haven’t you signed on to fight this cause you say you believe in?”

That's like asking someone who believes in Affirmative Action if they would give up their job to a minority, or if someone opposes the Israeli occupation, why aren't they fighting in the Gaza Strip.

Beliefs do not always translate into direct action.

Except for the kids.

Marriage is designed to protect children and the family unit. Men who abandon their families increase the societal burden of care for those children. It's supposed to be an institution of responsibility: if you commit to marry and raise a family, you commit to see it through.

That is the rational of why bigamy is illegal: a single guy having twenty children with five wives is unlikely to be able to support all those kids, so it's in the government's best interest to regulate such things.

Most of that is undone now, with no-fault divorce. A guy who suddenly hairs out of a marriage, leaving his stay-at-home wife who agreed to stay at home and actually raise the children they produce rather than hire someone else to raise them, is now stranded with out of date or no job skills to support children on her own. Parenting is a two person job (one person can do a wonderful job, I've seen proof). Marriage is the best way to perform that job.

A couple can raise kids without being married, but one has to wonder why one or both are unwilling to actually make the commitment to do so.

When I asked if people who oppose gay marriage support homosexual extramarital sex, eclark1849 replied, "Why do people insist on asking this stupid loaded question? It's like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Umm, why is it a loaded question? If homosexuals can never marry (which, I believe, is the stated goal of the people against gay marriage), then by definition they will be "limited" to a lifetime of sex outside of marriage. And since most of the people opposing gay marriage claim it's not homophobia but some defense of the institution, then that should be just fine with you: Homosexuals might never marry, but you can't condemn them for having sex outside a union you prevented them from entering into.

Of course, that falls apart if this anti-gay marriage initiative is just the first step in making homosexuality a crime and those who practice it into second-class citizens, denied the rights and opportunities granted to all other American citizens.

And for those talking about the "sanctity of marriage," I'm reminded of a quote from ALLY McBEAL when Richard Fish was arguing for a same-sex couple wanting to get married: "Murders can get married, child molesters can get married, rapists can get married, but not these two?"

A heterosexual couple can marry for love. They can marry for tax purposes. (I woulda liked the $15,000 deductible instead of $7,500. Ah well.) They can get married because the woman is pregnant. They can get married because they feel it's the next step after dating for a while. They can get married because they're in Vegas. They can get married if they're drunk. They can get married because their families had planned it for years. They can get married as part of a TV show (on Fox!). And yes, they can get married if one of them is a murderer, arsonist, pedophile, embezzler, rapist, whatever -- even if they'd been convicted, or confessed.

But by all means, letting two people of the same gender get married would really weaken the institution from all these noble possibilities listed above.

Please.

I am a proponent for gay rights so it pains me to say this but gays are going about gaining civil rights the wrong way. Right now their focus is on changing laws that ban behavior associated with gay couples. Unfortunately to this they have to take on all fifty states plus the federal government which is a mammoth task. In the Illinois Legal Complied Statues alone they are all sorts of rules regarding perceived gay sexual behavior in the bed room as well as what two men can and can’t do in public. Fortunately these laws aren’t enforced that often but they are still on the books.

If I were a gay activist leader I would focus on educating people and make them realize that when it comes to gay adults and straight adults there is a horrible double standard. An example of these double standards lies in baby sitting. A married couple has no problem letting a heterosexual man baby-sit their daughter because they realize that a heterosexual man is sexually attracted to adult heterosexual women not girls. Yet the same married couple would freak out if a gay male were to baby sit their young son. There is no logical reason for this fear but nonetheless the fear is there.

The only way to eliminate fear is through education so gay activist leaders should be launching ad campaigns right and left. As shallow as a strategy as this sounds it the only thing I can think of to change the system because only the public enmass can apply pressure the congressional bodies of state and federal governments that will ensure that gay men and women can be protected by the same legislation that protects both women and minorities. If nothing else gay activist leaders need to realize that what they are doing right now isn’t working and they need to come up with different more effective strategies.

James, you can make a case against comic books by giving examples like Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, and other rotten books, just as you can make heterosexual marriage look bad by the incredibly crummy marriages out there, but just like the shining example of comics might be a PAD book, it's the shining example of marriage that we should be looking at. We all know there are people who should never get married and do anyway, but that's not much of an argument to say any other union should be permitted. By that logic a dog and cat can get married.

I will agree that a whole lotta pork has been added to the marriage contract in our legal system. Tax breaks, if any, should be for marriages with kids or if a parent stays home to parent children or because of disability (the original intent of tax breaks, to enable the one income family model that used to be prevelant). Tax breaks just because you're living together seems odd. Visitation rights and death benefits are easily set up with wills and hospital instructions.

Benefits are a weird animal, also. Again the original intent was to benefit the stay at home spouse. Why should a company pay benefits to able-bodied spouses if that person isn't raising kids and just doesn't feel like working? They shouldn't.

Having been through a divorce recently, my gorge becomes bouyant when I hear (OK, or read) someone saying that divorces should be prohibitively expensive, or that they should be more difficult to obtain than marriages.

If you seriously think that's going to solve anything, you need to take a good look at the sky and determine how it's color differs from that of your actual planet of origin.

A lady and I got married; without going into graphic details, it turned out to be a huge mistake. One could argue that we SHOULD have gotten pre-marital counseling, that we SHOULD have lived together first, that we SHOULD have ... well, there are about a hundred SHOULD haves which we didn't do. And life together turned out to be pretty darned unbearable. To those who say that we "made(our)bed and need to lie in it," I will respect Mr. David's desire for civility on his site by not telling you what you can do with it. You weren't there.

We made a mistake, and we solved it in the only way that was going to work for all parties involved.

Make divorces more difficult? They need to make marriages more difficult; the marriage problem is not going to be solved by forcing people to live in a situation where they do not wish to be. Ultimately, though, if a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, they should be able to do it.

Except, of course, that you've used selective editing to reach that "telling" conclucion. Since the response you've chosen to quote came from the proposal to eliminate marriage altogether, not one to grant gays cicil inions, which is how you're trying to make it appear.

Sorry to let facts get in the way of your self-rightousness... ;)

Sorry to burst your smugness balloon, but Craig himself tied the two proposals together.

"A church isn't required as it is for a marriage, so why should my marriage, conducted in a private ceremony, become something less than it is because some god-fearing twits can't stand to see two people of the same sex be happy?"

In my original proposal to do away with marriage, I made no reference to gay marriage, and instead concentrated on the reasons why marriage is all but irrelevant in today's society. The courts have pretty much seen to that. But I blame society specifically and Churches in general for the sorry state of marriage today.

Here's the thing, Society has no compelling reason to allow gays to marry. I'd like to hear one if you got it. Please, change my mind.

Discrimination is a crock argument designed mainly to elicit an emotional response. That's why liberals make it. As I've pointed out, marriage is nothing more today than legal discrimination against singles.

They attempt to make a connection between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Once again, an apples and oranges argument. Liberals don't bother to point that out because it diminishes their argument.

Marriage should be between a male and female... period. All races were being allowed to marry anyway, and there were even a few interracial marriages between Indians and whites, Orientals and whites, and even Latinos and whites. It was only marriages between Blacks and Whites that caused a real problem, and even that wasn't a big problem as long as it was a white man and black female. White men had had black mistresses for centuries.

Even today that attitude persists. As PAD pointed out, Justin Timberlake ripping the bodice off of Janet, she's in trouble. Usher ripping the bodice off of Britney, he's in trouble.

In fact, the legal cases that were tried were NEVER for trying to GIVE two people of different races tthe right to marry, it was for trying to TAKE IT AWAY.

"Make marriage more difficult?" My sister married her first husband the Catholic way; after publishing three "banns" accomplished after regular counseling with a priest. Didn't save her from that guy's mental problems, which got so bad she was considering hunting down an old boyfriend with mob connections to have him anonymously killed. (Better than divorce, isn't it?)

She ended up divorcing him and leaving the Church that refused to dissolve the marriage without a huge cash payment to Rome.

And isn't it interesting that this concern over the "sanctity of marriage" is not really conservative? Because a traditional conservative would say it wasn't the government's business.

There are ALWAYS easy answers. Here are some.

DIVORCE: Make it a business deal, and both parties getting married must sign a contract. If they breach it (get a divorce), then each party must sacrifice half of their assets, individual and combined, to be distributed as decided by the person that married them.

POVERTY: Determine the standard of living at which poverty exists. Every government official, in order to be elected, will be paid that amount as income per year, and will be required to live in a neighborhood representative of that standard of living. This goes up to and includes the President, the Supreme Court, and every member of Congress, and employees of each of those divisions.

WAR: Wars are not fought by generals and armies anymore; they are fought by heads of state. If a head of state declares war (or takes an action equivalent thereof), he and his governing bodies will be transported to an isolated location along with the governing bodies of the target nation(s.) First team to die loses.

TERRORISM: Countries which harbor terrorists get bombed. Nuked. (This will work better for the US and China than some other countries.) If the terrorists are not delivered in one month - another nuke. Sooner or later, either the terrorists will be turned over, or atomized.

There are ALWAYS simple solutions.

Ahh, but James, you miss the point. The point is that you CAN condemn them. Condemning is what it's all about. See, they can get married if they want to, just not to each other. So they are still condemnable because they're not acting in ways that some people find acceptable. I watched that wifeswap when the black christian lady traded places with the white lesbian lady, and left her interracial children at home fearing for them because she was leaving them with a 'sexual deviant' And she could not fathom why the lesbians took offense when she claimed they were SHACKING UP!! Basically, her point was that they weren't married, and that any sexual union between a woman and a woman is just based on lust. There's no family involved. It's just two women lusting after each other and the fact that they're raising a child and commited to each other is incidental.

They can deny it all they want to, but when it boils down to it, it seems pretty simple to me. It's one group of people who are concerned about making sure that another group of people isn't doing something that they think is wrong. In general quite a few human beings like doing this. 'I believe in something that says this is wrong. If I don't stop you from doing it, then I'm admitting that my belief might not be all it's cracked up to be, and I can't bare to think that my belief isn't infallible. So quit doing what you're doing that's making me so uncomfortable."

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who are against gay marriage are wrong. I'm just saying that they KNOW they're right. There's a difference. I'm willing to say, hey, maybe they're right, and we're all gonna go to hell. I don't think that's very likely, but it's possible. I think you'll find that the people who are most vocal and setting up legislation and such aren't capable of making such statements in the other direction. For them, it's about being right with God, because God said so. And because God hasn't had a thing to say since Jesus flew the coop. Not one word except what's written in those well translated books.

And of course, that's my simple answer. With no grey. That doesn't take into account Iowa Jim, and others who seem reasonable.

'Simple answers for complex issues.' your fundementalists at work, on BOTH ends of the spectrum. Anybody who's interested in reading a little about the liberal end and just how insane some of they're stuff is, should read Michael Chrichton's new book. "State of Fear" Good stuff that really made me think twice about giving any money to the environmentalists anymore.

Arrghh 'their' not 'they're.' excues mi crappie typpos

Divorce is certainly the biggest threat to any form of marriage. We live in an era where everyone wants the easy answers and the quick fixes. I suppose when people spend all day working at the office, the last thing they want to is work at home.

That's like asking someone who believes in Affirmative Action if they would give up their job to a minority, or if someone opposes the Israeli occupation, why aren't they fighting in the Gaza Strip.
Beliefs do not always translate into direct action.

Not giving up my job doesn’t make me a bigot, however not supporting the war somehow makes me unpatriotic in the eyes of most “conservatives”. The attitude I’ve come across when talking to most of these people is, “The war is for a good cause and it’s worth dying for as long as I don’t have to possibly die for it.”

To me, if you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is where your “cause” is concerned, you should just keep your mouth shut.

Excuses I’ve heard:
“I have to support my family.” Lots of soldiers have families to support and they get paid to do so.

“I’m in school.” School will still be here for you when you return and Uncle Sam may even help you pay for it.

(and my favorite) “I’m against violence.” Huh?!?

During the election, one guy even told me, “You can’t be a Christian and vote democratic.” I’m not even going there.

Back to the thread, if gays want to get marries, it doesn’t affect me one way or the other. Let ‘em do it.

Robbnn claimed my focusing on negative examples of heterosexual marriage is like focusing on crappy comic books, saying I should focus on "shining examples" of marriage.

Unfortunately, the discussion is about the RIGHT to get married. Having the right to do something isn't always the "shining example." My right to get married means I can do it for the loftiest of romantic ideals, or to pay less taxes. My right to free speech lets me make impassioned, reasoned arguments, or to make claims unsupported by facts. My right to view movies means I can watch CASABLANCA or DEBBIE DOES DALLAS. My right to worship as I choose means I can pursue any ancient religion, or join a New Age cult.

Denying someone the right to do something doesn't prevent them from doing something under certain circumstances -- it denies them the right to do it AT ALL. Opponents of gay marriage aren't examining every case and granting some marriages for being "shining examples" of what a couple can be and denying those doing it for "base" reasons. They want to ban it COMPLETELY, with no exceptions. (And I'll bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that if gay marriage is banned, that very ban will be used as an excuse for denying civil unions to homosexuals too.)

I am all for granting gay people the right to get married. What they do with that right is up to them -- just like with heterosexual couples.

(And for the bad comic book example, I agree that SECRET WARS 2 is bad -- but that doesn't mean I would take away anyone's right to read it or buy it. Freedom is easy when it's used for what you believe in, but it's hardest (and greatest) when used for what you oppose.)

It's supposed to be an institution of responsibility: if you commit to marry and raise a family, you commit to see it through.

You forget something there: not all of us married folks are out to "spawn", as Bill Maher once put it.

So, I even sit on the fence on the bigamy issue: if some billionaire wants to mary half a dozen Anna Nicole Smith's, have a dozen other bastards, but can support them all... well, more power to them, I suppose.

And if some guy marries half a dozen women, has no kids, is that really a problem for society?
Beyond the IRS tax codes, that is.

Not giving up my job doesn’t make me a bigot, however not supporting the war somehow makes me unpatriotic in the eyes of most “conservatives”. The attitude I’ve come across when talking to most of these people is, “The war is for a good cause and it’s worth dying for as long as I don’t have to possibly die for it.”

To me, if you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is where your “cause” is concerned, you should just keep your mouth shut.

How many causes have you "put your money where your mouth is"? Have you fought for every belief you espouse? Have you given money to every organization that also espouses it? If not, then you aren't living up to your own standard.

By that standard, since you oppose the war, you should be in Iraq and fighting against the US. Otherwise you aren't putting your money where your mouth is. If the US is wrong, why aren't you willing to fight to oppose it?

Everyone chooses their battles. For example, when the tsunami hit, people gladly gave to Tsunami Relief Funds everywhere, and this is a good thing. We took a different route, though. Rather than give to the tsunami-specific funds, we gave to general relief funds. More people have died from poverty/disease since the tsunami than perished on that one day. By your standard, though, I guess I should have taken a leave of absence to go feed the children myself.

Your standard is all but impossible to live up to.

And if some guy marries half a dozen women, has no kids, is that really a problem for society?
Beyond the IRS tax codes, that is.

The other side of the coin is whether society should "cut a break" to this man. Those marriage don't do anything for society, so why should society recognize and reward them?

The tax code is a perfect example. Notice that the really big tax deductions are not for being married, but for the kiddos. Kids, homes and education are probably the top three. That's because as a society we value those things and want people to engage in those activities.

Robbnn,

Abortion and rape: Why I'm against it - well, for starters, anyone wanting an abortion would lie about being raped (Roe v. Wade anyone?).

Wow. What an astonishingly negative view of humanity.

You seriously think a woman would lie about one of the most traumatic things a person can undergo, including taking on the "she was asking for it" stigma that's still prevalent in much of society, simply because it would allow for easier access to abortion?

As I said previously, there are some worldviews that are simply alien to me. That's one of them.

That's not the compelling reason for me, though, it's much more personal than that. My grandmother was raped and my mother was the result. In addition, my neighbor across the street was adopted because his mother was raped but chose not to punish the baby for the rapist's sin.

I can understand that; thank you for sharing it.

However, that doesn't really lend itself to a sweeping argument the way you're intending it to. Your grandmother was undoubtedly a very brave woman, and I commend the strength of her (yes, here's that word again) CHOICE.

One thing that bears repeating: "pro-choice" is not the same thing as "thinking abortion is the best solution." I'm not saying your grandmother should have aborted in that situation. I'm not saying she shouldn't have, either. If, heaven forbid, my wife were to find herself in a similar situation, I have absolutely no idea which way she'd ultimately wind up going, except that it would be a horrifically difficult choice either way.

My position is that it is not my place to say what choice she must make, where "she" could be my wife, your grandmother, or any woman on the planet. I am not in her shoes or in her circumstances, and I have no right to make that decision for her. (Now, if it were my wife, I'd certainly hope to be involved in the decision somehow, but the ultimate choice would be hers.)

Saying "abortion should be illegal" is saying that the government has a greater right to make that choice than the woman does -- and that is a hugely disturbing can of worms to me. As I said not long ago here, any government that is given the right to outlaw abortion is also being given the right to mandate it under a different set of circumstances.

I can absolutely understand why you would oppose abortion given those circumstances; I would likely feel the same way.

But my position is that you don't get to make the decision for everyone. Nobody does.

I do, by the way, also appreciate greatly that you're focusing on changing minds rather than changing laws. You're absolutely right in everything you say about the issues of legality, IMO.

On divorce...

Tim said "people change". True. They don't change in a vacuum, though, and they can work to a change that works for both.

Sometimes they can.

Sometimes, however, they cannot, and it's foolish to insist that those people remain locked in a relationship which does nothing but drain the life and the love from both parties.

You've argued that the children make the difference. Speaking as one whose parents divorced, let me be clear: the "damage" that would have been done to my life and my brother's life had they stayed together, IMO, is significantly larger than whatever damage was done by the divorce. It's not just that people change -- sometimes people are better off apart.

As with abortion, however, if you want to focus on changing hearts, I'm with you. Absolutely, argue that people should try all kinds of options and approaches before simply deciding to throw in the towel. I agree with you that divorce shouldn't be a casual "well, seeya 'round" sort of thing: I think that does a good deal more to cheapen the ideal of marriage than any current attempt to expand the definition might.

As others have said, you can talk about "should haves" all you like -- but at some point, everyone also needs to accept What Is.

Lastly, on the side issue of welfare:

Yes, welfare was the provenance of the church and the individual, as it should be. Government welfare cannot offer accountability and that is necessary in welfare.

It can't? Then what are all those restrictions for?

It's humbling to go to a church for support; it isn't to go to the government (at least not much).

Why exactly is "humbling" needed? This is starting to sound suspiciously like arguments that people are only "homeless by choice" or that "poor people are only poor because they're lazy". (Quotes courtesy of R. Reagan and G. W. Bush, respectively -- brimming with compassion, all.)

Sometimes you can wind up in poverty despite the fact that you've been working hard and acting ethically. Frankly, at this point I think you've been more than sufficiently humbled: you shouldn't need an extra dose of shame involved when you go and get help.

Are atheist SOL? I dunno, are atheists unable to form their own societies?

"I'm an atheist. I still go to church -- I'm not a heathen. I go to an atheist church. Crippled people get up and testify that they were crippled, and still are." -- Paula Poundstone

I'm sorry, but this sort of smugness never sits well with me. Of course, atheists can form their own societies -- it's just that according to you, apparently, they don't count and shouldn't be in the business of helping. After all, they're not the church.

Just so you know, most churches will provide relief for anyone who comes to their door, even atheists. You may have to hear some stuff you don't want to, but there it is

Do you have any idea how sanctimonious that sounds, Robbnn? "People can get help as long as they listen to the religion I've decided is right." It ain't your place.

The government seems intent on pulling that physical/material need from the CHURCH to ITSELF (in fact, that's the democrat's creed isn't it? Become dependant on government so you HAVE to vote for me?).

No, that's not the Democrats' creed. Democrats believe that part of government's job is to provide for the public good. Otherwise, why not split into individual fiefdoms, and simply let the serfs be cared for by their lords?

I have never been dependent on the government, at least in the way you define it. I'd like to think I never will be. However, I think the civilization of which I am a part has the duty and the obligation to provide for those who might fall through the cracks. People can differ about the means, but I am not prepared to say "well, that's the breaks." You, apparently, are.

And that's sad.

TWL

"Here's the thing, Society has no compelling reason to allow gays to marry. I'd like to hear one if you got it. Please, change my mind."

Because society isn't supposed to come up with compelling reasons to "allow" something. In a free society, that's unnecessary. Society is supposed to come up with compelling reasons to PREVENT something. That something cannot and should not be rooted in matters of bias, prejudice and intolerance. Instead it must be rooted in something that would cause damage to the commonweal.

And the fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that indicates gay marriage would damage the commonweal. None. That it would either act as a deterrent to heterosexual union or would somehow foster the breakdown of those unions.

The ONLY reason to prevent it is the same reason that, as noted earlier, stood against blacks marrying whites or interfaith unions: Bias. Prejudice. Discrimination. This argument isn't mainly to "elicit an emotional response." It's made because it's true, and the emotional response comes from bigots who despise being called on their bigotry and don't like being reminded that their sort of thinking made a black man touching a white woman a hanging offense.

So the bigots cling desperately to their eroding position, claiming that being called on their bigotry is unfair and still not offering any proof--other than their opinion--that society is threatened by gay marriage. Only their own bigotry is threatened, because bottom line, they hate gays and don't want to see them accorded equality.

Which is SOP. Black men serving beside white men in the military, black men playing baseball with white men, was greeted with the same hostility and ignorance. Fortunately, history shows that in the long run, the bigots tend to lose as more enlightened thinking replaces theirs.

Sooner or later, gay marriage will be a right, and those who work now in opposition to it will be looked upon with the same pity and disgust that we look upon protestors lining up screaming and waving signs while scared black children entered white schools for education.

The only question remaining in its inevitability is...which side of history do you want to be on? The side that realizes progress must be made in society in order to reflect developing thinking? Or the side lobbying against change while citing tired old saws of how the republic will fall if the status quo is allowed to change.

PAD

Discrimination is a crock argument designed mainly to elicit an emotional response. That's why liberals make it.

Well, I'll concede that point to the undisputed expert on crock arguments designed to elicit emotional responses...

TWL

Why, in this so called Land of the Free, are some denied the freedom to legally marry? To me a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage is the establishment of a religious belief on the governmental level, something our constitution forbids. Religious organizations and its members are free to denounce and refuse to recognize gay marriage, but claiming that their world view is the superior one simply because their faith states it is an empty shell of an argument to me.

The church I used to attend would not allow divorced members in elected positions - because the Bible does not allow for divorce and it is not recognized. Those that are divorced and remarried are considered to be committing adultery.

I think that religious people just want their belief and world view empowered, so they seek out the government to enforce the religious laws of their belief. Something that our government is not supposed to do. The reasoning seeming to be, "If everyone followed God's law, we wouldn't have these problems." Conversion by mandate, never worked and never will.

While my former church paid for my wife's funeral (her illness and death left me and my son penniless and at the mercy of the generosity of others) and I am grateful for that, the Bible does not say anywhere that the Church is solely responsible for carrying for the ill, the starving, the naked, and the homeless. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ specifically says YOU, not the Church or the government, are responsible. My belief is that in a government of the people for the people, it is that government's responsibility to aid its less fortunate every bit as much as the Churches of our nation. Frankly, someone who states they are a Christian and that denounces social programs isn't a true Christian at all.

Just my two pennies on the subject.

Tim,

"My position is that it is not my place to say what choice she must make... I am not in her shoes or in her circumstances, and I have no right to make that decision for her."

Sounds like the Southern argument for slavery. "It's not you Northerner's place to say if keeping slaves is wrong for me or not, you don't have a plantation to harvest." The baby makes a difference, just as the black human being made the difference.

I'm not advocating divorce be illegal, just difficult. The fellow in the midst of divorce; my heart goes out to you. I'm trusting it isn't because you don't like the same kind of ice cream. It is, of course, your decision and it sounds like no children are involved, so even better.

Atheist forming a group around atheism ARE a church of sorts. Help away.

Humility is NOT synonymous with shame. As Socrates said "it is the beginning of wisdom".

Are people poor by choice? Many are or by abdication of taking responsibility for their own training. Libraries are FREE. Lack of education is the responsibility of the individual and his or her parents (presuming they didn't get a no fault divorce and flew the coop). Catastrophies also happen, but plan ahead and you can overcome anything. I don't mean all of this is easy, and by force of the medium this has to be presented simplistically, but ultimately we are responsible for our own fate. Humility says we should help others when we can and seek help when we need it. That isn't sanctimonious, it's fact.

So should those who didn't take responsibility for their training and lives not be helped? No, they should be, but not by the government and not enabled to remain irresponsible.

To play devil's advocate (pun not intended), a simple answer regarding gay marriage is also, "Let people marry whoever they want."

Let me be upfront by saying that if two people, heterosexual or not, want to get married, then I personally feel that's none of my business. And I don't want to make it my business. And if the courts decide to get out of the way of civil unions, then, again, I actively desire not to impede anyone living their life the way they choose.

The awkward aspect comes in that marriage is not just a civil institution -- it's also a religious one. Most religions, before they veered off into their own individual perspectives, tend to agree with the Genesis account of God creating Eve and giving her to Adam, thus creating marriage and the family unit. (For those pundits who claim that Adam and Eve were never married, when God himself brings two people together, we can rest assured that the union has his stamp of approval.) And the Bible continually says, not just in the Mosaic law (Leviticus being one book), but right into the Christian scriptures (1 Corinthians 6:9 being a good example) that God does not approve of homosexuality. Many people, PAD included, often use Christ as an exemplar of the Bible's testament to tolerance, but that tolerance was never passive or absolute.

(Again, keep in mind, this is not meant to represent an argument for the existence of God, whether the Bible actually is an accurate reflection of his Word, whether God's judgment is correct or not, or how much authority one should personally place in the Scriptures -- this is merely meant to present what the viewpoint of the Bible actually is as a matter of public record. Far too many people place their own political and social views into God's mouth, particularly on this issue. The Bible, both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, is clear on this issue. The same argument could be conversely made as to whether Hitler felt the Jewish people should be left to live their lives in peace -- whether one accepts the sentiment or not, that's independent of whether it reflected Hitler's viewpoint.

For my part, I will refer to the Bible as God's word, but no onus is made on the reader to accept that assessment.)

Therefore, if we have a group of people who wish to adapt a religious institution in a way that the originator did not intend, and, in fact, in a way that He actively opposes, then it's not difficult to me to see where people can become concerned.

Again, this is not a validation of violence or discrimination, but suddenly the issue of gay marriage is now not so clear. In this progressive society, we are taught to let each live according to his own way as long as no unjustified imposition is made on others -- "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Yet, at the same time, we are also taught to contemplate the existence of a Creator who may have higher standards for us than just that. Whether we chose to adopt them or not is a personal decision, but many of the social and legal statutes that we follow are either consciously or subconsciously derived from His word. Therefore, at what point to we divorce ourselves from the Creator? At what point do we completely make our society and conduct a subjective process? Where did the assumption begin that any authority making a mandate that we don't agree with is, by definition, oppressive and invalidated? (I'm sure the Hebrews trekking across the desert with Moses had a hard time continually walking out of the camp to move their bowels, burying them, and then washing up, but the subsequent discovery of bacteria doesn't make it sound like a bad idea by today's standards.)

Many people have correctly pointed out that there are far too many issues wherein these questions should be more pointedly asked, but that doesn't remove the onus on us to consider the possibility that God may have a just reason for his feelings on this issue that are for our benefit. And, when one allows that possibility, how willing are we to haphazardly dismiss those feelings for the sake of appearing liberal-minded? And, again, how accommodating can we be when people disobeying God's work want to use one of His own ceremonies to sanctify it? If someone stole my car, should I also be expected to keep my car full of gas for him?

Again, I feel that this issue is none of my business. I don't need to judge others or try to speak on God's behalf -- I think He can take care of that Himself (Al-Qaida, take notes!). And if the government wants to institute a civil equivalent of marriage, that's their option. But if there is to be a separation of Church and State (which liberals claim is the conservatives' major failing in this issue), how can we use the law to force a man of God to perform a religious ceremony that flies in the face of God's word? If we are to let people think and do what we want, it would be hypocritical to tell God to "get in step with the times" regarding the institution He created. Because, at this point, we are no longer asked to be tolerant, but told to be compliant -- a large leap.

Liberals are more dogmatic that they appear to be, and, in their own way, dominating and self-righteous.

Again, this was not meant to play one viewpoint against the other, but to demonstrate that the Left has its own simple answer for this issue, and it's no more authoritative that the Right's.

James Blight:

>The awkward aspect comes in that marriage is not just a civil institution -- it's also a religious one.

Not awkward unless one allows it to be. There is the legal aspect to all marriages and the religious aspect placed on many. My best friend got married with none of the bells or whistles of spirituality or organized religion. He is as married in the eyes of the state as anyone else.

If one is going to use the argument of religion as a componant of marriage in keeping homosexuals from being legally united, than it is hypocritical not to make pre-marital sex, alcohol usage, gambling, and masturbation illegal...... especially if one considers the dangers to society if someone should get it in their head to perform all of these actions at the same time.

Fred

My position is that it is not my place to say what choice she must make... I am not in her shoes or in her circumstances, and I have no right to make that decision for her.

Sounds like the Southern argument for slavery. "It's not you Northerner's place to say if keeping slaves is wrong for me or not, you don't have a plantation to harvest." The baby makes a difference, just as the black human being made the difference.

Oh, please.

1) A slave could survive on his or her own, and in virtually all cases had a very clear preference for doing so.

2) I could turn the slavery argument around and point out that you're claiming the mother be forced into a role that's effectively enslaved to the fetus.

A nice attempt to link abortion to civil rights, but that's all.

I notice that this is the only sentence of my entire piece on abortion you chose to pick at. What's your opinion on the point that whatever a government can ban, it can mandate with equal justification?

Atheist forming a group around atheism ARE a church of sorts.

1) No, actually, it's not, and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't try to equate atheism religion again. It's not.

2) I'm not talking about "atheists forming a group around atheism." I'm talking about simple human decency of one person helping another. You appear to think that it's acceptable if the help-ee is forced to listen to a belief system that is not theirs as cost for receiving the help. I look forward to the next time you're forced to hear an hour-long lecture on why you should switch to Islam next time you check out a library book.

Humility is NOT synonymous with shame. As Socrates said "it is the beginning of wisdom".

Then why do you feel that the government providing help does not facilitate that humility? What's different about going to a church?

Humility says we should help others when we can and seek help when we need it. That isn't sanctimonious, it's fact.

But insisting that only religious organizations are in a good position to provide such help is NOT fact, and IS sanctimonious. Kindly stop ducking the point.

So should those who didn't take responsibility for their training and lives not be helped? No, they should be, but not by the government

For the last time: Why Not?

So far as I can tell, you think the government serves no positive function whatsoever: all it does is pass laws that go against what you know to be right (e.g. the movement towards gay marriage) and help those who should rather help themselves.

Boy, we really suck as a nation, don't we?

What IS the role of government, Robbnn? What do you think it ought to be doing?

and not enabled to remain irresponsible.

Yeah, those damn Pell Grants certainly make people irresponsible.

TWL
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

James,

I'll ask you the same question I asked IowaJim:

Why not simply remove all legal aspects of marriage, and calll everything a "civil union" from a legal standpoint? The religious definition of marriage can be left intact and be left up to an individual couple and whatever faith they choose to subscribe to. That way, if one faith feels comfortable marrying gay couples and another one does not, both can define "marriage" according to their own views and feel that their religious obligations have been fulfilled ... but all couples are treated equally under the law.

Wouldn't that serve to remove the conflict you describe?

TWL

1) A slave could survive on his or her own, and in virtually all cases had a very clear preference for doing so.

A baby cannot without help for years. Do you think abortion should be allowed after birth?

I said it is not the government's place to offer welfare, it is the churches and the individuals. I'm pretty sure I said individuals and/or private groups (such as atheistic societies) can/should too.

Government takes its income from the people in stewardship for the people. The government should not take my money and fund things I think are wrong with the exception of national defense.

The government should provide for national defense, traffic infrastructure, crime prevention and apprehension (including fraud). I'm okay with FEMA type emergency aid, but schooling and welfare should be private institutions. Some regulation of education is fine, and some for business and environment. Combine this with the Fair Tax instead of our current tax system and that's the broad strokes of my view of government.

Robbn:

>I said it is not the government's place to offer welfare, it is the churches and the individuals.

While this is purely and 100% speculation and opinion, if the government were to turn around and say "OK, abortions are illegal under the condition that the churches who support pro-life fund it commpletely.", I strongly suspect that either A) the issue would suddenly become a secondary concern or B) there would be agreement with this and a noticably absent follow-through.

Fred

Robynn wrote:

Government takes its income from the people in stewardship for the people. The government should not take my money and fund things I think are wrong with the exception of national defense.

I'm curious: why do you make the exception for national defense? And do you (as implied in this statement) think national defense is wrong? Or is there money spent on national defense that you think is wrong, but you think the government should spend it that way anyway?

We're the government, each one of us that votes or chooses not to. We choose, through our actions or inaction, to use our tax dollars for all sorts of things, including education, national defense, helping the poor, giving the old financial stability, and giving rich white boys high-profile jobs in an architecturally interesting office. We did all this, and we can change any one of thse things. But we're in a democracy, and if you can only deal with the government spending money in the way you, personally, would like, then I hope you have enough money to buy your own private island.

I'm sure we'll be declaring war on it soon enough.

Rob

There was a public interest spot broadcast on tv back in the 70s (or late 60s?) which featured an Uncle Sam figure wrestling with a Kruschev send-up atop a hill. The voice-over pretty much followed what would eventually be said on TAXI.

I REMEMBER that one! Late 60s, I'm pretty sure. I can almost see it in my minds eye now; as I recall, Uncle Sam got in a good body punch to the gut but Nikita came back with a solid right to the jaw that Sam sold like Ric Flair. I remember being highly cconcerned because it was clear, even to a child, that my guy had a distinct weight disadvantage.

This was also about the time they saturated the airwaves with anti-smoking ads. They had the guy who played Hamilton Burger on Perry Mason talking about not wanting to lose his fight against lung cancer. One day we were watching it and my mom told me that he had lost the fight. I never ever did try cigarettes. It's funny what sticks to you.

You seriously think a woman would lie about one of the most traumatic things a person can undergo, including taking on the "she was asking for it" stigma that's still prevalent in much of society, simply because it would allow for easier access to abortion?

As I said previously, there are some worldviews that are simply alien to me. That's one of them.

Although I agree with the crux of your argument, it is true that Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v Wade, made up the story that she was raped because she belived that it was the only way to get an abortion. While I doubt that this would be a commonplace thing, it has to be aknowledged that it is not something the posetr made up out of whole cloth.

James,

No advocate of gay marriage is saying that any priest should be forced to marry gay people. What churches/priests choose to do is largely protected by the seperation of Church and State. What they are saying is that gay people should be allowed to marry, whether it be by civil ceremony or religious ceremony performed by a cleric/religion that doesn't have a problem with gay marriage.

Robbnn: "Are people poor by choice? Many are or by abdication of taking responsibility for their own training. Libraries are FREE. Lack of education is the responsibility of the individual and his or her parents"

Hi Robbnn,

Yes, libraries are free. Libraries do not, however, hand out diplomas or certifications. While I also advocate educating oneself, I also know that it means nothing without my name on a document. add that fact with the cronyism and nepotism in the business world and it shows that your statement above is not entirely facual.

I am knowlegeable on a variety of subjects but that is irrelevant since post high school education, where one get his/her name on said documents, is more cost-prohibitive than you seem to aknowlege.

Does that mean I intend to give up? Hell no. It means that when I get to where I want to be that I intend to do what I can to redefine the status quo so that, eventually, everyone really does have a right to an education. Not just those that can afford it.

TWL: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Hi Tim,

Ebenezer Scrooge, indeed.

Shouldn't all these strict constructionist be against marriage in its entirety? After all, it is not in the Constitution.

Oh. Right. Then it becomes something that each State should decide. Hetero and/or Homo.

In reality and all kidding aside, we know the truth:
The answer is that the people who are against Homosexual and Lesbian marriage are simply bigots. They can try to rationalize it, but it still smells up a storm.

I

I'll ask you the same question I asked IowaJim:

Tim,

RE: your question for me earlier -- I didn't mention it before, but there are definitely some conservatives who fully endorse your solution. They approach it from the opposite side that they want to do everything they can to keep the government out of church affairs. My position is by no means the only one of those who disagree with gay marriage.

Iowa Jim

You know, no matter what arguments I read, I keep coming back to one question. Why is the state even involved in the institution of marriage in the first place? Why is a government license required? Since the state incurs a beaurocratic expense by regulating marriage, there must be some benefit either to society or to the government that makes that regulation of marriage worth its while. What is that interest?

The simple fact that the state requires a marriage license in order for a marriage to be recognized suggests to me that marriage is not a fundamental right, but a privilege bestowed on some segment of its citizenship. In that case, the question of gay marriage becomes one of whether or not to extend that privilege to an additional segment of the population.

If granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples meets the government's interest in regulating the state institution of marriage, then it seems that the state should extend that privilege.

So, again, what is that interest?

Okay, so maybe it was ultimately more than one question...

No advocate of gay marriage is saying that any priest should be forced to marry gay people.

I am sure there is an advocate somewhere, but I understand you mean most. The fear is not based on what is said, but on the belief that this would be the next step. The same logic happens the other way around. There are some who oppose any restrictions at all on abortion (such as on the partial birth abortion procedure) because they fear it is just a way to eventually ban all abortion.

The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage. That doesn't mean they will win, but they can sure tie a church up for years paying legal fees. It has already happened with other issues. So this fear has a legitimate basis in reality.

Iowa Jim

You know, no matter what arguments I read, I keep coming back to one question. Why is the state even involved in the institution of marriage in the first place?

I agree that is a good question. But before you answer that question, you have to answer the question of how you determine rights in the first place. Whatever you do, you *are* making a moral statement. The question is how do you decide what moral statement to make? Are there some fundamental rights that are natural (dare I say, God given)? Or are rights only bestowed by society? Until those questions are resolved, both sides will talk past each other all day long.

Iowa Jim

Robbnn,

1) A slave could survive on his or her own, and in virtually all cases had a very clear preference for doing so.

A baby cannot without help for years. Do you think abortion should be allowed after birth?

A baby can be transferred to someone else's care. A fetus cannot. (This is why viability is such a huge issue.)

To answer your direct question -- no, certainly not.

Government takes its income from the people in stewardship for the people. The government should not take my money and fund things I think are wrong with the exception of national defense.

As others asked, why except national defense? If private institutions can handle the helping of strangers, surely they can also handle the killing of them.

And you're proposing a "cafeteria" model of government, where you get to choose what things your money funds and what things it doesn't. If you want to opt for that, it'll work both ways: my money, for example, would be withheld from all military endeavors (at least until somebody competent is in charge and I can be relatively confident that I'm not being lied to repeatedly and contemptuously), faith-based institutions, any form of corporate subsidies, the failed "war on drugs", any and all lobbyists that suck at the government teat, and any number of other things.

I suggest you not pull that particular trigger unless you know which way the gun's pointed.

The government should provide for national defense, traffic infrastructure, crime prevention and apprehension (including fraud). I'm okay with FEMA type emergency aid, but schooling and welfare should be private institutions. Some regulation of education is fine, and some for business and environment. Combine this with the Fair Tax instead of our current tax system and that's the broad strokes of my view of government.

What the heck is the "Fair Tax"? That's not being snide -- I've never heard of it.

As to the rest -- it's a consistent view, to be sure. I strongly disagree with it, but it is consistent.

I would argue, however, that marriage is not on your list of things government should be handling or regulating. Doesn't that mean gay marriage would officially fall into the "none of my business" column for you?

Iowa Jim:

The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage.

You have no proof of that -- a deep-seated belief, yes, but no evidence. Has any group said they intend to do this?

And isn't it just as likely that the gay community would be satisfied with legal sanction and leave various religious faiths to their own choices?

Oh, right. I forgot. Gay activists are lurking behind every corner with Christian babies in their teeth. My mistake.

TWL

We're 100+ messages in. That pig singing yet?

How many causes have you "put your money where your mouth is"? Have you fought for every belief you espouse? Have you give