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 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.

No, it’s not.

For example, I’m very adamant about parents getting more involved with their children at school. To that end, I’ve taken many a day off to go on field trips, serve cupcakes at parties, etc. I feel to not do so would make me a hypocrite (plus the fact that I really enjoy the time with my kids).

When the hurricanes and tsunamis hit, the Red Cross said what they need most was money for the relief fund. I felt it was a worthy cause, so I gave.

The military has said several time that what they need most are volunteers to enlist. Warm bodies to fill a force already stretched thin. So yes, any able bodied person, 18-34, who feels this war is justifiable and right, should do what they can and enlist. That’s what the military needs, that’s what they should do. To do anything else is hypocritical.

I’m against this war, so I did what I could and voted against Bush. (I’m not even going to get into the “fight for the other side” argument. That’s just dumb no matter how you slice it.) The only thing I can do now is pray no other Americans are killed before we can bring them home.

Oops. Put the tags in the wrong place. Oh, well.

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

Sorry to burst your own balloon, but no, he didn't.

I'd repeat it again with more clarity if I thought you'd listen, but really, there's no point, is there...?

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.

Well, no that's not quite true either. Society is supposed to act in its own best interest.. It promotes those things that further those interests, thus the reason for marriage and why it is between a man and woman. That's not discrimination, that's biology.

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 truth is that marriage is a state of mind. One that can be changed with a definition, and what you propose that society do is to redefinewhat the purpose of marriage is for.

You're are right, though, in saying that by and of itself, gay marriage won't cause the downfall of marriage any more that allowing dogs to marry or multiple spouses. It is, however, another nail in the coffin if the idea of marriage because it moves us even closer to the point where marriage is irrelevant or worse, a joke. The final nail would probably be to give unmarried couples the same rights and benefits as married couples. which I believe is the whole point behind domestic partnerships and civil unions, which I also oppose.

In fact, I predict that when, not if, gays finally get the right to marry, unmarried couples will move to ask for those same benefits based on, you guessed it, discrimination.

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.

What eroding position? All you, (and your posse is starting to take up the clarion call) have done is call people names.

"Oh yeah? Well... well you're just a bigot and a doody head!"

With insightful reasoning like that behind it, its a wonder anyone could stand up to that withering retort. (Well, okay, I haven't actually seen "doody head" appear... yet)

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.

Yeah, well, history tends to lie a lot. And it's usually written with a biased point of view. And history also tends to show that not all "enlightened" decisions were all that smart.

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.

Let's see, which side was it that said the Roman Empire would fall and was proven right?

Still, quips aside, I'm not against all change, PAD, but then again, all change isn't good.

\\"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."\\
Yet until the late 1950's it was illegal in several states until overturned by the Supreme Court.
At the turn of the last century people were calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw black & white marriages for all the same reasons people today want to outlaw gay marriages.
* They would destroy the sanctity of marriage,
* Marriages would lose their value,
* It was a sin against the bible,
* It would lead to the downfall of civilization.
The only difference in arguments between then & now is the matter of procreation.

\\"White men had had black mistresses for centuries."\\
A mistress isn't a wife.

\\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.\\
The legal cases were to end laws banning the marriages. They were instituted by the state(s) when arresting & trying people for attempting to enter a marriage that was outlawed.

\\1 Corinthians 6:9 being a good example\\
It says adulterers & sexual perverts. It doesn't say what sexual perversion is. Yes, it could apply to gays, but it could equally refer to anyone who does it in anything other than the missionary position. (Or, as Carlin put it, "man on top get it over with quick).

\\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\\
Allowing gay marriage doesn't mean that churches will be forced to perform the marriages. The marriages would be civil.

But as for the government regulating church ceremonies, New Mexixo is currently considering a no gay marriage amandment that expressly says that churches CANNOT perform gay marriages.

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?

What I have is experience. And that experience is that the agenda is not just to get equal rights (such as being allowed to get married) but to be seen as equally legitimate. And as long as churches say homosexuality is wrong, there will be tension there. So no, it is not "likely."

I clearly stated that not all gay activists will go on a crusade against churches. But past history (such as ACT-UP disrupting Catholic Mass services) gives me ample evidence that not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough if churches still refuse to recognize such unions. Yes, some of them are on the fringe, but you do not find many in the gay community condemning the fringe.

I believe that you would not do so. But I am surprised that you would even suggest it is enough for others. The "slippery slope theory" is not always true, but in this case I think it is. As I said before, the same logic is used against my views about banning partial birth abortion.

Iowa Jim

\\Yes, some of them are on the fringe, but you do not find many in the gay community condemning the fringe.\\
There are people on the fringe on both sides. I also haven't heard any Christian organization condeming Fred Phelps (www.godhatesfags.com).

\\not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough \\
Likewise there are churches & religious groups who oppose gay civil unions as well as gay marriages.

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

Well, considering one of the main purposes of religon is to create a bond of commanility. It is easier to create that with everyone believing the same thing than it is for people to NOT believe the same things. Creating a society on disbelief would be a lot more difficult.

There are mutiple schools of atheisism from the down right contemptious of organized religon to those who take a more Campbellian approach.

Do they have no friends? Family? Just so you know, most churches will provide relief for anyone who comes to their door, even atheists.

Sorry, this is America, 2005 AD. Atheist is a dirty word with this presidential dynasty.

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 got thrown out of working at a soup kitchen for refusing to pass out bibles on the tables. I said that giving them food was one thing but doing so with the price of having religon thrown in their face was wrong. Let the people have their own beliefs. They are human beings and deserve that right.

For example, I’m very adamant about parents getting more involved with their children at school. To that end, I’ve taken many a day off to go on field trips, serve cupcakes at parties, etc. I feel to not do so would make me a hypocrite (plus the fact that I really enjoy the time with my kids).
...
The military has said several time that what they need most are volunteers to enlist. Warm bodies to fill a force already stretched thin. So yes, any able bodied person, 18-34, who feels this war is justifiable and right, should do what they can and enlist. That’s what the military needs, that’s what they should do. To do anything else is hypocritical.

Schools shave said several times that they need good teachers more than anything else. Why aren't you becoming a teacher instead of just an involved parent? Isn't that hypocritical of you?

The standard of "giving what's asked" versus "giving what I can" are very different. Churches typically ask for 5-10% of a person's incoming, but they will probably only 2-3% on average. Is it hypocritical for someone to only give that 2-3%?

[b]The standard of "giving what's asked" versus "giving what I can" are very different. Churches typically ask for 5-10% of a person's incoming, but they will probably only 2-3% on average. Is it hypocritical for someone to only give that 2-3%?[/b]

Short answer: [i][b]YES[/b][/i]! According to certain statements made by a certain man quoted in the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. ;-)

Schools shave said several times that they need good teachers more than anything else. Why aren't you becoming a teacher instead of just an involved parent? Isn't that hypocritical of you?

The standard of "giving what's asked" versus "giving what I can" are very different. Churches typically ask for 5-10% of a person's incoming, but they will probably only 2-3% on average. Is it hypocritical for someone to only give that 2-3%?

If I had thought about becoming a teacher when I was younger, I may have done so. But I didn’t and the time and expense to go back to school to get a teaching degree in order to do so makes it impossible for me at this time.

Now, if a person going to church is capable of giving 5-10% and believes in the church’s doctrine, then he should do it. However, if 5-10% means choosing between giving to the church and feeding their family, then they should give what they can when they can. In my case, I couldn’t afford to give money, so I gave of my time with the youth group, perhaps the closest thing to teaching I may ever see.

Which still doesn’t answer the question I originally put forth: If you believe the war in Iraq is just and sound and you are of able mind and body and you fall within the age group the military is looking for, why not put your money where your mouth is and enlist?

I clearly stated that not all gay activists will go on a crusade against churches. But past history (such as ACT-UP disrupting Catholic Mass services) gives me ample evidence that not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough if churches still refuse to recognize such unions. Yes, some of them are on the fringe, but you do not find many in the gay community condemning the fringe.

I'd certainly agree that not all gay activists would be satisfied with any of the solutions we give.

However, not all Christians are happy even with the current status quo. You want to use fringe gay activists, as I said before, I'm going to quote Fred Phelps at you. Repeatedly. I've yet to see many in the Christian community condemn him. Or Falwell. Or Robertson.

TWL

Just a few thoughts I had.

The idea that a gay couple will try and force the church to marry them (by bringing the issue to court) seems as likely as a Jewish couple bringing the church to court because a priest refuses to marry them in a traditional jewish ceremony. I know that there are gay advocates within the church (and synagogue, and any other religious institution) trying to change religious dogma, as religious folk, they are trying to do it within the church (synagogue, ect), not in the american legal system.

I am a religious Jew and I have many conflicting thoughts as to whether a rabbi should perform a gay ceremony. I am also a proud resident of Massachusetts and have absolutely no compunction having a justice of the peace preside over a gay marriage. I am a very ardent supporter of gay marriage as a civil ceremony with the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. Perhaps it's because I never see my religion represented by the government that I can make this distinction (until recently it was still illegal for alcohol to be sold on sunday's here, which really messed me up). It's bigotry plain and simple to deny homosexuals the same right to marry the person he or she loves (with the same restrictions of legal age with no blood relation applied) that is given to heterosexuals. I can think of reasons my rabbi shouldn’t preform this marriage. I can’t think of a single one why a civil servant can’t.

My next thought:

I noticed that the statistic 50% of marriages wind up in divorce. I have done no research on this and am wondering if anyone has any ideas: is this statistic indicative of - as was mentioned by someone earlier - "a society that looks for easy answers..."? Or had divorce been as easily accessible in the past as it is today, would more people in the past opted for divorce? I can think of a lot of stories where people were stuck in loveless marriages that they couldn't get out of. And some women (mostly writers or artists) never married because it infringed on their social independence (ie being allowed to continue working on their art, something they couldn't have done in a marriage). Is it possible that a 50% divorce rate is something that can contribute to a healthy society, only we didn't know it before because a divorce was something harder to get?

I'm not advocating divorce, I'm just wondering if there is any research to this effect?

If I had thought about becoming a teacher when I was younger, I may have done so. But I didn’t and the time and expense to go back to school to get a teaching degree in order to do so makes it impossible for me at this time.

In other words, it's too inconvenient. That's no problem as far as I'm concerned, because everyone makes their career choice. However, you criticize those who say it's too inconvenient to join the military. That's why I think you are being inconsistent.

Which still doesn’t answer the question I originally put forth: If you believe the war in Iraq is just and sound and you are of able mind and body and you fall within the age group the military is looking for, why not put your money where your mouth is and enlist?

Because I'm not of the proper age, for one (age 37). For another, I decided when I was 18 that the military wasn't for me for a variety of reasons.

In other words, it's too inconvenient. That's no problem as far as I'm concerned, because everyone makes their career choice. However, you criticize those who say it's too inconvenient to join the military. That's why I think you are being inconsistent.

I'm not being inconsistent. You're not reading and thinking carefully enough.

If the state or federal government would pay my way through school (which would require not only paying me to go to school but paying me enough to support my family while I'm there), I would go. However, they won't, and I can’t afford it on my own, so I have to continue doing what I'm doing in order to support my family. I wish inconvenience was the only obstacle.

But if someone joined the military, they would get paid while serving (thus supporting their family, if they have one) and could go back to school after they get back. in most cases, the government would even help them pay for their schooling. That’s why neither of those arguments hold water for the people who advocate the war yet won’t enlist.

Which still doesn’t answer the question I originally put forth: If you believe the war in Iraq is just and sound and you are of able mind and body and you fall within the age group the military is looking for, why not put your money where your mouth is and enlist?

By the way, the “you” in that question was directed to anyone who fell into the parameters listed, not just you in particular, but thanks for answering anyway. Your reason (too old) I can accept.

PAD, You gave us an easy answer. "Make it legal". That's just as easy of an answer as, "Make it illegal". Guess it just depends on you prespective and what kind of "spin" you want to put on the issue.

A_Greene,

I don't have any research to back it up, but my gut instinct tells me that most divorces in the US are the result of our "fast-paced" society.

The stereotypical marriage a few decades ago was one where a couple got married, started having kids within a couple of years, the husband worked (slowly) up the food chain in the job, etc.

Now, think of the advice kids get today: both have careers, kids are several years in coming (after all, you need to enjoy YOUR life when your young before having children). It's all about now, not later.

Honestly, I don't think couples today in the U.S. have to struggle as much together. Struggles early in marriage make it stronger when the REAL problems hit later: lost jobs, troubled kids, health issues.

That's not the only reason by any stretch, but it's common in a lot of divorces I've noticed.

If the state or federal government would pay my way through school (which would require not only paying me to go to school but paying me enough to support my family while I'm there), I would go. However, they won't, and I can’t afford it on my own, so I have to continue doing what I'm doing in order to support my family. I wish inconvenience was the only obstacle.
But if someone joined the military, they would get paid while serving (thus supporting their family, if they have one) and could go back to school after they get back. in most cases, the government would even help them pay for their schooling. That’s why neither of those arguments hold water for the people who advocate the war yet won’t enlist.

Most military jobs don't pay as well as the private sector, so if a 30-year old WERE to join, then he'd take a pay cut - just like you if you wanted to go back to school for a few years. However, the government doesn't make up the difference. So, how is that different than your saying you won't teach because of the lack of family support?

So, how is that different than your saying you won't teach because of the lack of family support?

Did you actually read my post. I'm getting tired now, but let me try to explain AGAIN.

IF I could step out of my current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING teaching job, just like someone who feels this war is just could step out of their current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING military job (most with a signing bonus), I just might do it. However, I can’t. I can’t go 2-3 years without a regular job so I can go to school. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to pay the bills, much less the school fees.

That’s not being inconsistent. That’s being practical.

I’m sure you’re going to find something in the above statement to nitpick. If you’re not a lawyer, you missed your calling. Say what you wish for your parting shot because it doesn’t matter. I know actions speak louder than words. Maybe someday you’ll understand that as well.

Have a good evening.

Thans mark L. I appreciate your response, but I was hoping for more than gut instinct. Maybe I'll have to do my own research, damn me and my infernal laziness.

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

Really, Jim? And is anyone trying to "force" a minister of the World Church of the Creator to perform an interracial wedding? That's been legal since '67, after all...

I guess it's time to come out of the walk-in closet - I am involved in a polyamorous relationship. In our case, it's polyandrous, not polygamous, but that should be just as horrible, right?

Since multiple marriage isn't an option, my wife and I will be binding with my cohusband in a handfasting ritual this spring. In our hearts, it will be every bit as solid as a state-approved wedding.

Are any of your regular monogamous relationships breaking apart now, as the result of my revelation? For that matter, is our multiple commitment to each other and our daughter weakened at all by our gay neighbor and his boyfriend?

eclark: Marriage should be between a male and female... period.
Luigi Novi: No. Not period. Any idea rises or falls on its merits, and the anti-gay marriage crowd’s arguments are internally inconsistent, and rife with logical fallacies, as has been pointed out. Hence, marriage should not be between a male and female.

Robbnn: Atheist forming a group around atheism ARE a church of sorts.
Luigi Novi: No, they are not. A church is the meeting place of people who share an organized set of religious beliefs. Atheists forming a group around atheism has nothing to do with this, since they don’t have any. Lack of something is not simply a type of that something.

Iowa Jim: The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage.
Luigi Novi: And they will fail, because churches cannot be forced to do things that go against their religious beliefs.

Iowa Jim: I clearly stated that not all gay activists will go on a crusade against churches. But past history (such as ACT-UP disrupting Catholic Mass services) gives me ample evidence that not all gay activists would consider civil unions or even marriage as enough if churches still refuse to recognize such unions.
Luigi Novi: So what? That’ll be too damn bad for them period. If they try to disrupt church services, then throw their asses in jail. Problem solved. We could just as well argue that student protests should be banned because they might disrupt classes (protests on classes were not always considered acceptable, and some protestors DO disrupt classes). The idea that “giving this group this right will cause some of them to demand that OTHER one too” is a non sequitur.

Peter David: 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.

eclark1849: Well, no that's not quite true either. Society is supposed to act in its own best interest.. It promotes those things that further those interests, thus the reason for marriage and why it is between a man and woman.
Luigi Novi: And in furtherance of Peter’s valid point, society has to provide reasons why it must be between a man and a woman. In the absence of such reasons, it is wrong to ban something, and it has not provided any such reasons that are internally consistent, free from fallacy, and not steeped in plain old bigotry.

eclark1849: That's not discrimination, that's biology.
Luigi Novi: It’s discrimination. People get married who do not want children, who are sterile, who are past child-bearing age, etc. Biology, therefore, has nothing to do with it.

Peter David: 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.

eclark: Yeah, well, history tends to lie a lot. And it's usually written with a biased point of view. And history also tends to show that not all "enlightened" decisions were all that smart.
Luigi Novi: Are you referring to the ones Peter came up with, or are you thinking of another one? If the latter, which ones?

Jess Willey: Sorry, this is America, 2005 AD. Atheist is a dirty word with this presidential dynasty.
Luigi Novi: Even more so was the previous Bush, who openly stated that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots.

"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."

Robbnn, Thanks for your good wishes. No, the matter isn't about ice cream. Unfortunately, it also wasn't my decision (which is why I said that it shouldn't be allowed without both parties agreeing), and there is a child involved. That's just some of what's making it complicated.

"Unfortunately, it also wasn't my decision (which is why I said that it shouldn't be allowed without both parties agreeing), and there is a child involved."

Howard, my deepest sympathies.

Even if a law made it so that both parties had to agree, what would be the good? If a wife wants a divorce and her husband doesn't, she can and probably will just make life a living hell until he agrees to it. If a person is committed (oh the irony) to getting a divorce, nothing will stop them.

Nothing anyone says can really make you feel better at this point and I know because I've been at that point. I can only promise that time will bring new perspectives and, as you seem like a very decent guy, I would expect to see you in much happier times a few years from now. For what it's worth, my ex and I have an excellent relationship and in fact I'll be spending spring break at her house. Her husband is a person I genuinely consider a friend and the kids have doubtlessly benefited from everyone acting like adults (of course, I'm also lucky to have a wife who does not find this situation totally insane).

Obviously, it takes two to make something like that work and you can't control how the other person will behave but if you, as it seems you are, keep your child's interests first and foremost, you'll be doing the right thing. Good luck, man.

It's a bitter thing to recognize, but my divorce is still my greatest failure in life and yet without it I could not be where I am now, in a far better situation, far happier (and I think the same can be said for my ex, truth to tell). I cant think of the divorce as any kind of good thing but...well, there you are.

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

It's also known as a well-administered Income tax where, if you make money, you pay tax. And if you don't, you don't. As opposed to sales and property taxes which don't care if you make money or not, you're still expected to pay tax.

"So yes, any able bodied person, 18-34, who feels this war is justifiable and right, should do what they can and enlist. That?s what the military needs, that?s what they should do. To do anything else is hypocritical."

So, if I'm a 27-year-old chemical or materials' engineer working on a new form of bullet-proof vest or vehicle armour, I should immediately join up and go to the front lines, in spite of the fact that my reasearch may well save a lot more soldiers' lives in the long run than my presence on the front?
""The reality is, some *will* try to force a church to perform a gay marriage."
Really, Jim? And is anyone trying to "force" a minister of the World Church of the Creator to perform an interracial wedding? That's been legal since '67, after all..."

Again, I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada, a Catholic school was forced by the courts to accept a homosexual couple showing up at the school's grad dance, in spite of the school official's deeply held religious beliefs against it. Worse, the courts told those same officials that, if they attempted to cancel the dance to prevent couple being able to attend, they would be held in contempt.

So don't EVER say the government won't force people to do something they don't want to do. Not with their track records.

"Again, I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada, a Catholic school was forced by the courts to accept a homosexual couple showing up at the school's grad dance, in spite of the school official's deeply held religious beliefs against it. Worse, the courts told those same officials that, if they attempted to cancel the dance to prevent couple being able to attend, they would be held in contempt."

Don't be such an intellectually dishonest asshold StarWolf!

Letting kids (even gay ones) dance is NOWHERE NEAR the same as making them perform gay marriage.

Considering the long-term mental, emotional, and intellectual damage religion does to people, we should stop trying to ban gay marriage and ban religion. All churches shut down. If you wanna believe in some silly god, so it at home and leave the intelligent people alone...

Tim asked:
"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?"

Oh, absolutely. If your solution is enacted, I'd shrug my shoulders and not give it another thought. If the government is involved and it's put up to a vote, I have a responsibility to be involved. If it doesn't, it doesn't effect me, so I'd be off the hook.

People have asked why marriage is a government thing, and I answered that above: to protect children and stay-at-home spouses from abandonment. There is some merit to that, I think. No fault divorce has created that 50 percent divorce rate (which is a misleading stat, but whatever), so if there was no legal marriage what would that stat look like? You'd have to be nuts to be a stay-at-home mom and allow your job skills to evaperate. Legal marriage does preserve that. I wonder if, instead of a legal marriage contract, there was a voluntary legal parenting contract... interesting thought.

Why my exception for national defense? Because that's government's job. I may not agree with the tactics government uses, but defense is necessary. Voting would handle that well enough. The other stuff just doesn't belong to the government. They don't do education or welfare very well (despite some wonderful teachers and best intentions) so they shouldn't do it at all.

The Fair Tax removes ALL taxes except a federal sales tax. No corporate taxes, or income or property taxes. Only a 23-27% sales tax. Prices would go down because the cost of production would drastically drop and competition drives costs down. Off shoring would stop overnight, geographical distribution would even out (people and companies wouldn't avoid high tax areas anymore). Everyone receives, I believe, up to a 17000 dollar rebate so the poor aren't paying taxes. Rich folks pay more because they buy more, no loopholes. Illegal aliens and organized crime end up paying taxes, and even Social Security is shored up. No withholding. It sounds like you're paying more, but since the average person currently pays 35% tax, and the cost of goods would drop by about 25%, everyone comes out ahead (except IRS folks and most tax accountants). Do a google search or check out Neil Bortz's website for details. It's the answer to a lot of problems, but will probably never be enacted.

Howard,
Man, then I am really sorry. I can't imagine. I hope you can see your child often.

Robbnn,

The Fair Tax removes ALL taxes except a federal sales tax.

Ah. In that case I have to object to it quite strongly.

A sales tax, or indeed any sort of consumption tax, is about as regressive a tax system as you can possibly create. Those well off can afford the taxes and don't see a problem, but those living on the borderline often CANNOT cut consumption: the most obvious example is money required for transportation, be it subway fare or filling up your car at the pump.

The rich can afford to save and thus wind up paying a far lower percentage of their actual income in taxes than the poor would under this scenario -- because the rich have the ability to sock money away, and the poor don't have the choice to do so.

Thus, the poor get hit harder, and income inequities simply grow with time.

That's great if you're a free-market social Darwinist, but not so great for the rest of us. Count me out on this one. (I'd give lots of credit to Neal Bortz for the name, though -- it's as beautifully misleading and Orwellian as three-quarters of the Bush administration program names!)

Howard --

You've got my sympathies as well. I've never been in your situation (and hope not to be), but having been in the kid's role it will work out in the end. Bill appears to be a good example of that, and my parents are on pretty good terms these days. (Granted, in their case it took a very long time.) It's an absolutely horrible thing to go through (and it sounds like yours may be higher on that scale than some), but one does tend to make it out the other side. Eventually.

Best wishes to you.

TWL

I'm not a regular follower of this blog; this thread was recommended to me by a friend. (Thanks, Luigi) I say this in explanation of returning to a point which was dropped days ago.

--The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce. --PAD

If you read the various states' anti-gay amendments carefully they do just that! They define marriage as a union of one man and one woman for life. For life. No provisions for adultery, for spousal abuse, for incompatability, for anything.

But if some judge, based on a clear reading of the amendment, were to begin denying divorces, there would be such a hew and cry....

Bladestar - What's amusing about your ad hominem rant is that you have not yet shown where I'm wrong. Where, exactly, I'm mistaken in that

A - the government FORCED a religiously-run institution, which I'm not a member of, by the way, in case you were incorrectly assuming I had any particular belief in that (or any other) god, to act AGAINST its beliefs?

And that,

B - in LAW, once a PRECENDENT has been set, it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step?

And that, given FACTS "A" and "B" above, a logical extrapolation is that with the PRECEDENT of the religious school being forced, and such precedents carrying much weight in courts, that people might well try (and quite possibly succeed!) to make a case forcing religious institutions to perform marriages they don't want to?

Remember, facts please, not knee-jerk insults.
And, while you're at it, you may wish to address the real point there.

To wit, if it does come to that, yes the homosexual community does win in gaining those 'rights' and 'benefits'. But what of the rest of society and the fact that it has lost a little more freedom in exchange? That, yet again, the government has stepped in and told them what to think and how to behave even where their deeply held morals (however skewed many might view them as being) are concerned? One more link in the chains which are slowly surrounding us and squeezing the freedoms out of us, bit by bit.

And is it a "good freedom" you may well ask?

Perhaps not.

But, a wise man once wrote that, "freedom which is granted only when it is known beforehand to be beneficial, is not true freedom at all."

And he was right.

I was going to respond to eclark, but Luigi pretty much covered all the points. The only thing I would add is in response to saying "all (I) have done is call people names."

Which is not true. I've presented perfectly straightforward statements that you and your "posse" have yet to present any sort of credible refutation to. The notion that gays marrying would somehow "devalue" marriage continues to be based not on any fact that I know of, but merely your opinion based only in fear and bias. Can you actually present a comprehensive, thorough, unbiased and credible scientific study that proves couples would cease marrying or that married couples would seek divorce because they feel that marriage would no longer have any worth?

Will anyone HERE actually step up and say with all seriousness, "If gays are allowed to marry, I will probably get divorced because my own union has less worth?" "If gays are allowed to marry, I never will, because I wouldn't want to be part of any club that has gays as members?" Seriously. I want to know. I'm not talking about people claiming that OTHER people might feel that way at some point in the future, or that society in general might feel that way, or that our children's children might feel that way.

I want to know what percentage of Americans actually are willing to bag marriage FOR THEMSELVES if gays are allowed to marry. And it better be one damned big percentage to warrant paying attention to them. Because if they're claiming that gays marrying will make marriage become "irrelevant" or "a joke" but are saying they themselves won't consider it irrelevant or a joke and will take it just as seriously as ever, then all they really are are bigots, promoting their bigotry while hiding behind the notion of keeping marriage white for whites...I'm sorry, hetero for hetero.

And you know what? It's not name calling. It's truth in labelling.

PAD

Luigi Novi: And in furtherance of Peter’s valid point, society has to provide reasons why it must be between a man and a woman.

I disagree. The requirement that marriage involve a single husband and single wife is, and always has been, the legal and cultural status quo in this country. And it was that way throughout most (albeit not all) of the world's history, up until relatively recently.

If one wants to redefine those basic requirements of marriage, then the burden of making the case for change should fall on those who want to alter the status quo, not those who want to retain it.

I hate the current Social Security system. I think it's an offense to private property rights and individualism. But I carry no illusions that the supporters of Social Security must either defend the program or let me change it. The current system is the status quo, and just as it wouldn't need to defend itself if I wasn't objecting, the burden doesn't shift to supporters just because I complain. I am the one who wants change, so the burden falls on me to provide persuasive reasons for that change to be implemented.

As for church-state relations regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, there was this story out of Canada last year:

Canadian Court declares religious ad to be 'hate speech'

It's not on the level of forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but it shows that the state is capable of affecting how church doctrine is used.

//I was going to respond to eclark, but Luigi pretty much covered all the points. The only thing I would add is in response to saying "all (I) have done is call people names."//

This is the same eclark who made such statements as
//Discrimination is a crock argument designed mainly to elicit an emotional response. That's why liberals make it.//
and
//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. //
without an ounce of support.

After which, he accuses people of name-calling.

To paraphrase a fictional medical professional, what eclark says is unimportant, and we do not hear him.

Loren wrote...
As for church-state relations regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, there was this story out of Canada last year:

Canadian Court declares religious ad to be 'hate speech'

It's not on the level of forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but it shows that the state is capable of affecting how church doctrine is used.

First of all, I can see why an add featuring two male figures with a universal "don't" sign over top of them could be considered "hate speech."

What I really want to say though, is this: the same-sex marriage legislation that is currently before Canadian parliament contains written guarantees that no religious institutions will be forced to perform these marriages if they don't want to. The opposition, however, claims that this is a meaningless clause since that would be under the control of the individual provinces and not the federal government.

I believe, though, that in the event that this bill passes, no church in this country will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Tim,

You didn't read my brief explaination of the Fair Tax, then. Products would not be more expensive, but less: the end result is that you pay about the same thing for everything, but you don't pay the hidden tax on everything. The rich are taxed without loophole and the poor are rebated their sales tax. Take gasoline for example: right now I'm paying 1.86 per gallon. IIRC about 50% of that is tax. Remove that tax and the base price is now 93 cents (Texaco might still sell it at 1.86, but with Racetrack selling at 94 cents, how long will Texaco stay up there?) Sales tax on 93 cents makes it, say 1.25 per gallon. How is that unfair to the poor?

The average built in tax (remember no company pays their tax, they pass it on to the consumer in the price of the goods sold) is 27%. Remove that cost of tax on goods, and the item WITH THE SALES TAX INCLUDED remains about the same, only you aren't paying withholding or any other tax.

Why penalize the well off and the rich for making money? Why not tax on consumption? Further, if the cost of goods is the same, why would rich people not spend as they always have? Look closely at the Fair Tax before dismissing it. It works (and it isn't Neil's idea, he just gives it air time). In addition, more small companies would start up because they don't have this ridiculous tax liability at the gate.

It really is a good plan. Check it out.

Speak of the devil: today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution had this article in the Metro section (registration required to read):

Georgia House votes to make no-fault divorces more difficult

According to the article, the bill would "extend the waiting time for an uncontested no-fault divorce from 30 days to 120 days for a childless couple and 180 days for a couple with children... The bill also would require divorcing couples with children to take classes on the impact of separation or divorce on kids. The classes would cost $30, but a judge could waive the fee for low-income couples."

Tim Lynch: A sales tax, or indeed any sort of consumption tax, is about as regressive a tax system as you can possibly create...those living on the borderline often CANNOT cut consumption

The other important aspect of the FairTax that Robbnn failed to mention is the rebate.

Each household would receive a monthly rebate check "equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures." That poverty level calculation is from the HHS, and includes transportation costs. The link shows what the rebate amounts would be.

Thus, those living at or near the poverty line, who CANNOT cut consumption, will end up paying little or no federal taxes at all. (And currently, even if they're not paying income taxes, they're at least paying OASDI taxes of 7.65%.)

The StarWolf: Bladestar - What's amusing about your ad hominem rant is that you have not yet shown where I'm wrong. Where, exactly, I'm mistaken in that A - the government FORCED a religiously-run institution, which I'm not a member of, by the way, in case you were incorrectly assuming I had any particular belief in that (or any other) god, to act AGAINST its beliefs? And that, B - in LAW, once a PRECENDENT has been set, it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step?
Luigi Novi: You are wrong in presuming that the two things are analogous, and in presuming that a “precedent” for one thing, in and of itself, will automatically mean lead to a ruling for a completely different one.

For one thing, we’re not talking about a school dance. We’re talking about church. Marriage is a sacrament that goes to the heart of the religion being practiced there, and thus, no court would allow someone to tell a church how to perform their sacraments. By contrast, a school dance is NOT a sacrament.

Second, if this was a Catholic school, as you stated above, doesn’t that mean that it was tuition-based? And that by not allowing two same-gender students to come together, that they were denying them the right to enjoy the dance that their money paid for?

So what if people will “try” to force churches to do what they want? They’ll fail. People “try” to get the courts to do lots of stupid and unconstitutional things every day. And they usually fail. So too will any yahoo gay couple trying to force a church to marry them. Women want to be ordained as Catholic priests. They will never get it, unless the church wants them to be, regardless of whatever “precedents” people bring up for gender discrimination. Gays who will somehow be unsatisfied with legal state marriages will be similarly unsuccessful.

The StarWolf: To wit, if it does come to that, yes the homosexual community does win in gaining those 'rights' and 'benefits'. But what of the rest of society and the fact that it has lost a little more freedom in exchange? That, yet again, the government has stepped in and told them what to think and how to behave even where their deeply held morals?
Luigi Novi: They’re not. They’re being told that they can’t keep others from thinking or behaving in the manner that they want. Only a hypocrite would argue that lifting a ban on what someone ELSE can do is somehow forcing you to think or behave in some way. Let gays marry, and you are still free to think it’s wrong, and to behave accordingly. Letting gays marry no more prevents you from thinking and behaving how you want than the Civil Rights Act prevented white supremacists from thinking that people of color were somehow inferior. The only “behavior” it prevents you from enacting is discrimination against the group in question.

The idea that it is the bigots who are being “forced” to do something merely by allowing gays to do what they want is pure fallacious bunk.

Loren: I disagree. The requirement that marriage involve a single husband and single wife is, and always has been, the legal and cultural status quo in this country. And it was that way throughout most (albeit not all) of the world's history, up until relatively recently.
Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. Laws require justification, particularly when they are challenged. Not mere tradition or precedent. The idea that society does not have to provide reasons why something must be banned simply because “well, that’s the status quo” is a logical fallacy. “That’s the way it is” is not the same thing as “That’s the way it should be, and here are the logical, scientifically-based reasons…”

Loren: If one wants to redefine those basic requirements of marriage, then the burden of making the case for change should fall on those who want to alter the status quo, not those who want to retain it.
Luigi Novi: Wrong.

In the American system of what is right and good and just, people are free to do whatever they want to pursue their happiness. That marriage makes couples happy is the only reason gays need, and that hardly needs explanation. It is those who insist that a certain thing causes some type of harm that must demonstrate evidence of it. Since the special claim being made here, that gay marriage will cause harm, is the special claim, the burden of proof, therefore, is on those promoting it. Not those who simply want to be happy in marriage to prove its opposite. “Retaining or altering the status quo” is not how it works.

Try again.

Loren: I hate the current Social Security system. I think it's an offense to private property rights and individualism. But I carry no illusions that the supporters of Social Security must either defend the program or let me change it. The current system is the status quo, and just as it wouldn't need to defend itself if I wasn't objecting, the burden doesn't shift to supporters just because I complain. I am the one who wants change, so the burden falls on me to provide persuasive reasons for that change to be implemented.
Luigi Novi: Ooh, a false analogy. I love those!

Social Security is a just program that began in the 20th century. It is not, and never has been, part of the fundamental essence of the pursuit of happiness, and therefore, hardly a constitutional right. By contrast, being left alone by the government to do and say whatever you want, so long as you’re not hurting anyone (which marriage most certainly is for adult couples in love), most certainly is.

Loren: It's not on the level of forcing churches to perform ceremonies, but it shows that the state is capable of affecting how church doctrine is used.
Luigi Novi: And in the U.S., such a case would fail. Period.

You didn't read my brief explaination of the Fair Tax, then.

I did, but I did in fact miss the bit about the rebate.

A few comments:

-- The rebate helps, but only up to a point.

-- There is no way on Earth that you can make this work and also have products be less expensive. You reduce prices and you're reducing the revenue that our current sales taxes take in; you also kill off all the other forms of taxation and you've all but dried up the revenue stream.

Therefore, to make this work and still let government operate, you need to either (a) find another way of raising revenue, which seems to go against the principle in question; or (b) cut services DRASTICALLY.

Now, if you believe (as Robbnn clearly does) that government shouldn't be providing things like education and any form of safety net (Social Security, welfare, etc.), then this all fits together beautifully.

If, however, you believe that the government should be involved in things like education and safety nets, then the "Fair Tax" is exposed as an attempt to kill off those programs by "starving the beast", to use Grover Norquist's term.

I'd appreciate it, Robbnn, if you pointed out that this assumption/requirement is part and parcel of the "fair tax." It's not simply changing the tax system -- it's fundamentally changing what government does.

I'm happy to talk about that openly, and I think we've done so. However, I'm not going to let camouflage stand.

(As for "penalizing the rich for earning more", that's not an argument I'm prepared to get into at this time, since it's far more involved than one-liners tend to make it out to be and I just don't have that kind of time at the moment. Another time, perhaps.)

TWL

"First of all, I can see why an add featuring two male figures with a universal "don't" sign over top of them could be considered "hate speech.""

Ah, I see ... and the letter "P" with a universal "Don't" sign atop it is "hate speech" against people parking? Now, sniper crosshairs laid atop the couple, yes, you'd get no argument from me saying it wasn't. Otherwise, let's not get carried away.

"The rich are taxed without loophole and the poor are rebated their sales tax."

The trouble with that is, the rich can easily go spend their money in another country with no such taxes (I remember enjoying being able to do that in Hong Kong, for example), and the poor can't escape it so easily.

Yes, they have a 'rebate'. But how many poor people actually file tax returns and can afford an accountant to show them these tricks? Heck with a 19% rate of functional illiteracy in this country, you really expect that those who most would need that money would know to get it? Let's get real here.

With a properly administered Income Tax, the poor don't get taxed in the first place, so you don't need an expensive bureaucracy to administer the rebates.

> Luigi Novi: You are wrong in presuming that the two things are analogous, and in presuming that a ?precedent? for one thing, in and of itself, will automatically mean lead to a ruling for a completely different one.

Where did I say that? I said "it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step". Where was this inaccurate?

>For one thing, we?re not talking about a school dance. We?re talking about church.

And we were talking about a church-run, church-managed school.

>By contrast, a school dance is NOT a sacrament.

Of course not. But it is being conducted in accordance with the laws and beliefs of the church which owns and runs the school. Same as with a sacrement which is conducted according to the beliefs and laws of the church. it's the principle, here, not the details.

>Second, if this was a Catholic school, as you stated above, doesn?t that mean that it was tuition-based?

No.

>"Only a hypocrite would argue that lifting a ban on what someone ELSE can do is somehow forcing you to think or behave in some way."

Let's see ... I'm having a horse race and someone wants to enter a zebra. I tell them "no", because a horse race is for horses. Then the government comes along and forces me to redefine "horse race" to include zebras. How, exactly is this NOT forcing me to rethink what I'm doing and change the way I'm doing them?

And while people are not animals, obviously, the principle is exactly the same. Someone didn't like the fact that they didn't fit the established criteria for an institution (in this case "marriage" instead of "horse race") and so they forced the world to change for them.

What will be the next change? And how many more before we no longer recognize the society we grew up in and realize we may have gone too far?

Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. Laws require justification, particularly when they are challenged. Not mere tradition or precedent. The idea that society does not have to provide reasons why something must be banned simply because “well, that’s the status quo” is a logical fallacy.

I didn't say that defenders of the traditional definition of marriage shouldn't provide a defense for their position. (Silence or weak arguments are certainly a poor reaction.) I said that they don't bear the burden of persuasion. The status quo will remain the same until society is persuaded to change it.

Imagine what would happen if every person and pundit opposed to gay marriage simply shut up about the issue. No more websites or sermons or press releases from James Dobson. People would continue to act and think as they had before, but they wouldn't say squat. So no reasons get provided at all.

Would that necessarily result in the institution of gay marriage? No. Supporters of a change would still have to convince a state legislature or a court (as in Mass.) to make a change in the state's laws. People with political power would still have to be persuaded; if they're not persuaded by arguments for a change, the status quo remains. That's why the burden of persuasion is on people who want a change.

Luigi Novi: Social Security is a just program that began in the 20th century.

That's correct. It's a relatively recent creation, with virtually no grounding in political or social practice prior to 60 years ago, and the burden is still on the person who wants to change that 60-year old institution.

It is not, and never has been, part of the fundamental essence of the pursuit of happiness, and therefore, hardly a constitutional right.

Hold on, you just seriously changed the framing of the discussion. No one in this thread was talking about marriage being a "constitutional right." That's a whole different ball of wax.

If the traditional definition of marriage runs contrary to a particular constitutional right, then you'd be right to say that opponents of gay marriage would indeed bear a burden of persuasion that current laws are constitutional.

But there is no constitutional right to marriage. The Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage in some cases, but they always dealt with the traditional definition, and I haven't heard those cases relied upon.

I have heard Equal Protection arguments made, but I think those are faulty as well. Since I don't want to get into a lengthy constitutional argument, here's the very short version: constitutional rights belong to individuals, not to couples or groups.

If I'm wrong, and there really IS a constitutional right to gay marriage, then someone will eventually persuade the Supreme Court to say so (the public and the Congress don't have the authority to firmly declare something a constitutional right). But the Court hasn't said that yet, and I don't anticipate it.

By contrast, being left alone by the government to do and say whatever you want, so long as you’re not hurting anyone..., most certainly is.

Funny, that's how I often frame my opposition to SS. I want to be left alone to do what I want with my money, and not hurt anybody. At the very least, legal marriage involves an official license from the state, and that's a step above being left alone. Couples are already left alone; it's the official state recognition (and ensuing legal status) that's the sticking point.

"There is no way on Earth that you can make this work and also have products be less expensive. You reduce prices and you're reducing the revenue that our current sales taxes take in;"

The twits in power here made the mistake of ramming a federal-level retail sales tax on just about everything. They claimed it "replaced an existing, hidden 'manufacturer's sales tax'"

This was an outright lie on many levels. First, it taxed many things for which there HADN'T been a manufacturer's tax (stamps, haircuts, taxi rides etc, etc) and so brought in more money as people were being nailed more often than before.

Too, while it was true that the 'hidden' tax was at a higher level, it was on the MANUFACTURER'S price, whereas the new tax was on the RETAIL one - which is often quite a bit higher (I worked retail, so I have some idea about markups) and thus nets higher taxes for that item.

There ARE 'rebates' for it, too. I've never heard of anyone, however empoverished who actually qualified for it, however.

Bad, bad idea. All it accomplished was drive a significant portion of the economy to the underground to escape that new tax.

Let's see ... I'm having a horse race and someone wants to enter a zebra. I tell them "no", because a horse race is for horses. Then the government comes along and forces me to redefine "horse race" to include zebras. How, exactly is this NOT forcing me to rethink what I'm doing and change the way I'm doing them?

And while people are not animals, obviously, the principle is exactly the same. Someone didn't like the fact that they didn't fit the established criteria for an institution (in this case "marriage" instead of "horse race") and so they forced the world to change for them.

Minor quibble. Horses and zebra's are kinda like different species, right. Kinda like humans and monkeys? So then your analogy would imply gays are a different species? That's pretty radical.

Your argument works, but only for people who want to marry a monkey.

Could a gay horse enter the race, though?

Kidding aside, the issue of gay marriage is not or should not be so much an issue of gays demanding the right to marry, but to gays demanding the right to the same benefits from marriage. I don't know the ins and outs of the American system, but don't married couples have certain tax benefits? Marriage has certain advantages that everyone should in principle be allowed to enjoy. Denying people the opportunity to enjoy those benefits based on sexual preference is discriminatory and plain wrong. Now whether you call gay-marriage "marriage" or give it another name, the underlying principle of a legal union is a right for everyone.

I guess Shakespeare wasn't just talking roses...

IF I could step out of my current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING teaching job, just like someone who feels this war is just could step out of their current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING military job (most with a signing bonus), I just might do it. However, I can’t. I can’t go 2-3 years without a regular job so I can go to school. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to pay the bills, much less the school fees.

Jason,

That's my point. You can't afford to take the pay cut and support your family while you learn a new job. However, you call someone hypocritical for saying they can't go into the military and take a pay cut to do so.

If financial reasons are good enough for you not to go into teaching, they should be good enough for someone else not to go into the military without being labeled a hypocrite. For the same reason, you don't deserve to be called unpatriotic because you don't support the war.

BTW, I appreciate the civil replies. Calling me a nitpicking lawyer is about the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me during the debates around here :)

"I didn't say that defenders of the traditional definition of marriage shouldn't provide a defense for their position. (Silence or weak arguments are certainly a poor reaction.) I said that they don't bear the burden of persuasion. The status quo will remain the same until society is persuaded to change it."

That's kind of the point. The status quo IS being changed, and it's being changed in favor of exclusion and bigotry.

Eleven states did not have laws on the books specfically banning same sex marriage. Therefore you'd THINK the status quo would indicate the acceptance of marriage being simply a bond between two loving people. But no. In a naked display of bias, they AMENDED the law specifically to exclude other people. It is as arbitrary as laws preventing interracial or interfaith marriages. But since bias against gays is "okay," the right to marriage was specifically withheld from a portion of Americans who THOUGHT they were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except now it turns now, not so much.

There is no reason, none, to exclude gays from marriage. And I have yet to see anyone take me up on my challenge that they either will not marry or will divorce if people of the same sex have the same right to marry each other that was one excluded to people of different skin color or religion.

PAD

There is a difference between teachers & soldiers that is being overlooked. If someone who supports education but doesn't become a teacher, another person isn't forced to become a teacher in their place. However, someone who supports the war & is able to serve doesn't, someone else has to. Look at how many soldiers are continuing to be shot at because of stop-loss orders or are told that they have to continue to serve even though they've done the 8 years they contracted for.

Then there are the threats the troops are receiving to re-enlist. Some have been told that if they don't they'll be sent to combat while others have been told that if they don't their service could be extended to 2031.

And when we invade Iran and/or Syria, where are the troops going to come from? Will supporters of these wars enlist to support the wars, or will the government have to resort to a draft? (Yes, I know the government says there will be no draft. Like they've never lied before or changed their minds.)

Tim,

Seriously, check out the Fair Tax. It is not just for the limited government I'm in favor of. At current spending levels, there is more than enough revenue generated to fund all the current programs and more, including the ailing Social Security. And that's at current spending levels. We all know that the minute people get a 35% raise they rush out and spend most if not all of it. Spending would go up. Products are sold at the same price after the tax, so why in the world would people run to other countries to buy if they aren't already?

Probably I'm not explaining it well, but it deserves a good look.

Eleven states did not have laws on the books specfically banning same sex marriage.

Assuming you mean the eleven states that adopted marriage amendments in November, that's incorrect. As best I can tell, at least ten of those states already had statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (Oregon seems to be the exception).

Massachusetts had a statute specifically banning same-sex marriage that the Mass Supreme Court threw out. But it left the door open for a state constitutional amendment, which the court couldn't touch. It wasn't until after that decision that states really began enacting amendments, and Mass is pursuing one itself.

Furthermore, one interesting feature of the Mass decision is that the court didn't really care that the statute existed. In Part II of the majority decision, the court took the position that even if the "opposite-sex" statute didn't exist, the intent of the Massachusetts legislature in passing its original marriage laws (which I'm guessing was decades ago) was to recognize only male-female marriages. They said that the undefined word "marriage" means opposite-sex marriage. The fact that there was a statute addressing the point was superfluous.

And if even the Massachusetts Supreme Court thinks that the word "marriage" in a state code automatically implies the participation of both a man and woman, then I'd be surprised if any other state would disagree.

It occurred to me a little late that at least some of those amendments probably have an effect on the potentiality of civil unions. I don't know enough details about all eleven amendments to say.

But since none of those states had anything resembling a civil union statute on the books, an amendment wouldn't change much other than making a potential future civil union law more difficult to pass.

Plus, for the record, I didn't vote for Georgia's amendment. And I HATE the federal marriage amendment proposal.

"Assuming you mean the eleven states that adopted marriage amendments in November, that's incorrect. As best I can tell, at least ten of those states already had statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (Oregon seems to be the exception)."

You can't be serious. Then what the hell was the point, except to provide a wedge issue that could be used to make liberals look bad? If the amendment was rejected, then...what? The statute stays on the books and so it would have remained against the law? Or would the statute then have been changed?

It sounds to me like nothing but a politically motivated exercise in cruelty. And those are the bastards that you would side with? How can you not feel nauseated or, at the very least, ashamed of yourself?

PAD

Jess Willey: Sorry, this is America, 2005 AD. Atheist is a dirty word with this presidential dynasty.
Luigi Novi: Even more so was the previous Bush, who openly stated that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots.

I don't think the apple falls far from the tree. Maybe I should seek asylum in Canada for religous persecution.

"It sounds to me like nothing but a politically motivated exercise in cruelty. And those are the bastards that you would side with? How can you not feel nauseated or, at the very least, ashamed of yourself?"

Because their FAITH (and not their minds) tell them to support hate-filled predjudice...

--It occurred to me a little late that at least some of those amendments probably have an effect on the potentiality of civil unions. I don't know enough details about all eleven amendments to say.-- Loren

My word! such an understatement.

The ammendments specifically forbid granting any "marriage-like" benefits to anyone not legally married. Those states in which the ammendments have taken effect (usually on Jan 1, 2005) have been learning that other kinds of partnerships, including "one-man one-woman" partnerships are losing benefits. Utah began the process of fine-tuning their ammendment to restore some of these benefits to senior citizen couples who had lost them in the ammendment.

Conservatives in the legislature squashed the attempt. They didn't even try to hide the fact that it was too bad, grandma, but they did not want even the slightest possibility that homosexuals would ride on the coattails of their compassion.

Yes, they admitted that they were kicking their old people to the curb because their hatred for the GLBT was greater than their love of family.

Peter David: You can't be serious. Then what the hell was the point, except to provide a wedge issue that could be used to make liberals look bad?

They were enacted as preemptive measures to avoid their state courts doing the same thing that the Massachusetts Supreme Court did. A court could change a statute, but not an amendment.

There's a possibility Massachusetts still may enact an amendment, in order to reverse the court's decision. If it hadn't been for the court's 180 day deadline for compliance, they might have done so without ever following through on the court's demands. Those other states didn't want to be caught in the same position.

Personally, I think the amendments were overkill, since it's fairly unlikely that their courts would imitate Mass's.

How can you not feel nauseated or, at the very least, ashamed of yourself?

Why should I? I said I didn't vote for it. I see no reason to be ashamed of myself for something I didn't do.

Now the Federal Marriage Amendment, that was pure political pandering, and a ploy for votes. It never stood a ghost of a chance of passing, and just coincidentally was only a big issue during the campaign season.

Bush, for instance, was pretty much silent on the FMA until the Democratic primaries got underway. Then he was very vocally for it. But once the election was over, most of the buzz about it seemed to disappear. If it ever actually reaches a floor vote, it'll die a swift death and be done with.

Man, I go away for a week, and miss out on all this good stuff.

My solution to marriage is even simpler: get rid of civil unions, and all the legal trappings that go with it. If marraige goes back to only being a religious concept, then the whole hue and cry for the "defense" of marriage goes away. It goes back to a matter of the church only, where it's actually LEGAL to discriminate against people. If folks don't jump through the right hoops to join your little religious club, then no one gets to make you give them the benefits of membership, such as marraige.

My wife and I were just talking about this, so in a way, I feel like I was in the conversation even though I was away. We were saying how if Bush somehow managed to get the Defense of Marraige thing passed, it would open the door for additional regulation of marraige. Like banning divorce. Which would be the next logical step. And we figured that the next thing to happen would be an increase in spousal abuse cases.

I seem uncharacteristic for a Christian, perhaps because of being raised in California, but here are my thoughts on...

Gay Marriage: While marriage (or troth) once was a religious institution, it now is a state institution. Because there are various rights which marriage grants individuals, it's discrimenatory to deny people the ability to marry one another. We don't live in a Christian nation; make Christian marriage as exclusive as you want, but don't expect the rest of the country to live by your standards. God gave everyone free choice for a reason and it wasn't so someone else could take it away. Two men or two women who marry each other are not infringing on anyone else's rights, so there's no legal reason it shouln't be allowed.

Divorce: Divorce is a state of the heart which can happen before two people make it legal. If two people are living together but divorced in their hearts, they might as well get divorced legally. As someone who has lived in a home where parental figures cohabitated, but were not married in their heart, it's a painful thing to watch, and not necessarily better for the child than two separate people who are much more stable. I believe love is a choice and marriage will go through a myriad of phases which two people can endure if neither is abusive and both want to work at it, but if they've already determined not going to work at it, why subject the family to all the pain.

Abortion: I do agree that a pregnancy will change a woman, whether she aborts or not (because two women in my family have had abortions which had long-term psychological/emotional effects). However, never having been in the position to have to make that choice myself, how could I judge either of them for doing so. Most people who judge have NOT had to face that decision because of gender or economic factors. And speaking of judging, if you're a Christian, you're specifically told not to. Get the plank out of your own eye before whining about the sawdust in someone else's, and what not.

Being a Christian: Don't assume that every Christian is some right-wing nut. Even some of those who are right-wing aren't really nuts. As someone who respects the rights of others and evaluates people as individuals, I think it's only fair others do the same for me. My faith saved my life, so when people who haven't even made an attempt to understand it tear it down, it frustrates me. I've studied the faiths and beliefs of other cultures and have been everywhere on the spectrum from Atheist to Agnostic to Christian myself, so I can feel I've made an informed decision with my life. However, I find most of the people (but not all) who disparage a given religion (be it Islam, Christianity, etc.) know very little about it. I do also understand, however, that the actions of many Christians (or other religious people) makes it hard to see beyond the stupidity of some individuals. JMHO. Ja matta ne.

It's a relatively recent creation, with virtually no grounding in political or social practice prior to 60 years ago, and the burden is still on the person who wants to change that 60-year old institution.

Umm, the "burden", by your definition, is on Congress and the President, all of whom make more than the $90k maximum that is taxed for Social Security.

So, it's more like the "burden" is upon the elderly and poor to PREVENT Social Security from being changed in a way that will affect them.

Don't assume that every Christian is some right-wing nut.

Aww, but it's so much fun! :)

There is no reason, none, to exclude gays from marriage. And I have yet to see anyone take me up on my challenge that they either will not marry or will divorce if people of the same sex have the same right to marry each other that was one excluded to people of different skin color or religion.

PAD

Yes, there is. Because allowing gay marriage right now is a political loser to those who would grant it. Any politician who would support gay marriage would be slammed by the Religious Right. That's the sad thing. Even though I come from a religously conservative background, my feeling is that it's becoming more and more a fact of life, so why fight it?

Look, I know that Scripture states or implies that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore as an extension of that, Gay marriage is a sin as well. But This is not one of those debates that will go away. As Peter mentioned, interracial marriage was banned due to bias, as is the reason for gay marriage to be banned. But if two people who are in love and happy together should want to be together, then there is no reason why they should be married.

As to your challenge PAD, Don't hold your breath. Nobody is going to want to take the extreme step of divorcing their straight spouse, just because gay marriage will become legal.

That would be a reason to ban divorce... Wouldn't it? :)

--As to your challenge PAD, Don't hold your breath. Nobody is going to want to take the extreme step of divorcing their straight spouse, just because gay marriage will become legal. -- Charles F. Waldo

But that is exactly PAD's point. It is the bigots who want to "save" marriage who claim that allowing GLBTs to marry will "destroy" marriage. PAD's point is that the only way something can destroy marriage is to cause it to be so devalued that people will prefer not to be associated with it.

Thus his challenge: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship.

"While marriage (or troth) once was a religious institution, it now is a state institution."

Actually, until the 14th Century, marriage in Europe was strictly a state matter. Priests of the Church were specifically forbidden from getting involved. The change began in France, where some romantic (and Romantic) couples decided they wanted to have their pledge validated by their God. (Remember that doctrine of the time in the Church was that people could not address God directly - they had to go through such intermediaries as the village priest and the saints.) Now, of course, it's "the way it's always been..."

" And speaking of judging, if you're a Christian, you're specifically told not to. "

Amen, brother! Preach that thing!!

And as regards the idea that churches should be abolished, and people should worship at home:

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in Heaven. ... When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your innner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

- Matthew 6:1, and 6:5-6

Peter David (regarding the gay marriage referendums in the recent election): "Then what the hell was the point?"

You can't be that dumb, Peter. The point was to get all the anti-gay bigots to the polls, where they would also vote for Shrub!

// You're are right, though, in saying that by and of itself, gay marriage won't cause the downfall of marriage any more that allowing dogs to marry or multiple spouses. //

You know Bill Maher had a good point, when women got the right to vote no one argued that if we gave them that right it would lead to hamsters voting, when Black people got civil rights no one thought "my god this will lead to civil rights for goldfish", so how come when "gay marriage" comes up people feel the need to bring up things like dogs marrying, or people being allowed to marry dogs and act like that's a serious consideration.

You know, PAD talks big but I don't see him running out and marrying a gay man!

Wait... I have just been informed that PAD is a raging heterosexual and according to the news I just recieved I have know that for at least three years. He may also be jewish, we're still looking into that. All we're sure of at this time is that he is not a french communist from mars.

I have been asked by the editor of hedgehoggames.com to apologize to the communists and martians reading this blog. I apologize.

If even one person thinks this post is serious then the terrorists have already won.

JAC

Johnathon (the other white meat) said:
"And as regards the idea that churches should be abolished, and people should worship at home:

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in Heaven. ... When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your innner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

- Matthew 6:1, and 6:5-6"

But I don't believe in your an any other person's silly god, so your scriptures, written and re-written by power-hungry dirtballs, is meaningless.

Jeff, I didn't take you post seriously, but the terrorists did already win, too many changes have been rammed down America's throat as a result of 9/11, the terrorists already won...

So, Blade, if that passage is "meaningless", does that mean you're actually in favor of people making huge public displays of their "faith" in order to impress their friends and cow the infidels? Are you really all right with folks shoving their religion in your face?

After all, that's the sort of thing that passage condemns... (You, er, did actually take the time to read portions of the New Testament before rejecting it as "nonsense", right? Being an open-minded free-thinker and all? You didn't just take some self-appointed "authority"'s word for it - did you?)

I realized religion is bullshit myself Johnny Bravo, I used my mind, which puts me one up on the religion crowd right there.

You people don't follow your own rulebook...

I wonder when the pope will have you guys start driving car-bombs into strip clubs, gay bars, and casinos...

And another thing, is sex and homosexuality are so bad, then why didn't you "god" put them on the list that's so important yet so ignored by you people, namely: The Ten Commandments!

Think for yourself and stop letting a piece of fiction and the church think for you.

The StarWolf: Where did I say that? I said "it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step". Where was this inaccurate?
Luigi Novi: The two things have nothing to do with one another. And as I stated above, the fact that people merely attempt to sue an entity does not mean they’ll be successful. The fact that a person attempts to cite a previous case as a precedent does not mean it will be successful as such.

The StarWolf: And we were talking about a church-run, church-managed school.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with the CHURCH ITSELF, because the First Amendment, while preventing a citizen from telling a church how to run its religious rites, would not prevent a citizen from telling its school not to discriminate against his kids at one of their dances. Whether the school is a parochial one is irrelevant.

Luigi Novi: Second, if this was a Catholic school, as you stated above, doesn?t that mean that it was tuition-based?

The StarWolf: No.
Luigi Novi: So how did students/parents pay for it? When my sister and I attended Catholic school, my parents had to pay tuition.

Luigi Novi: Only a hypocrite would argue that lifting a ban on what someone ELSE can do is somehow forcing you to think or behave in some way.

The StarWolf: Let's see ... I'm having a horse race and someone wants to enter a zebra. I tell them "no", because a horse race is for horses. Then the government comes along and forces me to redefine "horse race" to include zebras. How, exactly is this NOT forcing me to rethink what I'm doing and change the way I'm doing them?
Luigi Novi: Nice little bait-and-switch ya got going there. I’m afraid I’m gonna have to expose it, ya know.

You stated that lifting the gay marriage ban means that the government will being telling you what to think. Not to “rethink what you’re doing.” You are not being told “what to think,” because you are still free to THINK that gay marriage is wrong, or even that the lifting of the ban was wrong. (Think about it: Did the Civil Rights Act prevent racists from being racists? Did it prevent the KKK from holding meetings in furtherance of their beliefs, or even continuing to hold marches? Nope. Did it say that blacks had the right to force their way into privately-held meetings held by the KKK? Nope. You’re still free to discriminate when you’re assembling in private.)

Only now are you trying to backpedal on your words, attempting to retroactively change what you originally said by now using an example of the government forcing you to change how YOU do something, and that’s an intellectually dishonest argument on your part. When the government lifts the ban on gay marriage, that means gays will be able to get married in their own ceremonies. Not that they can force their way into your wedding ceremony so that they can get married during yours. The horserace analogy, therefore, is FALSE. A more accurate analogy would be that the government is saying that those who want to hold zebra races can do so. Not that they can enter zebras in someone else’s horse race.

The right to privacy means that when people hold private events, they can invite whoever they want, and don’t have to invite anyone who requests admission. It is for this reason that when the market research company I work for holds a screening for a movie studio, (during which they rent out an auditorium in a theater), they can legally invite only those who fit the age demographic the studio has requested, and that no one can successfully sue them for discrimination if I don’t give them an invitation. So the government would not be able to allow someone to enter a zebra into your private event if you decided you only want horses.

Stop making a deliberate confusion between allowing someone else to do something in the privacy of their own lives with allowing them to force themselves into yours.

Loren: I didn't say that defenders of the traditional definition of marriage shouldn't provide a defense for their position. (Silence or weak arguments are certainly a poor reaction.) I said that they don't bear the burden of persuasion. The status quo will remain the same until society is persuaded to change it.
Luigi Novi: It seems that I was talking about the philosophical/moral/legal, and you were talking about the practical.

Loren: That's correct. It's a relatively recent creation, with virtually no grounding in political or social practice prior to 60 years ago, and the burden is still on the person who wants to change that 60-year old institution.
Luigi Novi: The point is, it’s not a fundamental right. I believe marriage between consenting adults is.

Blade, you're awfully quick with that "you people" line, I've noticed - especially for someone who prides himself on "independent thought". A moment's examination, or even reflection on a life's experiences, will demonstrate that people are, by and large, individuals. Some will choose to sublimate their individuality to some mass identity, but even that must be an individual choice.

For instance, had you paid the least bit of attention to anything I said before I quoted the Gospel According To Matthew, you might have noticed that I am a white man, married to a black woman, and we're welcoming another white man into our lives (can't call it "marrying" - people would freak) this spring; or that I have spoken often in favor of eliminating the bigoted restraints against gay marriage; or that only some Christians are Catholic, and in fact I have occasionally made fun of the Papal declaration of Papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals; or - well, this is Peter's blog, not mine, so I'll leave off with the list now. Suffice it to say, Christians are not some monolithic, Neolithic bloc, all thinking and feeling exactly the same way about everything. Some of us believe the good Lord gave us out intelligence and free will for a reason.

On the other hand, I also believe that atheism is a religion, as a lack of data is not the same as no data. To conclude that God does not exist takes at least as great a leap of faith as concluding that He does. The only position that can be supported by pure reason is agnosticism (a position I rested in for some time, before experiencing my own epiphany, which I don't feel the need to share at the moment).

Perhaps you should read the Gospels, at least, before utterly rejecting them - you might have noticed that Jesus had nothing to say about gays, but felt quite strongly on the topics of hypocrisy and forcing other people's belief structures...

By the way, Blade, the name is Jonathan, with only one H. If you're going to misread my words and mistake my ideas, you could at least spell my name right...

you could at least spell my name right

As I've discovered in the past, asking people to correct simple typos in names and such is pointless.

Bite me john

I've put up with over 20 years of religion growing up, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran.

I've read more than enough of the ficitious bible. You have to prove god exists, I don't have to prove he doesn't. There are no signs that point to existance of an always-existed, fully-formed, (supposedly) "intelligent" being with full control over matter and energy...

Religion is for the weak

Luigi Novi: So how did students/parents pay for it? When my sister and I attended Catholic school, my parents had to pay tuition.

Taxes, like everybody else. At least in Ontario. Here, the Catholic school boards are separate from the public ones, but funded by the government in the same manner.

/// On the other hand, I also believe that atheism is a religion, as a lack of data is not the same as no data. To conclude that God does not exist takes at least as great a leap of faith as concluding that He does. //

I'm sorry, but that is one of the most stupidest things I have ever read. There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a "lack of data" about this, there's no data. People who believe in God, (any God) do so as a matter of faith. This is fine, as a wise man once said, "whatever gets you though the night is allrigh", but to say that it requires a leap of faith to not believe in something for which there is not a single shred of proof is absurd. Let's replace "God" with Santa Claus. There is same amount of proof that Santa exist that there is a God (any God) exist, (which is to say, none at all), would you say it requires a same leap of faith to not believe in Santa as it does to believe in him. No, of course not, that would be silly. Millions of people believe Elvis is alive and well, (and presumably hanging out with Jim Morrison and Andy Kaufman), does it take a leap of faith to believe that the king died. No, of course not. People can believe, or not believe, anything they want to. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is faith. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not "faith", it rationally responding to the world around you.

>the issue of gay marriage is not or should not be so much an issue of gays demanding the right to marry, but to gays demanding the right to the same benefits from marriage.

The offer was brought up to have exactly that, only to refer to it (in their case) as a "civil union" instead of "marriage". They would have everything they wanted ... except the name. They turned it down.

>>You stated that lifting the gay marriage ban means that the government will being telling you what to think. Not to “rethink what you’re doing.”

Same end result. I'm being told that what I think is wrong thinking and that I can no longer act upon it (assuming I wished to in the fist place, but I'm talking in general, not the specific).

>When the government lifts the ban on gay marriage, that means gays will be able to get married in their own ceremonies. Not that they can force their way into your wedding ceremony so that they can get married during yours. The horserace analogy, therefore, is FALSE. A more accurate analogy would be that the government is saying that those who want to hold zebra races can do so.

Nope. That they can hold zebra races but also get to call them horse races.

>So the government would not be able to allow someone to enter a zebra into your private event if you decided you only want horses.

See, this is a major point of difference in our outlooks. You do not (or do not wish to) see it as one more step in governments sticking their noses in and telling us what to do and how to do it. And, with each such measure being enacted the pressure grows for the next step to be taken.

I exaggerate? Consider that there was a strong movement to have governments legislate against smoking in peoples' homes if it was also considered a place of business (such as a self-employed programmer, for example). True, it was defeated. For now. But only by a fairly narrow margin up here and the pressure is still there to keep at it until such laws do pass. So sure are you that they never will? I wish I had your optimism. But, with every new "you can't do this" that comes down the pike (they've just banned an entire breed of dogs in this province!) it just gets worse, and the climate to put the brakes on it becomes that much more uncertain.

Perhaps you trust the government to know when to stop. I don't.

>At current spending levels, there is more than enough revenue generated to fund all the current programs and more, including the ailing Social Security.

You're assuming the level of spending would remain the same after such a huge sales tax was put in place. Look around you. Countries which have adopted such silly sales taxes have seen spending drop like a rock. Canada's economy went into a tailspin as people went into cross-border shopping in record numbers to avoid it. At least until the difference in currencies became so high as to make it prohibitively expensive. By then there had been a huge number of bankruptcies and unemployment shot up. A bad situation had been made much worse.

Japan also adopted a partial one. And its retail economy promptly took a bad hit.

Sales taxes are bad. They are counter-productive.

>my feeling is that it's becoming more and more a fact of life, so why fight it?

Death is a fact of life. Does this mean we should stop trying to find cures for diseases or ways to improve the life of elderlies?

Does this mean that people who have strong convictions (rightly or wrongly) should all be asked to give them up just because the existing (or foretold) condition is considered a "fact of life"?

"There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a "lack of data" about this, there's no data."

Nonsense. There is eyewitness and anecdotal evidence. (You may be correct about no data, since I tend to think of data as something that can be measured). Certainly one can disregard eyewitness accounts as mistaken or hoaxes--all non-Mormons do. Atheism is a perfectly valid world view, though I have to wonder how secure in their views some folks are who seem to have to bring it up with every conversation. Like those religious people who have to have their doubts assuaged by getting others to join up, those atheists who have made it their life goal to make everyone think their way obviously have little confidence in their positions.

Jonathan (the other one) posted:

I guess it's time to come out of the walk-in closet - I am involved in a polyamorous relationship. In our case, it's polyandrous, not polygamous, but that should be just as horrible, right?

It took a lot of guts to come out and say this, and you have my respect for that.

Since multiple marriage isn't an option, my wife and I will be binding with my cohusband in a handfasting ritual this spring. In our hearts, it will be every bit as solid as a state-approved wedding.

And since nobody else here seems to have the common courtesy to say it, let me be the first to congratulate you. I think that's fantastic and I wish the three of you the best.

You have my respect -- for me, it's hard enough to make a marriage work with just two parties; I can't even imagine how complicated it would be adding a third to the mix.

Are any of your regular monogamous relationships breaking apart now, as the result of my revelation? For that matter, is our multiple commitment to each other and our daughter weakened at all by our gay neighbor and his boyfriend?

Nope. Frankly, I don't see any reason polyamory should be illegal as long as all parties are aware of the situation and happy with it. I don't see how this affects anyone's lives any more or less than homosexual marriage, interracial marriage, or plain ol' everyday vanilla marriage. Whatever works for you is great, and I don't need the government to say it ain't. Whatever goes on between two or more consenting adults is the business of those adults alone.

Bill:

>Atheism is a perfectly valid world view, though I have to wonder how secure in their views some folks are who seem to have to bring it up with every conversation. Like those religious people who have to have their doubts assuaged by getting others to join up, those atheists who have made it their life goal to make everyone think their way obviously have little confidence in their positions.

I understand your point, Bill. Certainly there are people out there who have had experiences in their lives that leaves them stung to the point of reacting, moreso than reasoning. Though history and current events certainly show more Christians acting in the behaviors that you describe, than Athiests. It is the Christian right that is currently pushing its values across the nation with its financial power, organized movements and paid lobbyists, not Athiests. Moreso than not, Athiests simply say "back off".

Fred

" Though history and current events certainly show more Christians acting in the behaviors that you describe, than Athiests."

Can't argue the point, Fred, at least not in this country (one can get bogged down in a "Whose side has the worst people" argument but these end up being like poker for history buffs--"I'll see your Torquemada and raise you a Stalin and two Pol Pots!") Of course, there are far fewer atheists to be annoying so one should not expect equity.

I have a friend who went to an atheist convention and came back somewhat disappointed--some were every bit as fanatical as the bible thumpers who turned him off to religion in the first place. One panel actually featured two idiots who make it a habit to remove those roadside memorials people put up when loved ones die in an auto wreck. They did this not out of civic concern or anything--they just couldn't stand the sight of crosses. Crazy atheists and vampires are the two forms of life that apparently can't stand the sight of a cross.

Of course, crazy atheists should not be confused with the hard-working, industrious American atheist, which provides us with honey and pollinates our flowers.

// There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a "lack of data" about this, there's no data."

Nonsense. There is eyewitness and anecdotal evidence. //

There are also eyewitness and anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, Elvis being alive, UFO's, Bigfoot, Superman, Ghosts, possesed toys, talking dogs and Kevin Smith's next issue of that Spider-Man/Black Cat mini series. None of which would be counted as "data towards proof of existance".

Anecdotal evidence is instantly discounted because it's anecdotal, and when dealing with eyewitness accounts one must always consider the source. The only eyewitness accounts we have to Gods appearences on earth are books writen centuries ago that were passed down, originally by word of mouth, (a nortoriously bad way to reliably pass data on as any one who played the telephone game in grammer school can attest to), by people who were, gennerally speaking, more supersitious then mordern men. These books have then been re-writen several times over the centuries by people with adgendas who needed the word of the almighty to support thier own personal power play.
Mordern encouters with the almighty tend to happen only to fringe fanatical elements of society, or con men who have a lot to gain by saying they ecountered the allmighty. ("And the lord came to me last night and said give me all your money"). You never get a reliable account and you never, ever have other witnesses and evidence, (the almighty, like Bigfoot and aliens, are aparently awfully camera shy).

As I said there's no proof there is a God, which doesn't necessarly mean there isn't one but that isn't the point. The point is that it takes faith to believe in something for which there is no proof. That's what religion is all about. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something for which there is no proof.

// (You may be correct about no data, since I tend to think of data as something that can be measured). //

Yup.

Luigi Novi: So how did students/parents pay for it? When my sister and I attended Catholic school, my parents had to pay tuition.

The StarWolf: Taxes, like everybody else. At least in Ontario. Here, the Catholic school boards are separate from the public ones, but funded by the government in the same manner.
Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.

Jonathan: On the other hand, I also believe that atheism is a religion, as a lack of data is not the same as no data.
Luigi Novi: Your belief is wrong.

Atheism is the lack of any religious belief. Not a religious belief in itself.

Moreover, a belief is not a religion. A religion is an organization of people who share the same belief. So even if atheism could be called a “belief,” it would still not be a religion.

Jonathan: To conclude that God does not exist takes at least as great a leap of faith as concluding that He does.
Luigi Novi: Wrong.

It does not take a leap of faith to adhere to scientific skepticism, and to require evidence of special claims, and to note that there isn’t scientific, peer-reviewed evidence for the existence of God. That is not faith. It is a dispassionate statement of fact. Believing the opposite requires faith, because it requires an emotionalist view of something for which there is no rational support. Pointing out, as an atheist would, that there is no evidentiary support for something, is not a leap of faith. It’s simply a statement.

All people are atheists, Jonathan. I assume you don’t believe in Krishna, the Hindu Holy Trinity, Japanese wind spirits, Wiccan elemental spirits, animistic beings, or the ancient gods of Egypt or Greece, right? Of course not. Therefore, you are an atheist with respect to those gods. Does that mean that in addition to being a Christian, that you are ALSO a member of the religion that denies those gods based on “faith”?

The “atheism is another type of religion” fallacy kinda breaks down there, don’t it?

Jonathan: Perhaps you should read the Gospels, at least, before utterly rejecting them - you might have noticed that Jesus had nothing to say about gays, but felt quite strongly on the topics of hypocrisy and forcing other people's belief structures...
Luigi Novi: Why do so many theists automatically assume that atheists and agnostics have not read the Gospels? I’ve read them. Jesus affirms the teachings of Moses, and of the Old Testament. He never denounces them, or disagrees with them.

Luigi Novi: You stated that lifting the gay marriage ban means that the government will being telling you what to think. Not to “rethink what you’re doing.”

The StarWolf: Same end result. I'm being told that what I think is wrong thinking and that I can no longer act upon it (assuming I wished to in the fist place, but I'm talking in general, not the specific).
Luigi Novi: No.

Luigi Novi: When the government lifts the ban on gay marriage, that means gays will be able to get married in their own ceremonies. Not that they can force their way into your wedding ceremony so that they can get married during yours. The horserace analogy, therefore, is FALSE. A more accurate analogy would be that the government is saying that those who want to hold zebra races can do so.

The StarWolf: Nope. That they can hold zebra races but also get to call them horse races.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t say anything about holding zebra races and “calling them” something else. You talked about forcing zebras into your horse race. Attempting another bait-and-switch by changing the metaphor will not work. If someone wants to hold a zebra races and call it something else, so friggin’ what? Doesn’t affect your horse race one bit.

Luigi Novi: So the government would not be able to allow someone to enter a zebra into your private event if you decided you only want horses.

The StarWolf: See, this is a major point of difference in our outlooks. You do not (or do not wish to) see it as one more step in governments sticking their noses in and telling us what to do and how to do it.
Luigi Novi: No, I don’t see it as such because what you describe doesn’t qualify as such, and I explained to you above why your description is false. I do not see it as another step is the government telling you what to do for the simple reason that it’s NOT.

I’ll say it again. If two gays get married downtown, and the government says it’s okay, it does not in any way affect YOUR marriage ceremony ONE BIT, and there’s nothing you can do to argue otherwise. Peter challenged you guys to provide one argument to illustrate how two guys’ ceremony would somehow affect yours, and your side has FAILED to answer the question because it knows that it can’t. Continuing to insist, therefore, that the government’s allowing gays to do what they want in their lives somehow equates with them telling you what to do in yours is a fallacy that flies in the face of logic, and only works if you mutilate definition and reason.

The StarWolf: Consider that there was a strong movement to have governments legislate against smoking in peoples' homes if it was also considered a place of business (such as a self-employed programmer, for example). True, it was defeated. For now. But only by a fairly narrow margin up here and the pressure is still there to keep at it until such laws do pass. So sure are you that they never will? I wish I had your optimism. But, with every new "you can't do this" that comes down the pike (they've just banned an entire breed of dogs in this province!) it just gets worse, and the climate to put the brakes on it becomes that much more uncertain.
Luigi Novi: And when they try to enact such laws, you must be there to stop them. Not try to stop some “other” law simply because you think it will “lead” to that one. Gay marriage must be approached on its own merits. Not on the merits of some “other” issue that you try to fraudulently link to it. I agree that smoking should be banned in any place of work, and if you have employees in your home, you shouldn’t smoke during their work hours. I disagree with banning breeds of dogs (unless there’s a valid reason that can be provided for it). I agree that gay marriage can be legalized. Thus, I can agree with the movement towards one law, and disagree with others. It doesn’t have to be a huge package deal in which agreeing with gay marriage means I must also agree with the laws regarding smoking and dogs. Fight for the ones you want, and against the ones you don’t, and argue each issue individually.

The StarWolf: Perhaps you trust the government to know when to stop.
Luigi Novi: I don’t. I simply don’t subscribe to an intellectually lazy and relativist philosophy whereby disparate things are equated, and where one must reason that because I don’t want one law

Darren J Hudak: There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a "lack of data" about this, there's no data.

Bill Mulligan: Nonsense. There is eyewitness and anecdotal evidence.
Luigi Novi: Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes are not valid evidence. The ones in the Bible, moreover, cannot be corroborated.

The StarWolf: Same end result. I'm being told that what I think is wrong thinking and that I can no longer act upon it.
Luigi Novi: No.

The government is not making any statement whatsoever about whether what you think is wrong if it allows gay marriage. It is merely saying that it will not legislate a limitation on gays’ rights based on it. You are more than free to continue believing that gay marriage is wrong, to demonstrate against it, vote against, etc. The Civil Rights act did not stop white supremacists from continuing to believe that blacks or Jews were inferior, or from conducting meetings and marches to affirm and promote those beliefs. It simply meant that the law would not be based on that belief, and reflect it. The government’s allowing gay marriage no more makes a statement about your opinion of it than the First Amendment’s allowing Rush Limbaugh to voice his views in his work means that the government is endorsing it.

Your statement, therefore, that allowing gay marriage means that government is calling your opinion “wrong thinking” is a Straw Man.

I, on the other hand, am saying that it’s wrong thinking. Don’t need the government to help me there one bit. :-)

Oh, I forgot to add this disclaimer in the post directly above: Somehow when composing the post above it, the quote-and-answer passage involving the first quote by StarWolf got fubared, I don't know how, and only noticed it after I posted it. So I reposted that section right afterwards.

Luigi Novi: Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes are not valid evidence. The ones in the Bible, moreover, cannot be corroborated.

Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence? Then there are many men in jail who must be wondering WTF.

And I never limited it to just those in the Bible. Joseph Smith, for example or the many folks who say they have seen angels. You may certainly discount them and you may well be absolutely correct to do so.

There are also eyewitness and anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, Elvis being alive, UFO's, Bigfoot, Superman, Ghosts, possesed toys, talking dogs and Kevin Smith's next issue of that Spider-Man/Black Cat mini series.

Soooo...you're telling me that eyewitnesses can be attributed to mistakes and hoaxes? Huh. All I said was "Certainly one can disregard eyewitness accounts as mistaken or hoaxes". Well, great minds think alike and all that...

It was said that ""There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch." I thought that an overstatement. The evidence may be unsatisfying but that's not quite the same thing.

Furthermore, if God is as unlikely to exist as "Bigfoot and UFOs" you'd best start praying. I'd say there is at least a 30% chance that Bigfoot exists and the odds are better than 50% that SOME unknown primate remains to be found somewhere in the world. Obviously, this is strictly my opinion but it's based on many years of following cryptozoology reports.

As for UFOs, they undeniably exist. I assume you meant alien spaceships. That's impossible to know for sure at this point though I would not want to bet the life of anyone I care about on it not being true. No, I don't buy every or even most or even more than a tiny fraction of the reports that suggest an extraterrestrial origin...but then,only 1 has to be correct for it to be true, yes?

Anyway, subject for another time, I guess.

// Luigi Novi: Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes are not valid evidence. The ones in the Bible, moreover, cannot be corroborated.

Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence? Then there are many men in jail who must be wondering WTF. //

Any really good defence lawyer will tell you that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and easy to discredit. (scientific studies have actually been done to prove this BTW). Are there people who have been put in jail when the only evidence against them was an eyewitness account, sure. There are also people who ended up in jail because they happened to be the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our legal system is not perfect. Legal history is also full of cases where the accused went free because the defence was good enought to put holes in the eyewitness testomony. In any event it doesn't matter, because we're talking scientific proof not legal proof and there's different standard for both. As a beloved classic movie once showed, a case could be made that Santa Claus legally exist, but that doesn't mean he does. (Even that same movie doesn't scientifically prove the old man is Santa, that's left as a matter of faith).

They turned it down.

Umm, how could gays turn down civil unions where there has yet to be a state to put it to the ballot?

11 states passed Marriage Discrimination... err... Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments this past election.

Not one state, that I recall, put forth an Amendment that would allow marriage for anybody other than a man and a woman.

Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence?

In the face of DNA evidence, I think they are becoming slightly less valid than they used to be.

There have been a few articles in recent years about studies, official and unofficial, done that show how unreliable eyewitnesses can be (simplying trying to identify somebody in a police line up, for example).

Any really good defence lawyer will tell you that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and easy to discredit. (scientific studies have actually been done to prove this BTW). Are there people who have been put in jail when the only evidence against them was an eyewitness account, sure. There are also people who ended up in jail because they happened to be the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our legal system is not perfect. Legal history is also full of cases where the accused went free because the defence was good enought to put holes in the eyewitness testomony. In any event it doesn't matter, because we're talking scientific proof not legal proof and there's different standard for both. As a beloved classic movie once showed, a case could be made that Santa Claus legally exist, but that doesn't mean he does. (Even that same movie doesn't scientifically prove the old man is Santa, that's left as a matter of faith).

Darren, Craig, everyone--I KNOW eyewitnesses are not proof. I know they can be unreliable. I keep saying that the evidence of eyewitnesses is in no way shape or form proof of God.

It IS, however, evidence. That's all I'm saying. Not trying to convert anyone from the One True Path or anything.

Now if you want me to convince you that Bigfoot is real, hey, I'm there.

Blade, I don't have to bloody well prove a thing. I believe what I believe. You are free to agree, disagree, or agree in modified fashion (as with my in-laws, who, unlike me, believe in a rather vicious, vengeful, cold-hearted God). That's the fun part about faith - your refusal to believe doesn't affect my faith a damn bit. Sorry!

Luigi, I didn't claim (as some do) that everyone who rejects Christianity hasn't read the Gospels; however, Blade's reaction to what I said indicated to me that he had not even a passing familiarity with the book in question, and his reactions on other topics indicate a lack of familiarity with the words of Christ, as reported in the Bible (which may or may not be what He actually said). For example, as I had indicated, Jesus didn't say word one about gays. However, He would have been sorely displeased with my in-laws' former church - what with its gift shop, and its coffee kiosk that took credit cards, and its ATM in the lobby for those who wanted to pull out their tithe right there, or perhaps add a touch so folks wouldn't think them cheap...

And Julio, we thank you for you kind words. Honestly, I was expecting that revelation to be the cause of the shitstorm, not a short quote from Matthew! :-)

\\The offer was brought up to have exactly that, only to refer to it (in their case) as a "civil union" instead of "marriage". They would have everything they wanted ... except the name. They turned it down.\\

Can you blame them? Read the text of the marriage amendment. If if it passes, the civil unions would be worthless in terms of legal rights, benefits and protections.

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm

Bill Mulligan: Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence? Then there are many men in jail who must be wondering WTF.
Luigi Novi: No, eyewitness accounts are not valid evidence. Eyewitness accounts, while thought of by the general public as the best kind, is actually not. Eyewitnesses can easily be wrong, and while people may be convicted of crimes on it, it’s a far cry from confirming supernatural events. Moreover, we don’t even know if there are eyewitnesses to Christ. We only know that the Bible claims that there were.

Bill Mulligan: And I never limited it to just those in the Bible. Joseph Smith, for example or the many folks who say they have seen angels.
Luigi Novi: Same thing.

Bill Mulligan: It was said that ""There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch." I thought that an overstatement. The evidence may be unsatisfying but that's not quite the same thing.
Luigi Novi: It isn’t an overstatement, Bill. It’s a fact.

Bill Mulligan: Furthermore, if God is as unlikely to exist as "Bigfoot and UFOs"…
Luigi Novi: Darren didn’t say anything about the likelihood of God’s existence. He only said there’s no evidence for it. The two are not the same thing. Moreover, he himself stated that there may be a God, when he said, “As I said there's no proof there is a God, which doesn't necessarly mean there isn't one but that isn't the point.”

Bill Mulligan: I'd say there is at least a 30% chance that Bigfoot exists and the odds are better than 50% that SOME unknown primate remains to be found somewhere in the world. Obviously, this is strictly my opinion but it's based on many years of following cryptozoology reports.
Luigi Novi: And how exactly did you come up with these figures?

And yes, you were right in pointing out that Darren was treating “UFO’s” as “alien craft.”

Bill Mulligan: It IS, however, evidence. That's all I'm saying.
Luigi Novi: And you’re wrong. We don’t know that there are eyewitnesses. As for whether it’s evidence, yeah, technically “eyewitness evidence” is evidence. But the whole point at the heart of this exchange it whether it’s sufficiently strong evidence to bear mention. It isn’t.

Jonathan: Luigi, I didn't claim (as some do) that everyone who rejects Christianity hasn't read the Gospels; however, Blade's reaction to what I said indicated to me that he had not even a passing familiarity with the book in question, and his reactions on other topics indicate a lack of familiarity with the words of Christ, as reported in the Bible (which may or may not be what He actually said).
Luigi Novi: Where did his statements indicate this?

Actually, what should have been said is that there is no PHYSICAL evidence of the existence of God. Which there isn't.

I consider myself an agnostic. Atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God, or gods. Agnosticism realizes that God cannot be proven or disproven. I live my life as if there is no God, but that doesn't mean he's been disproven. In a case of the supernatural, I believe that the burden of proof belongs on those trying to prove that the supernatural exists. That said, we need to be tolerant of each other's beliefs (or disbeliefs). Some people here need to pull it back a notch, you seem to be stepping over the line into rudeness. Please.

Luigi Novi: No, eyewitness accounts are not valid evidence. Eyewitness accounts, while thought of by the general public as the best kind, is actually not. Eyewitnesses can easily be wrong, and while people may be convicted of crimes on it, it’s a far cry from confirming supernatural events. Moreover, we don’t even know if there are eyewitnesses to Christ. We only know that the Bible claims that there were.

I'm WAY sorry I got into this whole thing but, stupidly, now I can't stop. There is a big difference between saying that eyewitnesses are not the best kind of evidence--no argument there, which is why I never said it--and saying that this makes them INVALID. And I won't keep belaboring the point but if they are invalid then they would not be admissible. Which they are.

Never said anything about eyewitnesses confirming God. Never mentioned Christ at all. You all are seeing way more into this than I ever intended.

It isn’t an overstatement, Bill. It’s a fact.

Obviously, I disagree. Had he said there is no convincing evidence of God I would have no argument, since "convincing" is in the eye of the beholder. Had he used "proof" instead of evidence, again, no problem.

There is a world of difference between saying there is no convincing reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster and saying there is no evidence of same.

And yes, you were right in pointing out that Darren was treating “UFO’s” as “alien craft.”

And I would argue that there IS evidence that UFOs may be alien craft but it is not evidence that is strong enough to convince me. I have almost no doubt that alien life forms exist but the distances involved are almost unimaginable and without resorting to some magical way around the speed of light limitation (which may well be child's play to an advanced race, who knows?) it just doesn't seem likely that they are visiting

Darren didn’t say anything about the likelihood of God’s existence. He only said there’s no evidence for it. The two are not the same thing. Moreover, he himself stated that there may be a God, when he said, “As I said there's no proof there is a God, which doesn't necessarly mean there isn't one but that isn't the point.”

Darren compared the evidence for God with the evidence for Bigfoot and UFO's. Since the evidence for Bigfoot and UFOs is actually pretty good I don't think it made the point he wanted.

re the 30% Bigfoot's existence:
And how exactly did you come up with these figures?
Totally my own opinion, as evidenced by the line "this is strictly my opinion". Not meant to be as anything other than the level of confidence I have in the occurrence of an event that cannot be predicted to any level of accuracy. Please, no wagering.

By 30% I mean that I'd be surprised but not stunned. The higher likelihood of a previously unknown primate is because the existence of the Orang Pendak is almost (but not quite) a slam dunk, based on hair fibers and the very high quality of the people making the reports (scientists, not guys named Cletus). In fact, the odds would be higher if I didn't think that there was a good chance the creature will be wiped out before being studied (a fate that seems to have befallen at least one species of bear and probably several types of whale).

And you’re wrong. We don’t know that there are eyewitnesses. As for whether it’s evidence, yeah, technically “eyewitness evidence” is evidence. But the whole point at the heart of this exchange it whether it’s sufficiently strong evidence to bear mention. It isn’t.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that there are eyewitnesses and like any eyewitness they may well be wrong. (Perhaps the problem is that by "eyewitness" I do not mean someone who actually witness what they say they witnessed. I mean someone who claims to have witnessed it. As you say, eyewitnesses can be wrong but they are still eyewitnesses). I do not, however, dismiss their existence. As for whether or not it bears mentioning, again, I don't know by what standard that can be determined.

None of the reported eyewitness accounts of religious events (the Fatima events, for example) or "miracles" are enough to say that God has been proven. There are quite possibly perfect rational explanations for every miraculous event that has ever been reported. But they are evidence. Not proof. Not reasons why you should immediately run out and sing What A Friend We have In Jesus, unless that's your conclusion.

But obviously, not everyone sees it that way and I feel like some folks are assuming I'm trying to push religion on them so I should probably just go to sleep now.

>Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.

So ... it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distance relative?

>Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.

So ... it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distant relative?

// It IS, however, evidence. That's all I'm saying. Not trying to convert anyone from the One True Path or anything. //

Not in the scientific sense, it isn't.

// Atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God, or gods. Agnosticism realizes that God cannot be proven or disproven. I live my life as if there is no God, but that doesn't mean he's been disproven. //

Atheism is a belief sure, but then again the idea that the sky is blue and the grass is green is also a belief, so what. What Atheism isn't, is a religion, despite the efforts of some to classify it as such. It also requires no faith to be an atheist any more then it requires faith to see that the grass is green or the sky is blue. To believe in something because it can't be disproven is, to my mind, silly. There are tons of things that can't be proven or disproven, ghost, aliens visiting the earth, bigfoot, Elvis being alive, people with superpowers, dogs who can talk, cows that can fly. Are all of the things possible, sure, but until I'm given evidence that doesn't mean I believe in them. The same is true of Gods. Agnosticism always seemed to me to be an apoligy, a way to be an atheist without totally offending the majority of people who aren't. It's basically going "I don't believe, but hey you could be right". In my mind you can be an atheist and say the same thing, so why we need a seperate term is, frankly, beyond me. To my way of thinking acknowledging the possiblity of a God is simply being tolerant of others beliefs. I was raised Catholic, (before I came to the adult conclusion that it was all a bunch of hooy), growing up I would have never dreamed of walking up to a Jew or a Muslim and telling them "I was right and you were wrong". That's tolerance. You don't have to beleive in any God to practice the same thing, and doing so doesn't mean we have to call it something else.

// >Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.

So ... it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distance relative? //

From a legal sense probably, but it still wouldn't be right.

// I'm WAY sorry I got into this whole thing but, stupidly, now I can't stop. There is a big difference between saying that eyewitnesses are not the best kind of evidence--no argument there, which is why I never said it--and saying that this makes them INVALID. And I won't keep belaboring the point but if they are invalid then they would not be admissible. Which they are. //

Once again you're confusing a legal standard with scientific standards. From a legal standpoint God could probably be proven, but then again from a legal standpoint OJ was innocent and so were the cops who beat Rodney King. Science is a much harsher mistress then the law. An eyewitness account in science means nothing unless it can be verified. There hasn't been a single eyewitness account to the almightly existance that can be verified, hence no proof.

// Obviously, I disagree. Had he said there is no convincing evidence of God I would have no argument, since "convincing" is in the eye of the beholder. //

Once again, not according to the scientific method.

// There is a world of difference between saying there is no convincing reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster and saying there is no evidence of same. //

There is no evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, the various "blurry" photographs over the years have all been disproven by experts. Once again it comes down to a few eyewitnesses and no one being able to verify what they saw.

// And I would argue that there IS evidence that UFOs may be alien craft //

No there isn't. And I don't say this with a lack of knowledge. UFO's are somewhat of a facination for me. My bookshelf is filled with books on them, (as well as alien abductions, Men in Black, ect.). Hell I was even once convinced that I was being abducted by aliens. Years of reading, studying, and even talking to some who've encountered them, have lead me to the conclusion that there's no proof of anything alien there. Everything, (and I mean everything, including my own "abduction" experiences) that people claim to have seen is explainable by other means, (both natural and man made). In my own "abduction" case I was suffering from a sleeping disorder.

// Darren compared the evidence for God with the evidence for Bigfoot and UFO's. Since the evidence for Bigfoot and UFOs is actually pretty good I don't think it made the point he wanted.//

You must be working from a different definition of "pretty good" then any I'm aware of. Evidence for both Bigfoot and UFO's is not only really poor, it's practactly non existant. Most of the evidence people cling to has been repeatably discredited by respectable scientist and experts.

Johnny Bravo,

So you believe in New Testament God, and your in-laws believe in Old Testament God?

Make you wondered how the church decided to come up with a "New" Testament so different from what's presented in the old...

Darren,

Had you inserted the word "scientific" into ""There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch." I never would have said a word and we'd both probably be happier.

Hey, it's one thing to pick on God but let's leave Bigfoot alone.

"Evidence for both Bigfoot and UFO's is not only really poor, it's practactly non existant. Most of the evidence people cling to has been repeatably discredited by respectable scientist and experts."

What evidence for Bigfoot has been discredited? As we've belabored, eyewitness accounts are difficult to prove or disprove. They are, however, the piece of evidence that virtually all discoveries of animals begin with. The biggest news in primate science (other than the discovery of the "hobbit" skeletons) are the sightings of an unusual group of what are either chimp like gorillas or gorilla like chimps in Africa. Nobody has a dead body yet but there is little skepticism about their existence (whether they are a new species, a subspecies or a genuine chimp/gorilla hybrid is the big question. I'd lean toward gorilla subspecies.)

That an unknown group of gorillas could survive undetected in Africa is, of course, cause for delight.

Back to Bigfoot. Why is such a creature so unlikely? There is nothing fantastic about its description and such creatures did once exist. The same could be said about Apatasaurus of course but unlike our dinosaur friend, a large primate could conceivably live undetected in the woods. The problem, and I admit it's a big one, is that it is hard to believe that a large animal could live undetected in the most industrialized country on earth without someone seeing it. (but then, people DO say they see it).

Evidence? Scat, hair, voice recordings, photos, films, tracks, lots and lots of tracks. Pretty much all the evidence I ever had that my home town has bears, up until last year when I ran into one in my sisters backyard. (Incidentally, in answer to the old question, yes, bears DO shit in the woods. Also, humans shit in their pants when running into said bear.)

Proof? No, not until we kill or capture one or find a carcass. There are alternate explanations for each piece of evidence. The footprints may be brilliant hoaxes. The eyewitnesses might have seen a bear. The unidentified hair samples are just that--unidentified, not proof of an unknown animal. Hoaxes have been done in the past--I have little faith in any of the photos. The Patterson film has been analyzed to death and despite several attempts to prove it false, it has several interesting features that raise eyebrows (I remain agnostic on the film however).

While most scientists would not touch Bigfoot with a ten foot pole, there are several legitimate ones who, examining the evidence, have come to the conclusion that there might be something going on worth serious study. Even Jane Goodall, no slouch in the primate science department, said on NPR that she thinks there is a good chance of Bigfoot's existence. I nearly drove off the road.

>"From a legal sense probably, but it still wouldn't be right."

And that's the crux here. Both people can't be 'right' in that sense. So, who is? Subjectively, both are. But objectively? "A"? "B"? Or neither?

It is, incidentally, interesting to note that in an unscientific poll held in the GLOBE & MAIL daily newspaper (out of Toronto), given the question of which the readers feared or distrusted the most of

Big government
Big business
Big religion

The third option won(?) out easily, at 49%, over the other two.

Food for thought.

It is, incidentally, interesting to note that in an unscientific poll held in the GLOBE & MAIL daily newspaper (out of Toronto), given the question of which the readers feared or distrusted the most of

Big government
Big business
Big religion

The third option won(?) out easily, at 49%, over the other two.

I'm not surprised. You can always buy off Big Government by offering it more power. You can always buy off Big Business by offering it more wealth. But a person or institution that truly believes in its own ethics won't budge.

"These people, this VIDEODROME: they don't do it for money. They have something you don't Max - a philosophy; and that makes them dangerous." David Cronenberg's VIDEODROME

Darren,
Agnosticism always seemed to me to be an apoligy, a way to be an atheist without totally offending the majority of people who aren't. It's basically going "I don't believe, but hey you could be right".

My husband is Agnostic, and you are wrong. He does not say he doesn't believe, he says he doesn't know if God exists. Athiests say there is no God. Agnostics say they have no idea, one way or they other. There is a difference, although most people don't get it and treat him as an Athiest. He is not an apologist and he is not sitting on the fence. He acknowledges that there is a possiblility of a Higher Being. That is quite different than definitively denying the existence of God.

Agnosticism always seemed to me to be an apoligy, a way to be an atheist without totally offending the majority of people who aren't. It's basically going "I don't believe, but hey you could be right".

Karen:
My husband is Agnostic, and you are wrong. He does not say he doesn't believe, he says he doesn't know if God exists. Athiests say there is no God. Agnostics say they have no idea, one way or they other. There is a difference, although most people don't get it and treat him as an Athiest. He is not an apologist and he is not sitting on the fence. He acknowledges that there is a possiblility of a Higher Being. That is quite different than definitively denying the existence of God.

I am right there with your husband. While I have no reason to believe that there is a higher power, I also have no reason to totally deny the possibility of the existance one. This belief is not stated for anyone's benefit, nor do I feel a need to tell everyone that I encounter of metaphysical philosophies. I'm not looking for a "Get Out of Jail Free" card if I find out that there is something out there after I've died by saying to *fill in the blank*, "I've never denied you", but I also have no desire to pray to, beg for, attempt to manipulate my will on or barter with a higher being on the off-chance that I will be punished for it after death. I've walked away from jobs on principle and have been very uncomfortable financially due to my decisions. It is with this same mindset that I do not fear an afterlife.

I have actually enjoyed many a conversation about philosophy and different thoughts on spirituality when I encounter people who feel differently than I do. In cases where I find myself talking with someone who has made it clear that they are living the "correct way according to ****" and that I am most definitely worng, I simply smile inwardly, sometimes listenly politely or occassionally engage enough to collapse the straw man arguments that are thrown at me. Ultimately, I have found that there is little point in discussing anything with someone who doesn't respect your viewpoint and has made it clear that they are not hearing a word that you say due to this fact.

Fred

oops... though it may be obvious to some, the first statement in my post was added by Darren. I somehow neglected to type his name in to give him recognition for it.

// >"From a legal sense probably, but it still wouldn't be right."

And that's the crux here. Both people can't be 'right' in that sense. So, who is? Subjectively, both are. But objectively? "A"? "B"? Or neither? //

Law and morality have nothing to do with each other, (I know people always get that confused). As I said from a legal sense, but it still would be wrong. Just because somethings legal doesn't make it right, (conversly just because something's illegal doesn't make it wrong). Discriminating against people is almost always wrong, it is however not always illegal.

// What evidence for Bigfoot has been discredited? //

Photos, footprints, films, recordings of sounds supposably made by bigfoot, hair that supposably came from a bigfoot, bones that supposably belonged to bigfoot. There hasn't been a single piece of bigfoot evidence that hasn't been discredited when looked at by real scientist and experts. The most famous peice of film footage of bigfoot was acknowdged as a fake by the person who created it, (he came clean decades later after his collaborator of that hoax died). Of course real scientist and film experts had written that piece of footage off as a hoax decades earlier.

// Back to Bigfoot. Why is such a creature so unlikely?//

I don't remember saying Bigfoot is unlikly. I'm well aware that new specis are being discovered all the time and that there's a lot about our world we still haven't discovered. That being said that doesn't change the point that there isn't a single real piece of evidence pointing to the existance of such a creature.

The third option won(?) out easily, at 49%, over the other two. Food for thought.

Which is why many Americans should fear that all three of those options are working hand in hand in the Bush Administration.

I'm real curious as to what percentages B.G. and B.B. scored...

Need a similar poll here in America...

"There hasn't been a single piece of bigfoot evidence that hasn't been discredited when looked at by real scientist and experts. The most famous peice of film footage of bigfoot was acknowdged as a fake by the person who created it, (he came clean decades later after his collaborator of that hoax died)."

You are referring to the Patterson footage. Unfortunately, the guy who claimed that he was in on the "hoax" has zer (nada, zip, etc) evidence other than his claim. He is also the latest in a long line of people who have claiemd that they were the guy in the suit. Obviously, some must be lying.

As I said, I'm not wholly convinced of the aunthenticity of the Patterson footage but when a guy says he was the Bigfoot and he built the suit from a gorilla costume, etc, one should probably ask a few questions. For a long long time it was said that makeup expert Dick Smith was the guy who did it because the suit was so good that only a few people could have faked it. Smith finally declared once and for all that it wasn't him (some researchers continue to claim that Smith was the guy). Now they champion a guy who says it was little more than a cheap costume. I don't know...

As far as I know, the Skookum Cast has not been discredited. Not all of the footprints collected by Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University have been discredited. National Geographic had an article not long ago on how some forensic experts had been impressed by the quality of dermel ridges on some of Meldrum's collection. Footprints are easy to fake and have been faked, but you don't have to be CSI to spot the fakes--for one thing, a wooden foot will leave the same imprint each time, while a real foot will be affected by what it is standing on.

At any rate, I stand by what I said. Ther IS evidence of Bigfoot. As the Skeptical Inquirer said "the question of Bigfoot's existence comes down to evidence-- and there is plenty of it." You may conclude, as the SI writer does, that the evidence is weak. But it's there.

"there isn't a single real piece of evidence" If by "real" you mean evidence so strong that it is "proof", you are correct. If you mean that every piece of evidence has been discredited, you are incorrect.

Bill
(and don't get him started on sea monsters)

Tom Keller: Atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God, or gods. Agnosticism realizes that God cannot be proven or disproven.
Luigi Novi: Atheism, by definition, runs the gamut from what you describe as atheism, and what you describe as agnosticism. Agnosticism, for example, has been called “weak atheism.” Atheism is sometimes described as a belief that there is not God, but also as simply the absence of any belief in God (which is how agnosticism is defined).

Atheism could also be called a conclusion that there is no God, based on reasoning and logic. An atheist may come to this conclusion by simply observing the lack of evidence, by noting the fallacies utilized to argue the existence of Gods, by studying the history of religion and the Bible, and seeing how the Bible is clearly written as a work of mythology by many disparate writers who often swiped stories and myths from other cultures that preceded it (as evidenced by the clear borrowing of the Jesus story from Ra, Horus, Zoroaster, Hercules, Zeus, Osiris, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, the Noachian flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.), and manipulated by the early church fathers before the invention of the printing press. This conclusion, therefore, is not a “belief,” but a conclusion, and if the atheist agrees to revise it in the face of new evidence that disproves it (as he/she would have to, particularly if it were really strong evidence like God appearing in Times Square tomorrow), then it would not be a “belief,” much less a “religion,” since beliefs, particularly religious ones, are not reason-based conclusions, and are not subject to revision in the light of contradicting evidence.

Bill Mulligan: There is a big difference between saying that eyewitnesses are not the best kind of evidence--no argument there, which is why I never said it--and saying that this makes them INVALID. And I won't keep belaboring the point but if they are invalid then they would not be admissible. Which they are.
Luigi Novi: They’re admissible in court when trying to convict someone of a crime. They are not considered evidence when trying to prove the existence of the supernatural.

Bill Mulligan: Obviously, I disagree. Had he said there is no convincing evidence of God I would have no argument, since "convincing" is in the eye of the beholder. Had he used "proof" instead of evidence, again, no problem. There is a world of difference between saying there is no convincing reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster and saying there is no evidence of same.
Luigi Novi: Hairsplitting. In this context evidence would be any information that has some degree of reliability, even if only preliminary reliability. Evidence is not that which you merely point to and arbitrarily label “evidence.” True evidence, even possible evidence, must meet certain criteria, even if an idea is still in the form of a hypothesis or unconfirmed theory. A several-thousand year-old book that claims to record eyewitness accounts of God is no more evidence of God’s existence than the hieroglyphs in the Pyramids at Giza are evidence of the existence of Ra, Annubis or Osiris. Hence, if you open a book that contained our total scientific knowledge, it would correctly state that there is no evidence for God’s existence.

Bill Mulligan: And I would argue that there IS evidence that UFOs may be alien craft but it is not evidence that is strong enough to convince me.
Luigi Novi: There is no evidence that UFO’s may be alien craft. One can only say they “may be” in the sense that an object of unknown identity is theoretically “may be” anything, be it known quantities or new quantities. Such objects must be approached by first excluding all conventional possibilities. Only when all such explanations can first be excluded, and the evidence specifically points to one PARTICULAR new type of explanation (i.e.: alien craft) can you correctly say that there is evidence that the object may be such. There is no such evidence at present. But if you insist that there is, please enlighten me.

Bill Mulligan: Darren compared the evidence for God with the evidence for Bigfoot and UFO's. Since the evidence for Bigfoot and UFOs is actually pretty good I don't think it made the point he wanted.
Luigi Novi: There is no evidence for Bigfoot that is “very good,” and that UFO’s exist is a FACT. There is no evidence that UFO’s are extraterrestrial. But I’d love to hear any evidence that you have.

Bill Mulligan: Totally my own opinion, as evidenced by the line "this is strictly my opinion". Not meant to be as anything other than the level of confidence I have in the occurrence of an event that cannot be predicted to any level of accuracy.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t ask you if it was an opinion or fact. I already know it’s your opinion. I asked you how you came up with that figure.

Bill Mulligan: By 30% I mean that I'd be surprised but not stunned. The higher likelihood of a previously unknown primate is because the existence of the Orang Pendak is almost (but not quite) a slam dunk, based on hair fibers and the very high quality of the people making the reports (scientists, not guys named Cletus).
Luigi Novi: Do the scientists making these reports have evidence? If not, the fact that they’re scientists is irrelevant.

Bill Mulligan: I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that there are eyewitnesses and like any eyewitness they may well be wrong. (Perhaps the problem is that by "eyewitness" I do not mean someone who actually witness what they say they witnessed. I mean someone who claims to have witnessed it. As you say, eyewitnesses can be wrong but they are still eyewitnesses). I do not, however, dismiss their existence. As for whether or not it bears mentioning, again, I don't know by what standard that can be determined.
Luigi Novi: The standard of corroboration. The existence of those who were at Fatima or Lourdes is somewhat easier to confirm, and some of those witnesses could be/have been interviewed. Not so the ones claimed in the Bible.

The StarWolf: So ... it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distance relative?
Luigi Novi: If the priest or Church are paying for it themselves, they can invite whoever the bloody hell they want. If a function is a public one paid for by citizens’ taxes, they cannot. See my example above about private movie screenings held for market research purposes.

Bill Mulligan: Back to Bigfoot. Why is such a creature so unlikely?
Luigi Novi: For my part, I never said it was.

Bill Mulligan: Evidence? Scat, hair, voice recordings, photos, films, tracks, lots and lots of tracks.
Luigi Novi: All of which has either been debunked or can be explained conventionally.

Bill Mulligan: As far as I know, the Skookum Cast has not been discredited. Not all of the footprints collected by Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University have been discredited.
Luigi Novi: But conventional explanations for them haven’t been excluded. The researchers who collected the prints even found
“markings that look like human fingerprints on the heel print”

Apparently, that link didn't work. It's http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk17.html

For once, the fine folks at Skeptical Inquirer weren't skepticle enough. They took the statement “markings that look like human fingerprints on the heel print” at face value. The researchers did not mean they found human fingerprints on the cast. They meant that the heel print had evidence of the dermal ridges that exist on genuine footprints. It was enough to convince Daris Swindler, an expert in fosil primates and author of "An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy," that further research is more than warrented.

Obviously ther is always the possibility of a hoax, even in the face of much better evidence than this. Conventional explanations have not been excluded. But it is incorrect to say that the cast has yet been discredited.

Bill Mulligan: "The higher likelihood of a previously unknown primate is because the existence of the Orang Pendak is almost (but not quite) a slam dunk, based on hair fibers and the very high quality of the people making the reports (scientists, not guys named Cletus)."

ME: Somewhere a scientist named Cletus is loading his scatter gun...

As Dr Cletus put it "Yuh-huh! My peepers don't lie!"

PAD,
"Thus his challenge: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship."

Strawman argument. No one is saying gay marriage would ruin THEIR marriage. Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such "families", not to mention role confusion.

Starbrand:
The sales tax when used in conjunction with other taxes doesn't work well; ONLY sales tax would if the products and services were the same price as before. The sales tax would be 'invisible' and those who have withholding from their check get a big fat raise. So far, the couple people responding about the Fair Tax haven't looked into it. Please do. While it makes too much sense to ever be enacted, it would solve all sorts of problems.

"Proving God Scientifically"
Not all things are open to scientific investigation. Love, for example, can't be proven. Historical figures like Alexander the Great or King David can't be scientifically proven. That's just the way it is.

Our Polygamist (sorry, couldn't find your name above):
None of my business, so feel free to ignore the question since it's idle curiosity, but... do the three of you share one bed? Are you all intimate or do you trade off? I've often wondered about the structure of such a congregation, but had no one to ask. :)

PAD,
"Thus his challenge: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship."

"Strawman argument."

You have zero concept of what a strawman argument is, if that's what you think.

A strawman argument is an easily refuted proposition put forward in order to make the opposing side look stupid. Demanding proof is not a strawman argument. The opposing side is continuing to insist substituting biased opinion for demonstrable fact, and I for one am sick of it.

"No one is saying gay marriage would ruin THEIR marriage. Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such "families", not to mention role confusion."

Oh, they're saying much more than that. Let's check it out, from bopping around the net:

"If California legalizes same-sex marriages," says BOND founder and president Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, "it will destroy the family, especially the black family."

"On April 25, some 7,000 people in San Francisco's Sunset district -- primarily Chinese Americans and Christians from 180 Bay Area churches -- protested same-sex marriage, reports Julie D. Soo in the May 21 edition of San Francisco's English-language weekly AsianWeek. Gay marriage "could lead to the extinction of the entire human race," said event spokesman Rev. Thomas Wang, as reported in the Chinese newspaper Sing Tao. "There will be no future if the United States does not repent."

"Activist liberal judges are intent on destroying the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman."

What I'm saying is that arguments of this exact type were introduced at the notion of having black men serve beside white men in the military, or permitting interracial marriage. I'm saying that fear and bigotry remain one of the constants of the unthinking. I'm saying that I'm sick of boneheads hauling out "The children must be protected!" as if children aren't already living in same sex-based family situations with no demonstrable negative effects. And I'm saying, yet again, that I'm tired of having opinion served up as fact.

Let's see opponents of gay marriage put their marriage where their mouth is. Because the fact is that the concept of "family" and "marriage" are historically far more flexible than the opponents of change in both. If they're saying that same sex marriage will destroy the family and the human race, then let them prove it by starting small.

Let them present a hundred people who are willing to say that they themselves either will divorce or never marry if gays are given the same rights as they. It's been over a week since I challenged people to step up to the plate and honestly say that if gays are in, they're out. No one has done so.

Let them show up here with fifty couples.

Ten couples.

One couple.

Put up or shut up.

PAD

Peter David: "It's been over a week since I challenged people to step up to the plate and honestly say that if gays are in, they're out. No one has done so.

Let them show up here with fifty couples.

Ten couples.

One couple.

Put up or shut up."

Hi Peter,

Well said. I predict that an overly conservative couple will get married for the sole purpose of getting divorced when gay marriage becomes legal just to make a point.

For approximately 15 minutes low rumblings will be heard and then this couple will be forgotten due to our societies attention focusing on the new Beanie Baby or Tickle Me Elmo that comes down the pike.

However, I could the guy who lives up to your challenge because I'm not getting married. Ever*. It wouldn't work though, because I'd have to lie about my position on the matter of gay marriage, which I won't do.

On the subject of this thread, I believe that most of us have missed the point: That people like simple answers because it requires little to no thought and that is one place where such bigotry can spring from. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

*This is when someone tells me that I'll find someome like I'm feeling sorry for myself. That's not the case. I already found her. Marriage just isn't an option for people like me. At best we'd be miserable, at worst it would result in an appearance on COPS.

Well, Peter beat me to the punch on some of these comments, but what the hell…

Peter David: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship.

Robbnn: Strawman argument. No one is saying gay marriage would ruin THEIR marriage. Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such "families", not to mention role confusion.
Luigi Novi: And what else do promoters of this “circus of marriage” argument mean, if not that specific marriages will be affected, or that the institution of marriage will be lowered in a way that will make it less desirable for couples to get married? (I assume that your mention of children is a separate reason from this, given your use of the “and/or” conjunction.) The problem is not that the response to it is a Straw Man. The problem is that the argument itself is euphemistic and pseudoscientific. The institution of marriage is deeply entrenched in our society, and has survived all manner of societal changes by simply adapting to them, such as women in the workforce, the Baby Boom, longer lifespans, increased taxes from an expanding government, etc. It’s not going anywhere, certainly not because two people of the same gender want in on it.

As for negative impact on children, same response: Please explain your evidence of this. Many children have already been raised by lesbian or gay couples who are perfectly well-adjusted, and show no signs of “damage,” and are probably far better off than many children of divorced heterosexuals, one-parent families, or who were born out of wedlock, situations that are not illegal. Thus the evidence indicates that children of such “families” (because, ya know, we gotta put quotation remarks around the word “families” in order other-ize them and debase them) are perfectly fine.

Thus, the argument about how kids such as these will be “damaged” is about as strong as the argument about how integrating the military would ruin it, and reminds me of the pseudoscientific bunk from the 80’s that babies born addicted to crack would be “lost causes,” “automatons,” “oblivious to affection,” that they would suffer from “permanent inferiority,” and that when entering the schools, would “leave resources depleted, and compassion tested.” And much like that flap, it seems like a smokescreen being used to hide a political or ideological agenda.

Robbnn: Not all things are open to scientific investigation. Love, for example, can't be proven. Historical figures like Alexander the Great or King David can't be scientifically proven. That's just the way it is.
Luigi Novi: Then those who would insist on using scientific or empirical terminology on the subject shouldn’t do so.

Robbnn: Our Polygamist (sorry, couldn't find your name above)…
Luigi Novi: I remember that he said he was in a polyamorous, but not polygamous relationship, and after using my browser’s Find feature to find the word “polyamor,” I found his name quite easily. :-)

It is a strawman argument and I explained why. None of your quotes said their marriages would be over. Your "challenge" is a hollow one. Find me a credible quote where someone says "if gay marriage is approved, MY marriage will be destroyed."

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind Peterson's belief why the Black family would be destroyed, or was that just a sound bite? The "extinction" quote sounds familiar, and if it is the one I'm thinking of, then it's taken out of context (to wit: 'one can determine the morality of an action by extropolating it to ALL people. If everyone did it, gay marriage would mean the extinction of the human race.' I don't agree with that morality test, but that changes the spin on that quote if that was, indeed, the context.)

You said: "as if children aren't already living in same sex-based family situations with no demonstrable negative effects."

That sounds like an opinion, not fact. At least anecdotal evidence would say that is completely wrong, in that the same-gender families I've encountered do have negatively impacted children. I've seen studies (no links, I'll see what I can find) that very much do conclude that same sex families, as well as divorce, have harmed children more often than not.

Your challenge might be repeated to the liberals who actually DID say they'd leave the country if Bush was elected. Since a handful did say it, should all liberals have to put up and leave the country, or shut up?

Fear and bigotry are handy labels for people who disagree with you. Some, no doubt, are fearful and bigoted, in that they are uninformed. Others examine the evidence and come to different conclusions than you do. Some don't feel like conducting a social experiment that may put their kids at risk.

I'm just skimming, so my apologies if I missed something and I'm repeating.

Robbnn, if no one has said that their marraige would suffer if gays are allowed to marry, then why is this even an issue? If there's no personal harm being committed on anyone, why is the Bush administration spending time (and thus tax payerss dollars) on trying to get gay marraige declared illegal?

Before you can take someone to court, they have to injure you. If there's no injury, you have no case. No suit. It' essentially why "intentional infliction of emotional distress" was created, to recognize that there are some injuries that carry no physical evidence to support them.

If gay marraige hurts no one, why make it illegal?

Luigi, sorry, we must have posted at the same time.

Marriage is down, living together is up - I would say no-fault divorce is the reason for this (among other things). Marriage has been harmed by it, would be my conclusion. The argument would be that gay-marriage further weakens the institution so why get married? Marriage means less and less. It hasn't adapted to changes, divorce is way up; some of those changes you mentioned did harm it. Folks here have said that marriage isn't about raising children anymore, so why not just live together if you don't plan on having kids?

Marriage is foundation of our society, that's why the government rewards it. Stable marriages and family are important to society. You'll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what's the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed.

As for using children as a smokescreen, I think you're questioning the sincerety of people concerned for their children. They really might be, you know.

Quotes around "families" wasn't meant to debase. Sorry it was taken that way. I just meant same-sex with children families as opposed to traditional family.

"Luigi Novi: Then those who would insist on using scientific or empirical terminology on the subject shouldn’t do so."

Okay. Except I've had empirical experiences with God (if I get your meaning of 'empirical'; I've "seen" his hand in my life. Or would 'empirical' as you have used it mean "I've seen the face of God?")

Last note: I'm presenting arguments that are not mine. I truly haven't made up my mind on this, because the societal underpinnings I haven't fully landed on yet will determine a lot of tributary opinions. Still, I didn't feel like the other arguments were being presented fairly (preaching to the choir, as it were). They probably still haven't been presented fairly since I'm probably not very good at this. (You might be thinking, "suuurrreee he hasn't, he's a conservative Christian who hasn't made up his mind." I haven't. What to legislate and what not to are very big questions that I haven't answered yet. I'm in no real hurry, either. That's why I hang out here; I hear my choir sing a lot, but I want intelligent representation from the other side... though the liberals on this site might be more extreme left than is the norm (or are you?).

I do appreciate the interplay, though. Sorry if I'm not up to y'all's debating standards.

Bobb,

It isn't a matter of making it illegal, is it? It's a matter of making it legal.

One purpose of a country's laws is to help define an image of the society we want to be. My Libertarian leanings are being challenged by the concept that law is a tool of shaping society.

I might ask the question that since a gay committed relationship isn't illegal, why push for marriage? I have several gay friends who consider themselves married, so why the need for the law to recognize it? Clearly there is a legitimization in mind. Right now, our body of laws doesn't legitimize homosexuality (it makes provisions that they shouldn't be descriminated against, but that isn't legitimization, it's just basic freedom). Canada has made that distinction and now they have to abridge the free speech rights of the church; it is a crime to read certain passages of the Bible out loud in Canada, not to mention preaching about those passages. Do we want to go there?

Granted this is only anecdotal, but I know people who were raised by same-sex parents and they are well-adjusted adult(in their mid 20's), all but one being heterosexual. Robbnn mentioned studies that conclude the opposite (not about the sexual orientation but being well adjusted adults). I would like to know more of those studies and who conducted them because they are contrary to my own experience.

Robbnn:

>Marriage is foundation of our society, that's why the government rewards it. Stable marriages and family are important to society. You'll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what's the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed.

Though I've no real interest in rereading the entire thread, most of those who have brought up the nearly 60% divorce rate as evidence that the institution of marriage is already in crisis are doing so to point out that the issues lie, not in whether we allow or disallow gay couples to marry, but in the failures of our society under the current leanings. You may wish it to be that the proponants of recognized gay marriage are utilizing the "what more harm can it cause" argument, but this simply is not so in the vast majority of people advocating it.

Fred

Robbnn, those are good points, and I struggle to counter them. Darn it.

But, you're mentioning gay couples that are married in their hearts, so to speak, is getting off the point, which is, their right to marry, now and in the future, is currently at stake. How many couples, whether gay or not, have you heard about that were the "secure in our relationship typ," with no desire to get married. And then 3 years later, they get married, because they find that legally, being married in their own hearts just doesnt' cut it when it comes to taxes, property, kids, health benefits, and all the other things our society has declared to go along with marriage. So not wanted or feeling the need today to enter marraige has little to do with whether you should take action to preserve that right later on down the road.

It's the same with any right or act of discrimination: If it doesn't impact you right now, there's always the temptation to allow it to happen. Inherant in that risk is that, when it finally DOES impact you, it may be too late to do anything about it.

Robbnn:

"Marriage is foundation of our society, that's why the government rewards it. Stable marriages and family are important to society. You'll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what's the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed."

Hi Robbnn,

I disagree with your statement that marriage is the(a) foundation of our society. I have never read in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of rights, or Declaration of Independance anything to support the position that marriage is in any way a foundation for anything. Freedom, Justice, and Liberty I can see as foundations for our society based on documents used to forge and define our society, but not marriage.

Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a ( or the) foundation of our society?

If gay marraige hurts no one, why make it illegal?

The "victimless crime" argument - and it's a good one. The same argument is made for drugs, underage smoking, prostitution, gun ownership, pornography, assisted suicide and probably several others I can't think of. Strict Libertarianism holds that all of these should be legal. The counter-argument is that society should regulate some behavior based on the long term implications.

Take prostitution for example. Nevada has regulated it, and (by all accounts) is reasonbly successful. Las Vegas got rid of it, though, because of the "unsavory" element it was bringing to the city - it wanted to clean up its image. Elsewhere, prostitution is fronting drug addicts, dealers and abuse of women.

At some point, society says "Nope, this is a longer term issue". We tell people they can't own a tank or a nuke because the Second Amendment - while in its purest interpretation would allow it - is regulated, and society has decided every house doesn't need a chemical weapon.

Mark L, some of those examples do have victims, or at least, societal costs. Drugs lead to broken lives and families. Gun ownership has an associate danger of gun use, justifying some regulation. Each could probably be associated with some societal harm justifying regulation.

Gay marraige could lead to...happiness? Stable families? Sure, you could also say divorce and crimes of passion, but that's not anything unique to gay marraige, just marraige. Drug use can lead to addiction, waste, and lost productivity, There's a compelling cost drug use is strongly associated with that creates a strong societal incentive to prevent those costs through controlling drug use. What is the compelling societal cost associated with gay marraige?

Bobb:

>Gay marraige could lead to...happiness? Stable families? Sure, you could also say divorce and crimes of passion, but that's not anything unique to gay marraige, just marraige. Drug use can lead to addiction, waste, and lost productivity, There's a compelling cost drug use is strongly associated with that creates a strong societal incentive to prevent those costs through controlling drug use. What is the compelling societal cost associated with gay marraige?

We most probably would have to reassess our own biases and beliefs, considering once again that our way of living may not be the only "right" way to live. This type of thinking can be as scary as hell for some people.

Fred

Wanna know why I support gay marriage? Because once this is all over, both sides of the issue will shut the hell up. The constant table thumping from either camp is just getting on my nerves. You make gay marriage legal, then everyone will go away, eventually.

The peace of mind out of legalizing it would be worth it alone.

TFE, if that is all it takes to get your support, people'll be glad to have it. Though, I believe the need to continued dialogue is essential regardless of which way this goes in the near future.

Mark L.:
"The "victimless crime" argument - and it's a good one. The same argument is made for drugs, underage smoking, prostitution, gun ownership, pornography, assisted suicide and probably several others I can't think of."

Hi Mark,

I agree with the spirit of your post, but I beleive that there is a valid distinction in that gun ownership and pornography are not crimes, victimless or otherwise while prostitution, drug use, and some others not mentioned are crimes.

Bobb:
Gun ownership has an associate danger of gun use, justifying some regulation.

Hi Bobb,

Ok, so I'm a pro-gun guy. I'm one of them who agrees with logical regulation and proper enforcement of existing laws while disagreeing with knee-jerk laws. I agree with the spirit of your statement but I wonder if you meant "an associate danger of gun MISuse" since the phrase "gun use" is broad ranging.

Yes, I'm splitting hairs (quite a feat for a bald guy), but I believe such distinctions are important since I'm a big fan of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

Mitch,

That should have been "a foundation" not "foundation" or "the foundation". Sorry.

A society must continue, and it must continue "in health" to be successful. Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children is the only method for a healthy society to propogate itself. If marriage and family weren't foundations, then the society would be a short one.

Our society has changed drastically (as societies do) and not all change is for the better. When we concentrate solely on the individual and his or her desires rather than on the long term effects of proposed changes, then we're in trouble. To pull a Biblical quote, "and everyone did what they thought was right in their own eyes" was always the beginning of the end.

Robbnn:
"That should have been "a foundation" not "foundation" or "the foundation". Sorry."

Hi Robbnn,

Thanks for clearing that up. Being no stranger to typos myself, well... we all kick ourselves in the butt at some point. ;)

"A society must continue, and it must continue "in health" to be successful. Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children is the only method for a healthy society to propogate itself. If marriage and family weren't foundations, then the society would be a short one."

I see your point and agree to a large extent. I must point out, however, that homosexuals with marriage rights does not eliminate or preclude heterosexual marriage rights. I don't see where your criterion of "Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children" is in any way lessened by the rights of homosexuals to marry. In fact I wonder more adoptions would take place thus increasing the number well-educated and balanced children that are cranked out because I don't believe that one is a bad parent due to their homosexuality. I believe that a bad parent is a bad parent regardless of their sexuality.

"Our society has changed drastically (as societies do) and not all change is for the better. When we concentrate solely on the individual and his or her desires rather than on the long term effects of proposed changes, then we're in trouble. To pull a Biblical quote, "and everyone did what they thought was right in their own eyes" was always the beginning of the end."

I'm all for looking at the long term, but I'm from the school of thought that believes that society is best served by equal rights for all individuals. Societies have also fallen as a result of individual rights being curtailed thus leading to revolution.

If I may ask, what is the context oc that quote from the Bible? I ask because I interpret it as being about decadence, which I think could apply to the likes of, say, corporate America, in cases where image and greed are valued over substance. I can see where that would lead to serious trouble in the long term in everyone were infected.

Thanks, Robbnn, for giving me your perspective and its basis. It occurs to me that you might be often unfairly perceived as a "gay basher" since gay bashers are also on the "don't want it" side of gay marriage and make so much damned noise.

I hope that came out right...

\\Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children is the only method for a healthy society to propogate itself\\

Then wouldn't all the time, effort, energy & money being put into opposing gay marriage be put to better use in education, schools & the like? Especially when government at all levels is cutting funding to education because the funds aren't there?

Or is it more important to stop 2 people in love from getting married than it is to make sure our children can read, write & do math?

Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such "families", not to mention role confusion.

Hi.

I'd just like to know when we'll see the "No Fault Divorce Ban Amendment" to our beloved Constitution.

Until we do, your arguments are laughable at best.

That's all. Thanks.

Fred, change is scary. Facing the birth of my first child in October, I sometimes totally freeze up with the changes that are coming...or are already here. But I wouldn't for the world want someone to outlaw having kids.

Mitch, you are correct. I mean gun misuse as being associated with societal costs. Some of which I think would go away if we were all armed. Maybe not with guns, but let me carry around a bo staff and be trained in it's use, and I'm less likely to get mugged. Unless of course the mugger have bows.

Hmm, I can see where this is going....

Bobb:

>Fred, change is scary. Facing the birth of my first child in October, I sometimes totally freeze up with the changes that are coming...or are already here. But I wouldn't for the world want someone to outlaw having kids.

Ok, let me clarify further. Change is scary. Change that does not meet your past experiences and is not to your personal taste or belief, yet has no proven track record of destroying society or warping the minds of children or next door neighbors was more to the point of which I was speaking.

Fred

Robbnn: You said: "as if children aren't already living in same sex-based family situations with no demonstrable negative effects." That sounds like an opinion, not fact. At least anecdotal evidence would say that is completely wrong, in that the same-gender families I've encountered do have negatively impacted children. I've seen studies (no links, I'll see what I can find) that very much do conclude that same sex families, as well as divorce, have harmed children more often than not.
Luigi Novi: In what way? And were these studies scientifically conducted? Peer-reviewed? Objectively conducted? Or were they conducted with the goal of proving a pre-determined conclusion in an a priori manner?

Yes, please do see what you can find to support your assertion. By contrast, I can back up my position that gay parenting does not harm anyone thus: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html.

Your challenge might be repeated to the liberals who actually DID say they'd leave the country if Bush was elected. Since a handful did say it, should all liberals have to put up and leave the country, or shut up?

Robbnn: Fear and bigotry are handy labels for people who disagree with you.
Luigi Novi: They’re accurate labels when you cannot prove your points scientifically and objectively.

Robbnn: Marriage is down, living together is up - I would say no-fault divorce is the reason for this (among other things). Marriage has been harmed by it, would be my conclusion. The argument would be that gay-marriage further weakens the institution so why get married?
Luigi Novi: For the same reasons people do now: Because they’re in love.

Robbnn: Marriage means less and less. It hasn't adapted to changes, divorce is way up; some of those changes you mentioned did harm it. Folks here have said that marriage isn't about raising children anymore, so why not just live together if you don't plan on having kids?
Luigi Novi: Why not? Works for Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel. And Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. I have no knowledge that their kids are fubared.

Robbnn: Marriage is foundation of our society…
Luigi Novi: No it’s not. Civility, morality, equality and rule of law are the foundation of our society.

Robbnn: Stable marriages and family are important to society.
Luigi Novi: And yet children of divorce or of one-parent families grow up to be well-adjusted people, suggesting that what’s important is not marriage per se, but good parenting, which is not guaranteed by a marital union, in and of itself. If you have two abusive, incompetent idiots, they’re going to be two abusive, incompetent idiots parents, regardless of whether they have rings on their fingers.

Robbnn: As for using children as a smokescreen, I think you're questioning the sincerety of people concerned for their children. They really might be, you know.
Luigi Novi: Oh I’m sure many of them are sincere. I’m sure that those who are cognitively dissonant enough to be completely unaware of the paralogia and logical fallacies they use in their arguments truly believe what they say. But that doesn’t mean that their logic is born out, and it is quite clear when you look at the arguments used by the anti-gm crowd that they’re euphemistic, and unscientific. We don’t put a new drug on the market, or announce the discovery a new galaxy, or something, or announce the verification of a historical fact, unless we have lots of solid, peer-reviewed and/or clinically tried EVIDENCE. Gay marriage is one of those little pets of the bigots that they do not feel requires ANY of this. They INVENT evidence, and use arguments of paralogia, of which they do not even have a command, much as the terracentric crowd did with Gallileo, or the creationists do with evolution. When they do this, it becomes clear that their position on things like gay marriage is held on an a priori basis, and stems from the same emotionalism and paranoia from which all bigotry stems. Are they sincere? Sure they are.

They remain bigots.

But sincere bigots.

Luigi Novi: Then those who would insist on using scientific or empirical terminology on the subject shouldn’t do so.

Robbnn: Okay. Except I've had empirical experiences with God (if I get your meaning of 'empirical'; I've "seen" his hand in my life. Or would 'empirical' as you have used it mean "I've seen the face of God?")
Luigi Novi: Really? Your belief that you’ve had experiences with or seen the hand of an omnipotent, invisible sky god is an EMPIRICAL matter? Really? How do you figure this? You’re saying you have testable evidence of these things? Or do you simply use a very loose definition of the word “empirical”?

Robbnn: One purpose of a country's laws is to help define an image of the society we want to be.
Luigi Novi: Not really. Laws are simply supposed to protect people from violating each others’ rights.

Robbnn: I might ask the question that since a gay committed relationship isn't illegal, why push for marriage? I have several gay friends who consider themselves married, so why the need for the law to recognize it?
Luigi Novi: Because there are many benefits and rights awarded to married couples that are not granted by law to homosexuals.

Mark L: Take prostitution for example. Nevada has regulated it, and (by all accounts) is reasonbly successful. Las Vegas got rid of it, though, because of the "unsavory" element it was bringing to the city - it wanted to clean up its image. Elsewhere, prostitution is fronting drug addicts, dealers and abuse of women.
Luigi Novi: Legal prostitution, or illegal prostitution?

PAD,

As I have noted before, your pointless challenge deliberately ignores the stated opposition of those who oppose gay marriage. To say I will divorce my wife if gay marriage becomes a reality is as absurd as saying that I would quit being an American if John Kerry was elected, or that I would kill my children if they make another horrible Star Trek movie.

One (of serveral) reasons I oppose gay marriage is demonstrated from the following exhange earlier on this thread:

I guess it's time to come out of the walk-in closet - I am involved in a polyamorous relationship. In our case, it's polyandrous, not polygamous, but that should be just as horrible, right?

It took a lot of guts to come out and say this, and you have my respect for that.

Since multiple marriage isn't an option, my wife and I will be binding with my cohusband in a handfasting ritual this spring. In our hearts, it will be every bit as solid as a state-approved wedding.

And since nobody else here seems to have the common courtesy to say it, let me be the first to congratulate you. I think that's fantastic and I wish the three of you the best.

You have my respect -- for me, it's hard enough to make a marriage work with just two parties; I can't even imagine how complicated it would be adding a third to the mix.

Are any of your regular monogamous relationships breaking apart now, as the result of my revelation? For that matter, is our multiple commitment to each other and our daughter weakened at all by our gay neighbor and his boyfriend?

Nope. Frankly, I don't see any reason polyamory should be illegal as long as all parties are aware of the situation and happy with it. I don't see how this affects anyone's lives any more or less than homosexual marriage, interracial marriage, or plain ol' everyday vanilla marriage. Whatever works for you is great, and I don't need the government to say it ain't. Whatever goes on between two or more consenting adults is the business of those adults alone.

I have a very simple question, if marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, what exactly is it? And why is it limited to only 2 people? And why is it necessary for it to exist in the first place? Once you remove the foundation that it is between a man and a woman, and that it exists as a place to bear children and thus propogate our species, what purpose does it really serve? If it is just to allow two (or more) people to declare their love, that is nice, but there are a whole lot of other cultural traditions that have not existed for the course of human history.

PAD, the fear about gay marriage has nothing to do with how it will effect those currently married. It has to do with the foundation of society 20, 30, 50 years down the road. You say it will not hurt anything. But you don't know that yet. I say it will. But I cannot prove it either. Both of us have to start with our presuppositions and extrapolate what seems to be the likely result. As the exchange above illustrates, I believe the result will be marriage will be *anything* which means it will mean nothing at all. And for the sake of the next generation, that will be far worse than even the current divorce situation and the impact it has on kids.

So answer this question, PAD: Are you in agreement with polyamorous marriages? What limits should be put on marriage?

One other side note: Let me deal with a common misconception. I would suggest that from a biblical standpoint marriage is a human institution, not a church or religious one. In other words, I don't find God in the Bible only recognizing those married by an Old Testament Priest or a New Testament church leader (be it priest of pastor) as married. To use today's terminology, God in the Bible treats anyone as married who is declared such, whether that declaration came from a church or a secular instittuion such as the government.

Why do I point this out? Simply to say that from a theological standpoint, it really doesn't matter who performs the ceremony. So to make marriage simply a "church" issue and make civil unions a state issue doesn't solve the problem I stated above. Whatever you want to label it, the union of a man and wife to have kids is the foundation of society. (And to repeat what has been said before, if you don't have kids, it doesn't mean you are not married. But the purpose of getting married rather than just having a sex buddy is to provide the stable and secure environment where a child can be born and raised.)

Bottom line, destroying the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman will have a far greater impact on society than divorce ever has had.

Iowa Jim

Bobb:
"Mitch, you are correct. I mean gun misuse as being associated with societal costs. Some of which I think would go away if we were all armed. Maybe not with guns, but let me carry around a bo staff and be trained in it's use, and I'm less likely to get mugged. Unless of course the mugger have bows."

Hi Bobb,

Thanks for the clarification.But c'mon... We both know that when violence is confronted with more violence then the situation gets out of hand. Given the option I'd far prefer to set my phaser to either 'nauseate' or 'discourage'.

On a lighter note (what the Hell do I mean by that?), if you get to walk around with your bo staff then I should be able to walk around with my sword. It's funny... I can get a concealed/carry permit for my gun but I can't wear my sword?

What the Hell?!?

Bottom line, destroying the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman will have a far greater impact on society than divorce ever has had.

No -- the "bottom line" is that you are continually presenting your opinions as if they're undisputed facts.

They're not. They're opinions, they're your opinions, and they're not shared by many people you would presumably think are otherwise moral individuals.

But go ahead. Continue to talk about the imminent death of society. In my more optimistic moments, I'd like to think that progress will continue, and that, if you'll pardon the term, "we will bury you."

(In my more pessimistic moments, of course, I'm quoting "first they came for the gays, and...")

I, for one, will answer PAD's challenge in this way. If an amendment is passed declaring same-sex unions permanently invalid, I think Lisa and I might consider divorcing -- we'd stay together, but renounce the terminology as bigoted and inappropriate to a civilized society.

There, Jim. There's some actual, CONCRETE damage to the institution of marriage, as opposed to abstractions. Got any responses?

TWL

Once you remove the foundation that it is between a man and a woman, and that it exists as a place to bear children and thus propogate our species, what purpose does it really serve? If it is just to allow two (or more) people to declare their love, that is nice, but there are a whole lot of other cultural traditions that have not existed for the course of human history

It's not just about "declaring love", if it were, people would be happy with a personal ritual of some kind. It's about medical rights, property rights, custody rights, etc. We have tied more than just love to the equation.

However, I think it is also correct to consider the impact of making a homosexual relationship not just legally equivalent, but culturally.

I think that's why so many people choose the middle ground of civil unions. It allows the legal benefits without the cultural ones. It allows people to tell their kids that there's a difference between the two. There's a lot of people in the "pro" camp, and a growing number of people in the "live and let live" civil union camp. That will be where the compromise happens, until our society is ready to culturally recognize there is no difference.

>Bottom line, destroying the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman will have a far greater impact on society than divorce ever has had.

... and here I thought that the incredible ease it which a marriage can be enacted and/or dissolved has already destroyed the traditional understanding of marriage.

Fred

In regards to civil unions, I used to think that was the best answer. I was a big supporter of unions as a comprimise. I pulled my support for civil unions in favor of the term marriage because it brings us back to the whole seperate but equal debate. If it's seperate it isn't euqual. I realized I couldn't look any of my gay freinds in the face and say that thier relationship is of a lesser status than any one I might have.

I have yet to be able to qualify a real difference between heterosexual realtionships and homosexual relationships (and I mean the relationships, not the genders of people engaged in said relationships) which leads me to believe that the term to define the relationships should be the same.

We're bonding with our cohusband for the same reason my wife and I got married in the first place - as an obvious, external affirmation of our love and mutual support. Oh sure, it made certain legal matters easier, but if that's your main goal, legal contracts can be drawn up. Marriage, in modern society, is about love. (In earlier eras, it was about property rights, and establishing lines of inheritance - but I'd like to think we've moved beyond Medieval thinking.) We are saying to the world, "We are a unit. No matter what you think, we are bound together by love - and no mere physical force, no distance, no interference by outsiders, can drive us apart."

Why shouldn't gay people be given the same right to declare their love publically? (And yes, there are locales where two gay men can be arrested, convicted, and jailed for being physically intimate with one another. Have we forgotten that case in Texas already?)

As for "damaging the children", it may be worth noting that every gay person of my acquaintance was raised by a straight couple....

Robnn, ordinarily I'd have answered your questions with a resounding "nunya", but you caught me in the right mood. We don't share a bed, because our bed is only queen-size, and not quite large enough to sleep three comfortably. (Besides, I think my co-husband, J, has some issues on that score...) Intimacy is determined by our wife - she sleeps with whom she wants, and sometimes she wants us both in succession. ;-> Actual sleeping is also determined by who she feels like lying next to all night, conditioned by the fact that our daughter wants to sleep between Tuatha (our wife) and I when we're together. If I'm sleeping in the other room, I guess it's not as much fun. :-)

Luigi, I readily recognize that my evidence of God is non-empirical; that's why I don't insist anyone else has to believe what I do. God's love is great enough to encompass many ways of being, not just mine.

They're not. They're opinions, they're your opinions, and they're not shared by many people you would presumably think are otherwise moral individuals.

The problem is, since this "great experiment" has not been tried in this way before, there is no actual example you can point to either way. So yes, it is conjecture. But it is also built on logic and thousands of years of human history in a wide variety of cultures and religions.

Not to pick on Jonathan (the other one), but he has stated what I believe to be the direction we are headed:

Marriage, in modern society, is about love. (In earlier eras, it was about property rights, and establishing lines of inheritance - but I'd like to think we've moved beyond Medieval thinking.) We are saying to the world, "We are a unit. No matter what you think, we are bound together by love - and no mere physical force, no distance, no interference by outsiders, can drive us apart."

My question is very simple: Is this an acceptable "marriage" arrangement to you? Should bigamy and polygamy also be allowed, along with gay marriage? What is the defining element that constitutes a marriage? If it is only love, than Jonathan is exactly right. (Obviously, I am still medieval in my thinking. ;-) )

Iowa Jim

My question is very simple: Is this an acceptable "marriage" arrangement to you?Should bigamy and polygamy also be allowed, along with gay marriage?

Polygamy, I see no reason why not, since all those involved are informed and consenting parties. Bigamy, however, is generally defined as a man married to two (or more) women, all of whom are unaware of each other, and therefore not consenting. In which case, no, it's not acceptable. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't consider that when slipping it in there with the other examples.

Oh, this straw man argument again.

PAD:
"You have zero concept of what a strawman argument is, if that's what you think."

It really is. Making divorce illegal is just a bogus non-issue constructed as some silly reductio ad absurdum. It's never been pushed or pursued by any real lawmakers.

The stability of traditional marriages has absolutely zilch to do with denying governmental endorsement of same-sex unions. There are some who say it does, but they're wrong. And by your basing a lot of histrionics on these dopey statements, you're wrong, too.

"Protection of Marriage" is really an unfortunate and overblown misnomer in regards to denying same-sex unions. Would you be happier if it were called "No Good Reason To Recognize and Reward Transient and Fruitless Relationships as Something Equivocable to Traditional Marriage"? Because that's really all it is.

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

Recent studies have shown this is indeed what's happening. By age 35, 33% of American males have never been married. 24% of the females. This has to do with the de-valuing of marriage in our culture, primarily by divorce.

The "gay marriage" groups aren't the problem, they're just opportunistic bottom-feeders coming up (or is it out?) to take advantage of the sorry situation.

Robbnn:
"You'll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what's the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed."

Exactly. The "gay marriage" garbage is a result of the general disrespect to matrimony, not the other way around.

Mitch Evans:
"Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a (or the) foundation of our society?"

You were produced from the union of a man and a woman, were you not? Why should something that ubiquitous and obvious have to be spelled out for you?

It's precisely this kind of anal attitude that gives Republican neo-cons their ammunition: "You don't see in the Constituion, eh? Well, we can always PUT IT IN THERE for ya..."

Bobb:
"Gay marriage could lead to...happiness? Stable families?"

Not likely. Look at any studies that delve into how long gay relationships typically last, and the statistics on the prevalence of drugs and violence in those relationships.

Most gay relationships are based on broken, troubled, often illicit and illegal conditions. If these people lived "cleaner" lives, then perhaps their relationships would be worth governmental endorsement. But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn't be in gay relationships in the first place.

TallestFanEver:
"Wanna know why I support gay marriage? Because once this is all over, both sides of the issue will shut the hell up."

Wanna know why I don't? Because many millions of non-gays will take advantage of the situation and get "married" to one another for undeserved financial rewards.

The cost of health and life insurance would skyrocket. All of our military barracks would be empty, because lower enlisteds would get "married" to each other and move out into civilian apartments, paid for by tax dollars, which would in turn promote less unity in our armed forces.

All thanks to a self-marginalized group of very greedy individuals.

Luigi Novi:
"No it’s not. Civility, morality, equality and rule of law are the foundation of our society."

No, I'm pretty sure making babies is the foundation of EVERY society. Of every species.

Tim Lynch:
"If an amendment is passed declaring same-sex unions permanently invalid, I think Lisa and I might consider divorcing -- we'd stay together, but renounce the terminology as bigoted and inappropriate to a civilized society."

Well, then you and your spouse are morons.

Fred Chamberlain:
"and here I thought that the incredible ease it which a marriage can be enacted and/or dissolved has already destroyed the traditional understanding of marriage."

Yup. You got it.

Fred Chamberlain also gets my favorite quote:
"Ultimately, I have found that there is little point in discussing anything with someone who doesn't respect your viewpoint and has made it clear that they are not hearing a word that you say due to this fact."

Much agreement.

But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn't be in gay relationships in the first place.

I'm sorry, but did you really just say something that stupid?

Powell Pugh wrote:
"The cost of health and life insurance would skyrocket. All of our military barracks would be empty, because lower enlisteds would get "married" to each other and move out into civilian apartments, paid for by tax dollars, which would in turn promote less unity in our armed forces."

To which I reply:
This is laughable. Homosexuals are not allowed in the military. If enlisteds got married, they would be booted out. To avoid war people would be getting married in same sex unions instead of fleeing to Canada. Hey, maybe that is why it is opposed. They see this loophole better than us!

PP wrote:
Most gay relationships are based on broken, troubled, often illicit and illegal conditions. If these people lived "cleaner" lives, then perhaps their relationships would be worth governmental endorsement. But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn't be in gay relationships in the first place.

To which I reply: Tell that to novelist John Saul, who has lived quietly and cleanly with his So for over 30 years. I lived in SF for nine years and met many a clean living homosexual. Usually the negative behavior comes from growing up under the hostile world view voiced by you.

and the straw man thing:
PP wrote:
PAD:
"You have zero concept of what a strawman argument is, if that's what you think."

It really is. Making divorce illegal is just a bogus non-issue constructed as some silly reductio ad absurdum. It's never been pushed or pursued by any real lawmakers.

The stability of traditional marriages has absolutely zilch to do with denying governmental endorsement of same-sex unions. There are some who say it does, but they're wrong. And by your basing a lot of histrionics on these dopey statements, you're wrong, too.

"Protection of Marriage" is really an unfortunate and overblown misnomer in regards to denying same-sex unions. Would you be happier if it were called "No Good Reason To Recognize and Reward Transient and Fruitless Relationships as Something Equivocable to Traditional Marriage"? Because that's really all it is.

To which I reply:
It seems to me that PAD was making a satirical comment, rather than constructing a straw man to knockdown. Though I do think that making divorce harder will no doubt lead to less marriages and more relationship problems.

Homosexuals are allowed in the military. It's called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Maybe you've heard of it? If "gay marriages" were made legal, that policy would have to be rendered moot.

As to John Saul, I do not doubt that there are certainly a handful of exceptions that prove my point.

And Craig J. Ries, I direct you to the last bit I quoted from Fred Chamberlain.

Mitch Evans: Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a (or the) foundation of our society?

Powell Pugh: You were produced from the union of a man and a woman, were you not?
Luigi Novi: What does what produced him have to do with what the foundation of society is? You’re confusing the foundation of human procreation with the foundation of society. Procreation existed among humans long before marriage did.

Powell Pugh: Not likely. Look at any studies that delve into how long gay relationships typically last, and the statistics on the prevalence of drugs and violence in those relationships.
Luigi Novi: Citations, please.

Powell Pugh: illegal conditions. If these people lived "cleaner" lives…
Luigi Novi: Meaning?

Powell Pugh: Because many millions of non-gays will take advantage of the situation and get "married" to one another for undeserved financial rewards.
Luigi Novi: Reductionism. There is no reason to conclude that this will typify gay marriages. What evidence (there’s that word again) do you have that gay couples will be any more likely to run out and do this than straight couples?

Powell Pugh: No, I'm pretty sure making babies is the foundation of EVERY society. Of every species.
Luigi Novi: Robbnn didn’t say anything about making babies. He said marriage.

Powell Pugh: Homosexuals are allowed in the military. It's called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Maybe you've heard of it? If "gay marriages" were made legal, that policy would have to be rendered moot.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. How do you figure this? Infidelity is legal among civilians, but grounds for criminal proceedings in the military.

Powell Pugh: As to John Saul, I do not doubt that there are certainly a handful of exceptions that prove my point.
Luigi Novi: How do exceptions prove your point?

And shouldn’t gays be allowed to be those exceptions?

Powell wrote:
Not likely. Look at any studies that delve into how long gay relationships typically last, and the statistics on the prevalence of drugs and violence in those relationships.

Me:
And what are the statistics on how long unmarried straight relationships last? Lots of us go through plenty of girl or boyfriends before settling down. But we have that option, and some of us make the most of it.

And there's plenty of drugs and violence in straight relationships, too. Is COPS still on the air?

Powell Pugh: Homosexuals are allowed in the military. It's called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Maybe you've heard of it? If "gay marriages" were made legal, that policy would have to be rendered moot.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. How do you figure this? Infidelity is legal among civilians, but grounds for criminal proceedings in the military.

Well, Luigi Novi made basically stated my response. I worked with a guy once who didn't tell and was able to serve his country honorably in Desert Storm. A right (not a privledge) that would have been needlessly denied him had he said, btw I'm gay to anybody other than silently to himself. I'm also aware of "Don't ask, don't tell" being a Clinton administration deal, so you don't have to waste space being sarcastic about my memory of that.

Nice attempt at sarcasm by Powell though, but the faulty use of logic derailed it. Better luck next time. :)

Polygamy, I see no reason why not, since all those involved are informed and consenting parties. Bigamy, however, is generally defined as a man married to two (or more) women, all of whom are unaware of each other, and therefore not consenting. In which case, no, it's not acceptable. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't consider that when slipping it in there with the other examples.

RE: Bigamy--I was not aware that it ONLY had to mean the criminal act of marrying without the others knowledge. I meant it in the sense of 2 and polygamy in the sense of 3 or more. So it was not intended to refer to the criminal act.

Iowa Jim

And what are the statistics on how long unmarried straight relationships last? Lots of us go through plenty of girl or boyfriends before settling down. But we have that option, and some of us make the most of it.

My undestanding is that in Europe where civil unions and/or gay marriage is allowed, it is a minority of gay couples who chose to enter such a relationship. And in spite of there being far greater societal acceptance of being gay, the relationships fail at a higher rate than heterosexual relationships.

It is too late to look up where I found that stat, so ignore it if you so desire. But I suspect the same will be true here.

Iowa Jim

"It is a strawman argument and I explained why."

It is NOT a strawman argument and *I* explained why.

"None of your quotes said their marriages would be over. Your "challenge" is a hollow one. Find me a credible quote where someone says "if gay marriage is approved, MY marriage will be destroyed."

And that is exactly the point. That is 100 percent the point. These numbnuts are going around claiming that gay marriage will erode and destroy the family unit. It will destroy marriages. It will put an end to marriage as we know it. And yet, mysteriously, amazing, not one single person is able to offer anything other than opinion as fact. There ARE no facts to back up bigotry. There are NEVER facts to back up bigotry. I want to see facts. I want actual proof of actual marriages that will go bust or that will never happen. If I'm being told that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual union, THEN GODDAMN PROVE OR SHUT THE HELL UP. And while you're at it, you damn well also better prove that Major League Baseball was destroyed by Jackie Robinson and that the army was destroyed by blacks and whites serving together, because similar claims were made.

"The "victimless crime" argument - and it's a good one. The same argument is made for drugs, underage smoking, prostitution, gun ownership, pornography, assisted suicide and probably several others I can't think of."

Drugs kill people. Smoking kills people. Guns kill people. Assisted suicide kills people. I'll grant you, prostituion and pornography don't kill people, and hence the usual maneuver of conservatives: They try to associate gay issues with vice activities. In any event, linking gay marriage with stuff that kills you or gets you arrested is unfair, ridiculous, and inappropriate...which is, of course, why it's routinely done.

PAD

Mitch Evans asked Robbnn:
"Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a (or the) foundation of our society?"

Powell Pugh answered:
"You were produced from the union of a man and a woman, were you not? Why should something that ubiquitous and obvious have to be spelled out for you?

It's precisely this kind of anal attitude that gives Republican neo-cons their ammunition: "You don't see in the Constituion, eh? Well, we can always PUT IT IN THERE for ya..."

Hi Powell,

I admit that I'm intrigued. In the first sentence of your quote above it is evident that you acknowlege that reproduction requires both male and femeale sexes. Since this can, and does, happen without marriage then marriage is not necessary for the species propogation that allows societies to grow. To quote on of the grea... uh...thinkers of our time: "Why should something that ubiquitous and obvious have to be spelled out for you?"

In your second paragraph, also quoted above, you make the type of statement that is indicative of the kind of zeal that stagnates human progress. It's really quite unfortunate. Unfortunate because I bet you could add value to almost any discussion, but instead you communicate from a destructive impulse rather that a constructive one.

Man, it’s threads like this one that really bring out the most extreme of passions, don’t they? You rarely see PAD get so worked up on a topic outside of a Bush misstep (and we know another one’s comin’ soon.)

So anyway, my wife and I are in the midst of completing a process to adopt an infant. One of the requirements here in Maryland for prospective adoptive parents is to take pre- and post-adoption group sessions with agency representatives and social workers to discuss issues that are common to raising the children, as well as providing a forum for the prospective parents ask specific questions and express concerns. We went to our first session last month; it was a relatively small gathering of eight couples (the agency we’re working with also handles single-parent adoptions), a mix of pre- and post-adopters. There were present three lesbian couples, one of which had the baby that they’d received just two months earlier with them. Their baby girl was of mixed race, Caucasian/African-American (the couple was white), and as we learned later in the session, had some health problems (we didn’t get the specifics), which, the agency rep present indicated, were of the type that usually made adoption chances extremely difficult. Still, the baby was awake and attentive, and her parents were beaming throughout the entire session (especially the one who held her the entire time, who gushed repeatedly on how blessed they were to have her.) All of us present had a very good time relating to each other, and not once did the issue of same-sex adoption come up in any respect – we were all the same, existing and hopeful parents who wanted to be families.

I bring this up not as conclusive proof that gays can be as good a set of parents as heteros; obviously, our one brief experience with one couple could never hold up as such. I do bring it up to say that it is extremely unfair for anyone to say that they know for sure that gays can’t provide the type of upbringing that will result in a healthy, well adjusted and loved child, simply because they are gay. Don’t get me wrong, I know from experience that it’s very hard for some whose religious and social convictions are so firmly ingrained to easily be comfortable with gay lifestyle (however that may be defined), and that to be accepting of it grates on those convictions. But those same people also know that none of us live in a bubble, except for the one we call Planet Earth; it is a delusional pipe dream ever to think that we can all become of one mind, believing that we all can, or should, all embrace the exact same things as either righteous or malevolent. We are all touched each and every day by things that are contrary to our own belief systems and comfort zones; but being contrary can’t automatically be deemed as bad if you are still free to function as you wish while not interring with the functions of others.

As for gay marriage: with all due respect to Iowa Jim, I’ve never seen a written definition of the institution that says its primary purpose is to produce children. That’s your belief, and I accept that, but you haven’t done a good job of making a credible argument on why it’s absolutely true. Yes, most definitions do mention it being between a man and a woman, but I’ve also found this definition at Dictionary.com: “A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.” This tells me that society is making adjustments in recognizing that marriage is not rock-solidly just between a man and a woman.

I believe, as does Peter and others who’ve posted here, that gay marriage is inevitable. It’ll be a long time coming, for sure, and an even longer time before it’s accepted without significant disdain for those who will continue to oppose it. After all, as has also been discussed, negative feelings for people whose races, ethnicities, religions and origins are different from the “norm” aren’t going to disappear anytime soon. But I also think that one day, such distinctions will become meshed and blurred to the point that their will only be only one reason for one person to hate or distrust another: because they’re human. A shame we’ll all be dust before it happens.

I’m a Black male, which may make my perspective unique among those who normally post here; maybe not. And Lord knows I’m not immune to disparaging feelings about other individuals or groups every now and then that may be because of unfair stereotypes that have been prevalent throughout my life. But if ever the time came that I’d seriously judge another by those stereotypes; if I’d ever seriously place my desires or beliefs above those belonging to others who want nothing more than to live free and secure without persecution, it’d only take my walking past a mirror to go, “Oh yeah, right . . .”.

Peter David:
Drugs kill people. Smoking kills people. Guns kill people. Assisted suicide kills people. I'll grant you, prostituion and pornography don't kill people, and hence the usual maneuver of conservatives: They try to associate gay issues with vice activities. In any event, linking gay marriage with stuff that kills you or gets you arrested is unfair, ridiculous, and inappropriate...which is, of course, why it's routinely done."

Hi Peter,

I just wanted to add that since heterosexuals engage in all of the activities you listed above. I could understand that mentality if someone could demonstrate that participants of gay marriage will spontaneously combust, but heteros won't because they're hetero. Somehow I don't see such demonstrations happening.

Hey, remember when AIDS was dubbed 'The Gay Plague' and it was widely believed that one was safe if one was straight? Look at how well that worked out!

And Craig J. Ries, I direct you to the last bit I quoted from Fred Chamberlain.

Oh, I apologize, Your Highness. I didn't meant to step on any toes by asking for an explanation of what appears to be a rather inflamatory and bigoted statement on your part.

But that's par for the course with some.

Taking one line out of context and spinning it as "bigotry?" Yeah, that is the par for the course with some.

Kinda like how PAD is still going into hissies over the "gay marriage will destroy heterosexual union" crap. When that's already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of "gay marriage" was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.

The sad state of matrimonial relations in this country needs to be addressed. But granting the privilege of legal marriage to gays is a completely separate issue.

I don't want to burst any bubbles out there, but (without quoting anyone here specifically) an arguement passed around about marriage is that no where does it state that marriage is about having kids.

I can't speak for christians, but as a jewish practice dictated by the rabbi's of old, if a married couple were unable to concieve a child after ten years of marriage the man can divorce his wife, no questions asked. he is under no obligation to divorce her, and i've never heard a story (talmudically or otherwise) where anyone did, but the option was there, leading the jewish understanding of marriage to be diretly related to procreation.

but that's just a jewish marriage, not a civil marriage and there is a difference between the two (in regards to what they stand for and why they are performed).

And on a side note, gay couples can still have kids. A lesbian couple can be artifcially inseminated, and a gay couple can use a surragate mother. So technically homosexual couples can fulfill the marital requirment of procreation.

in the immortal words of lisa simpson:
"Put that in your fife and smoke it!"

Powell Pugh: When that's already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of "gay marriage" was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.
Luigi Novi: The idea of gay marriage was born out of failing marriage numbers? Where did you get this idea? And where has it been pointed out over and over on this thread?

Powell Pugh:

> Most gay relationships are based on broken, troubled, often illicit and illegal conditions. If these people lived "cleaner" lives, then perhaps their relationships would be worth governmental endorsement. But if they lived cleaner lives, most of these people wouldn't be in gay relationships in the first place.

Powell, I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but I'll hazard a guess that you have not known many homosexual people on a truly personal level. While living in NYC, I was able to meet people from every nook and cranny of the Earth and all walks of life. I met many gay people. To this day, the most amazing, good-hearted, giving and clean person that I ever met is Dan. Dan grew up in a strict Mormon family right in the state of Utah. He was an amazing person who would give you the gingerly pressed shirt right off of his back. Dan was filled with insights about his own life, having spent much time reflecting on both his own actions and his experiences as a way to grow. He was both generous with others and always aware of the effect that he had on them with his actions. Dan was unassuming and stood in awe of life. He talk me the joy of stopping and allowing myself to "breathe". Though there was a group that jumped him in the wee hours of the morning as he walked home from work and there were a few that mocked him, anyone that truly allowed him into their lives was extremely grateful for him. Dan wasone of the "cleanest" people that I've ever met.

> When that's already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of "gay marriage" was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.

I don't remember seeing this here or in society as an argument for gay marriage. It is sometimes used as a defense, though the argument for is so compelling that I'm not sure why.

Fred

Okay, I've only skimmed over most of these - I see that people are on the side of banning gay marriages because it will ruin the institution of marriage, because it will present a bad situation for children to be raised in, because it will devolve the human race to savagery, and other examples from the sublime to the ridiculous.

I know how I personally feel - if you're doing something and not hurting anyone else, go ahead and do it. A gay marriage will affect my life about as much as housefire in Krakow.

But for you who oppose it - and I will respect your right to oppose it - WHY? Please tell me why. How does it affect your life? Not in general, not the "thousands of couples across the United States" - let's start with YOU specifically.

Please tell me how two women in Duluth who love each other, want to make each other happy, and are getting married, will affect your day to day life.

Then, we can discuss how it affects OTHER people who are, no doubt, remarkably similar to you - and who may have as much direct effect from the issue as you will.

And if I'm missing a point, pray elucidate - I could very well be wrong.

Oh, and please - one other thing. I don't intend any insult toward any religion, but there have been homosexuals for so long now that, if God found them an abomination, I would think He would have stopped it - so please do not make note to me of religious implications. If it's okay with God, I suspect that no one else should speak for Him.

Thank you for your consideration!

I remain,
Sincerely,

Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
x Board Administrator for Captain Comics Web Page
http://www.captaincomics.us/

"Powell Pugh: No, I'm pretty sure making babies is the foundation of EVERY society. Of every species.
Luigi Novi: Robbnn didn’t say anything about making babies. He said marriage."

That's a boo-boo on my part, then, Luigi. Marriage is the cradle of family. While some marriages don't produce children, it used to be a given that that's what it was for. So, yes, I meant marriages that produce babies.

No need to get snarky on the "empirical" comment. I asked you if I had the meaning correct. I thought empirical was to observe or see. Because of the subjective aspect, I understand now that it isn't "empirical" as in objectively observable again and again. Subjectively observable again and again, yes. But then "proving" God isn't something I've tried to do. He has proven Himself to me, and that's good enough.

Thank you, Jonathan, for answering when you didn't need to. Biblically, multiple wives isn't decried (other than the New Testament command that leaders be husbands of one wife), but by example, all palamory (that a new one for me) fail through human bitterness and jealosy. So my initial response is "oh my!" but, you know, good luck with that. :)

"Powell Pugh: When that's already been pointed out over and over on this thread that the idea of "gay marriage" was born out of the failing marriage numbers, rather than the other way around.
Luigi Novi: The idea of gay marriage was born out of failing marriage numbers? Where did you get this idea? And where has it been pointed out over and over on this thread?"

It hasn't. This is just more opinion being offered up as fact.

PAD

As for gay marriage: with all due respect to Iowa Jim, I’ve never seen a written definition of the institution that says its primary purpose is to produce children.

For me, this is just common sense.

How is our species propogated (at least the natural method for over 5,000 years of recorded history)? By having sex in order to have children.

What institution/structure has been the primary vehicle to provide a place for children to be born and raised? That structure has normally and most successfully been a union/commitment between the biological father and mother. While other methods have been tried, there is no question that this has been the overwhelminly most used and most successful model.

This has been predominantly true regardless of culture or religion. Up until very recent history, having sex led to a high probability that a child could be conceived. So if there was any desire to know who the father, some sort of commitment both emotionally and financially between sexual partners would facilitate this happening.

In spite of what some have suggested above, the reality is that society did not create marriage simply because of the Bible or some other religion. Marriage, and the commitments in entails, was created to provide the place for a family to exist. Yes, not all couples were able to have kids. But up until the last 50 or 100 years, there was not much choice in the matter one way or the other. If you had sex, then there was a real possibility you would have a kid. It is only now that we can have couples who can with any degree of certainty have regular sex and avoid (usually) conception. (I know birth control existed before the last 50 years, but it was no where near as effective as it is today.)

In the same way, the legal benefits of marriage were not simply for the sake of the partner. They were put in place to help encourage and protect and nurture families who would be raising the next generation.

I can understand someone saying that there is nothing wrong with gay sex. But I cannot understand someone saying that marriage has ever been anything other than the union between a man and a woman, and that union was for the purpose of a sexual relationship which at least potentially would lead to the creation of a child.

Which leads me, again, back to my question: If marriage is not a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having a sexual relationship that would normally produce a child, what exactly is it? What is the core/root purpose/definition of marriage? Is there any anchor, or is it just an open definition based on whatever society happens to consider as marriage?

Iowa Jim

Guys, it's patently obvious that "Powell Pugh" is simply trolling. Might I suggest you not feed him?

TWL

Iowa Jim:

>>As for gay marriage: with all due respect to Iowa Jim, I’ve never seen a written definition of the institution that says its primary purpose is to produce children.

>For me, this is just common sense.

Common sense from your viewpoint. Not so common if one considers that the world is vastly overpopulated. The woman that I am seeing and I have discussed this and I was left to wonder how much of an impact it would have if everyone from 1 specific generation made the decision to have just 1 child. The possibilities and repercusions are mind-boggling.

Fred

These numbnuts are going around claiming that gay marriage will erode and destroy the family unit. It will destroy marriages. It will put an end to marriage as we know it. And yet, mysteriously, amazing, not one single person is able to offer anything other than opinion as fact. There ARE no facts to back up bigotry. There are NEVER facts to back up bigotry. I want to see facts. I want actual proof of actual marriages that will go bust or that will never happen.

PAD,

I can't think of any major opponent who has ever said that gay marriage will cause current marriages to fail (other than the rare case where someone who is gay leaves a hetero marriage to act on their gay desires). This is not like allowing no fault divorce which could break up current marriages.

Most opponents of gay marriage don't even say that it will lead to a radical end of anyone getting married in the future. Some suggest that there will be a decline in marriages, particularly heterosexual. But it will not cease to exist.

So what do I and others suggest is the danger? I see it causing a further breakdown of the family structure as has already happened with no fault divorce. There will be more divorces, more kids torn from one home to another, more kids confused as to their identity (not sexually--gay or straight--but just in general, who they are and what role they have in this world), and these psychologically scarred kids will have a difficult time being successful in this world.

You ask for proof? The problem is that since gay marriage has never happened before the last 20 years, anything I suggest will be shot down. I can suggest implications and logical reasons why damage will occur, but there won't be any evidence since it does not yet exist.

But let's step back 50 years. I don't think the 1950's were the perfect "Happy Days" of Leave it to Beaver. But there are many ways things were better then than now when it comes to human relationships. If you had said then that no fault divorce would be a bane on society, you would have had a hard time proving it. Yet here we are today. There is mounting evidence that no fault divorce has created more harm than it has helped. You find more single parents who struggle financially. Kids in single parent homes have a far lower average education level, regardless of the actual family income. There is more crime and violence committed by kids today.

There are a number of factors that have led to this, but I believe no fault divorce is a major factor. I realize not everyone agrees with this analysis. Be that as it may, there is no question that you did not have Columbine and some of the other brutal acts happening as often back then as now.

Let's step back and also look at this from another angle. Back in the 50's and 60's, the civil rights movement was rightly fighting bigotry against blacks. In a remarkable short time, once the courts insisted on school busing and that it was wrong to discriminate, a large portion of society changed. While bigotry and racism against black people still exists, it is a pale shadow of what it was 50 years ago.

Let's now look at another major social issue: abortion. The courts in the 70's created the "right to privacy" and made abortion legal. We are now over 30 years since that decision, but society remains as divided now as it did then. There has been no lack of information on the issue. Most of our societies institutions, except for some churches, promote the right to choose an abortion. Yet the "national conscience" has not yet noticeably changed on this issue.

I strongly believe the same will be true for gay marriage, especially if it is created by an act of a court. While you decry the bans against same sex marriage vote on by 10 plus states, those votes show more than an ignorant bigotry. Those votes demonstrate a deep moral conscience that says that gay marriage is wrong. I don't think that is just a religious consceince. I think that it is a natural belief that will always be there. Even if gay marriage is made legal by a court, I doubt it will ever be fully accepted.

Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong.

Iowa Jim

Iowa Jim: "Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong."

??? "Bigotry", according to dictionary.com, is defined as "The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot". A "bigot" is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Can you explain how your statement reconciles with the definition?

Jim, I respect your opinion on what's driving the anti-gay marraige states. I disagree totally with it. It's a form of insitutionalized bigotry hidden behind a facade of "I'm trying to protect a haloed institution" sign. It's not that people don't want gay marraige, it's that they don't want gays. And they know they can't legally prohibit gays, so they take whatever action they can to discourage gay lifestyles.

I can't back this up. It's my opinion. But I bet, if you could sit the majority of people speaking against gay marraige, and get them to answer truthfully, at the heart of their motivations is the core ideal that homosexuality is wrong, an abomination in the eyes of god, and they really don't care all that strongly whether gays marry each other. It's more that they just don't want to share the same space as gays, period, and will do anything they can to get away with distancing themselves from them.

Couching this in terms of a Defense of Marraige Act allows them to parade like KKK members in public, and at the same time draw in others that truly do feel that marraige is strictly a union between a man and a woman for the sake of procreation. And it is bigotry. It's an attempt to foreclose a set of legal rights from a group of people based upon a distinctive characteristic of that group. It's the same as denying the vote based on gendor or race, or denying marraige rights based on race.

??? "Bigotry", according to dictionary.com, is defined as "The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot". A "bigot" is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Can you explain how your statement reconciles with the definition?

Probably not, at least to your satisfaction. :-) But I will try.

If I say that cheating is wrong, does that make me a bigot? If I say lieing is wrong, does that make me a bigot? The reason I say I am not a bigot is because I am objecting to a particular action, and not to an inherent quality of a person. In addition, I am not "intollerant" of them. While I disagree with homosexuality and with gay marriage, I do not seek to harm gays, nor do I seek to make their life miserable. In one particular case, marriage, I am arguing that by its nature and definition, same sex partnerships are not marriage. This is a very specific human institution, and is not just a legal "right" open to everyone. There are other legitimate restrictions placed on marriage.

Bottom line, I do not see a gay individual as any less of a person than a heterosexual man or woman. That is why I categorically reject the label of being a bigot.

Iowa Jim

Iowa Jim: "Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong."

Does this mean that white supremisists are not bigots? After all, they have a 'core belief that a particular action is right or wrong', (the action being equal rights). They even formed their own church (World Church Of The Creator).

Now, if they were to condense themselves into 1 or 2 states, gain control of the state government by electing their own people, and enact laws dening equal right to non-whites, would this be acceptible? After all, they're operating on a 'core belief' and not bigotry.

Does this mean that white supremisists are not bigots? After all, they have a 'core belief that a particular action is right or wrong', (the action being equal rights). They even formed their own church (World Church Of The Creator).

You ignore my statement that this is about an action. White supremicists (sp?) hate people simply because they are black (or any color/race other than white). I do not hate anyone. I disagree with a particular action. I do not deny their rights. I disagree with changing the fundamental nature of marriage, but that is not denying a right. There is a lot of difference between the two.

Iowa Jim

PAD:
"This is just more opinion being offered up as fact."

And the supposed link between legalizing same-sex unions and illegalizing divorce is a bedrock truth? No, you can knock off the smoke-and-mirrors act at any time. While there is no "danger" to traditional marriage from endorsing same-sex unions, there is simply no compelling reason to endorse same-sex unions.

If there's any "danger" presented by same-sex unions, it is the matter of distinguishing "real" gay couples from those those who enact the unions simply for economic rewards. With the rising numbers of people who opt out of traditional marriage, for whatever reasons, this is a real concern.

Tim Lynch:
"Guys, it's patently obvious that "Powell Pugh" is simply trolling."

Yeah, because someone obviously couldn't have a sincere opinion that differs from Tim Lynch's, right?

Another example of "marriage=children" that I'm surprised no one has brought up: one of the conditions given by the Catholic Church as a valid reason for the anullment of a marriage is one partner refusing to have children.

The argument against the theory that "marriage=children" is a very vocal one, and maybe that theory is too difficult for some to grasp in this modern world where we don't really have to worry too much about infant mortality (although that number did increase by 0.8% in 2003) and survival of the species. But the theory that "marriage=companionship" makes no sense whatsoever. If there is not even a potential for the union to produce something, then what's the point in rewarding it? Because, gee, they're really such nice, quiet folks who never bother anybody? That's how the neighbors described Jeffrey Dahmer, too.

If you read the World Church site, they deny that they act out of hatred for others, but that they act out of love for the white race.

You say you're not denying a right, but you're telling a group they cannot do what you can, namely marrying the person you chose to.

I do not ignore your statement that this is about an action. I challenge your statement that "Bottom line, this is not bigotry against a group of people. It is a core belief that a particular action is right or wrong."

To help clarify my earler post. You white & you own a business. You hire a non-white. This is an action. You're white & you date a non-white. This is an action. World Church Of The Creator (WCOTC) opposes this because their core belief is that these actions are wrong. They claim that this is not because they are bigoted, but because they feel a need to protect the white race (There's that word again - protect).

Since they can use the same claim to ban non-whites equality to whites, how is this any different than denying gays marriage? You're above statement can be applied to both.

You say - it's not bigotry
They say - it's not bigotry
You say - it's a core belief
They can say - it's a core belief
You say - it's about protecting (marriage)
They say - it's about protecting (the white race)

By the way - if anyone wants to make their head spin, check out their FAQ page (Warning - the site is a pop-up hell). Don't do this if you're at work.
http://www.creator.org/faq.html

Powell Pugh: "If there's any "danger" presented by same-sex unions, it is the matter of distinguishing "real" gay couples from those those who enact the unions simply for economic rewards."

Yeah, because straight people never do that.

One of my core beliefs is that all people should have equal treatment under the law and I'm pretty sure that it's one of the core beliefs of the USA (that whole "all men are created equal" bit).

As it stands Homosexuals and not treated equally. We either have to change the the phrase to "all men are created equal, execpt for the gays." or give them equal treatment under the law.

I can stand by someone with strong morals and ethics, But I don't understand how is it moral to turn a normal person, for no other reason than their sexual preference, into a second class citezen.

As an interesting historical side note, I looked into the struggle for women to attain the right to vote. That fight lasted, in America anyway, at least 100 years, and included shrugging off the legal practice of removing a woman's individual legal status once she married. And it took two Federal votes, 25 years apart, to ratify woman's suffrage. The last state approving the amendment passed it by 1 vote.

Point being, current viewpoints can include a lot of ideas that future aspects of society find reprehensible. And some ideas that encompass change so frighten the established balance of power that it takes extraordinary actions to bring that change about.

Side point to my side-note: the institution of marraige used to legally render women as property owned by their husbands. I'm sure if one were to do a little digging, one would find many statements from the 1820s defending the practice as one that supports the stability of the home, and that changing it will irrevocably destroy the foundations of our society.

If there's any "danger" presented by same-sex unions, it is the matter of distinguishing "real" gay couples from those those who enact the unions simply for economic rewards.

I'm gonna have to agree with Michael here: that's a pretty lame arguement when such marriages can occur already.

In this country it is illegal to marry your sister; brother; father; mother; niece; nephew; 1st cousin.

Why?

Because the offspring of such a union could make unhealthy babies.

Clearly, the government is presuming marriage will/should produce children. Should those marriage laws be thrown out?(They discriminate after all, if I want to marry my sister, I'm not allowed to marry who I want to marry...)

Everyone in the country has the same "right": you can marry a member of the opposite sex who is not a blood relative, and of the age of majority, provided you are the age of majority and currently unwed. You have that "right" and I have that "right" and nowhere does any legal document say we have the "right" to marry anything or anyone we want. If I'm in love with a 12 year old, I'm as out of luck as a gay man. If you don't love anyone in the eligible legal pool, then you aren't able to marry. No one is stopping you from doing anything else.

And, yes, gay marriage is largely opposed because the majority of American's believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong, just as they believe incest and child molestation is wrong, and because it is morally wrong, it can damage our society. That is the moral belief. Your moral belief that it won't has no more weight than anyone elses. Sad, but true.

And I'm not sure people are necessarily demanding that their opinions are facts... may we not express an opinion?

Craig J. Ries:
"I'm gonna have to agree with Michael here: that's a pretty lame arguement when such marriages can occur already."

I personally know of three marriages that were founded on bogus reasons: two for health insurance reasons and one to acquire US citizenship. The citizenship one ended in a no-contest divorce and the two are still bitter towards one another. One of the insurance ones is currently going through a nasty "separation" period before divorce measures can proceed. The last one became a more traditional, loving marriage.

The common element of all three? One of the participants started taking the "relationship" more seriously and expected the other person to do the same. Only one did, even in a culture that supposedly values matrimony. In a culture that accepts same-sex unions and the rewards of that are given to whoever signs their names (gay or not, but especially not), the numbers will be a lot worse than 1-out-of-3.

Like I said before, one-man-one-woman relationships have the potential to create something. Same-sex unions don't have any potential; the greatest thing they can achieve is non-failure. This is why one is endorsed, and the other is not.

"Like I said before, one-man-one-woman relationships have the potential to create something. Same-sex unions don't have any potential; the greatest thing they can achieve is non-failure. This is why one is endorsed, and the other is not."

That's bullshit.

By that reasoning, marriage between the elderly is not endorsed. The marriage of a woman who's had her tubes tied is not endorsed. The marriage of a man who had a vasectomy is not endorsed.

By that reasoning, the marriage between a black man and white woman should automatically have been endorsed, instead of being met with hostility and bigotry...the same sort being displayed on this board.

And while we're being concerned about children, the marriage of a convicted pedophile should not be endorsed. The marriage of a rapist should not be endorsed. The marriage of a child molestor should not be endorsed. The marriage of a murderer should not be endorsed. It can be argued that all these people would present a danger to their spouses and to whatever children might be produced by the union.

Except you would endorse all those marriages...but block the marriage of two law-abiding gay people. Do you get that? Gays rank lower on the social scale of acceptability than pedophiles, murderers and rapists, and right on par with the thinking that made black and white relations a hanging offense a hundred years ago.

So the only question is: Which century is your mind in?

PAD

Robbnn, I think most or at least some states only prohibit issuing a marriage license to direct blood relations: parent-child, and sibling-sibling. First cousins can marry in many states, and not all stereotypically in the south.

Single-event direct blood procreation does have an increased chance of genetic weakness, but really only widespread and multi-generational procreation of this kind poses any risk to the genetic strength of the gene pool. It's mostly a moral stigma that prohibits wide acceptance of such unions.

And if a brother and sister do somehow overcome that and engage in sex, they can produce offspring whether they're married or not.

And to speak truthfully, if a large enough segment of society wanted to allow intra-family marriage, we'd be talking about it like we're talking about gay marriage today. In looking at woman's suffrage earlier, I read that much of the resistance to allowing woman to vote was that she didn't want the vote. BUT, if she ever came forward and did want it, man would grudgingly give it to her.

What we're facing today is a changing society where a group, homosexuals, formerly were not active and demanding enough to consider changing the status quo. Now they are. To deny them access to the legal rights afforded with marriage is to deny progress and change for no other reason than to remain stagnant.

More baseless assumptions, Powell. Nice.

I'll follow PAD's lead and call "Bullshit" now too.

Now you assume that two people of the same sex who love each other won't take their relationship, or the concept of marriage, seriously.

Guess what? 50% of married couples already don't take the concept seriously.

PAD: he's not living in the wrong century, he's on the wrong planet.

"Why?

Because the offspring of such a union could make unhealthy babies."

Certainly would explain a few people around here...

PAD

Nope. If you propose the law that keeps pedophiles, rapists and murderers from being granted the legal privilege of marriage, I will rally support for it. I mean, they got the law passed that takes away your driver's license for stealing gasoline. This would be a much more fitting punishment-to-crime situation.

Figure out a formula that would allow couples to dissolve a marriage after X amount of time without producing offspring, and I'll support that, too.

PAD:
"This is just more opinion being offered up as fact."

"And the supposed link between legalizing same-sex unions and illegalizing divorce is a bedrock truth?"

There is no "supposed link." What I've said is that if those who claim they oppose legalizing same-sex unions only because they believe that it poses a danger to marriage in this country--and are not simply bigots who don't believe in equal rights for gays--then it's only logical that they should advocate making divorce illegal since divorce poses a far greater threat than gay marriages.

Except they won't. Why? Because it isn't REALLY about stopping the erosion of marriage in this country. It's about bigotry against gays. But no one wants to admit they're a bigot. So they come up with all sorts of dodges and shuck and jives to explain that, oh no, they're not bigots. They're just interested in what's best for the commonweal.

See, if there really WAS interest in saving marriage, then forbidding gays to marry would need to go hand in hand with a drive to eliminate divorce because, you know, what God hath joined together, etc., etc. The fact that you DON'T see that being advocated, and you never will--that there is, in fact, no link--simply underscores the hypocrisy and bigotry.

"No, you can knock off the smoke-and-mirrors act at any time."

Says the bigot who's pretending he's not.

"While there is no "danger" to traditional marriage from endorsing same-sex unions, there is simply no compelling reason to endorse same-sex unions."

Which brings us right back to my original point: In a free society, you should not need to present a compelling reason to making something legal, but instead to make it illegal. Since you say there's no "danger" to traditional marriage, then there's no reason to go out of one's way to prevent gays from equal rights. Just as there was no reason to prevent blacks from having equal rights, or women from having equal rights...socieal conditions that I have every confidence you would have been on the wrong side of when they were being debated.

Just as you're on the wrong side now.

PAD

If I say that cheating is wrong, does that make me a bigot? If I say lieing is wrong, does that make me a bigot?

Cheating and lying create obviously bad effects that are agreed upon by all parties.

Not so gay marriage.

If you simply say "gay marriage is wrong", that does not IMO make you a bigot. If you attempt to get it enshrined as policy, however, that does.

Gee, I'm getting the most extraordinary feeling of deja vu...

TWL

"Nope. If you propose the law that keeps pedophiles, rapists and murderers from being granted the legal privilege of marriage, I will rally support for it. I mean, they got the law passed that takes away your driver's license for stealing gasoline. This would be a much more fitting punishment-to-crime situation."

Y'know, the moment I suggested something that infringed upon the rights of someone other than you, that you'd be all for it.

See, that's the bizarro mindset at work. When you talk about legalizing gay marriage, immediately they start saying, "So what's next? Legalizing marriage of cousins? Siblings? How about two, three and four-way marriages? It's the beginning of the end and therefore must be stopped!"

So now I bring up the notion of impeding rights of others to marry and Pugh is, of course, okay with that.

Except, of course, as soon as you start curtailing the right to marry, where do you stop? Is it only first degree murder? How about second? Involuntary homicide? Manslaughter? How about murderers whose convictions are overturned? How is preventing a lawbreaker from marrying after he has served his debt to society not a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments? Do we treat a serial rapist the same as an eighteen year old guy who had sex with his seventeen year old girlfriend and was convicted of statutory rape because an irate father pressed charges? What about people who are accused but get off on a technicality? Or a hung jury?

Here's a thought: How about if we start determining that, for the good of the children, married couples can only have two kids maximum. Or must apply for a license for each child in order to assure the state that the child will be cared for. Apply the same standards adoptive couples must meet to all couples. After all, if we're all for endorsing the government's right to dictate who should be allowed to do what and with whom when it comes to matters of love, why stint at half measures?

PAD

PAD:
"What I've said is that if those who claim they oppose legalizing same-sex unions only because they believe that it poses a danger to marriage in this country--and are not simply bigots who don't believe in equal rights for gays--then it's only logical that they should advocate making divorce illegal since divorce poses a far greater threat than gay marriages."

And what I've said is that people who make that claim are dopey. I agree that the issue of rampant divorce needs to be addressed — maybe keep people who get a divorce from getting married again, or whatever — but that has nothing to do with same-sex unions. The two issues are completely separate. "If you believe this, then you must believe that" is just foolish baiting.

I'm all for getting the divorce rate down. But that will probably entail allowing less marriage, not more.

PAD:
"Since you say there's no "danger" to traditional marriage, then there's no reason to go out of one's way to prevent gays from equal rights."

Marriage isn't a right. More baiting.

PAD:
"Says the bigot who's pretending he's not."

Ooh, and name-calling. Cool.

What about people who are accused but get off on a technicality? Or a hung jury?

[Shatner] Must ... resist ... obvious ... bad jokes... [/Shatner]

Banning divorce wouldn't really solve anything.

The question of divorce can only be adressed preemptively by way of pre-marital counseling and compatibility screening. Both of which are available. Why people don't take advantage of these more often, I don't know.

On the other hand, pre-matital counseling and compatibility screening can't predict the effects post-marriage tradgedies (miscarriage, death in the family, loss of mobility, etc...).

Marriage is a problematic situation because two individuals are involved. While these two individuals may be in synch on most things something can always happen to cause irreparable damage to the relationship.

There is no master plan, or fix-all to prevent divorce. Only the two people involved can make things work.

PAD,

I have an honest question and would really appreciate an answer. I don't want to debate it, just to get a clear definition so that I can understand your position.

My question (ok, questions since I break it down into multiple parts) is this: What is the definition of marriage, at least in your opinion? What is the purpose of getting married in the first place? What, if any, limits would you impose? Does marriage only involve two people, or can there be more?

I am not asking you to defend your definition as right, I am just wanting to know if you reject marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, what then is marriage?

Thanks.

Iowa Jim

Personally I agree that supporters of gay marriage will be seen as having been on the right side of history...but the fact is, those of us who feel that way are very much in the minority, and may even be part of a smaller minority than before.

Fact- the Defense of Marriage Act passed 85-14. Normally you couldn't get an act celebrating Mom & Apple Pie through congress with that margin. Fact-Every time they put banning Gay Marriage on the ballot it passes easily. Anecdote--I've seen a disticnt reversal in the last year in kids attitudes toward gays, expecially among African Americans. It's distressing.

Maybe we need to go the civil union route to get people used to the idea, then push for full rights. It would also help, and I mean no disrespect to the poster who in in the three-person relationship, if there is not a big push to expand marriage rights to multiple partners. One fight at a time.

"My question (ok, questions since I break it down into multiple parts) is this: What is the definition of marriage, at least in your opinion?"

To declare before witnesses that you take this person to have and to hold, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as you both shall live.

"What is the purpose of getting married in the first place?"

To formalize the terms under which you and the other person are going to be with one another, in a manner that brings security, comfort and happiness to all concerned.

"What, if any, limits would you impose? Does marriage only involve two people, or can there be more?"

I don't know. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know." To me, marriage is two people. I wouldn't want or need more than that for myself. But if society begins to head toward group marriages, I wouldn't stand in its way. I'm not one to say, "Oh my God, we must prevent "A" from happening because "B" might happen." My attitude is, maybe "B" will happen, maybe it won't. Right now my concern is "A".

PAD

Bill,

You make a good point. Why is there such a widespread rejection of gay marriage and even homosexuality? 20 years ago I might have believed it was due to religious conservatives and traditional values. But there has been more than enough exposure through the media and other means. I personally know far more gay people than my parents ever did. Yet public opinion really has not budged much at all. Most do not want to see gays harmed or treated harshly. Most are somewhat willing to accept that a gay lifestyle is their choice. But many still doubt it is the best choice, and many still believe gay marriage is a good idea.

Obviously, the majority have been wrong before on other issues (such as slavery, etc.). But that is not my point. My question is why does the disagreement continue on such a deep level? I can only wish it was because of people like me who are conservative and/or religious. The reality is there is something else at work.

Iowa Jim

PAD,

Thanks for the answer.

Iowa Jim

My question is why does the disagreement continue on such a deep level?

That's a really good question.

My hypothesis, and I'll admit up front that it's nothing more than that, is that it's tied up into how strange most American attitudes about sex are already.

Most Americans (and probably quite a few Europeans, though others can address that way better than I can) get a little squeamish at the whole concept of talking about sex. It's certainly a very personal topic for most people, and I think huge amounts of people conflate "personal" with "so private that it's discussed with no one."

As a result, somehow a lot of self-worth is tied into sexuality -- just take a look at the mega-zillion-dollar industry of things designed to make people more sexually attractive, ranging from colognes to breast implants and Viagra.

Let's also take it as a given that the majority of the population is heterosexual. (I think we can all agree on that point, at least.)

Well, given that, homosexuality is something most people fundamentally don't understand on a basic level. Bill said something earlier to the effect of "if all the women died off tomorrow, it'd be a life of celibacy for me," and I have to agree with him -- I just don't swing that way and can't envision how I ever would find another male attractive. I have a hard enough time envisioning why women find ANY man anything other than silly-looking.

Thus, the idea of homosexuality is pretty seriously alien in some deep way to those who are straight. And if one thing has become patently clear over the last 5-10 years, it's that Americans are, by and large, No Damn Good at tolerating that which they do not understand.

So basically, I think a fear of the unknown is at the heart of most of it. I could certainly be wrong on that, but I'd be interested to see what other people think.

[Aside: does anyone else remember the late-term DS9 episode "Chimera"? It draws a superb parallel between Changelings and gay people in some ways, right down to Quark's speech warning Odo that "this is no time for a Changeling Pride Parade on the Promenade." I thought that was a beautifully textured approach to the subject.]

TWL

RE: Bigamy--I was not aware that it ONLY had to mean the criminal act of marrying without the others knowledge. I meant it in the sense of 2 and polygamy in the sense of 3 or more. So it was not intended to refer to the criminal act.

That's what I figured, Jim. Just wanted to point it out, though, cause whatever the annotative meaning is, the connotative one most people will make is the legal one.

Having had experience with the polyamory community, I just know no one uses it in that sense, so it kinda leapt out at me. Not that (and I mean no negative connotations by this) I would expect you to have a great deal of knowledge of polyamorous relationships, Jim... ;)

(I will also further assume that you really meant to say that you saw 'bigamy' as being three people involved, and pologamy as four or more. Since two people involved in the realtionship would generally be what you would consider a 'tradtional' marriage. Unless there's a whole other layer to your statement that I'm missing... ;)

\\'Fact- the Defense of Marriage Act passed 85-14. Normally you couldn't get an act celebrating Mom & Apple Pie through congress with that margin. Fact-Every time they put banning Gay Marriage on the ballot it passes easily. Anecdote--I've seen a disticnt reversal in the last year in kids attitudes toward gays, expecially among African Americans. It's distressing."\\

Fact - if you demonize people, as many anti-gay marriage people do, then you get an increase of negative behavior (discrimination, beatings, etc) against those people.

\\Maybe we need to go the civil union route to get people used to the idea, then push for full rights\\

A) Again this is separate-but-equal territory, which has proven to be false, &
B) If the marriage amendment passes, civil unions will be worthless - see text of marriage amendment posted yesterday.

\\The reality is there is something else at work\\

Yes, it makes for a terrific distraction from issues that affect a larger number of us. Look at the last election & all the people who voted for Bush because he supported the marriage ban.

Iraq was a quagmire?
The economy is in the crapper?
Our troops are being killed because of lies?
The country is the most divided it has been since the civil war?
But hey, gays want to get married & we HAVE to put a stop to THAT.

*****************
Also, and I ask this out of true curiosity & not to troll or be crude.

There were 2 earlier posts about marriages being eligible for dissolution because of not having any children. Do miscarriages and/or still births count as children? Especially since religions are always telling us life begins at conception?

Fact - if you demonize people, as many anti-gay marriage people do, then you get an increase of negative behavior (discrimination, beatings, etc) against those people.

But gays are far less demonized than they have been in the past. They used to show videos in school about how to watch out for gays. When they showed up on TV at all it was usually in the context of "Tonight, on a very special episode of Different Strokes--Willis gets groped by a gym teacher" kind of thing. Lesbians were found only in women's prisons or vampire movies.

Nowadays you will get a hell of a lot more criticism for a negative portrayal of a gay than for a positive one.

The country is the most divided it has been since the civil war

Joking, surely. Didn't live through the 60s, eh?

So basically, I think a fear of the unknown is at the heart of most of it. I could certainly be wrong on that, but I'd be interested to see what other people think.

There is something to what you say, Tim, but there is an interesting factor I've seen around here. This is conservative country and the kids I work with are hardly Big City Sophisticates, yet the only two teachers that are pretty much widely known as gay are accepted and, in fact, rather beloved. Similarly, I know of only a couple of kids at the school who are out, and they are, well, really out. Way out. Set off the fire sprinklers out. And interestingly, nobody seems to think it worth starting a fight over or anything.

I suspect they would be far far more upset and threatened to find out that a kid who doesn't fit the stereotypes is gay.

Which makes me wonder--do gays who exhibit the kinds of behaviors that people associate with homosexuality do so out of choice or is it something some are pushed into--ie, does society encourage gay men to act "effeminate" (though I think that's the wrong word--I don't know any women who act like Jack on Will & Grace) and gay women to act "butch" or is this something that is just part of gay society?

And just to head off the obvious rejoinders from the well meaning, yeah, yeah, I KNOW that not all gays are dancing queens and Lina Wertmuller prison guards. Most of the friends I have who are gay are no more unusual acting than my other friends. No less either, too bad for them.

Iowa Jim:

"My question is why does the disagreement continue on such a deep level? I can only wish it was because of people like me who are conservative and/or religious. The reality is there is something else at work."

Hi Jim,

With all respect for Tim Lynch's theory about the fear of the unknown, which I share, I believe that there is something else at work as well.

As a straight guy the idea of the act of sex between two men is just... icky. And I don't mean that in the "I just farted and someone called me a pig while laughing" kind of way. I mean that when I see two guys kiss on T.V. I get this little shiver and it's not a happy one.

I do question my theory, though, because when it's two women I'm not grossed out in the least. I often wonder if that makes me a hypocrite.

The weird part is that, while witnessing gay men merely kissing and getting grossed out, I have no problem at all with standing up for equal rights and protections for gays.

Screw it. I just don't get me sometimes.

"Gays rank lower on the social scale of acceptability than pedophiles, murderers and rapists, and right on par with the thinking that made black and white relations a hanging offense a hundred years ago."

A hundred years? PAD, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. At that point, sixteen states made it a criminal offense to marry someone who wasn't the same shade as you. In several of those states, Strange Fruit was more than just a song...

Robnn, Google "polyamory". You might be surprised.

\\But gays are far less demonized than they have been in the past\\

For the most part, yes. But when religious & political leaders go on & on about how gays -
* will destroy marriage
* will destroy society
* will destroy the military
* are equated to pedophiles
* are equated to beastality

Also, add how positive portrayals of gays are condemned by some religious leaders, and this will have a cumulative effect.

PAD, amazingly, said: But if society begins to head toward group marriages, I wouldn't stand in its way.

No way, man. I would have to stand up against that. I can't live in an Orgy society. Have to get new clothes, new furniture, buy all these stupid scented oils, a bunch of kooky candles, those f-ed up Tantric statues, buy stock in kimono clothing makers, and grow really bad mistakes. The list just goes on and on.

The line must be drawn NEEYAH!

There were 2 earlier posts about marriages being eligible for dissolution because of not having any children. Do miscarriages and/or still births count as children? Especially since religions are always telling us life begins at conception?

Again, I can only come at this from a jewish perspective, but that is a really good question. I'm not sure about the miscarriage bit, or the still birth, but without actually doing any additional research, I would say that they don't count. At least not in Judaism. The reason: I'm not positive but I don't think Judaism qualifies life begining at conception. As tradition dictates a child (well a boy anyway) is not named until the 8th day from the birth. back before modern medicine infant mortality rate wa higher (or is it lower? whichever one means more babies died - that could probably have been phrased more politely) and I think that's why you had to wait; to make sure that the kid survived. Life begins after the birth (I remember once learing that it's techinically a month after the birth, but I think i might be talking out of my ass on that one).

I'm not sure where life legally begins (according to jewish law that is). I'm not going to get into abortion issues because the reasons there are jews (at leat those knowledgable in jewish law) are opposed to abortion are different than the christian counterparts.

Anyone with a more extensive knowledge of Talmudic law, I'm always ready to learn more, feel free to correct any mistakes I might have made.

On a personal note, my favorite answer to when life begins: when the kids move out and the dog dies.

grow really bad mistakes.

that was supposed to say "really bad moustaches". Kind of like rain on your wedding day, don't you think?

Iowa Jim: For me, this is just common sense. How is our species propogated (at least the natural method for over 5,000 years of recorded history)? By having sex in order to have children. What institution/structure has been the primary vehicle to provide a place for children to be born and raised?
Luigi Novi: Except that people don’t just get married to have kids. They get married because they’re in love. We don’t require people to have kids to stay married. I don’t recall anyone saying that Jay Leno and Mavis should get divorced because they’ve chosen not to have kids, or that sterile couples should get divorced. If two consenting adults who are in love want to get married, I say let ‘em.

Iowa Jim: I can understand someone saying that there is nothing wrong with gay sex. But I cannot understand someone saying that marriage has ever been anything other than the union between a man and a woman, and that union was for the purpose of a sexual relationship which at least potentially would lead to the creation of a child.
Luigi Novi: I believe I pointed out historical examples of homosexual marriages on a previous board months ago.

Tim Lynch: Guys, it's patently obvious that "Powell Pugh" is simply trolling. Might I suggest you not feed him?
Luigi Novi: I haven’t gotten that sense from reading his posts. He seems to be stating his position.

Iowa Jim: But let's step back 50 years. I don't think the 1950's were the perfect "Happy Days" of Leave it to Beaver. But there are many ways things were better then than now when it comes to human relationships. If you had said then that no fault divorce would be a bane on society, you would have had a hard time proving it. Yet here we are today. There is mounting evidence that no fault divorce has created more harm than it has helped. You find more single parents who struggle financially. Kids in single parent homes have a far lower average education level, regardless of the actual family income.
Luigi Novi: But those things aren’t illegal. Do you want to make divorce or single parenthood illegal?

Michael Brunner: Does this mean that white supremisists are not bigots? After all, they have a 'core belief that a particular action is right or wrong', (the action being equal rights).
Luigi Novi: Well, no, white supremacists hate people merely for their very being. They hate blacks, jews, Catholics, etc., merely existing. Not an “action.” The action they are opposed to is simply an outgrowth of that fundamental hatred of some people’s BEING.

Powell Pugh: And the supposed link between legalizing same-sex unions and illegalizing divorce is a bedrock truth?
Luigi Novi: No, it was a comparison used to illustrate a point. I don’t recall anyone here saying that it was somehow a fact that the two were the same thing.

Powell Pugh: While there is no "danger" to traditional marriage from endorsing same-sex unions, there is simply no compelling reason to endorse same-sex unions.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Good thing no one’s asking for any.

We’re saying it should simply be ALLOWED.

Powell Pugh: But the theory that "marriage=companionship" makes no sense whatsoever.
Luigi Novi: I would not trivialize marriage by merely labeling it with the word “companionship.” Marriage is far more profound than that.

Powell Pugh: If there is not even a potential for the union to produce something, then what's the point in rewarding it?
Luigi Novi: Who says it should be rewarded? (See above answer.)

Michael Brunner: Yeah, because straight people never do that.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, and here’s another example I didn’t bring up before when someone brought up the “economic rewards” argument against gay marriage:

If somewhere along the line, when the idea of making someone a U.S. citizen when they marry a U.S. citizen was proposed, someone opposed it because it would open up a situation where citizens fraudulently married aliens in order to make them citizens, what would’ve be the reaction to that? It would be that it’s stupid to assume that that scenario will be the norm rather than the exception, and that that bad will outweigh the good of enacting that law.

And yet, citizens do do this.

Robbnn: In this country it is illegal to marry your sister; brother; father; mother; niece; nephew; 1st cousin. Why? Because the offspring of such a union could make unhealthy babies.
Luigi Novi: Um, no. The idea that marrying your first cousin will produced malformed kids is a myth. Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and Queen Victoria married their first cousins, and did not produce such children.

And for those of you opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds who use the cousins argument: God commands first cousins to marry in the Bible.

And what about if the couple is sterile? Five of the 24 states that ban cousin marriage allow it if either party is sterile. And, as William Saletan stated on Slate, “if procreation between first cousins is too dangerous, why stop there? Six states ban marriage between first cousins once removed, i.e., marrying the son or daughter of your first cousin. Theoretically, that's half as risky as marrying your first cousin, in terms of increasing the probability of passing on a genetic disease to your kids. How about marriage between second cousins? Theoretically, that's one-fourth as risky. No state bans such marriages. Should we change that? And if your purpose is to prevent people with dangerous genes from marrying each other, why use a crude standard such as kinship? Why not test everybody for bad genes, ban marriage between carriers, and let cousins without bad genes marry each other? If you're afraid of mandatory genetic testing and you'd prefer to ban marriage among people in high-risk categories, why not start with fertile women over 40? And what about ethnicity? Cousin couples compare laws against cousin marriage to laws against interracial marriage. They've got it backward. Sickle-cell anemia runs in blacks. Tay-Sachs runs in Jews. The best way to curtail such diseases would be to ban marriages within ethnic groups.”

Robbnn: And, yes, gay marriage is largely opposed because the majority of American's believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong, just as they believe incest and child molestation is wrong, and because it is morally wrong, it can damage our society. That is the moral belief. Your moral belief that it won't has no more weight than anyone elses. Sad, but true.
Luigi Novi: Not really. Our moral belief that the analogy is false, unlike yours that it’s legit, is actually based on something:

The fact that child molestation produces a victim, and that gay marriage does not, except in euphemism.

Powell Pugh: I agree that the issue of rampant divorce needs to be addressed — maybe keep people who get a divorce from getting married again, or whatever — but that has nothing to do with same-sex unions. The two issues are completely separate.
Luigi Novi: No one said that one had anything to do with the other, or that they weren’t separate issues. The point is one of comparison and logical extension; that if you feel okay about one type of restriction based on one set of criteria, what the logical extensions of that would be for consistency’s sake.

I'm all for getting the divorce rate down. But that will probably entail allowing less marriage, not more.

Powell Pugh: Marriage isn't a right. More baiting.
Luigi Novi: It is not baiting, as marriage is most certainly a right. More specifically, it is something that follows FROM certain rights (i.e.: the pursuit of happiness, the right to privacy, right of association, etc.) Even if you want to split the hair that it is not technically categorized as a “right” under the law, you can simplify this by pointing out that it’s something legal that the law allows, and that gay marriage is NOT.

Iowa Jim: What, if any, limits would you impose? Does marriage only involve two people, or can there be more?

Peter David: I don't know. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know." To me, marriage is two people. I wouldn't want or need more than that for myself. But if society begins to head toward group marriages, I wouldn't stand in its way. I'm not one to say, "Oh my God, we must prevent "A" from happening because "B" might happen." My attitude is, maybe "B" will happen, maybe it won't. Right now my concern is "A".
Luigi Novi: Consent and adulthood seem to be good criteria too.

Tim Lynch: Does anyone else remember the late-term DS9 episode "Chimera"?
Luigi Novi: Best bigotry-themed episode of Trek, bar none, and possibly the best episode of Trek EVER.

Thanks to A_Greene. I still learned somethings I didn't know before.

Whoops. I stated above that the idea of first cousins producing genetically diseased kids is a myth, but forgot to verify that with reference before posting. Sorry about that. In fact, I see now it is more likely with recessive traits.

There were 2 earlier posts about marriages being eligible for dissolution because of not having any children. Do miscarriages and/or still births count as children? Especially since religions are always telling us life begins at conception?

At least one of those posts was suggesting an implication that supporters of traditional marriage do not say or believe. The fact that marriage is a union that provides a place to have and raise children does not mean that a couple who do not have children are not married. The reality that seems to be ignored is that only in very recent history (perhaps the last 100 years or less) was it possible for a couple who was regularly sexually active to have serious measures to prevent conception. Measures have existed throughout history, but until recently, they had a high failure rate. So choosing to not have kids is really a very recent phenomenon. (It is also true that a married couple who did not have kids was sometimes looked down upon. Not a good thing, and we know now, not fair in most cases. But it again shows the expectation that a normal marriage could not help but have kids.)

Bottom line, the fact that some choose to not have kids or are unable to have kids doesn't change the fact that marriage is a place to bear and raise kids. There is no other human institutuion throughout history that has consistently served this purpose.

Iowa Jim

"A hundred years? PAD, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. At that point, sixteen states made it a criminal offense to marry someone who wasn't the same shade as you."

Interesting. That recently, eh? Okay, here's a question: Of those sixteen states, was there any overlap with the eleven who just voted to ban gay marriage?

PAD

Iowa Jim:
Bottom line, the fact that some choose to not have kids or are unable to have kids doesn't change the fact that marriage is a place to bear and raise kids. There is no other human institutuion throughout history that has consistently served this purpose.

The original purpose of marriage was to make sure of the origin of the children. A man would take a wife, which would become his property. Since he would not want any kids not of his loins to inherit, he had to make sure of the woman. Property to be inherited was the instigator of the concept of marriage, not the raising of children. Children were sent out to work as soon as they were able to contribute to the household. Before the advent fo DNA testing a man could not be sure the child was his, unless he kept a tight leash on a woman. Women are still second class citizens, but at least we aren't 4th or 5th like homosexuals.

I can't speak to what the original purpose of marriage was; I wasn't there. But honestly, what's the point? The original purpose of Frisbees was pie plates, but that doesn't stop people from starting Ultimate leagues.

Whatever the origin of marriage, we're not those people anymore. Our institutions have to accomodate US, not the other way around.

Rob

Michael Brunner,

Your welcome.

Okie dokie, I normally just lurk, but I gotta toss my two cents in here. First, the "Marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman" myth is one of the favorites of the anti-gay crusaders, but it's so false that it's not really worth going into here.

Secondly, I don't see anyone who hides behind the flimsy "It's just not natural" argument giving up their cars, guns, pasteurized dairy products or synthetic medicines, none of which are terribly "natural."

Thirdly, and recently in the news locally in Indiana, is the excuse that gay couples cannot naturally have children. This, of course ties in with the first two as reasons to deny homosexuals their rights. Well, it would naturally follow that ANYONE who cannot produce a child should not be allowed to marry, including anyone with a vasectomy or tubal ligation, women past menopause, or anyone with any number of conditions causing sterility. Of course, when that particular hole is punched in the argument, they inevitably fall back on #1 or #2, which hold up even less.

Of course, the "argument" that I've seen on here that has caused me to chime in is that we have to "protect the children." Please... We're talking about a minority who, by their very nature, cannot have unwanted children. Also, as has been mentioned before, nobody seems to be proposing legislation preventing murderers, rapists, or child molesters from marrying.

Let's take this desire to protect children a natural step or two further. What's a definite hot point in child safety? GUNS. Seems to me a pretty simple way of keeping kids from shooting themselves and also preserving the right to bear arms that right-wingers are so fond of is to simply say that people who own guns are not allowed to marry. (Since the main reason to marry is to have kids, after all) That means police officers and most soldiers are out of luck. Heck, doubly so for those groups, since it's SO important to a kid's healthy development to have BOTH parents around, what with troops and cops getting shot in the line of duty all the time.

Ridiculous? Of course! But it's no more ridiculous than barring loving, consenting adult couples from that "pursuit of happiness" the founding fathers seemed so keen on. Sadly, I'm beginning to think that our government won't be able to pull itself out of the pit of bigotry it's gotten itself into until some of the old farts running it die off and let some common sense into the upper levels of running things.

-Rex Hondo-

Jim, I've only done a very quick and unproductive search on historical contraception, but what's your source for stating that contraceptive methods going back beyond 100 years were relatively unsuccessful? I've read various reports that, for all our modern contraceptive methods, and the condom comes to mind as the most effective modern tool, humanity in general had just as effective, and maybe even more effective, contraceptive methods that have been lost over time. I'm talking various herbal infusions that control or limit ovulation, spermacides, and learning the woman's cycle to avoid sex during her fertile days. I don't think those methods were really ineffective. More, just as improperly using a condom today eliminates it's contraceptive value, it's the misapplication of any method that results in failure, not the method itself.

Having just spent that last 2 years attempting to get my wife pregnant, I know how difficult it can be for some couples who are actively trying. And I also know how simple it is to predict a woman's fertile days. Nothing hi-tech, just a simple thermometer. Absent that, just monitor when the woman's temperature rises slightly. Technology and knowledge that goes back way beyond 100 years. So I'm kinda doubtful of the ineffectiveness of historical contraception as a fact supporting the idea that marriage is primarily a method for creating an environment for having children.

In addition, there's very little, biologically or under current legal standards, preventing out-of-wedlock children. While other countries may stone women that get pregnant out of wedlock, the US doesn't take that view. Many of those countries also still view women as property, but that's sorta beside the point.

I think it's more supportable to say that marriage, historically, was a way of claiming property. Less than 100 years ago, that was pretty much the main point of marriage here in the US. It's only until very, very recently in history that marriage has been about love and union and true partnership anywhere in the world.

Luigi Novi: Except that people don’t just get married to have kids. They get married because they’re in love. We don’t require people to have kids to stay married. I don’t recall anyone saying that Jay Leno and Mavis should get divorced because they’ve chosen not to have kids, or that sterile couples should get divorced. If two consenting adults who are in love want to get married, I say let ‘em.

Whether you think it is logical or not doesn't really matter. I have clearly stated that the fact that some cannot or choose not to have kids is secondary and not a basis for saying a couple should get divorced. It is not a necessary consequence. You are arguing backwards.

Let's start at the beginning. You suggest a couple gets married because they are in love. Fine. What does that mean? How is it different than liking others in the human race? It is different in that it is normally expressed in the most intimate forms of "love," namely, sex. Unless there is a physical restriction that makes it impossible, we normally expect that a marriage would involve sex.

What, then, is the normal outcome of sex, all things being equal? For most healthy people (and assuming it is a male and a female having the sex), they get pregnant. It takes artificial means (contraceptives) or a physical problem to avoid getting pregnant if you are having regular sex (again, in most cases, all things being equal).

Since marriage has normally been between a man and a woman, it also normally involves having a kid. The two ARE very directly related since sex is the normal activity of a married couple.

So whether you agree or not is beside the point. My position is clear. Marriage is not simply an act of "partnering" with another person. It is an act that involves physical intimacy, namely sex, and the natural outcome of such intimacy is a child (unless prevented deliberately or by biological issues). This in no way requires a couple who chooses or cannot have a child to get divorced, nor does it devalue such a marriage. But it does deal with the reason why I suggest the institution began in the first place, rather than us just having sex buddies whenever the mood strikes us.

Iowa Jim

Jim, I've only done a very quick and unproductive search on historical contraception, but what's your source for stating that contraceptive methods going back beyond 100 years were relatively unsuccessful?

Good question. It comes from general comments I have read about current contraceptive methods and a PBS special I saw a few years ago. (Yes, I do watch PBS on occasion!) I agree that contraception has been around for a long time. But my understanding is that the failure rate in the past was not just due to "user error" but also due to "material error."

When I was getting married, I did read materials about various contraceptive methods. (Obviously, I am not a Catholic.) I seem to recall that the birth control pill had one of the highest success rates of any method, and that its introduction radically changed things. (I know you can still get pregnant on the pill -- my sister-in-law did -- but it is extremely rare unless you miss a dose.)

I think it's more supportable to say that marriage, historically, was a way of claiming property.

Explain how this did not involve kids? Did a man gain property by marrying a woman? That seems unlikely since women often were themselves considered property. Or is that what you mean? Marriage was a way to pass on property to the next generation. Marriage was a way to have kids to give the property to. What am I missing?

Iowa Jim

I don't think you missed much, Jim. Marriage was a way to proclaim a woman not only as belonging to her husband, but also that the children produced from that marriage would inherit the man's property upon his death. but the point of marriage wasn't to have children, it was to have children that could legally inherit property. It was to resolve the legal question of who owned land after the man's death. Providing a good environment for the child wasn't a consideration.

A_Greene: It's been a while since I learned this, but I'm pretty sure that at least in traditional Jewry, life begins at birth. It has to do with G-d breathing life into Adam's nostrils; the *breath* of life was the defining factor.

I seem to also recall that by Talmudic law, if a man bumps into a woman and causes a miscarriage, he owes her a sum of money for her loss -- but it's not murder, or even accidental homicide, because the fetus is not a person.

Ah. A quick search in my Kitzur Chulchan Aruch reveals this, in talking about causing physical injury: "When a woman has severe pain in childbirth, the physician is permitted to destroy the child before its birth... for as long as it has not yet been born, it is not considered a living soul... However, as soon as it protrudes its head, it must not be touched, for one living soul must not be sacrificed to save another, and this is the way of nature."

[b]IOWA JIM: Let's start at the beginning. You suggest a couple gets married because they are in love. Fine. What does that mean? How is it different than liking others in the human race? It is different in that it is normally expressed in the most intimate forms of "love," namely, sex. Unless there is a physical restriction that makes it impossible, we normally expect that a marriage would involve sex.[/b]

So, if I follow you, the only difference between being a friend and being a non-related loved one is having sex - and the means to that end (having a sexual partner) is marriage.

[b]IOWA JIM: What, then, is the normal outcome of sex, all things being equal? For most healthy people (and assuming it is a male and a female having the sex), they get pregnant. It takes artificial means (contraceptives) or a physical problem to avoid getting pregnant if you are having regular sex (again, in most cases, all things being equal).[/b]

I have to disagree here. As a mature man, I remember going through my teens and definitely NOT wanting to have sex to engender progeny. I'm afraid that my intentions were rather somewhat more base and self-satisfying - but procreation was definitely NOT what I was thinking of when I asked Beth M. to the prom!

Surely progeny is ONE desired outcome of sex, but not the only one. Not even necessarily the primary one, as many people do not believe in sex only to reproduce.

[b]IOWA JIM: Since marriage has normally been between a man and a woman, it also normally involves having a kid. The two ARE very directly related since sex is the normal activity of a married couple.[/b]

Well, I will allow that your conclusions follow very surely from your premises - but I'm not sure of the complete validity of your premises.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that people marry to have sex to have children - but again, I'm not sure that follows completely. People marry for love of each other all the time, and while sex is part of it, it isn't the entire part of it. Shucks, I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I married my wife because of everything that goes on in our lives - including sex, but not limited to it, or even focused on it.

In our case, we married for love. I think that may be the point - again, unless I'm misunderstanding you (and I hope I've done the bolding right to get your quotes correctly.) Thank you for your consideration.

Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
x

Hi,

i just wanted to be poster 340

Joe V.

Yay,

i was poster 340 ( & now 341)

Joe V.

There is something to what you say, Tim, but there is an interesting factor I've seen around here. This is conservative country and the kids I work with are hardly Big City Sophisticates, yet the only two teachers that are pretty much widely known as gay are accepted and, in fact, rather beloved. Similarly, I know of only a couple of kids at the school who are out, and they are, well, really out. Way out. Set off the fire sprinklers out. And interestingly, nobody seems to think it worth starting a fight over or anything.

I don't doubt it; I've seen the same thing in both my current and previous schools, though it could be argued in my case that the kids in many ways ARE "big city sophisticates."

I guess the other half of the argument is that changes do occur from generation to generation -- if a smaller percentage of kids born in 1980 are taught that homosexuality is some sort of horrific abomination than the percentage who were told that in 1950, then that generation is naturally more likely to consider homosexuality no big deal. The fear-of-the-unknown factor is still around, but becomes significantly less earth-shattering.

I didn't know a single person in my HS who was gay -- or more appropriately, didn't know a single person there who I knew was gay. Similarly, while two friends of mine in college were gay, I didn't find out about it until a couple of years after they'd graduated.

Now I have students who are quite publicly out -- in fact, my previous school's valedictorian one year said that his ultimate goal was "to be the first gay Jewish president." [He might make it, too -- really bright, really capable kid.]

I think the fear-of-the-unknown factor is what's kept the progress pretty slow, but I also think it'll gradually increase as the older generation starts to ... well, to die off, to be blunt.

I could be wrong, of course -- wouldn't be the first time. But that's how I see it.

TWL

I have to disagree here. As a mature man, I remember going through my teens and definitely NOT wanting to have sex to engender progeny. I'm afraid that my intentions were rather somewhat more base and self-satisfying - but procreation was definitely NOT what I was thinking of when I asked Beth M. to the prom!

I understand that. My point, though, is that if you want to make sure your wife or girlfriend does not get pregnant, you have to do something about it. I don't think it is wrong to have sex for pleasure (in my view it should be within a marriage relationship). I am just saying that pregnancy is the whole point of sex from a strictly natural function standpoint. If you have sex at the same time and egg is ready, you will normally have a kid 9 months later.

Iowa Jim

Saulres, thanks for correction. I haven't done any real studying for close to ten years now so I'm a bit rusty. Either way though, the answer to Michael Brunner is the same, in regards to misscarriages and still births (at least from the jewish perspective). I was almost positive there was some sort of time delay after the birth, but maybe I was thining only in terms of periods of mourning if the child doesn't survive.

I have the entire talmud, mishna, Shulchan Aruch, and some others on a series of disks, unfotunately, I have an older iMac with out a floppy disk drive, so I can't actually use them. Thanks again for your clarafication.

Wow, this is the first time I find myself agreeing with Iowa Jim.

IOWA JIM: What, then, is the normal outcome of sex, all things being equal? For most healthy people (and assuming it is a male and a female having the sex), they get pregnant. It takes artificial means (contraceptives) or a physical problem to avoid getting pregnant if you are having regular sex (again, in most cases, all things being equal).

Eric L.: I have to disagree here. As a mature man, I remember going through my teens and definitely NOT wanting to have sex to engender progeny. I'm afraid that my intentions were rather somewhat more base and self-satisfying - but procreation was definitely NOT what I was thinking of when I asked Beth M. to the prom!

Procration was not what you were thinking, I totally believe that, but there is a reason we are hard wired to desire sex, there is a reason sex feels as good as it does (if you do it right anyway). it's just natures way of ensuring procreation. You might not have wanted to get your prom date pregnant, but your innate desire for sexual gratification is what has ultimately got us as a species al the way to the year 2005. If we didn't have such a strong desire for sex, we probably would have died out as a speicies long ago.

My idea of marriage is different than that of Jim's, which is why I support gay marriage and he does not. But his logic in regards to ones sex drive is on the money.

So, Jim, if I am digesting your breakdown (and I do appreciate the fact that you broke down how you feel about marriage the way that you did, I think I sort of understand it more and you are a far cry from most of the people who get their faces on tv spitting out talking points on the subject), your major objection to homosexual marriage would be because two people of the same gender cannot intentionally or accidentally produce offspring?

And to the poster who made the point waaaay back up there somewhere that a woman who got pregnant after being raped shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion because (paraphrasing here) "just because you're dad was an asshole doesn't mean you should die." I appreciate that point and hadn't thought of it in that light, but what about that child? What kind of emmotional and mental scarring would that child have if it knows it was a product of rape? I suppose it could boil down to how the mother raises the child. I did know a woman a while back who was raped and had a child, which she immediately gave up for adoption (I think she was only 15 at the time). When her son was older, he eventually sought her out and he clearly had issues. He made strange sexual allusions to her, made some violent comments I believe, and eventually killed himself shortly after meeting her. The foster parents blamed her (and for the record she was extremely devastated) not only for the child's problems and suicide, but also seemed to hold her in contempt for conceiving the child and then "abandoning" it.

Anywhat, I've been sick and I'm feeling incoherent, so I'll go back to lurking again.

Monkeys.

For what it's worth, my mom felt incredibly loved that her mother loved her so much despite her parentage. But then, my grandmother was remarkable woman...

Iowa Jim,

buddy, i share your thought as i'm also from the midwest. i live in south dakota so i completly understand & empetize w/ your views. But i think it's time to call this contest a draw. i've seen you go 1 on 1 with everyone for like 4 days and i notice no one is giving up (now that is conviction), and perhaps we should let the argument go.

like you i believe marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman. like you i believe in God, like you i live in the plains. we both support Bush, we're both republicans so i share a lot of your views.

one of the things i do is i no longer try to defend God's existence. That is a matter of faith. I've always believed that God gives us free will to accept him or deny him. to believe in him or not. In my opinion, the all mighty doesn't need me to defend him. He created the universe so i'm sure he can defend himself. In the end we will all ultimatly find the truth. We will die and then we'll see who's right & who's not right. Unless people really study the bible and theology, it's very hard to explain, or even for people to understand why God is "silent" for the last 2,400 years.

another thing that turns people off christianity is all the hyppocrasy going on in the modern church. I refer to the people that i call sunday christians, meaning they are christians on sunday only, the rest of the week they live very un christian like. they gossip & curse, say off color jokes, drink & eat excessivly. when the secular world sees that, they, & probably rightly so, get turned off by their behavior.

seeing the scandals of the catholic priests, jim stewart & jim baker don't exactly help.

1 thing i hope people understand is just like everywhere else in life, there are zealots, but ultimatly we are just like everyone else. we don't believe we are perfect or above the law. we just believe we are forgiven. that's all.

i say we call this argument a draw, & move one to talking comics for a bit. that always seems to bring us a little bit together.

peace out & signing out.

Joe V.

ps

PAD, I heard rumor you are taking fallen angel to idw. is that true?

PAD: Interesting. That recently, eh? Okay, here's a question: Of those sixteen states, was there any overlap with the eleven who just voted to ban gay marriage?

There was an overlap of five states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. A purely random sampling of the 50 states would likely produce three or four.

Incidentally, the 16 states in question represented all eleven states of the old Confederacy, plus Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

By that reasoning, the marriage between a black man and white woman should automatically have been endorsed, instead of being met with hostility and bigotry...

Actually, the argument made by Virginia in defending its anti-miscegenation law leaned *heavily* on childbirth. And they were very openly racist:

(The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia) concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy.

At least in Virginia's case, the law only criminalized a white person marrying a non-white person. Intermarriage between minorities was perfectly legal. A black person marrying an Asian person (and procreating thereafter) was OK, which further showed that the state was only concerned with "mongrel breeds" when they involved the "corruption" of white blood.

Luigi Novi:
"We’re saying it should simply be ALLOWED."

Which is the same thing as being endorsed. Tomato, tomahto.

Luigi Novi:
"If somewhere along the line, when the idea of making someone a U.S. citizen when they marry a U.S. citizen was proposed, someone opposed it because it would open up a situation where citizens fraudulently married aliens in order to make them citizens, what would’ve be the reaction to that?"

Dunno. It's pretty well accepted that America was formed as a melting pot of world cultures, so your analogy doesn't quite work. And as I recently found out, it's actually easier to apply for US citizenship on your own than it is through marriage. Anyway, that again is another topic.

Most of the opposition to same-sex unions is still because the majority of Americans think "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, or that homosexuality is simply "wrong" or "immoral," or whatever. I think that's silly reasoning, because it doesn't address what will likely be the real fallout of endorsing (or ALLOWING, if you want) same-sex unions.

The number of gay people is pretty small to begin with, with the number of gay people who want to get married to one another an even more insignificant sum, that it's not unreasonable to predict that a greater number of non-gay persons would take advantage of the legal loopholes (not being allowed to testify against one another in court, for example) and undeserved financial rewards that being married might offer. As studies have shown, people are opting out of marriage more and more anyway, so it would simply be another legal agreement.

It's stupid to assume that scenario will not be mined by opportunistic greed-heads if we simply open the flood gates.

Luigi Novi:
"if you feel okay about one type of restriction based on one set of criteria, what the logical extensions of that would be for consistency’s sake."

No, disallowing special exceptions given to couples who don't meet the criteria for being issued a marriage license does not equal telling couples who have been issued a marriage license that they can't turn it back in. And telling people what they're supposed to think isn't the way to getting your legislation passed.

Luigi Novi:
"marriage is most certainly a right."

No, it's not. And in fact, the privilege should probably be reined in even more. Because the assumption it's an inalienable right is part of the reason the divorce rate is so out-of-control.

Loren:
"Incidentally, the 16 states in question represented all eleven states of the old Confederacy..."

Let me guess. You live somewhere where the population is like 90% white, right?

I always love it when people from Vermont, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Nebraska, etc. rail against "racism in the South." When it's something they've only seen on TV and never experienced firsthand. Here's a clue, though: The class struggles in the South were never as simple as the issue of racism.

It's always been about property and money, versus power. Even people with a lot of property were sometimes at a disadvantage, because they often didn't have much spendable money (look up the word "carpetbagger"). People who didn't have property were often at a disadvantage, regardless of race (look up the word "sharecropper"), but also had less to lose.

None of which has anything to do with denying special privileges to self-marginalized social groups who have chosen to live an "alternative lifestyle." We attempt to mend the poor judgments of our history over what were at the time genuine concerns regarding forced and unnatural racial migrations, because it is demonstrably true that these folks didn't choose to be born of non-European heritage. You first need to work on proving gays are somehow genetically different from non-gays before trying to attain "equal rights."

Gays glomming onto the Civil Rights fight is philosophically no different than what the "old Confederacy" land owners did. Let the blacks do all the hard work, right?

>>"We’re saying it should simply be ALLOWED."

>Which is the same thing as being endorsed. Tomato, tomahto.

Not at all. I honestly believe that anyone should be allowed to run for president. That doesn't mean that I endorse their campaign. I have no interest in being the groom in a gay marriage ceremony, but I believe that people should have the right to choose to play that role if they desire to.

Fred

Powell Pugh spewed:
"Gays glomming onto the Civil Rights fight is philosophically no different than what the "old Confederacy" land owners did. Let the blacks do all the hard work, right?"

So now you're whining that Gays don't deserve equal rights AND thet they are equivalent to slave owners?

Goddman you are stupid...

Personally, I'm sick of people telling me that, by not fighting against something, I'm allowing it to happen. And by allowing it, I'm endorsing it. In order to endorse something, you have to openly support it. I didn't vote for Bush. I don't think he should be president. But by not working tirelessly to have him removed from office, I'm technically "allowing" him to continue to be President. No way does that mean I endorse him.

>>"We’re saying it should simply be ALLOWED."

>Which is the same thing as being endorsed. Tomato, tomahto.

Not at all. I honestly believe that anyone should be allowed to run for president. That doesn't mean that I endorse their campaign. I have no interest in being the groom in a gay marriage ceremony, but I believe that people should have the right to choose to play that role if they desire to.
___________________________________________

Are you saying that putting something into law is not endorsing it? So a 10 Commandments plaque in Courts of Law, school prayer, etc. etc. isn't an endorsement of the Christian religion???? Good news...

>>>"We’re saying it should simply be ALLOWED."

>>>Which is the same thing as being endorsed. Tomato, tomahto.

>>Not at all. I honestly believe that anyone should be allowed to run for president. That doesn't mean that I endorse their campaign. I have no interest in being the groom in a gay marriage ceremony, but I believe that people should have the right to choose to play that role if they desire to.
___________________________________________

>Are you saying that putting something into law is not endorsing it? So a 10 Commandments plaque in Courts of Law, school prayer, etc. etc. isn't an endorsement of the Christian religion???? Good news...

That's exactly what I'm sayi... oh wait, it's not. All of the situations that you list have a direct effect on anyone in that environment. Freedom to smoke, knock yourself out. Drink as many coolers as you'd like. Until you blow it in my face or drive me off of the road, it is a personal choice and therefore a freedom that you are entitled to by living in this country. The only effect that living next door to a gay, married couple only has on you is the effect you allow it to have on you and the focus that you give it.

Using the reasoning of the response stated earlier and taking to its logical conclusion, how long before it is against the law to be anything other than Christian... Than Repulbican... than pro-life.... etc? These sound like extremes because they are. It appears to be the same line of thinking, simply taken to an extreme.

Fred

Are you saying that putting something into law is not endorsing it?

Correct. There is nothing in the law that prevents you from sawing off your own leg with a butter knife. This is not, however, something that any legal body has endorsed as a good idea. (Ditto smoking 4 packs a day, just to bring up things people might actually be more likely to do.)

So a 10 Commandments plaque in Courts of Law, school prayer, etc. etc. isn't an endorsement of the Christian religion???? Good news ...

This, however, is misreading the point.

Saying "a law exists permitting X" is very different from a courthouse display. When a governmental body, which ostensibly is supposed to interpret the law neutrally and fairly without regard to one belief over another, has a public display which is in clear support of one religion over another, that *is* an endorsement.

The more accurate parallel would be to say that the legal system permits you to display the Ten Commandments in your home, in your car, tattooed on your forehead, etc., and that that's not endorsing anything -- you could do those and someone else could do the same thing for a particular passage from the Koran. (Or the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, for all that it matters.)

That's not the same thing as having the governmental body *itself* choose to take part in it.

TWL

Tim uses a disturbing phrase..."a law exists permitting X"

Laws are supposed to only be statements that restrict freedom. Judicial findings and rulings are interpretations of laws that define the limits of those restrictions. It does seem like today, there are so many prohibitions and restrictions on freedom, that it would take less time to state all the acts that are legal, as opposed to those that are illegal.

A couple of questions:

There are at least three versions of the 10 commandments: Jewish, Catholic, & at least 1 Protestant (For side by side comparisons http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm).This, of course, doesn't take into account thousands of ytears of translations, re-writes & re-interpetations.

If posting the Commandments in a public building, which of the 3 do you post? And by choosing 1 how are you not favoring that religion over not only the other 2, but also over religions that don't use the 10 Commandments?

*****************
The Jewish & Protestant versions of Commandment 2 says no graven images of anything in heaven, above, on or below the earth, etc. etc..

If you're not Catholic, and you make a statue of the 10 Commandments, aren't you violating the 2nd Commandment?

*************
If your display of the 10 Commandments is to tell others they should live by them, and you're violating 1 of them to do so, aren't you a hypocrate of the "do as I say, not as I do" variety?

***************
Lastly (for now), as for the "U.S. laws are based on the 10 Commandments claim, Thomas Jefferson wrote (in summary) that U.S. laws are based on British common law, which pre-date Christianity's arrival in England.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0303-30.htm

Tim uses a disturbing phrase..."a law exists permitting X"

Laws are supposed to only be statements that restrict freedom.

A valid point -- and my thanks for the correction. I think you can make the same argument using "there is no law preventing X" instead, and you're absolutely right that I should've gone that route instead.

TWL

There are at least three versions of the 10 commandments: Jewish, Catholic, & at least 1 Protestant (For side by side comparisons http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm).This, of course, doesn't take into account thousands of ytears of translations, re-writes & re-interpetations.

Let me state first my view on this matter: I don't think posting the 10 commandments is a threat to the separation of church and state, but neither should it be a rallying call for conservatives. In my opinion, places where it has been historically present for a very long time, including at the Supreme Court Building itself, it is fine. But there is no need to post new versions (be it on the wall inside a courtroom or a stature outside). There is no question that the 10 commandments played a role in our history, but they are by no means the only source. (And since theologically I believe the 10 Commandments were given to show that we are sinners, not as rules to be kept to earn anything, posting them is really beside the point for anything other than true "museum" / "historical" purposes.) And asking them not to post it does not mean someone necessarily is anti-religion (though in some cases, they clearly are).

In regards to the ridiculous question asked: What most people do is go back to the original source. If you quote the actual words from Exodus and/or Deuteronomy, then you are not endorsing any one religion.

It is incorrect to say there have been re-writes of the original 10 commandments. There have been various interpretations, but that is human nature and has no bearing on the original document.

Iowa Jim

In regards to the ridiculous question asked: What most people do is go back to the original source. If you quote the actual words from Exodus and/or Deuteronomy, then you are not endorsing any one religion.

But they probably aren't using the actual words from Exodus and Deuteronomy, being that the plaque (a hypothetical one in this case) is written in English - but that is neither here nor there. My real point is that in Hebrew the direct translation isn't the ten commandments, rather the ten statements. I don't want to get into the etemology of the language (which i can if you would like) but the reason in hebrew they are called the ten statements is becasue the first one is: "I am the lord your god who brought you out of egypt, out of the house of slavery." That is not so much a commandment as it is a statement. They are understood as LAW since God is the one who said them, but gramatically, commandmants is incorrect.

Because there are different interpretations as to how the statements should be broken up, the government, by displaying one of those interpratations, is endorsing it by not using the others. Your ten commandments are different than my ten statements. Both equally binding (for religous purposes anyway), yet different non-the less, and we are both quoting from the bible.

Powell Pugh: Let me guess. You live somewhere where the population is like 90% white, right?

You guessed poorly. I grew up in DeKalb County, Georgia, which is 36% white, 54% black. During college I lived in Clarke County, which is 27% black. For the moment I'm living in adjoining Rockdale County, which is 76% white, 18% black (relatively close to the nationwide 75% white, 12% black).

If you quote the actual words from Exodus and/or Deuteronomy, then you are not endorsing any one religion.

Because, of course, EVERY religion uses Exodus and Deuteronomy as holy writ.

Um, wait a sec...

TWL

Because, of course, EVERY religion uses Exodus and Deuteronomy as holy writ.

Tim,

The comment mentioned choosing between 3, and completely left out a 4th, Islam. So in that context, it has nothing to do with other religions, but in choosing between the 3 mentioned (and/or the one left out).

Iowa Jim

Because there are different interpretations as to how the statements should be broken up, the government, by displaying one of those interpratations, is endorsing it by not using the others. Your ten commandments are different than my ten statements. Both equally binding (for religous purposes anyway), yet different non-the less, and we are both quoting from the bible.

Ok, I better undestand what you are saying. But you really are not changing anything if you quote directly (and that is what normally happens -- there is a partial quote of each commandment). Yes, you may even break up the list differently, but the core idea is essentially the same. You still say murder and adultery are wrong, worshipping idols are wrong, etc. You never end up with any of these versions contradicting the other in what they are actually saying.

Iowa Jim

Uh, I was making a funny. Sorry to start a new derailment...

\\The comment mentioned choosing between 3, and completely left out a 4th, Islam\\

I didn't include Islam because I didn't know they follow the 10 Commandments. I thought they followed the Pillars Of Islam.

Can somebody clarify this for me?

Michael,

Good question. I do not think they follow them exactly the same, but they do treat the books of the law as being holy writings. Of course, I am not Muslim, so I would be curious to hear from someone who is.

Many protestant Christians believe the greatest commandments were to love God and to love others as said by Jesus in the Gospels. That is what I follow more than the 10 commandments. You could consider them the Pillars of Christianity.

Iowa Jim

The comment mentioned choosing between 3, and completely left out a 4th, Islam. So in that context, it has nothing to do with other religions, but in choosing between the 3 mentioned (and/or the one left out).

Even in context, the claim that posting the 10C's "is not endorsing any one religion" is false. Simply saying "that's not what I meant" doesn't change the basic falsity of the statement, sorry.

TWL

You never end up with any of these versions contradicting the other in what they are actually saying

I don't want to get into a theological debate, but the way the (for the sake fo clarity) commandments are broken up says a lot about subtle differences in the various religions philisophies.

If the protastant version is the one being displayed, then as Jew I'm being shown that the government is activily supporting this interpretation over mine. And that is an endorsement.

And as was was mentioned by TWL, there are religious people in this country whose religion is not based in the Bible. Displaying them at all can be percieved as an endorsement of the religions based in the bible. There are many layers to this.

It's not the basic ideas mentioned in the commandments (don't kill, don't steal, ect) rather the way they are being presented that cause an issue.

Even in context, the claim that posting the 10C's "is not endorsing any one religion" is false. Simply saying "that's not what I meant" doesn't change the basic falsity of the statement, sorry.

Yes, I did not state my thought clearly. My statement was simply referring to a decision between the 3. But I can understand how that was not clear.

Iowa Jim

In my opinion, places where it has been historically present for a very long time, including at the Supreme Court Building itself, it is fine

However, iirc, they do display other, religious & non-religious statues, etc, which makes the Ten Commandments far more fitting.

Compared to, say, that judge in Georgia, who wanted the Ten Commandments only, and likely would never permit anything from other religions, ie, "those heathen bastards". :)

We could always go the Judge Death route. Doesn't get simpler than that.

\\We could always go the Judge Death route. Doesn't get simpler than that.\\

Sounds good to me.

Fred Chamberlain:
"I honestly believe that anyone should be allowed to run for president. That doesn't mean that I endorse their campaign. I have no interest in being the groom in a gay marriage ceremony, but I believe that people should have the right to choose to play that role if they desire to."

I agree. And so does the law. Gays can have all the ceremonies they want to affirm their life choices. Endorsing them with governmental recognition and rewarding them for those choices is another matter entirely.

"The only effect that living next door to a gay, married couple only has on you is the effect you allow it to have on you and the focus that you give it. "

The focus given to it is that "marriage" becomes just another legal agreement that can be enacted by any two individuals, for any reason. The potential for two non-gay persons to enter into the marriage agreement for other business purposes is very high. What with the outrageous divorce rates, the reasons for many marriages are already suspect. So, opening up the possibility of increased perpetrations of fraud by granting special exceptions to unions that can't possibly produce anything of value anyway (that is to say, children) is simply not worth the risk.

Bladestar:
"So now you're whining that Gays don't deserve equal rights AND thet they are equivalent to slave owners?"

Gays already have equal rights. What they don't have is governmental endorsement to pretend to be something they are not: a genetically separate race. The argument that gays are deserving of special treatment based on the struggles of Black Americans is an incongruous analogy, and really nothing more than a greedy attempt to capitalize on pouring salt on old wounds.

Bobb:
"I didn't vote for Bush. I don't think he should be president. But by not working tirelessly to have him removed from office, I'm technically "allowing" him to continue to be President. No way does that mean I endorse him."

I didn't vote for BushJr, either. But this is another incongruous analogy. We *have* to pick a president every four years. Everyone will not vote for the guy who wins, and the way our system works, it's possible the winner might not get the majority of the votes. Laws aren't decided in the same manner, and most often end up with a bunch of compromise clauses tacked on. An election is a simple decision with no room for compromise. Although it could be argued that by paying taxes, you ARE endorsing him...

My greatest concern in this whole flap is that most people can't seem to find their own footing to support their side of the argument. The Declaration of Independence has been referenced in this thread a couple of times. Unfortunately, to use the DoI, there are such troublesome hurdles in there as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" which homosexuality pretty much flies in the face of; and "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which generally tend to oppose homosexuality altogether.

The stated purpose of the DoI is to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" nation... which I doubt many Americans would oppose gays doing (but it'd sure be interesting to see how long a Gay Nation would last without being able to produce their own babies). As all analogies eventually break down, it'd be nice if people would stop stealing from documents like the DoI for their own greedy political ambitions.

"Marriage = One Man + One Woman" is such a self-evident formula that even the supposedly forward-thinking Founding Fathers didn't write it down. Keep pushing those activist left-wing kook buttons, however, and watch the current American regime take care of that oversight.

So, one more time from the top:

—It is your right to live with whomever you choose, who will live with you.

—It is your right to stand up in public and state that you will spend the rest of your life with another person (even if that turns out to be untrue).

—It is your right to engage in whatever sexual pleasures you want with other consenting adults.

—It is NOT your right to expect or force a church, insurance company, court, government, or the general populace to recognize or reward your life choices as something those choices are not, because:

-It is the government's right to establish criteria for special licensing, i.e. a marriage license. If you do not meet those criteria, sorry, you're SOL.

Powell::

>>"The only effect that living next door to a gay, married couple only has on you is the effect you allow it to have on you and the focus that you give it. "

>The focus given to it is that "marriage" becomes just another legal agreement that can be enacted by any two individuals, for any reason.

Hat to break it to you, but it already is. There is no process in place, with the exception of when Americans marry citizens of other nations, to keep individuals from marrying for any reason. If you're suggesting that the institution of marriage be made more difficult for all, I wouldn't disagree with that.

>The potential for two non-gay persons to enter into the marriage agreement for other business purposes is very high.

The motivation for a couple's marriage is really none of the government's business, no more than my motivation for entering into any other legally binding contract.

>What with the outrageous divorce rates, the reasons for many marriages are already suspect.

True.

>So, opening up the possibility of increased perpetrations of fraud by granting special exceptions to unions that can't possibly produce anything of value anyway (that is to say, children) is simply not worth the risk.

So don't take part in a gay marriage. YThat is the only risk to you. As for those who are interested, your straw man doesn't carry. Comparing the straight marriage rate to the marriage rate that the homosexual population may produce is impossible. On top of that, doesn't the government receive a fee for every divorce filed as compensation? A healthy couple is typically stronger than an individual in the "product" you mention. If you are going back to the concept that babies are the only reason for marriage, than let's dissolve all marriages since they are not necessary for the production of fetuses.

Powell:

>So, one more time from the top:

...second verse, same as the first...

—It is NOT your right to expect or force a church, insurance company, court, government, or the general populace to recognize or reward your life choices as something those choices are not, because:

I have no interest in recognition from a chuurch. That is a private issue that should be seperate from the discussion of government. As far as insurance companies, government, court (represtenting the government), etc.... force? You are correct in that I should not. Expect? Damn right I expect it and will support the movement pushing for change as I'm allowed to do. It's a equality issue as far as I am concerned.

-It is the government's right to establish criteria for special licensing, i.e. a marriage license. If you do not meet those criteria, sorry, you're SOL.

The government is of and for the people. Eventually, Christians will be a minority and the stranglehold that they as well as the current fearmongering have on this government will be replaced by another majority group. Time is on the side of change.

I am late to this subject, and haven't real all the postings yet, so this may have been mentioned. Has anyone out there seen the reports about the so called 'Covenant Marriage'? As I understand it, Louisana and one other state (can't recall which now) has passed some kind of legislation to make it much more difficult for a couple to get a divorce. They must first go through months of counciling before their marriage, and then should they ever want to get a divorce there is yet more mandatory counciling followed by a year wait before the procedings can go through. Not exactly banning divorce, but damn close, in my opinion.

I don't know much about Covenant Marriage, but it sounds like the states are giving people the option of a more rigourous enforcement of their vows. So you would end up with a more binding contract.

While I see the point, I would think that the only people likely to sign up are couples who aren't likely to get divorces anyway.

It sounds almost like an up-size meal at a fast food place:

So, would you like the regular marriage or the special covenant marriage?