Democrats & Liberals Archives

I don't "get it." Is there something I am missing?

Why are so many Americans so upset with the idea of men playing house? i like the idea myself. The more men that wast themselves on other men, the more women there are for me. My beautiful wife is more women than I can handle anyhow, but I am a glutton, and my eyes are bigger than my belly, and my belly is bigger than… well you get the picture.

I get it that many Christain extremist, many main stream moderate Christians, and many non-Christians are deeply concerned about what they see as the growing cultural degeneracy in our country, and for good reason. Paul Siegel just wrote a great funny article titled "Bush: America Addicted to Sex." America is addicted to sex. Children are sexually abused and exploited. Teenage girls are sexualized and culturally encouraged to dress provocative and be sexy in order to feel accepted. They starve themselves with eating disorders to be thin. Sexually transmitted disease, and promiscuity are common among teens. Date rape drugs, aphrodisiacs like E, and Special K , unwanted pregnancies... and then there are the adults - affairs, pornography and sexual objectification, divorce, unwanted children, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, rape... and in the middle of all of that... sexually repressed, Victorian, hung up, kinky people. America is plenty obsessive, compulsive, and wounded when it comes to sex. I suppose that homosexuals have become emblematic of sexual degeneracy, much as the Jews became emblematic of corruption in Germany prior to WWII. They were accused of sucking Germany dry. No doubt there were a few corrupt rich Jews. There are some homosexuals who engage in wanton promiscuous sex in freeway rest stops (although, in all the rest stops that I have been at - I have never seen one - but I am sure Karl Rove has seen quite a few). We do have a legitimate public policy concerns about that - the Roman bathification of our public rest stops - public health concerns about the spread of disease. But why homosexual marriage? I get it that Christians think homosexuality is a sin - all that Sodom and Gomorrah stuff. Christians think lying is a sin. We are not passing a Constitutional Amendment against that. Fact is Christians got at least ten good sins. This amendment might cover the "coveting thy neighbors ass sin", but what about the other nine? Why gay marriage? Even if you think faggotry is a sin, the gays that want to get married, join the rotary club, and live in a little house with a picket fence are the least of our problem. To paraphrase bill Maher: "Little 13 year old Ashley is selling her cucci at the mall to get Gucci" and you are worried about a couple of guys planting flowers? That is the sexual degeneracy that has you livid and up in arms - why? Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it really is a sin - this is the one that sends you over the edge - why? I think Christians might be a little hung up sexually - but that is OK - at least they got morals - but there are plenty of worse sexual perversions to be upset about - why gay marriage? Explain the rational behind why gay marriage is going to destroy our country. What is it - A butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and a male homosexual prostitute plys his wares in the West Wing of the White house... because gay men like Karl Rove like butterflies... and a real MAN doesn't like butterflies... so men who like butterflies are subhuMAN... so we can dehuMANize them... what? Tell me the logic. I want to know.

When Hitler targeted the Jews it was a brilliant political strategy. See good articles on Nazism here: "Statements by Hitler" and "The March Toward War." Karl Rove's strategy to target his own kind is also brilliant. It got W within stealing distance of home plate... er the White house. It may work again. The social conservatives in this country are gullible. Bush has played them for a fool. Are they fools? This may work.

So, is gay marriage going to be the issue - the unhinged hinge - that the entire future of mankind is going to turn on. If this brings brings Bush's base out to the polls in a low turn out midterm election... Illegal wiretapping of Americans turns on gay marriage. War in Iraq, Iran turns on gay marriage. Global warming and the possible extinction of the human species turns on gay marriage. Make your own list. The list is endless. Gay marriage is the turning point that will determine all of it.

Posted by Ray Guest at June 7, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #155020

It’s easy to say that gay marriage is just a cynical Republican Party political ploy — the fact that it ony comes up during election years shows that clearly — but it’s still an issue.

I’m opposed to gay marriage, but gay couples who go down to the courthouse and sign papers committing themeselves to a civil union or life-partnership or whatever they want to call their legal partnership (not marriage, obviously) should have the exact same state and federal rights under the law as a straight couple married outside the church.

No gay marriage — but equality under the law. That’s America: Religious and just. Republicans understand the first part but they suck at the justice part.

Posted by: American Pundit at June 7, 2006 2:09 AM
Comment #155046

Sorry - AP - but I don’t buy that marriage is somehow protected above “civil union.” Why is it that anyone can get married under any known religion, and people are fine with that? People (men and women) and go down to the court house and get “married.” My wife and I are not members of any organized religion, yet we got “married” in a church. I don’t buy that where people get married or what you call that marriage matters or should be defined differently simply because we don’t want to accept the way others live.

A friend of mine - a Catholic priest - says that he will not marry people who are not at least open to the idea of having kids. Maybe we can make people get tested before marriage, and if they can not have kids - or if they do not want to have kids, then they can’t get married.

Of course, the idea of separate but equal has been tried before, and I guess many people who are against gay marriage would also probably consider separate but equal a great success…???

Can someone tell me of another amendmant to our Constitution that singles out a particular group of people to prevent them from what others easily enjoy? Can someone name a single harm done to anyone because gay people get married?

Of course, most people against gay marriage are also worried about people getting married to pigs - that was from a previous post here.

As far as I can tell, the only issue people have with gay marriage is that gay people do it. No matter if you want no couple rights for gay people or just civil union (but GOD protect the marriage) it seems that people don’t want to prevent gay people from living together as long as we do something to make sure they know we “don’t approve.”

This is simply an argument of symantics and bigotry.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #155049

Is that you?

Geez,I knocked you around a little last week and you don’t come out to play?


For once,I agree with you word for word on this issue.


Feel better?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 7, 2006 7:14 AM
Comment #155061

Excellent article. Good way to shift the discussion back to VALID points—

an amendment against lying, that would be priceless.

We should pass an amendment against MTV too & reality television.

America’s Top Model would become Politicians of Tomorrow.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 7, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #155066


I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating. I don’t see the marriage issue as one about gays or same sex; rather, I see the bigger question as whether there should be any limitations to marriage, and if so, what should the limitations be?

There are currently limitations based on number of people, age, gender, and relation. Some people want to open the marriage definition to include the allowance for those of any gender to be married. This would be simply eliminating one limitation to marriage.

That, of course, begs the question then: Should the other limitations be eliminated as well?


**Polygamy—There are already court cases promoting polygamy on the same legal basis as same-sex marriage. The cases use the same logic reasoning that if people are in love, why should they be prevented from being married. They also ask who would be hurt by a polygamous marriage, and how would a polygamous marriage affect someone else’s marriage.

**Age—In many societies, age is not a significant factor in marriage. In other societies, the age eligibility for marriage is much lower than the American standard of 18 (and down to 16 in some cases). Should age be a factor if two people are truly in love? What if people emigrate to America from a culture allowing younger marriage—should their culture be honored by allowing them to marry at a young age?

**Relation—There have been and always will be cases where siblings might want to get married, or where a parent wants to marry a child (Woody Allen comes close here) etc. Should this be allowed? Again, the question comes up of how this affects the general married population of the US. How does it harm anyone else?

To my way of thinking, its shortsighted to think only of same-sex marriage, when the real topic is limitation of marriage. If we open the box a bit, does the genie escape?

Ask yourself whether you would condone all of the potential types of marriage that I used as examples. They can each use the same logic path to arrive at a reason for inclusion in marriage. Seems to me that its most logical to either include them all, or include none, but not to be selective. Where do you fall?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #155073


Good well reasoned comment - which I shall now pick apart. I agree that gay marriage does open the door to other types of marriage. It is the “gateway” marriage. First, what is wrong with polygamy? I should be married to seven vassal virgins with palm leaves and grapes right now - because I am really an Arab Sultan trapped in a short fat middle aged bald man’s body. So, your argument does stand as far as polygamy goes - “life, liberty, and the pursuit of seven vassal virgins… er… that would be happiness”… more likely hell, anyhow. Your argument stands - for that. The other kinds of marriages that you mentioned… there are other reasons to limit those. Age: real harm can be identified from child sexual abuse, therefore society has an obvious and compelling need to regulate that. Relation: genetic damage and public health, society has an obvious and compelling need to regulate that for reasons other than imposing our personal morality on other people. Pigs: well… if you put some lipstick on Karl Rove I might marry him, but other than that, I don’t think pigs are going to fly any farther than I used to throw them when I was a kid on a pig farm…

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 7, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #155075

“Ask yourself whether you would condone all of the potential types of marriage that I used as examples.”

Personally - I could care less who gets married to who. It’s none of my business, and no one has yet to explain any valid issues/problems generated by allowing marriage to be determined by the people (consenting adults) who are getting married.

It’s a simple as that.

People want to find the most extreme cases and try to legislate from that mindset… but this is simply fear mongering. If you want to punish those who do not act like you want them to act, then that’s your own hang-up and you need to get over it. (I’m speaking generally, not specifically to any one person.) If you can not prove damage done to society, then you can not validate the law.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #155084


People want to find the most extreme cases and try to legislate from that mindset… but this is simply fear mongering.

There are some who do this, but be careful of assuming that all do this. I did nothing of the sort, yet your response to my post (along with your disclaimer that you aren’t pointing to any one person)is to go to the N’th degree.


I made no argument for or against any of the types of marriage…I simply pointed them out as part and parcel of the same-sex marriage discussion.

There are, however arguements made to counter your thoughts. Regarding age, of course no one supports child abuse. But in the cultures that allow 13 year olds to marry, or even younger, they would not consider it abuse. They would consider it a loving relationship. Now you and I might disagree with them, but the question is whether we are willing to call their culture illegitimate.

Regarding relations, the biological issue is one that comes up often. Similarly, opponents of same-sex marriage show that without procreation, society will cease to exist. Both rely on a scientific or biological rationale. The counter argument is if relations say they will not have children—-then any genetic or public health damage is eliminated, and the procreation issue is the only thing left standing.

As I said, I’ve not stated in my posts my opposition or support for any of the issues. What I’ve tried to do is to discuss the issues from both sides to illuminate the arguments. Its interesting to see how some people support and oppose certain types of marriage using similar logic.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #155093

The gay-marriage issue has been perverted by the extremes on both sides and sadly, these extremes are the only ones who are heard.
I believe the majority if Americans vote against it due to the “gross” factor.
In time, the tide will turn and it will be accepted by most.

Posted by: kctim at June 7, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #155096


My post - after responding to your ealier question was a general response. (That’s why I noted that I was responding to people in general.)

I will say that the issues you point out are used by people to legislate from the extremes. I do not have facts on this, by my assumption that marriage to minors, mutliple partners or siblings/relatives are so far into the minimums as to be statistically irrelevant.

I agree with kctim that most people seem to have the ‘gross’ reaction to gay marriage… and while I would never demand a certain response from anyone, I would also expect that they keep thier personal views on the world personal, and not try to legislate them.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #155104

As for the stupidity of raising this argument now…

I think Dobbs says it best.

My opinion: America’s “bread on every table” has been replaced with a “crock of shit” from our political leaders. Yum Yum… eat it up, cause it’s all you’re going to get.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #155107


You bring up some very good points. Gay marriage would break precidents, and set new ones. We need to be prepared for that, and address it accordingly.

Regarding your Age example, I think there are enough non-marriage-related precidents to make that one a non-issue. Statutory rape, age of consent laws, even drinking age laws show that a state can limit certain behaviors based upon age. Breaking the marriage precident wouldn’t have much of an effect there.

The Relation question brings up some interesting arguments, though. States ban incestuous marriages (siblings, first cousins, etc.) because of the health issues involved in breeding. But what about incestuous homosexual marriages? They can’t breed with each other. So would a ban on these hold up in court in a society where gay marriage is legal? Is that something we’re prepared to deal with?

Polygamy is probably the most similar issue to gay marriage — consenting adults wanting to define marriage in their own terms. And it brings up the same questions as gay marriage. If people are living this way anyway, what does it matter? The laws aren’t effectively discouraging these lifestyles, so would changing the laws really encourage them?

Ultimately, I think it’s time that society start questioning its basic understanding of the word “family”. Most family members are blood-related — parents, siblings, aunts, cousins, etc. Currently, there are only two ways to bring someone into your family after birth — marriage and adoption — and these are limited to a very few specific types of relationships. Yet there are practical and legal benefits to being “family” beyond those relationships. Hospitals frequently restrict visitations to “family members only”. Inheritance, unless there’s a will stating otherwise, is based on “family”. Insurance, tax laws, housing restrictions… the list goes on and on.

Yet society is changing. With the necessity of two-income households, rising divorce rates, births out of wedlock, etc., the traditional concept of the “family” is leaving more and more people behind.

So let’s forget about “marriage” for a moment, and focus on “family”. Maybe we need a way, outside of our current social methods, to legally “adopt” people into our immediate families. That way, any household can legally be a “family”, without any regard to issues of sexuality or gender. So that eventually every “family” — the gay couple who shares an apartment, or the divorced sisters who live together and help raise each other’s kids, or the best friends who bought a house together 25 years ago, or the elderly woman being cared for by her grand-niece — would have the same rights and priviledges as those of us fortunate enough to be husband and wife in a traditional marraige.


Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #155113


Interesting thought. At first blush, it sounds reasonable, but I’ll think on it from a devil’s advocate standpoint to see if there would be any unintended consequences.

From my personal perspective, I wouldn’t want to prohibit a gay partner from seeing their gay partner in the hospital etc. But I don’t see redefining marriage as the means of accomplishing that. I like your idea better so far.

One aspect that would be important to address would be the financial one. If taxation, insurance, etc is different for married vs non married people, then there would be a financial interest in being married. Seems to me it should be the same. That would preclude two friends from living together, and then getting “married” at some point simply to have better health benefits, or better insurance etc.

By the way, GREAT point on incestual homosexual marriage. There is no genetic issue involved, so that argument goes out the window. Does that mean there are no arguments against it, or are there additional arguments against it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #155119

“But what about incestuous homosexual marriages? They can’t breed with each other. So would a ban on these hold up in court in a society where gay marriage is legal? Is that something we’re prepared to deal with?”

And if we’re prepared to ban marriage based on health/genetic issues, then do we extend that to non-related genetically “at risk” couples? The only reason incestual couples are at risk with birth defects/genetic problems is because both - if they have genetic gaps - will have those genetic gaps and that’s where the genetic problems come from. This is hardly limited to related couples.

This genetic argument does open up the benefits to homo-sexual marriages… I could care less who marries who (only for consenting adults) - but I know the world is not ready for brothers marrying their own brothers. (I’ve seen weirder crap on Jerry Springer while waiting to get my oil changed.)

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #155126


The oil change imagery is priceless! I think that’s the only time I’ve ever seen Springer…..

Posted by: George in SC at June 7, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #155130

It’s really very sad when a discussion by seemingly intelligent people regarding an actual civil rights discrepancy gets clouded with the unwarranted inclusion of child abuse and incest.

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #155143

This is a cheap, political ploy by Bush to show he’s still a conservative at heart. But I don’t buy it and, I’m sure no one else will.

I’m conservative and against Gay marriage for several reasons:
1. it’s unnatural behavior, even from an evolutionary perspective, if sex is the means for procreation.
2. what’s next - legalized polygamy? Where do we, as a Nation, draw the line as to how low we’ll sink?
3. there’s an economic impact to being married - tax status, health care benefits - the impact could be enormous.

Personally, I don’t care who you have sex with. It’s your own business. But when you want to classify any sex union as “marriage”, you need to look at all the implications.

Posted by: mac6115cd at June 7, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #155153


I get a chuckle out of all the straight people discussing whether or not I am entitled to my rights as a citizen of this country, as though they have a right to do so.

I see words thrown out there like “sin” and “moraltiy” and I want to freaking heave. Christians sin all the damn time. They lie, cheat, steal, abuse their kids, spouses, women, and seek to oppress and abuse others all under the banner of “God’s Love”. And the argument of Marriage being a Christian institution holds no water for those of us in the Rainbow tribe. Nope.
Look at your own Christian history….you renounced marriage as Pagan, sinful and shameful.
So coming at us now with this argument that it belongs to you….according to history, not much you possess belongs to you, you just took it from others. Just as you now attempt to take my rights and identity as a full citizen away from me now.
But guess what?

While you’re over in the corner plotting against us, we’re going on with our daily lives. Just as we have done since the beginning of time. The Bible Thumping will never outshout the thumpa thumpa of the gay pulse that keeps on going no matter what. We’re here, we’re queer, we always have been, always will be, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Oh sure, pass your laws, rant, rave, point fingers, etc…Blah, blah, blah…..but we don’t hear you.
After a while, we become amune to your poison. And we don’t need your approval or permission to be. We don’t want it. So shove it.

We’re not going away just because you’re insecure, bigoted and afraid of your own shadow.

I laugh at the joke about the straight minister who saw a lesbian and went back in his hole for six weeks.
Go on ground hogs….
we’re doing our thing, as we always have done. Only this time, if you shove us hard….we’re shoving back.

If I were you, I’d worry about my own dysfunctional crap before I went messing with someone else. All those teenage pregnancies, drug abuse, domestic violence, corruption scandals.
Go take your ethics and morality argument somewhere else…we’re all full up on the BULLshite here.

And by the way, I’m going to “MARRY” my partner.
Whether it’s legal or not.

So there.

Posted by: black Cherry at June 7, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #155168

Personally, I don’t care who you have sex with. It’s your own business. But when you want to classify any sex union as “marriage”, you need to look at all the implications.

Posted by: woaicn at June 7, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #155169

I just wrote this opinion in the center column, but it fits here too, so l’m going to repeat myself:

When we boil it all down, and toss aside all the emotional baggage that people always want to drag along with this issue, marriage in the eyes of our government really should have nothing whatsoever to do with God or Religion. Instead it is only a legal distinction which, if we believe in the ideas of all people being “created equal”, and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, should only be concerned with ensuring the exact same civil rights and liberties on every couple who is joined together in America.

That is the only question we are dealing with here and what we should all be asking ourselves. Do you believe this country should be for discrimination, or stand against it? Does this country reject prejudice all across the board for being wrong and unfair, or not? Do you believe in taxation without representation? Why should sexual preference have anything to do legal issues? Gay Americans are taxpayers too, so why should their legal standing or their civil rights be different than those of any other citizen?
Food for thought.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 7, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #155170

“Where do we, as a Nation, draw the line as to how low we’ll sink?”

I’d rather measure our nation by the freedoms we give rather than the freedoms we take away.

“But when you want to classify any sex union as “marriage”, you need to look at all the implications. ”

OK - I’ve not seen a single “implication” that warrants limiting marriage based on gender. All I’ve seen so far is a bunch of whinning from self-obsessed theocrats/pruitans. Get over yourselves and get the hell out of other people’s live.

“Personally, I don’t care who you have sex with.”

Fine, leave it at that.

black Cherry - GO FOR IT! — marry your partner once for me while your at it. I’m so tired of this crap I’m considering becoming gay just to piss ‘em off more.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #155171

Btw Ray, great article.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 7, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #155189

Black Cherry:

Christians sin all the damn time. They lie, cheat, steal, abuse their kids, spouses, women, and seek to oppress and abuse others all under the banner of “God’s Love”.

I think you have a mischaracterization here. You are correct that Christians sin all the time, just like non-Christians do. I’d suggest that very few Christians do so “under the banner of “God’s Love”.” When Christians sin, they do so in opposition to “God’s Love”.

What Christians believe is that God forgives our sins if we are repentant. This doesn’t mean we can do anything we want and then mouth a pithy “I’m sorry” and walk away unscathed.
First and foremost, the repentance must be sincere, and God is the sole judge of that sincerity. Secondly, there are often repercussions—such as Karla Fay Tucker (convicted murderer turned Christian) being sentenced to death for her crime.

There are hypocritical Christians—those who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Their hypocrisy does not mean the message is wrong—it does certainly mean that the messenger is flawed.

While I don’t support your line of thinking, I do wish you and your partner the best in life. I don’t wish to outshout you, I’m not “insecure, bigoted and afraid of own shadow”, and I agree there are issues that are important to focus on, like drug use, teen pregancy etc that you brought up. Despite our disagreement, there certainly are areas of agreement as well.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #155195

“I’m conservative and against Gay marriage for several reasons:
1. it’s unnatural behavior, even from an evolutionary perspective, if sex is the means for procreation.”

There’s a huge problem with this statement as a defense for a ban on gay marriage: can a reasonable person really believe that prohibiting homosexuals to get married will deter them from being homosexual?

Even if discouraging homosexuality was a legitimate goal of government (which it certainly is not), there’s no reason to think that heterosexuals would no longer pursue relationships with members of the opposite sex if gay marriage is not prohibited. Likewise, there’s no logical reason to believe that homosexuals would no longer pursue relationships with members of the same sex even if marriage is not an option for them. This being the case, how can any prohibition on same-sex marriage be defended on the grounds that procreation is the only natural purpose of sexual intimacy?

Regardless of any amendment or law or ideology, there will be gay people and there will be straight people. For all the rhetoric on the sactity of the institution of marriage, it seems clear that there is an underlying and unstated motive behind any effort to keep government from recognizing a committed and loving relationship between 2 men or 2 women: an attempt to crush the very “practice” of homosexuality.

Wasn’t there a guy in Germany about 70 years or so ago who wanted to crush another kind of “practice” that was destroying the fabric of his country? At least he was honest about his motives…

Posted by: Ramblin' Man at June 7, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #155202

Could it be that these conservatives are acting this way becuase they only have sex in order to procreate?

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #155203

One question; Who gives a rats ass whether or not someone is gay and whether or not they want to have a formalized arranement with the love of their life? The nature arguments are crap because homosexuality exists commonly in nature. The procreation argument is crap because there are many many heterosexual marriages without children. The only argument is religious, and that is specific to a few religions.
Marriage in a church is a religious ceremony and a personal choice. The marriage for society is a “contract”. If you want to give gays a “contract” as societies recognition for a gay “union” then everyone should be “united” by social contract and if you want your religious institution to join in, then go ahead. Basically, the FREC BushCo ammendment is nothing but bigotry of a social class or fear of being made “less macho” by guys who like to look at hairy butts.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #155207

One more thing, I’m in shock that I had a thought in line with kctim. The majority of those against gay marriage are simply in by the “gross” factor. I think gay sex between guys is gross. But whatever floats an adults boat that doesn’t involve involuntary victimization is fine with me, just don’t make me watch.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #155209

“Basically, the FREC BushCo ammendment is nothing but bigotry of a social class or fear of being made “less macho” by guys who like to look at hairy butts.”

I thought it was all part of Bush’s war on terror…??? Ya know - protecting his southern border.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #155211

*** just don’t make me watch.

Oh…man….you just took the fun out of it…..

Seriously, there is probably a similar percentage of gay people that are grossed out by straight people having sex.

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #155212

Black cherry,
How bout BEST POST EVER on the subject!
The hypocrisy of my kind (heteros) thinking we have ANY moral high ground when it comes to relationships, marriage, etc, has always been laughable. Maybe when our own divorce rate falls below 50% we can talk. In the meantime, you guys are just the current scapegoat as it’s now illegal to persecute blacks and jews. For some reason, mankind has always had the need to hate some group, and your the current winner. My apologies, I’m ashamed of MY orientation right now.

Posted by: norby at June 7, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #155216

**** My apologies, I’m ashamed of MY orientation right now.

That’s exactly what we don’t want.

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #155218

The state has absolutely no right to tell any church who they must marry. The church has absolutely no right to tell the stat who they may present with CIVIL marrage licences. Seperation of church and state, mandated in the bible. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, Render unto God that which is Gods.

Posted by: greybear at June 7, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #155222

Black Cherry,

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you on behalf of my fellow Christians. You’ve obviously been treated very badly by folks who claim to be disciples of Christ.

You’re right — Christians do sin, just like everyone else. And our sins are no better than yours. In fact, I would say that my sins are WORSE than yours, because frankly, I should know better.

So again, I apologize.

Now, on with the show…

On the topic of marriage as a “civil right”, I have to take some objection to that. We really have to break marriage down into its two component parts — I’ll call them Social Marriage and Legal Marriage.

1 - SOCIAL MARRIAGE — being in love, living together, having lots of sex (hopefully only with each other), and buying curtains together.

2 - LEGAL MARRIAGE — a contract between individuals and the State that offers tax breaks and incentives if they live a certain lifestyle.

I will concede that SOCIAL MARRIAGE is a civil right. You should have the right to love, live with, lust after, and go shopping with anyone you choose.

LEGAL MARRIAGE, on the other hand, is not a civil right for ANYONE — gay, straight, or otherwise. Nobody has an inalienable, God-given, Constitutional right to tax breaks. Instead, they are given by society in order to promote behaviors that we hope will make society stronger.

From a religious perspective, I’m opposed to homosexuality. But from a more practical perspective, I understand that banning gay marriage isn’t going to stop people from being gay , and allowing gay marriage isn’t going to make people gay. It’s just going to help stabilize their lives, which, in the long run, is good for society.

Besides, we can’t make everyone else’s decisions for them. People must be free to choose their own lifestyles. Government shouldn’t be about making us all the same — it should be about helping different people live together.

So I support gay marriage, not because it’s a “right”, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #155227


Seriously, there is probably a similar percentage of gay people that are grossed out by straight people having sex.

Dude, there’s probably a similar percentage of STRAIGHT people that are grossed out by straight people having sex! And yes, most of them probably vote Republican.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #155228

*** Render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars, render unto God, that which is Gods.

I find it immensely entertaining to come across someone who quotes the Bible to argue a position contrary to popular theocratic opinion. In that same vein, I’d to invite those of you who use the Bible as a shield or sword to read the first book of Samuel, paying special attention to the description of the relationship between Jonathan and David. Also keeping a close eye on the described of God’s opion of their relationship.

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #155231


LOL. You’re probably right.

Taking it on clinical description alone, it’s all pretty disgusting. I remember the birds and bees conversation my dad gave me when I was 10.

I don’t think I’ve ever quite recovered.

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #155236


I find it immensely entertaining to come across someone who quotes the Bible to argue a position contrary to popular theocratic opinion.

The Bible is very clear about how we as INDIVIDUALS should live our lives. It is less clear, however, on what responsibility we have to force OTHERS to live by those rules. The Old Testament gives the Jewish people a great many rules regarding such things, but they are refuted in the New Testament by more general statements like “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Plenty of people can quote line-for-line and verse-for-verse scriptures that condemn homosexuality. But I haven’t seen evidence or cause yet to support the notion that we heterosexual Christians have a responsibility to prevent others from sinning. We are encouraged to teach, to preach, and to convert, but we are never encouraged to enslave or to force conformity.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #155237

It seems more than obvious that the religeous right is trying to ammend the Constitution to get rid of Marriage licenses and only issue Breeder licenses. Then women can be kept in kennels to whelp the young of those men sanctified by God. Now I think it should be pointed out that men LOVE to watch 2 women having sex and rent videos every night of the week to prove that, but heaven help their straight little sensibilities if 2 men do it in front of them. And oh, by the way, how many of you sick straight bastards are out there having sex in front of people anayway?

I can’t believe gays and lesbians can by any worse at relationships and how to treat others than straight people are.

Posted by: Ruth at June 7, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #155244


I appreciate your candor. Not to sound unduely argumentative but I’ve yet to find the Bible passage that differentiates between Christians and Heterosexual Christians.

My examination of the Old Testament led me to beleive that many of the instructions given to the Jewish people were meant to prolong and enhance life. One of which was an admonishment of men being sexual with other men.

In the original Hebrew the translation was men shall not lie with men in the beddings of a woman. This instruction could have been included for any number of reasons, health concerns, or ritual continuity from pagan teachings. Regardless of what the intent was, the may translators concentrated on the homosexual act and heightened it.

Posted by: DOC at June 7, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #155249

I have never found anything in the words of Jesus about being intolerant about anything (Except possibly for intolerance). The modern theocratic right seems to search the Old Testament looking for anything that supports their blind hatred. They do not quote the New Testament because that would make it obvious that it is not a religious mandate, it is personal intolerance driving the right wing.

Posted by: greybear at June 7, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #155259
1. it’s unnatural behavior, even from an evolutionary perspective, if sex is the means for procreation.

By that same argument, should we ban marriage for the infertile? Or remarriage for post-menopausal women? Or remarriage for post-vasectomy men?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 7, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #155263

Okay, here’s the list of Senators who voted Yay or Nay on the Marriage Amendment.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 7, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #155273

…..Or not!

Posted by: keepinon at June 7, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #155285

Personally, I think this discussion was a valid use of our elected officials’ time. I mean now that they’ve wrapped up all the problems surrounding Iraq, Afghanistan, the ongoing terrorist threat, fuel prices, health insurance, immigration, abortion, poverty, crime, education, social security, our preparedness for natural disasters and all the other things that we pay them to deal with - why shouldn’t they spend their energy debating an amendment to the Constitution that they know very well has absolutely no chance of passing?

If it were possible to sue politicians for malpractice this would be a no-brainer. And the idea that our so-called “leaders” would seriously discuss defiling our Constitution for short-term political gain is repugnant, but we all just accept it as business as usual.

Posted by: adverbal at June 7, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #155327

“And oh, by the way, how many of you sick straight bastards are out there having sex in front of people anayway?”

I am so sorry - I could’ve sworn that the subway car was empty.

Posted by: tony at June 7, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #155387

To All,

Thanks for the excellent comments and excellent substantive discussion. Those of you who disagree with me did succeed in giving me some things to consider - time permitting - I will answer. I enjoyed all of your posts. I have a visual of tony in the subway car - sorry tony I tried not to look - but I am a voyuer and she is cute. I appreciate Rob Cottrell and others bringing the moderate Christian perspective here since religion is so deeply entangled in this issue. I am not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the word, but I understand that Jesus taught love, tolerance, peace, acceptance, and forgiveness. The way that I understand it, he did not teach the kind of forgiveness that says: I am so much holier than thou and so good that I forgive you, you low life scum bag. The way I understand it Jesus taught the kind of forgiveness that says: I see your goodness and innocence, and I love what I see. The message of the crucifixion as I understand it was that: Jesus was a completely innocent man that was tortured, crucified, and killed for no just reason, yet, as they drove the spikes through his wrists, he said, “Father forgive them. They know not what they do.” My interpretation: “They are good people. They are just a little confused and they are making a mistake. It ain’t no big deal. I will be up and around in three days.” In other words he saw the goodness and innocence in the very people that tortured and killed him. I think that Jesus would love gays and accept them just the way they are. That is not the Jesus that some people worship though.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 7, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #155402


You wrote:

There are, however arguments made to counter your thoughts. Regarding age, of course no one supports child abuse. But in the cultures that allow 13 year olds to marry, or even younger, they would not consider it abuse. They would consider it a loving relationship. Now you and I might disagree with them, but the question is whether we are willing to call their culture illegitimate.

Yes, since we have identified child abuse as harmful their culture would have no bearing on our law. We might respect their culture from a scientific cultural relativistic perspective. We can respect their law in their country - but in our country we can make a law against marrying 13 year olds that does not involve forcing our personal moral values on someone else. The justification is based on the harmfulness of child abuse. we are not legislating morality, we are protecting children. The state can and should do that in defense of the children’s right to “life, liberty, and… …” the rest.

Somewhere up there someone (might have been tony or JBOD) raised the issue of homosexual siblings getting married… Someone, raised the issue of outlawing marriage between people with matching genetic flaws… Interesting legal and moral quandaries…

The genetic flaws issue is tangentially related here. As science progresses we will have to work that out in the near future. If we let them marry then we will probably have to allow incestuous couples to marry and reproduce, but how can we stop non-related people with matching genetic flaws from marrying. That issue will be there regardless of what we do about same sex marriage…

Homosexual siblings marrying is going to be about as rare as hens teeth and twice as weird. Still with no public health concern - it should probably be legal - why not - who is it going to hurt - who’s rights are infringed by it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 8, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #155412


Thanks for that link—wow, both Senators from New Hampshire (my old stomping grounds) voted no. Libertarians are strange.


“I can’t believe gays and lesbians can by any worse at relationships and how to treat others than straight people are.

Who knows, maybe they’re better! You go, girl!

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 8, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #155424

Once again, the old homage holds true. You just can’t trust democrats or liberals. As more time passes by, I grow more and more pleased with my decision to leave the democratic party and become a Green Independent. Demo’s stand for nothing, at least republicans have the guts to hate us to our face. You demos hate us behind our backs. Your nothing but a bunch of closet gay bashers. Shame on you!

Posted by: Yep at June 8, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #155428


“I am so sorry - I could’ve sworn that the subway car was empty.”

That was funny!

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 8, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #155461

Yep -

Would you care to explain what you posted? Seriously… I’m not aware of a single Dem or Lib posting here who hates “you.”

btw - this is an open post and anyone can post here, regardless of their political persuasion.

Posted by: tony at June 8, 2006 6:45 AM
Comment #155463

“Senator Santorum is still vexed about the Lawrence v. Texas decision and spent a lot of time quoting Scalia’s dissenting opinion which defends state laws against masturbation. Perhaps he’s taking cues from a certain Ms. Sandra Rodrigues of Utah who, according to the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, sat outside the Senate all week with a sign that read “Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.” Even though Santorum faces a tough reelection battle in Pennsylvania, I’m glad he listens to people outside his home state who think that kids have entirely too much time on their hands.”


Just a quote from The Nation. Wow, gay marriage endorses masturbation. Ha! (I thought it was caused by oxygen.)

Posted by: tony at June 8, 2006 6:56 AM
Comment #155485

I just read down about half of this thread, and may be stepping in my own doo-doo, but, why not put a disclaimer on the word marraige in government documents. Only church sanctioned unions would be ‘marraige’…all others, i.e., wedded at sea, by the ships’ Captain, wedded in a chapel by a broker, wedded by a Justice of the Peace, a judge, etc., would all be called by another name…perhaps ‘Civil Union’?

Allow all to wed who meet other legal criteria, i.e., not closely related, not to pigs, not to more than one partner, etc.

It does seem rather selfish of the Christian community to disenfranchise homos for wanting equal rights to things like medical visitation, tax benefits, and other marraige benefits. And how Christian wishes on this issue influence laws and perhaps the Constitution is very frightening…

Posted by: Marysdude at June 8, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #155509


Not a bad idea, except people would still be offended by it. Gays would find or create a church that would marry them and that would upset people. I think Bush is using this issue to manipulate the American people, but this issue touches a deep chord in us all.

People have spoken here of the disgust factor. The issue is complication gender identity issues and others but in simplest analysis very few people are purely gay or purely straight and we are uncomfortable with our own sexuality. We are sexual beings and so sexuality is part of our core essence. If we are uncomfortable with our own sexuality, then we are uncomfortable not just with who we are but with what we are in our core essence. If you put sexual orientation on a scale of of 0 to 100, where 100 represented completely straight, the peak of the statistical bell shaped curve would be around the 75th percentile - about where I am. Anyone who is not within 1 or 2 standard statistical deviations from the 75th percentile norm can be said to be deviant. So the guy that is 100 percent heterosexual is deviant. If we are not comfortable with our own deviant impulses and we do not except them within ourselves - and then - you have these pesky little deviant Homos wanting to buy a little white house with a picket fence - and mirror our own deviant impulses to us - put it in our face so to speak - then we get upset. Please understand I am using deviant here as a purely statistical term - not as a pejorative term. Deviant means different - not good - not bad - just different. Racist and bigots say that different is bad. So the problem here is that we need to get comfortable and secure with our own sexuality. I am afraid that is going to be a long time coming. Then we will not care about other peoples sexuality. It doesn’t affect or effect us.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 8, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #155540

Marysdude -

I agree that we need to find a compromise (for the present time) but it still bothers me that people can’t allow others the simple freedom to live their own lives and make their own choices. (btw - it does jade your comments when you call people “homos.”)

Ray -

I think this is more about sexual maturity more than just simply being comfortable with one’s own sexual differences. People need to grow up and get over what their neighbors do with the genitals… I agree, that’s going to be a long time into the future. (btw -I’m perfectly comfortable with own sexual differences… it’s the SPCA that has the issues. :-)

Posted by: tony at June 8, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #155691

Is anyone aware that the group Exodus had front row seats at Bush’s lil gay hatin’ pow-wow? Exodus tries to convert homosexuals and claims to be able to do this. If Bush is simply just trying to protect hetero marriage, why were they there??? Please can any one on the right explain this to me???

Posted by: Shelly at June 8, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #156805

Shelly If we can pry these poor souls away from the influance of the liberal democrats they have a chance to become productive citizens again.

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #159660

The gay community does not get it; I am a Democrat and don’t care and would not challange if gays have the same rights as married couples, but you can’t and will never be able to legally get married in the US. The Republicans will continue to be corrupt and we can’t take advantage of it in large part to this issue which affects less than 2-3 % of the population (despite the lies you spread about it being more). The bigoted and corrupt Republican party will continue to slaughter the Democrats in elections (major and minor) and in the Supreme courts in large part to this issue. Have a good day

Posted by: Jerrick at June 20, 2006 5:44 PM
Post a comment