Marriage a Privilege Open to All

Well, it's much appreciated, Daniel. Of course, the passage people use to call us 'abominations' *actually* says it's an 'abomination' to enter the Temple sanctum after talking to with a menstruating woman, touching pigskin (football fans) wearing clothing of mixed fibers, having gay sex, or eating something improperly, *without ritual cleansing before going to a certain place* ....All in the same category, all in the very same breath, 'abominations.' Whatever those are.

Forget about your bacon cheeseburgers, it's their right and duty to gaybash, right?

Interesting what they picked out of there and inflated, eh?

Thanks, though, Daniel.

PaganPlace

I am not trying to change Mr. TTWYADAYADAYADA. I have merely made a resolution to myself, that I will never let homophobic comments go unanswered.

If they say being gay is an abomination, then I will answer that being gay IS NOT an abomination.

If they say that being gay is sinful, I will answer that being gay is NOT sinful.

If they say that being gay is violating God's laws, I will answer that being gay does NOT violate God's laws.

If they say that gay people are wicked, I will answer that gay people are GOOD.

When they cobble together their disconnected verses from the Bible to prove that God hates gay people, I will answer that they have created their own false narrative and then signed God's name to it

When they attribute all manner of homophobia to God, I will answer that it is their own bigotry from their own hearts.

When they say that gay people are uhnappy, suicidal, and emotionally disturbed, I will answer that unending persecution makes people unhappy, suicidal, and emotionall disturbed.

When they say that people choose to be gay, I will say that people do not choose their sexual orientation.

When they say that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, then I will ask where did Steve come from.

I will not let any more of their dirty, nasty lies go unanswered any time or anywhere. I am not trying to change them. I am just trying to expose their lies, and set an example for other people in how to deal with them.

(And,no, Daniel, I don't mean to get your hopes up: these kinds of dudes dn't come around. But there is a lesson.)

Well, Daniel, I've tried to warn you about this, in context of your own often-overuse of the word 'Love:' (Perhaps you now recognize some of my twitchiness:)

(quoted from you, as you speak to TT.......: )

"If you demean a person's self worth from childhood on, then of course they are going to have problems. The center pieace of Christianity is around the word "love.""

The word, yes.... But what of meaning or experience? ...

"Yet, over time, I have come to wonder if Christians are capable of feeling "love" in the nmormal sense, as normal people do."

Does it have to be 'higher' than the 'base' things? Who says things like that?

"I wonder, if Christians love their children and if married couples love each other like normal people would. Or has the distortions of this word in a Christian context made them ihcapable of ordinary and normal LOVE."

In a word, Daniel,

Yes.

Way too much.

Just look at it, Daniel. Mr. TT......etcetc insists he represents 'the' 'God' of (something he calls) 'Love' just as much as you have.

But his 'Love' isn't 'Love' ...It's ...something else.

That 'something else' is about fear and control and never any of us directly touching each other without shame or fear or even his own violence.

He claims to have 'great faith' but the man is *terrified.*

Of *what.* 'God.' *Gave.* And, in your world, *made.*

He says 'Love' as much as you do, ....as much as those who, well, were insensitive to me in the past were. With certain implements.

Someone took Love away from a whole lot of people... Only thing was, it was kinda like a little 'gotcher nose.'

Cause they *can't.*

And if they have to face that, it'll *really* cheese em off.

What he says, even some of what you say, ...isn't about Love, or taking Love back.

Love is *daring,* buddy. *Daring.*

He has only fear and posturing.

You, perhaps make too much of 'meekness,' Daniel.

Maybe Mr. Fundie TT-string of letters would like to make something *my* fault about what happens to people when you abuse them.

Yes, TT. If you hurt people, it hurts.

Never say saner than thou. Cause I'm one of the survivors, and I do not fear you. It also seems no one could kick enough logic out of my head to get anywhere near down to your level, so if you're looking for some redemption, I do suggest the kind offices of your gentler brother here.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

If you demean a person's self worth from childhood on, then of course they are going to have problems. The center pieace of Christianity is around the word "love."

Yet, over time, I have come to wonder if Christians are capable of feeling "love" in the nmormal sense, as normal people do.

I wonder, if Christians love their children and if married couples love each other like normal people would. Or has the distortions of this word in a Christian context made them ihcapable of ordinary and normal LOVE.

I have this doubt because of their actions towards non-Christians, and towards each other. I wonder because of their very unloving words, including your own which frequently appear on forums such as this.

So much that is proclaimed in the name of love is far, far afield from what Christ taught. That is a fact. PERIOD!

So, as you go along your merry way, with ever more complex babble about this moral issue and that, I wonder, really, are you capabale of loving anyone, really?

My suspiciaon is "no."

addendum
I know, I know, I will be accused of adhominum attacks. Yet, this guy is HARSH against gay people. Pure unadulterated bigotry is ok? Yet I am not allowed to wonder about the personal movtivations behind these ugly and harsh attacks. I am only human, and this is my reaction.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

In followup to PaganPlace's comments:

If people like you (TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2) would stop treating gay people like crap, then gay people would be fine. But when you treat them like crap, then they are not fine.

When religious people who claim great moral authority treat young gay people like crap, why should you be suprised if some of them kill themselves? And then if they don't kill themselves, but come to realize the twisted and demented mind games that you have played on them, why should you be suprised if they hate you with a vengeance?

All of your Bible-de-gook babble aside, why are you suprized?

Also, btw. Thanks, Daniel. You've turned out to be a generally-stand-up guy and a real credit to your Savior. Preachy at times, but funny how it's mostly those trying to make injustices OK seem to be the ones complaining about that.

You got your work cut out for you, though, with maniacs like TT actually trying to claim that as a ranting (would-be?) straight person, he's 'saner' than people who aren't as totally-flipped out about sexuality as he is.

Err, TT-string of-letters? You're quoting 'Worldnut Daily' as some kind of sourse, here, you might want to look to that.

I've caught you quoting 'studies' from the Sixties where the sample of 'homosexuals' studied was those who felt messed-up-enough to seek therapy or were institutionalized for *losing it* under stresses you seek to bring back...

Now you say this:

"“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review."

For starters, 'deviancy' isn't even acceptable English for an academic study, never mind whether it means anything if 'Regent University Law Review' can find some tenuous reason to connect it with a paper on the law...

Of course, 'Soon-to-be-published' is something a lot of crank writers tell themselves when in fact they're circular-filed, yaknow?

Correlation is not causation, anyway. Being homosexual in your world often *is* accompanied by people treating homosexuals as you suggest, resulting in 'disorders' ...like you'd expect of people who are traumatized repeatedly and constantly as you suggest.

Guess what, though. When gay people *aren't* treated as you suggest... Everyone involved is fine.

Frankly, obsessive *straight* identification and *homophobia* *also* result in a lot of 'disorders' which are profoundly deleterious to our society.

But you'd know all about that, wouldn't you?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

You said:

"Christians do not persecute gays; they try to keep them from killing themselves, from committing suicide as many are doing. The Church has a vigil praying for their conversion day and night."

People like you drive gay people to suicide, especially young people who still put some credence in what people like you say about them, that they are an abominaiton.

Gay people commit suicide because they are persecuted. You are partly to blame. It is your fault, and you are guildy. You are the one who promotes a culture of death. You are the one who would rather see gay people dead, than to acknowledge that they are as good, moral, and kind as anyone else.

You are a menace to gay people and it is people like you that gay people react to in their stidency to demand simple and ordinary respect, and their rights.

What causes people to be gay is not rellevant. But it is an absolute fact that people do not choose their sexual orientation. Did you choose yours?

If you want to know if gay people choose to be gay, then why don't you ask them? And when they give you an answer, why don't you believe them? The answer: because you do not want to know the truth, if it conflicts with your preconceived lie.

As I said before, I believe that you suffer from a heavy burden, the burden of false theology which you feel called upon to justify with complicated explanations. Of course I cannot understand you very well, because you speak in a specialized Bible-babble idiom, that most of the rest of us to not understand, and you offer no explanations on the nature of this peculiar idiom, but just assume that if we do not understand it, then we are dumber than you.

I

Natural Male-Female Balance in the Home is Undermined

“A massive exercise in social engineering has been unleashed to undermine and destroy the traditional rights and power which women have long enjoyed in traditional society. Briefly stated the emphasis has been shifted from content to process. As George
Gilder observed over 20 years ago in his book Sexual Suicide, most people enjoy their real satisfaction and gratification, not at work, but in the domestic and sexual aspects of life.

In reality, women possess enormous influence over men and most women do not feel subordinate. The conspicuous and calculable power of males is largely illusory, and is counterbalanced by the deep and inexorable capacity of women which is based on the psychological primacy of the role of the female in sexual love, marriage, conception of children, child bearing and breast feeding.

The implications of the new technology of reproduction has been widely accepted as an important weapon in the struggle to liberate
women. In fact it separates women from their own femininity and assures the bondage of women to male technocracy and removes men from the civilizing and socialization process of responsible
fatherhood.

Men are freed to pursue their own sterile and, without woman, meaningless, sexual cycles in uncivilized groups, while technology sustains the community. In the pursuit of a nonexistent
and unattainable equality women have been induced to forsake their true nature and to relinquish their natural erotic power over men.

In the process women have been deluded into becoming a subordinate class. In an authentic sexual society, the female physique is dominant.
Man becomes dependent on the woman's love for him. He relies on her for sexual identity in a way in which she, who already has a sexual identity, never has to rely on him. She can bear a child whether he stays or not, while he loses his child if she leaves.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“LIVING IN AN ALTERNATE WORLD”

IRT:
"Because you will irretrievably and inevitably lose, your struggle against gay people is a waste of your energy and life.”

ANS:
Win or lose in the end Gay Marriage is like playing Russian Roulette. You cannot win; it is a self-inflicted death-wish for an excruciating death.

The victim is emasculated and victimized by slavery to the dictates of his undisciplined concupiscence; he destroys his self-worth and dignity subsequently the Gay community is experiencing inordinate rates of suicide.

The only way he can escape is to receive the supernatural graces the Church has for him and practice and strengthen himself in the virtues of Purity and Chastity.

IRT:
"If you are a Christian, be a Christian. If your goal is to persecute gay people, then you are pretty much a total and complete failure as a Christian. What, then is your point?"

ANS:
Christians do not persecute gays; they try to keep them from killing themselves, from committing suicide as many are doing. The Church has a vigil praying for their conversion day and night. She tends their victims. Try reading about the "Dream Program" sometime and Catholic Charities instead of your lament about Christians not supporting their depravity.

What you should be deploring are those who encourage and manipulate the youth of this country who seduce young children into believing gay sex harms no one and is a ligitimate life style. The succor to the Culture of Death personified in "gay-sex".

http://www.chefdansculinaryadventures.com/~lgthscac/homosexualityingod'seyes.htm

To Deny God's Ability to Change Us is To Deny God's Love

"To John Stott, "To deny this is to portray Christians as the helpless victims of the world, the flesh and the devil, and to contradict the gospel of God's grace."

Hallett, who before his conversion to Christianity, was active in the gay scene, has written an autobiographical sketch "I am Learning to Love" and sub-titled it "A Personal Journey to Wholeness in Christ." His final paragraph begins: "I have learnt; I am learning; I will learn to love God, other people and myself. This healing process will only be complete when I am with Jesus."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“LIVING IN AN ALTERNATE WORLD”

“…and will therefore work tirelessly and ceaselessly to attain their due and just rights. “No matter how many battles you think you may win, no defeat is final.” You do not have the energy to keep up the struggle against gay people that will never end until there is justice. You may as well get that straight now."

ANS:
There are no rights to immorality and lust, irrespective of an out of control Supreme Court and their judicial fiat!

Yes, those battles we fight are for the life of the homosexual, the defense of the institute of Marriage and subsequently the Family. Destroy them and destroy the nation and your self with it.

Sadly, Justice is being dealt with; unfortunately its the Natural Law and the Natural Moral Law. What I do get straight is there are over 26 million AIDS victims dead, and over 35 million HIV infected victims in the world today. That’s not counting the STD victims. People who have an inordinate avidity of social suicide defend Gay Marriage which is an oxymoron. The moral of the story of Gay Marriage is the Culture of Death. In Africa, the death toll is proliferating faster than anywhere in the world, and today no one can do much about it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
PSEUDEPIGRAPHY-

IRT:
“Gay people are gay all of the time”

ANS:
Here’s some more circuitous arguments for you to ponder on.

The Washington Times reported: "The human genome finally has been sequenced, and with that, one theory seems to have fallen from favor that of the "gay gene." Ideas about the origins of sexual preferences are reverting to the argument that homosexuality is a decision rather than an inherited trait.

Edward Stein, a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, is leading a movement calling for homosexuals and the groups that support their causes to abandon the "gay gene" theory.

He argues "The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation," it hurts rather than helps their fight for equality. . .Although no study has ever been able to prove that homosexuality is inherited, 35 percent of Americans think it is, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll. The famous "gay gene" study has yet to be reproduced despite attempts to do so.

Former homosexual Anthony Falzarano, director of the National Parents and Friends Christian Ministries, insists people become homosexual through sexual molestation or rape, an absentee father, or an overbearing female influence during childhood.”

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

APA revises 'gay gene' theory
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AM:

“The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

INREPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
PSEUDEPIGRAPHY-

IRT:
“I am seeing more and more in the nature of your comments that that you are hobbled by a heavy burden. It must be difficult to think up all those circuitous arguments to justify why God does not like gay people. Mostly, your comments are very complicated, but senseless, babble.”

ANS:
Your problem is that you can’t understand what you read. Of course its babble to you when you can’t translate it. You are so predisposed to your bias that they’ve become an obstacle to your reason and they have turned you off to reality. You see things when they aren’t there.

The burden is your inability to comprehend what was said. Please show me where it was even intimated that God does not love the Homosexual. Of course the comments are burdensome to you when you have no sense of their meaning and are not attuned to reality.

IRT:
“Your convoluted and legalistically hair-splitting dissertations against gay marriage are tedious and boring; a simple appeal to justice is all the reply that you deserve.”

ANS:
The thing you can always tell about someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about is when they make these sweeping generalizations that could mean anything so that they can’t be pinned down. What appeal are you making to Justice? By legalistic, do you mean being rational? And, what is hair-splitting, and what is circuitous?

Hence, I have no idea what you call convoluted babble or Justice all the other confutations you've invented. Now if I am wrong, and you do know what you're saying, then tell me what these convoluted and tedious arguments are and why they are tedious convoluted, and are hair-splitting. Further, don’t make things up that feed your frustrations and I haven't wrote.

God may appreciate the love gay people have for their partners or He may not. I don’t know. But it is not God’s job to rewrite the marriage covenant just so homosexuals can feel better about their exercise of free will. No one should expect their exercise of free will to trump His.
Posted by: rubytues63
**************************************************************************************
Civil marriage isn't about what this or that god wills. It's about rights granted to and responsibilities accepted by consenting adults in regard to each other, whether or not they ever produce or adopt children.
Same sex couples aren't demanding the right to be married in your particular church or any church for that matter. There ARE churches that will marry them, legally or not - UU for one.
What they are demanding is the same legal rights and responsibilities regarding each other that this menopausal woman and her sterile husband took on when we went to the courthouse, bought a license, and had a judge sign it.

Gays and Hetros both think God is on their side. Perhaps that’s the problem. Perhaps God is not on either side. Perhaps God wants us to be on His side.

Is marriage about love or is marriage about procreation? God gave us free will, the right and ability to make mistakes. If a person in a gay relationship makes a mistake they hurt only themselves or their adult partner. This is a consequence of free will.

But God gave heterosexual couples the power to create new life. A hetro mistake can affect not only the man and the woman, but the life the two of them have created. Hetro couples think themselves safe if they are on the pill or have lived beyond a certain number of years, but the ‘accepted’ one percent failure rate equals tens of thousands of unintended pregnancies per day.

Marriage serves the interests of any children that might be created through physical intimacy. Its intent is to protect innocent life that has not yet reached the age of free will. A marriage is not any more perfect than the people making the promises but the results are statistically better than those of couples outside of marriage who find themselves with child.

God did not create marriage as a medium for publicly declaring anyone’s feelings, no matter how intense or sincere they might be. God did not create marriage so that gay people could obtain affordable health insurance.

God may appreciate the love gay people have for their partners or He may not. I don’t know. But it is not God’s job to rewrite the marriage covenant just so homosexuals can feel better about their exercise of free will. No one should expect their exercise of free will to trump His.

Also, Spong didn't say 'privilege.' He said *right.*

Subtitle-writer said 'privilege.'

I mean, we try not to mention it much, but did you know a large percentage of heterosexual males lose bowel control in combat?

We try not to mention this.

Can I have my civil rights, now?

Seriously, Rohit.

Who the Hel do you think you are that your imagination of what you imagine would happen with sofas... Is somehow more important than what you 'theorize' me having full rights of American citizenship might lead to?

You *geek?*

You think after twenty five years of this, I haven't heard it *all,* not to mention watching 'know-it-alls' like you make brown water the moment reality gets interesting?

Seriously.

Takes more than a couch to get me interested. Never mind committed after fiver years, and I've picked more than one little pud like ou up by the dirty diapers when things got real in my time.

If you wanna talk Apuleius, ...know when to shut up.

Kid.

OK.

Let me begin by clearing my throat and waving the 'I Call BS' flag.

"In fact it is you who compared me to an animal."

I did *not,* actually, I only implied that you demonstrated an opinion that unless my partner and I were subjected to civil injustice, that somehow you assume people would immediately commence to behave so, in whatever Christian world says people and animals are roiling over with some cauldron of unrequited passion for each other.

"I did not say that you and your partner are animals. I merely pointed out that once we raise the question of who can marry who, then all kinds of cases arise, like brothers wanting to marry their sisters, three people wanting to marry each other and yes, people wanting to marry their pets."

It's... Actually not a question.

In any way.

I mean, if you *really* think that using the government to harm lesbian couples will stop you from boinking *sheep,* ...I'm guessing that you have ideas somewhere between your head and your 'holy place' that my domestic tranquility is not responsible for.

Go figure.

That's before we even get talking about your sofa.

"You prefer not to face these questions and want to pretend that I am insulting you."

Actually, I think I've 'faced' your questions quite *directly.*

They're just not of import anywhere outside the reach of your monitor. Like in real life.

Is there some reason I should *not* be angry when you compare both me and my dearest in turn, to animals you degrade?
Posted by paganplace
-----------
In fact it is you who compared me to an animal. I did not say that you and your partner are animals. I merely pointed out that once we raise the question of who can marry who, then all kinds of cases arise, like brothers wanting to marry their sisters, three people wanting to marry each other and yes, people wanting to marry their pets.

You prefer not to face these questions and want to pretend that I am insulting you. In fact I said explicitly that I respect your right to have a relationship of love and commitment with your "sweetie" which is respected by society. I also said that it is insane to say that gays are sinners who will go to hell. Why are you denying me credit for saying that? I am in fact granting your case AS FAR AS I CAN AGREE WITH IT RATIONALLY.

What I HAVE said is that what you and your partner want is something different from marriage and you should avoid harming traditional hetero marriage in America because it is already in enough trouble.

The US has a 50% divorce rate and 40% of children are born out of wedlock. And these children do worse at school and are more likely to get into trouble with the law. I ask you not to make the situation worse by conflating the very different gay and hetero relationships.

And asking you that is not the same as calling you an animal. It is YOU who have insulted me, not I you.

And:

"Posted by a visibly angry Paganplace"

Is there some reason I should *not* be angry when you compare both me and my dearest in turn, to animals you degrade?

I'm expected to be your idea of 'saintly' while ou make spurious legal arguments predicated on *idiotic* notions that if you don't tell us we can't have the equal benefits of citizens, that you will marry a sofa?

How many homes am I supposed to *lose* for idiocy like that?

How many people who call me Mommy are you going to take up the mantle of, 'At least someone can't marry a cat, I'll provide examples of rich people doing it even if they can leave their dog more than PP can share with her partner... And say this is protecting humanity from some 'sexual immorality.'

Yes, it's idiotic.

"What I am claiming is that this is not an issue of equal rights. Gay people DO have the right to marry"

Done and done.

That's it.

I mean, if you *do* want* to walk that Golden Ass path, blessed be thy feet. Just.

People are trying to live.

So, I guess you'll just blow by your indignance about how stupid it is to say your speculations about your terror of anything quirky happening, even if there's no legal basis to support the notion you promote that LBGT people having equal rights would result in you marrying furniture? Posted by a visibly angry Paganplace
------------
What I am claiming is that this is not an issue of equal rights. Gay people DO have the right to marry - Oscar Wilde had the same right to marry as heterosexuals, he did marry and he did even have children. The question is whether he had the right to have something that heterosexuals did NOT have. Note that if two male heterosexuals wanted to marry then in most states they could not.

But anyway, about people and animals, it is not as simple as you think. Here is a review of a recent movie:

Passion in the Desert

Absolutely haunting imagery and themes.
It's hard to add to what the other 5-star reviewers have said. Yes, it will probably not play well to a group of friends on a Saturday night. The movie speaks too deeply for that kind of crowd. But if you allow yourself to listen, it has the power to really move you. This movie is about more than the seemingly sensational man-leopard love affair. It's about what it means...

The movie is based on a novella by the French writer Balzac. Since you have already suggested that I am an ass, will you now go on and suggest that I am leopard? :) Of course I would suggest that abuse shows a lack of a good argument on your side.

You think you want something simple - that you should have "equal rights" and I am suggesting that it is not simple.

I am not at all opposed to you and "your sweetie" having a relationship which is respected by law and society. I am on YOUR side on that. I am only interested in keeping what you want distinct from marriage which is not an institution in which you are actually interested. You are interested in something else. And that is fine, just don't ask to call it marriage.

I mean.. You do understand.... Dude with his editorial theories... Wandering around Pagan Rome... Still thought he knew better than everyone and everything he saw...

While ...quite literally... being an ass... Till he finds his way to the Lady.

Are you still proposing that there is some pressing matter about denying me my civil rights which prevents you from marrying your sofa or some pet?

Clearly, your absolutes did not prevent this rich lady from remembering a pooch in her legacy.

Are you saying I should be treated unjustly, 'just in case?' Of you?

So, I guess you'll just blow by your indignance about how stupid it is to say your speculations about your terror of anything quirky happening, even if there's no legal basis to support the notion you promote that LBGT people having equal rights would result in you marrying furniture?

"No, you and your sweetie are not society - you are just two people."

Society *is* people. You claim we are not part of it, yet assert you, a single person who can't even breed himself, are to tell *us* how to partner?

" Whether you pay taxes and how much is a decision made by society at large, which is many many more people beside you two."

How bout we decide you don't count, then?

" This is not clear to you? Anyway, I am not married, so no benefits are coming to me which you are denied."

Then you should shut up about your claims we're taking something from you which straights *aren't* even if they're in actual fact *horrible* parents.

"As for sex with animals it is not as uncommon as you think."

It's also not as related to my *marriage* as you think.

"It is reported as early as in the Golden Ass by Apuleius (2nd century of the common era). Recently a wealthy woman left a large estate to her dog.*

This doesn't mean that that wealthy woman was having *sex* with her dog, and you also undercut your own notion that somehow being unjust to me would have prevented someone from leaving her estate to a dog.

Since, even if you oppress me, some rich lady loved her dog and didn't like people *anyway.*

You were asserting there was something not idiotic in your opinion?

As for Apuleius, I really suggest you take care of invoking that. The point of that story actually kind of *is* that She Of Many Names isn't above letting you make an ass of yourself.

"Suppose you can decide about yourself anything you like, but if you want society to confer benefits on you based on your claim, then your situation has to be related to the reason which society has for confering certain benefits on currently married couples."
My sweetie and I *are* society, too. You just want us to render up benefits to *you* cause you say if we don't enjoy what we pay into, you're going to boink a cat or something.
Posted by: Paganplace
-----------
No, you and your sweetie are not society - you are just two people. Whether you pay taxes and how much is a decision made by society at large, which is many many more people beside you two. This is not clear to you? Anyway, I am not married, so no benefits are coming to me which you are denied.

As for sex with animals it is not as uncommon as you think. It is reported as early as in the Golden Ass by Apuleius (2nd century of the common era). Recently a wealthy woman left a large estate to her dog.

Still, we need not be too concerned with people wanting to marry animals, I am sure the courts will not say that they have a right to marry their pets. At least not right away.

Arguments against polygamy and polyandry WILL become weaker because it is not clear what interest the state could claim in forbidding three people to marry.
If polygamy had been legal in England, Ann Boleyn would not have been executed. Many divorces (and some murders) would be avoided if people could marry the person they love to whom they are not married, and still stay married to their current spouse (whom quite often they do love).

But a much more serious issue is the rationale for having the institution of marriage at all. The idea of marriage as a relation between two people based solely on love and commitment is relatively new.

My claim is that the institution itself exists primarily to take care of children and that the children situation is different between gay people and heterosexuals.

So if "gay marriage" becomes a reality, it will result in a further decline in the institution of marriage itself. What the future holds, I do not know.

I suspeect you are a gay person and it is difficult for you to see beyond what you want. I myself don't have any stake. I think that gay marriage is not a wise idea, I suspect that the US will do it anyway, and the long term effects will be bad.

But I do not expect any disastrous effects in the immediate future. It is most unlikely that God will do to us what he did to Sodom and Gomorroah!

Or, Rohit: Do you have any idea how much real, practical, and totally-unrelated-to-your-religious-belief that humans will roger anything that moves if ever specific control slips....

I've just *been through,* in my own life. Never mind those I've helped... Justified by *yes, idiotic hypotheticals I have no idea how you can *conceive* of looking at real people and voicing with a straight face?*

*Yes.* Gods blast it, it's *stupid.* It's a *dumb* reason for you to figure you know what marriage is better than I do when I'm in it.

Never mind fair or Constitutional, this is *idiotic,* full stop.

I mean... I *may* be way off base, here, friend Christian... But I'm pretty sure there's no compelling state interest in demanding your sofa be forced to testify against you in a court of law, even if somehow your concerns about my marriage *were* ignored and it therefore somehow meant that no longer did your love for your La-z-Boy have to suffer in silence...

Rohit:

" am answering you even though I have a rather low opinion of people who use the word "idiocy" to describe a position which they disagree with, or which they do not understand."

Was there a particular nuance about you saying that if I can have equal treatment under the law that you might marry your sofa, that I missed, in some kind of not-being idiocy sense?

"Suppose you can decide about yourself anything you like, but if you want society to confer benefits on you based on your claim, then your situation has to be related to the reason which society has for confering certain benefits on currently married couples."

My sweetie and I *are* society, too. You just want us to render up benefits to *you* cause you say if we don't enjoy what we pay into, you're going to boink a cat or something.

"Exactly what in the mind that comes up with this kind of idiocy makes you think you, or a slim majority in a referendum is better-qualified than *I* to decide when I'm in a marriage?" Posted by paganplace
------------
I am answering you even though I have a rather low opinion of people who use the word "idiocy" to describe a position which they disagree with, or which they do not understand.

Suppose you can decide about yourself anything you like, but if you want society to confer benefits on you based on your claim, then your situation has to be related to the reason which society has for confering certain benefits on currently married couples.

If you want to marry another person of the same gender and file a joint tax return, it is the IRS which decides if your claim is reasonable.

I am not saying tout court that your claim is not reasonable - but that you do have to justify it. You cannot just say, "Because I say so."

I cannot take my bike on the freeway saying, "_I_ am the one who owns this vehicle and I choose to call it a car." Others have to decide if my claim is reasonable. And they will say, "You may call it a car but in fact it is a bike and it is not allowed on the freeway. And please do not quote Brown vs BOE at us."

My point is simple. Marriage has existed in many societies, and not only in ones blessed by Jehovah, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist marriages are just as valid in the US as Christian ones. Why do so many different societies have this institution?
It cannot be just because Jehovah (if indeed he exists) likes this institution.

It seems very reasonable to think that it exists largely to take care of human children who take a long time to grow up. That means that marriage is inherently connected to children. Of course, once you have marriage with children, you are also going to have marriage without children since you cannot force people to have children. But children, as a very important part of this institution, are going to remain for most married couples.

Once you have children, you have some laws which favor people who do the work of bringing up children, and through a quirk, married couples without children also benefit from these laws which were not designed for them. But, if gay couples are also going to have benefits, where is the justice in denying them to single people? Or two people - say brother and sister - living in a relationship of love and commitment but without sex? None at all. And then it becomes just a general benefit, not connected to marriage at all.

The situation with gays is different since they cannot have children with each other. That does not mean that they cannot have relationships of love and commitment, but those would not BE marriage. A court or a mayor may decide that you have a right to CALL it marriage but it will still not be the same thing. It will be a different thing called by the same name.

I suspect that gays will win their fight since the arguments offered against gay marriage seem to mostly religious ones based on one narrow sectarian base. They cannot possibly win. They have rational arguments on their side, but little interest in using these rational arguments.

In their hearts many of the religious people think that gays are sinners and belong in hell. This is insane but that is what they do seem to think.

And that means that we will not be able to rationally discuss this issue.

But here is a question for you - Will community property laws apply to gays? And if so, why? Should divorce be as difficult for gay couples as it is for hetero couples, and if so why? If two hetero men claim to be married to each other but in fact never have sex, will they be entitled to the benefits? Or will you ask them to prove that they are having sex?

I do not think the pragmatic situation is the same for gays and heteros, but you CAN make the legal situation the same by fiat.

It will result in confusion and we will call it "progress".

Rohit:

"Can I marry my sister? My son? Can I marry my daughter's cat? Can I marry my sofa? Can I marry two people? Once you make such general statements like Marriage a Privilege Open to All you have to defend them in all cases when they apply."

Exactly what in the mind that comes up with this kind of idiocy makes you think you, or a slim majority in a referendum is better-qualified than *I* to decide when I'm in a marriage?

You cannot marry your son because it is socially-unjust and laws against incestuous marriage actually *preserve* the family against the strange conflicts of interest and abuses of inter-familial power that the government of a free society cannot be used to sanction.

If you would like to make *animals* citizens, and entitle them to the rights of free individuals in American society, I'm all for it, but somehow it's not 'heterosexuals-only' marriage that protects us from this eventuality.

And if you would like to marry a *cat,* don't come crying to me when they are yowling at other windows all night.

If you believe that only certain sexualities are sacred, and that therefore if my sweetie and I don't pay three times over for health insurance and rights to property, that you will begin to copulate passionately with your Barcolounger, ...that's really not a problem for American jurisprudence, I assure you. I wish you all the best.

ROHI:

If marriage were primarily about children, then the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of the adults involved would only take effect once ankle biters were produced or adopted.

rohitcuny said:

"Can I marry my sister? My son? Can I marry my daughter's cat? Can I marry my sofa? Can I marry two people?"

Why do you ask these questions? No one else is asking them, just you. There is no grassroots movement for people to marry their cats, but if you would like to dedicate you life to stopping this practice, then go right ahead.

There is a grassoots movement among gay people to marry. It is movement based on a heartfelt need. Your questions are designed to belittle this feeling that gay people have, and to mock them and belittle them.

This is part of the problem. I am tired of this ugly and rude attitude masquarading as "cool level-headedness." It is nothing of the kind. It is passive-aggression designed to hurt, injure, obstruct, and marginalize gay people.

I find these kind of bogus arguements to be a sign of bad faith, and I find them to be politically hostile.

rohitcuny

Yes, but what about justice? Don't you care about what is just and right? Your long argument is a little off the mark.

There were lots of good reasons why black slaves should not have been freed. But cool logical arguments gave way to passion and war, in the name of justice.

You have left out a lot.

The fact that the production of children is not within our capability and the rearing of children is not on our agenda and that we were not pronounced husband and wife by a member of the clergy does not make us any less married.
Posted by: lepidopteryx
----------
You make a good point which deserves an answer.

Normally when we have a law there is a rationale behind it and the law applies to some group of people. Now once the law is written, it will also apply to people within this group to whom the rationale does not apply.

For instance, at my institution, everyone entering the building was required to present a photo ID. That included the president. Now all the guards knew her and she was hardly likely to carry a bomb. But, she decided, "Rules are rules". She showed her ID. But that does not mean that the rationale, Safety of the Building from Interlopers, applied to her.

Now you are governed by laws whose rationale is - in part - the well being of children and the fact that the rationale does not apply to you does not change the fact that you still are married in the eyes of the law.

You are in a relationship which is very much like the kind of relationship which gays want. But there are others who are married who think of marriage as more than that. Children are important to them, and many would not marry if they could not have children. People like that are the reason we have the institution of marriage in the first place. If humans did not reproduce sexually, and children did not require care for many years, human marriage would not exist, even if people loved each other.

In brief, the fact that the Children Rationale does not apply to you does not mean that we can do away with it. The ID requirement did not really apply to our president. But that does not mean we can simply get rid of it. There have been thefts and rapes in the building and in a city like New York, you do have to look out for security. So the ID requirement stays even though in many cases it is not relevant. In the same way, the Care of Children rationale should stay as part of our understanding of marriage even though it does not apply to you personally.

Hope I have addressed your concern.

I pity those who are all up in arms over the "nibbles and bits" of other people and whether or not that should continue to disqualify them from getting married in a courthouse.

Rohitcuny wrote,

"But the institution of marriage hasn't traditionally been just about love. It has been about tradition, children, even religion. You could remove all these things and say that it is just about love."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skowronek wrote,

*Snort*

Marriage has NOT traditionally been about love, when you strip away children and religion. It's about money and power, and increasing them both. If it were about love, why would women have been stripped of the right to their own money, property, or legal rights to their own inheritances until recently? If you want things to be just like they were 2000+ years ago, then you also have to legally allow for polygamy. That doesn't fly here, so marriage has already been changed. Hell, marital rape didn't even EXIST until 30-40 years ago, because a WIFE had no legal right to say NO, and have it stick.

Just as an example.

Posted by: Skowronek | July 30, 2009 11:38 PM

AND

Rohitcuny wrote,

"Let me point out an important difference between gay and hetero relationships."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twaddle follows--hetero childless divorcing couples governed by the same laws as those unions with children (even if those children are aduts) and how same-sex can't possibly be governed by them too. More twaddle about children and parentage...because hetero couples can't adopt, right?

Nonsense. No one in this country is married w/o a marriage license. Plenty of people are married without stepping foot into a house of worship--thank you county courthouse!

Two consenting adults. Simple. Straightforward. Fair. Let the wedding industry boom (on). Thus far, the number of gay couples Divorcing is neither numerous, nor statistically significant. Well, it's significant to the participants, their families and their lawyers. But it doesn't hold a candle to the number of hetero couples divorcing.

For those who cite the economic and health benefits of marriage, that's great. Open up that level of legal stability, with its concommitant benefits, to ALL our citizens.

Anyone know how the marriage of a couple where one undergoes a sex-change is affected legally? I would bet that the answer is "not at all", unless they get divorced. Otherwise, I bet it stands. Right?

ROHI:

The reason for the prohibition on close kin marriages is the increased possibility of any children produced from such unions having profound birth defects due to concentration of recessive genes. But if you and your sister are both consenting adults and are willing to take that risk, knock yourselves out. Personally, I'm just not attracted to my sister.

You can't marry your cat because your cat doesn't have the ability to give informed consent to enter into a legal agreement.
Same goes for your sofa.

If you want to legally join yourself to multiple simultaneous partners, I have no beef with that, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

"Marriage a Privilege Open to All"

Can I marry my sister? My son? Can I marry my daughter's cat? Can I marry my sofa? Can I marry two people? Once you make such general statements like Marriage a Privilege Open to All you have to defend them in all cases when they apply.

My problem with "gay marriage" is that marriage is an institution whose main purpose is the creation and upbringing of children. This purpose either does not apply to gays, or if it does, it does it in a radically different way.

And note that laws whose primary basis is the need to protect children, apply also to childless couples, simply to make matters, well, simple.

Gays need a different set of laws which may overlap with laws for hetero couples but which may also differ in certain ways.

For instance, divorce for heteros is difficult in many states. Should it be difficult for gays? What is the rationale for making it difficult?

You need to think hard about what you are advocating.

What has happened in the whole debate is that words like "constitution",
"equality", "God" have got entangled into a question which really should be practical.

At one time we phased out lead additives in gasoline. There was no talk about "God hates lead" or "I have a RIGHT to put lead in MY car." We discussed it and decided that lead was not good for people's health. No religion, no constitution, just plain common sense.

Can we stick to common sense in THIS issue?

TTW:"Marriage is that individual union through which man and woman by their reciprocal rights form one principle of generation. It is effected by their mutual consent to give and accept each other for the purpose of propagating the human race, of educating their offspring, of sharing life in common, of supporting each other in undivided conjugal affection by a lasting union.
*************************************************************************************
When my husband and I decided to marry, it had nothing to do with producing or educating offspring. At the time of our meeeting for the first time, he was sterile, and I was menopausal and had an almost-grown daughter from a previous relationship. We couldn't make a baby together if the fate of the free world depended on it. Besides that, even if I were still fertile, I had no desire to start over again with washing diapers and walking the floor with a colicky infant at my age (over 40), and he has never had any desire to be a parent. I made it clear from the get-go that he would NOT parent MY daughter - I was the only one in the household who had any parental authority or parental responsibility where she was concerned. He would not be her stepfather - he would be her roommate. We got married for one reason and one reason only - we love each other.
We held a religious ritual in which we solemnized our commitment to each other in the presence of our friends, family, and gods - no clergy, no paperwork.
Because of our love for each other, we wanted to be able to offer each other certain legal protections and wished to take on certain legal responsibilities toward each other. So AFTER our religious wedding, we went to the courthouse, purchased a marriage license, and had a judge sign it and place it on file with the court.
The fact that the production of children is not within our capability and the rearing of children is not on our agenda and that we were not pronounced husband and wife by a member of the clergy does not make us any less married.

pvilso24

You may condemn gay people for being born gay, but the Bible did not and Jesus did not.

Your antipathy towards gay people, is like the Roman Spear at the crucifixion, aimed at the heart of Jesus.

On the subject of true Christian love and the directions and obligations of Christ, you are blank.

But yet, you presume in your false doctrines and beliefs, to speak for Jesus, to put false words and lies into the mouth of Jesus.

Finally, what pretentiousness.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

I am seeing more and more in the nature of your comments that that you are hobbled by a heavy burden. It must be difficult to think up all those circuitous arguments to justify why God does not like gay people. Mostly, your comments are very complicated, but senseless, babble.

Your convoluted and legalistically hair-splitting dissertations against gay marriage are tedious and boring; a simple appeal to justice is all the reply that you deserve.

Gay people are gay all of the time and will therefore work tirelessly and ceaselessly to attain their due and just rights. No matter how many battles you think you may win, no defeat is final. You do not have the energy to keep up the struggle against gay people that will never end until there is justice. You may as well get that straight now.

Because you will irretrievably and inevitably lose, your struggle against gay people is a waste of your energy and life.

If you are a Christian, be a Christian. If you goal is to persecute gay people, then you are pretty much a total and complete failure as a Christian. What, then is your point?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
MARRIAGE
POSTED JULY 28, 2009; 9:16 PM ET

"Marriage is that individual union through which man and woman by their reciprocal rights form one principle of generation. It is effected by their mutual consent to give and accept each other for the purpose of propagating the human race, of educating their offspring, of sharing life in common, of supporting each other in undivided conjugal affection by a lasting union.

Marriage is a contract and is by its very nature above human law. It was instituted by God, is subject to the Divine law, and cannot for that reason be rescinded by human law.

Those who contract marriage do so indeed by their own free wills, but they must assume the contract and its obligations unconditionally. Marriage is natural in purpose, but Divine in origin. It is sacred, being intended primarily by the Author of life to perpetuate His creative act and to beget children of God.

Its secondary ends are mutual society and help, and a lawful remedy for concupiscence. Human law certainly takes cognizance of marriage, but marriage not having been established by man, its essential properties cannot be annulled by such law. Marriage is monogamic and indissoluble; death alone dissolves the union when consummated.

When men pretend to be the final arbiters of the marriage contract, they base their claim on the assumption that this contract is merely of human institution and is subject to no laws above those of man. But human society, both in its primitive and organized form, originated by marriage, not marriage by human society. Marriage was intended by the Creator for the propagation of the human race and for the mutual help of husband and wife."

NorrieHoyt writes:

"Marriage is not a privilege, it's a natural right that may not be denied or prohibited by the state."

Ditto. As matters stand, the government stands in violation of the rights of gay citizens. This state of affairs has existed since the founding of the Republic.

It is, I think, too late for the government simply to grant gays the rights they should have had all along. At a minimum, all gay couples who can demonstrate financial loss due to having been unable to marry should be compensated.

Once gays are permitted to marry in all fifty states by SECULAR authorities, those churches, synagogues, mosqs, temples that wish to have separate and distinct celebrations for already wedded couples may do so. The right to deny such ceremonies to already married couples will also be granted to those institutions.

In summary, marriage is a civil institution. ORganized religions must be removed from the marriage business. Marriage-related ceremonies, not weddings, may be held by interested religious institutions, which will also have the right to exclude whomever they wish from their proceedings.

Bruce18: I would not want to be welcomed by a god of hate, of bigotry, of oppression; a god of telling some people that their love, their lives, their true selves are less worthy than others'.

It is clear to me (using, if you believe in that sort of thing, the judgement that god gave me) that gays/lesbians/etc are humans just like the rest of us; that their love is just as worthy of celebration and recognition; that they should not be denied the joys and travails and civic benefits of marriage.

Go ahead. Be welcomed by your god and his rigid rules. But don't try to push that onto the rest of us.

Poor John talks of civil rights guiding his beliefs. But what happened to his Christian beliefs ? His Saviors ? His own Holy Book teachings ?

He IGNORES them.

Sin ? oh thats so ancient ! St. Paul ? oh he was just a homophobic gay (reference: Sins of the Bible - Spong )

Spong Savior Jesus spoke in Matthew 19 about traditional marriage...

"Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said , \"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh\" So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.\"

Jesus did not exclude the sinner but reformed how sin was to be treated (forgiveness and redemption) and \"let he who is without sin cast the first stone\" contributed to the end of stoning as a practice among Christians.

It is sad that a supposedly Christian Leader like Spong has allowed modern secular liberal beliefs to trump his own faith teachings.

JackieRo:

"Because I do not personally agree with same-sex marriage (but still believe it is a civil right) does not make me bigoted, holding on to a crutch, with Jesus blood pumping through my veins. I'll respect that marriage is a civil right, and SS couples can stop badmouthing my beliefs. Isn't that something called compromise? Now we can ALL be happy."

You aren't actually in a *position* to demand 'compromise' on the point of equality for all, even if you invoke choirs of angels.

But, I assure you, if you can manage to get your 'disagreement' out of the way of people's lives you otherwise have no contact with, I assure you.

You may go ahead and think what you like.

The subtitle-writes struck again. The author says 'Right,' they say 'Privilege.'

Bishop Spong said over and over again, 'Right,' and in fact, marriage, *is* a right: it's a type of civil contract which the government must provide with equal protection to all who are adult citizens capable of entering into a legal contract.

Right. Not privilege. But even privileges must be conferred with equal protection under the law as regards things like race, sex, ethnicity, or creed.

Lol, simpleton. An apt and entertaining analogy.

God I love irony and really great sarcasm.

:>)

Yes, a civil right. Let's make sure that all folks can legally marry. Progress. However, I ask one thing in return: leave my freaking religion alone. I'm so sick of the religious smears on this issue. Because I do not personally agree with same-sex marriage (but still believe it is a civil right) does not make me bigoted, holding on to a crutch, with Jesus blood pumping through my veins. I'll respect that marriage is a civil right, and SS couples can stop badmouthing my beliefs. Isn't that something called compromise? Now we can ALL be happy.

«Marriage is both a civil right and under the Constitution must be available to all citizens under the equal protection clause. This nation is on the verge today of saying that to gay and lesbian citizens. It should be an act of the court not the result of a plebiscite.»

Equal protection clause, which equal protection clause, O Bishop? US fourteenth amendment, where is the case saying that amendment means man-man marriage «must» be available? Citation, please!

State constitution equal protection clause? But state constitutions, they are created by the people, they can be changed by the people, California equal protection clause, people made Proposition 8 exception, clause no longer makes man-man marriage available.

Or is there an «equal protection clause» written in the sky, letters of fire, by Goddess of Equality, a «higher authority» that the people, they have no power to defy, because she is the Goddess?

Appeal to a higher authority above the People, that is the appeal that right-wing homophobe Bishops make to the Christian god, the positive law answer is that «We, the People» can make our clauses say whatever We, the People, want. Right-wing Bishops say no, now a left-wing Bishop says no, I say to both Bishops, «this is America, the People have the final say.» Save your «higher authority» to certify all-beef _halal_ hot dogs.

Being left-handed is not a natural right. Only 12% of the population is left-handed, and therefore it is clear that they are freaks.

Freaks are against God and therefore we should not let left-handed people drive, vote, marry, work, walk, run for President, or sing karaoke.

God does not like left-handed people either, otherwise he'd not make so many people right-handed

Civil marriage IS a civil right. All 50 states grant this right to the majority of their population. When the exact CIVIL right is denied to the same sex minority, it is called DISCRIMINATION.

Civil marriage is NOT about religion.

To get a civil marriage license you basically show proof of identity and age, and pay your fee. That's it! No requirement to have a religious ceremony, no requirement to have children or even proof of fertility. Once married by the official of your choice, you have a simple legal contract between two persons.

Holland, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden and even Spain--more catholic than the pope--have all legalized same sex marriage. When will the US catch up?

"Isn't it about time that people accept it, and get over it, and stop sling their mud in the name of Jesus?"
************************
Agreed. No matter where it stems from or what excuses lie behind it, hate is hate.

Discriminating because "God told me to" is still discrimination.

If people like Bruce had any sort of courage or they would speak their mind without hiding behind 2,000 year old texts.

"The State should move quickly to clarify the fact that under our Constitution, marriage must be a privilege open to all."

No.

To use language ordinarily favored by religious and legal conservatives:

Marriage is not a privilege, it's a natural right that may not be denied or prohibited by the state.

Thankyou Bruce18. That was pretty passive-aggressive.

What is the point to block, oppose, reject, and nullify a whole group of people's right to exist? No matter what is done to them, from the most timid passive-aggressive remark, to brutal pograms to get rid of them, short of Hitlerian extermination, they persist and exist.

Isn't it about time that people accept it, and get over it, and stop sling their mud in the name of Jesus?

The arguments are simple and sound. If marriage is a privilege granted by the state, it should be granted to all people who meet the fundamental criteria.

Religious institutions can do as they please, and the flock can choose to belong or sever connections.

If God exists, and there is no evidence to think that he does, let him speak to the people involved himself.

Further, if God does not welcome someone, it is still their problem.

Not yours.

Its difficult to comment when the arguements are so weak. Yet, I never cease to be amazed at the ability of all humans to convince themselves that they are on the righteous path.

I dont think God welcomes those who act with full knowledge directly against his will. They dont want his welcome, they are their own god.