Hetero DUers who DON'T support G/L/B/T marriage...

[chiburb]

I encourage you to read this column on DU's front page today...

Snip:

If everyone in this country agreed that marriage really was necessarily a sacred, permanent, lifetime commitment between one man and one woman, no audience would stand for a show that pushed people into it this arbitrarily. You'd like to think, anyway, that the pleasure that viewers derived from shows like Who Wants To Marry a Multimillionaire? or Married By America or the new generation of arranged-marriage shows would be dampened somewhat by the awarenss of what these people were really risking.

Would people be as excited as they are about Trista and Ryan if they knew that they were going to be stuck in that manufactured romance for the rest of their lives? It would be like watching Survivor knowing that there would really be only one survivor, and the losers would be killed instead of merely put on a plane back to civilization. No, the only reason that the actual marriages of real people can become entertainment is that everyone realizes the stakes have been lowered, and that the sacred institution of heterosexual marriage has been trivialized to the point where it can become a practical joke - as it apparently will on My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance.

So when you consider where marriage has been brought to in this country, you would think people would look at the push for same-sex marriage as one of the few signs of hope for marriage as an American institution. Here you have a group of people who want nothing more than to be allowed to help protect the idea of marriage as a lifetime and loving commitment between two people who have chosen each other freely. These are people who have already risked much to be with the people they love, and are willing to risk more in order to ensure that their relationships are treated with the dignity they deserve. The first lesbian couple married by the renegade mayor of San Francisco had been together for fifty-one years. That's since 1953, folks. Imagine what they've gone through to stay in love for that long. And yet somehow, according to the religious right, they don't deserve to have their relationship legally recognized, and Trista and Ryan do.

That just is never going to make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just too much of a romantic for a culture that seems determined to find out just how cynical it can get. I can't get past the idea that marriage should be about love, that if you love someone who loves you back you should both work like hell to keep that love alive, and that you shouldn't make promises about a lifetime of love and commitment to a stranger who was picked out for you by a team of television producers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/13.html

[demnan]

1. Exactly

I'd rather see a couple of committed loving homosexuals marry than these witless wonders on the tube every night.

[callous taoboy]

2. Your point?

Myself, I wholeheartedly agree with Adder.

[chiburb]

3. I thought my point was obvious....

I agree with Plaidder too, and don't see how anyone here could argue the opposite. Yet it happens...

[Lisa0825]

4. Yes, it is an EXCELLENT article.

I usually don't go through the front page, but happened to this morning, and I am very glad I did. After reading it, I immediately made a post at a non-DU board (at which the subject is argued fiercely by a few opponents) about the article.

[YNGW]

5. Some people...

...based their opposition of gay marriage on religious beliefs, which is a personal thing, and any argument to sway them would unlikely work. It is there right to hold such beliefs and to base their vote accordingly.

[ComerPerro]

6. That is all well and good

I would just prefer that we don't start drafting legislation based on religious beliefs.

[daveskilt]

10. if their god tells them not to marry someone of their gender...

no one is forcing them to. just let other people marry who they want to and secretly believe they will go to hell if you like.

[chiburb]

11. Not saying a church/religion shouldn't...

Make up whatever rules they want. I AM saying that the government has no business legislating FOR the churches...

[YNGW]

19. But government has to answer to the people.

And a lot of the opposition is coming from voters who go to church. So, I don't see it as government legislating for the churches, but rather listening to the voters who just happen to hold religious beliefs regarding gay marriage and other moral issues.

According to the polls, 2/3rds of Americans are against gay marriage. There's a lot of talk on this site about people who force things down other peoples throats and how they don't like it. Currently, you'd be talking about 2/3rds of Americans feeling like Big Brother is forcing something they don't want down their throats. Are the politicians going to risk their seats against 2/3rds of the American people?

[Dhalgren]

34. It would be considered "forcing it down their throats" if

straits were being forced to marry gays - but that is not the case. Here, whats being "forced" on "2/3" of the population is freedom and liberty for everyone. My being free to marry the person of my choice in no way infringes on the rights or liberties of anyone else. Go try and force your religion on another group. I think the Taliban probably sees eye-to-eye with you on this - eh?

[YNGW]

44. Reply

>Go try and force your religion on another group. I think the Taliban probably sees eye-to-eye with you on this - eh?

First of all, I'm haven't stated a position, so there's no point in that.

The "forcing down the throats" would be those who hold religious beliefs having to support a country that allows something they view as being morally wrong. They feel the same way about the abortion issue. Just ask them.

I raise the question I raised in another post: How long will the American people (in this case, 2/3rds of the people) stand for being forced by the courts to accept something they do not approve? How far can they be pushed before they take matters into their own hands?

[chiburb]

45. You mean like the Supreme Court forcing W

down our throats?

[YNGW]

47. Reply

A 50/50 voter split is more managable that a 67/33 split.

My guess is if these things continue, especially if it's as lopsided as this issue is per the polls, then the people are going to storm the Bastille. What happens to those who are part of the 33%?

It's just a matter of time.

[kiahzero]

111. That's interesting

I raise the question I raised in another post: How long will the American people (in this case, 2/3rds of the people) stand for being forced by the courts to accept something they do not approve? How far can they be pushed before they take matters into their own hands?

Funny... I seem to recall conservatives making the same argument about desegregation... hmmm...

[Cannikin]

126. Thats always my response...

Imagine if the government had reacted this way because desegregation made people uncomfortable, or for religious reasons (whats the verse about not mixing tribes?)

[YNGW]

127. The argument goes either way.

It wasn't meant for any particular ideology.

One could just as easily ask how far can the American people be pushed about having their freedom stripped of them before they take matters into their own hands.

[Hippo_Tron]

133. LIKE THEY expect us to support a country or more specifically a government

Who...

1) Lies to us about the reasons for going to war.

2) Cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans and fucks over everybody else.

3) Screws over education with its bogus "No Child Left Behind" plan.

4) Allows corporate crooks to go un-prosecuted because they are big campaign contributors.

5) Drives up the deficits leaving future generations to pay off the debt.

6) Infringes on our Civil Liberties with the Patriot Act.

7) Supports the outsourcing of good American jobs to third world countries so they can pay the workers less.

The list goes on...

If I can't expect them to support a government that protects the rights of its citizens because they feel it's morally wrong then certainly they can't expect me to support a government who fucks over its citizens on almost a daily basis. Yet, when I don't support the government they call me an unpatriotic communist. I see some hypocrisy with this "supporting the government" argument.

[PVnRT]

64. Congress shall make no law

establishing a national religion.

This is a secular government - simply because a lot of people don't like something because of religious reasons doesn't mean that it has to become legislation.

I imagine that not many people were for desegregation in the 1950's. By your logic, that means it was OK.

[YNGW]

65. Reply

>"Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion.

Right. In other words, the government can't say that Luthernism is the national religion. It doesn't mean religious people can't vote people into office who will enact laws based upon their beliefs.

>By your logic, that means it was OK.

Incorrect. We're talking about what these people view as moral laws. To them, homosexuality is a sin, race is not.

[PVnRT]

78. They used religious language

to justify the repression of blacks in society, arguing that they were the children of Cain or some such garbage. So, yes, it is the same situation.

[YNGW]

88. Because this misused religious language then...

... doesn't mean they are now.

[Pithlet]

90. It doesn't matter.

Society enacts laws that benefit society. The way we have it set up, it isn't about whether or not the majority approves or disapproves of something. It is whether society derives any benefit from it. A majority of the time, laws are enacted because failure to do so would be detrimental to society. We disallow things like rape, murder, stealing etc. not because the majority of people are morally against them. It is because society could not function if we allowed those things.

There is no compelling reason to disallow marriage between two people of the same sex. It does nothing to harm our society, and only deprives people of rights that are allowed for everyone else. In fact, disallowing it actually harms society, because it marginalizes a group of people, and harms them. It is discrimination, and that is never in the best interest of society.

[daveskilt]

93. actually race was (and still is by some fundies) considered a sin

mark of the cursed, less worthy in a previous life or less worthy spirits sent to inferior bodies or children of Gods lesser wives - all these are taught in some churches even today. same nutters making the same arguements for different groups.

[Ediacara]

120. But just 100 years ago, it WAS a sin to be nice to and/or marry blacks

Most conservative churches have now come to the conclusion that they cannot interpret the Bible to condone racism and/or slavery.

In 100 years, it is probable that the same can be said about homosexuality. The scripture against homosexuality is part of Levatican Law, which also includes things like wearing clothes of two different materials. If people should not be put to death for wearing 50-50 cotton-poly, they should not be put to death for being gay.

Religions evolve, and so do peoples' attitudes.

[YNGW]

123. Reply

For those who are religious, something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now. Either it is a sin, or people misrepresented the truth and called it a sin when it never was a sin in the first place. To the religious, homosexuality is either a sin or it isn't, just like any other act is either a sin or it isn't. What man twists and turns to fit his own agenda in any given period in time doesn't change the truth regarding whether any particular act is or isn't a sin. Truth is constant.

[chiburb]

124. One day when I was a Catholic...

It was a sin to eat meat on Friday. The next Friday it was allowed.

[YNGW]

125. Exactly

See, it was either a sin, or it wasn't. Because the Catholic Church told you one way or the other never changed the truth. The truth was constant. The truth didn't change, the Catholic Church did.

[Ediacara]

128. It IS a sin to wear 50-50 cotton poly

People understand that THAT is a product of the time the Bible was written, just as they understand that passages praising slavery are a product of the time the Bible was written, just as they probably will understand that passages condemning homosexuality are also a product of the time that the Bible was written.

[Cannikin]

129. I beg to differ...Another King James can have it edited like last time.

"something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? Don't they stand before the LORD and make these vows? "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? Don't they stand before the LORD and make these vows? "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? Don't they stand before the LORD and make these vows? all of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist.

These religious folks pick and choose what they want and come up with rationalizations for the parts they don't want to follow.all of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist.

These religious folks pick and choose what they want and come up with rationalizations for the parts they don't want to follow. All of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist.

These religious folks pick and choose what they want and come up with rationalizations for the parts they don't want to follow. Don't 'traditional' couples stand before the LORD and make these vows? all of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist. They HIDE behind their religion, not embrace it.

[Hippo_Tron]

136. If 2/3rds of Americans wanted to ban freedom of religion...

And force everybody to practice the same religion, should the 1/3rd sit there and have it forced down their throats because 2/3rds of Americans want it?

[DavidMS]

22. "Marrage" should not be somthing for the state....

If a couple wants to get married, they should go to church. To have a relationship reconized by the state (tax, paternity, inheretance, etc), it should be done at the courthouse.

In Iran, young couples sign short term marrage contracts (2 weeks or so) to be permited to spend time togheater without risking an interupton by the morality police. Why not do the same for legaly reconized relationships, and offer a sunset clause?

Katha Pollitt puts it very well in her piece here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=pollitt

[truthspeaker]

24. Argh, no! I'm not letting churches take this over too

Churches did not invent marriage. It was a civil contract long before religion got involved.

I'm a heterosexual atheist, but I might want to get married one day. If I do, I'll go to the courthouse and get a marriage license.

[foreigncorrespondent]

30. Yes...

...they do have every right to feel they way they feel. But what don't have any right in doing is telling another how to live. Or pushing their beliefs onto a group of people who are not asking for it.

[YNGW]

38. You see...

...and they view it as gays pushing their lifestyle on the public. Thus the rub.

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. Well...

...I don't see queers out there telling them to "come joins us, be queer." But I most certainly do seem them telling us to conform to the way of religion.

[Pikku]

96. That's it, precisely

Gay people are asking for a right to be granted to them, which is already granted to others.

Anti-gay-marriage people are asking for a right to be denied, based on their personal, specific moral values.

I'm all for more rights, rather than less.

Isn't the US about more rights for everyone? Or are we suddenly in the moral judgement business? Is there suddenly a 'correct' moral position, enshrined in law?

Honestly, I don't see any legal, moral or social justification for opposing gay marriage.

"Legal" arguments are based on what already exists in law, and our own national history has demonstrated that what exists in law is not always what is just. We went against public opinion in Brown vs. Board of Education. How is that different from this?;

"Moral" arguments are person-specific. Simply arguing that the majority rules (and I'm not arguing that the majority of people oppose gay marriage) is to ignore the many legal and legislative efforts we as a country have made in the past to support the rights of the minority over the "tyranny of the majority." I am religious, but my religion does not in any way prohibit gay marriage. Should my lack of objection be worth less than someone else's vehement objection to the same issue? Even if I'm in the minority?;

"Social" arguments... does anyone have scientific evidence? Particularly, does anyone have evidence that a same-sex marriage is more objectionable than any of the complete spectrum of opposite-sex marriages? (By that I mean those that last 2 days, those that are abusive, those that are for financial reasons, those that marry 3-4-5-6-7 or more times, those that -insert your wacky reason here-).

I think it should be far more difficult to DENY rights than to grant them, in this country. Denial of rights (by that I mean denial of any service, procedure, status, etc. otherwise granted to a citizen) implies a status of legal "unworthiness." Please tell me that this country isn't in the "worthiness-judging" business.

[bowens43]

31. Of course it's their right

but civil rights cna not be voted away.

[YNGW]

41. Reply

And this is where we get into the part where citizens are obtaining laws through the courts rather than by the vote of the people. I don't know how much longer that will continue before people take matters into their own hands. How far can the people be pushed until they say enough is enough?

[David__77]

57. That is what the segregationists said.

Throughout the country's history there are aggrieved parties when progress takes place. In the south, we are still seeing the backlash to desegregation and the normalization of interracial relationships and so forth. The country will get over it.

[YNGW]

60. Not saying that.

But there will come a time when the people will say "enough is enough." And they won't be saying it with their vote, but with their guns.

[David__77]

68. They "said it with their guns" with desegregation too.

The Klan said it with racist terror. The anti-Semites said it with violence as well. Anti-gay bigots speak their frustration with guns and clubs and knives as well. But that doesn't mean that the solution is to back down--instead, the solution is to repress bigoted terrorism and educate the next generation in higher morality. We've done this with other issues and will do it on this as well.

If the bigots wish to turn to violence, they will only seal their doom ideologically, marginalizing themselves as beyond the pale. A spate of anti-gay violence in fact would alter this debate radically in favor of lesbian and gay people. Fred Phelps is doing a public service in exposing the real face of anti-gay bigotry.

[YNGW]

72. Maybe

But the Klan wasn't the majority. Neither were the anti-Semites. Well, I'll say this, when the anti-semites were in a position to be the majority, they got their way.

I've never thought of morality as being defined by current trends. There may be some who think that way, but I wouldn't say it would be many.

[Pithlet]

86. So,

You think people will storm the courthouses with their guns when gays are allowed to marry?

[jonnyblitz]

107. yes, many bigots have used"religious beliefs" to condone

their prejudices and it IS their right although it ceases to be a "personal thing" when their ignorance denies others like myself equal treatment.

[JuniorPlankton]

7. So true n/t

[daveskilt]

8. are there really DUers who oppose universal marriage?

really? and why the assumption that they are all hetero?

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. That is a vague term

I support full gay marriage rights. I do NOT support polygamy or the ability to marry close relatives. So, universal is a bad word choice.

[chiburb]

18. Muddle... that is the FIRST time I've ever seen

Us on the same side of an issue. Not the polygamy part, but the "full gay marriage rights".

Wow!

:-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Some issues

Generally, I only post when I feel like arguing instead of saying, "me too." But this is a HUGE civil rights issue just like what my people went through. Screw Jesse. He's wrong on this.

You support polygamy?

[chiburb]

21. "You support polygamy?"

Don't really care, one battle at a time...

[bowens43]

27. What's wrong with polygamy?

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. What's right with it?

[bowens43]

32. Answer my question please.

You're the one who opposes it. Why do you oppose it? Why shouldn't it be allowed? Why is it any of our business, or the states business, if consenting adults , in any number or combination, want to get married?

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. I oppose it

I think it is a family structure that does not fit with our culture and would be harmful to our society.

Marriage, as it exists right now, IS the business of the state and includes both rights and responsibilities. As such, since we are redefining what that means, we need to make it clear that polygamy and incest are NOT included.

[bowens43]

40. Many people believe that

interracial marriage 'does not fit with our culture and would be harmful to our society' , many people believe that gay marriage 'does not fit with our culture and would be harmful to our society'. Why should the state allow interracial marriage but not gay marriage or polygamy? Why can't we allow consenting adults to chose any life style they like as long as that lifestyle doesn't intude on the rights of others? Culture is malleable. It changes from day to day.We have no right to impose our morals on others.

How exactly would polygamy be harmful to our society ? How would it harm the family structure or our culture? Many societies throughout history have allowed and even encouraged polygamy. If you think that family structure is important then ANY marriage should be seen as a positive thing. Marriage creates family.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. We as a society choose what we wish

Interracial marriage opposition is gone.

Again, that is a union between TWO people, not three or 47. Consenting adults can choose their lifestyles. We are merely discussing how or how not to codify it. Americans have decided NOT to codify polygamy.

Actually, we have EVERY right to impose morals and do it all the time. Many of our laws are based in nothing more than morality. We make drug laws because of morality and then throw in health risk to make it sound good. We make incest laws because of morality. In some cultures, it might be moral to steal. Who knows.

Many societies throughout history have also had slavery and human sacrifice. How would THEY harm us?

Marriage between two people creates family. Marriage between dozens creates chaos.

[Hammie]

59. What society wants

is heterosexual marriage. Even in California, which is by no means conservative, marriage was codified into law by an ballot initiative, as being between a man and a woman. If you believe that society can decide what it wants marriage to mean, then it is a dead issue. Society has already decided. If, on the other hand, you want to believe that marriage is an innate human right that the govt. is bound to recognize in whatever form one choses to exercise it, then polygamy and incest are just as defensible as gay marriage.

Personally, I don't see the reason for gay marriage (at least as a govt. sanctioned institution) because I don't see what society gets out of it. Government sanctioned marriages have the ostensible goal of encouraging stable families for the raising of children. The fact that it doesn't work very well is another story. With todays divorce rate, govt enforced child support from unmarried fathers, and govt aid to children of single mothers, there is a better argument for abolishing all govt sanctioning of marriage than there is for extending it to gay couples. Government should not be in the business of providing for satisfaction in interpersonal relationships. Unless there is a valid social goal, we should just say no to government involvement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Not necessarily

Right now, the right is framing the issue. Give us time (and distance from issues like incest and polygamy) and the majority will favor gay rights.

No, polygamy and incest are not defensible. Societies always set some limits to injurious activity.

Gay marriages DO encourage stable families for the raising of children, btw.

[bowens43]

66. well

Again, that is a union between TWO people, not three or 47.

That hasn't always been the case, not even in this country.

Americans have decided NOT to codify polygamy.

Why should 'Americans' have to 'codify' what other consenting adults do or don't do, if their actions do not infringe on the rights of others?

We make drug laws because of morality

Drug laws, like all victimless crimes , should be done away with.


In some cultures, it might be moral to steal

Stealing harms someone. It violates their rights. A group of consenting adults getting married does not.

Many societies throughout history have also had slavery and human sacrifice. How would THEY harm us?

Slavery and human sacrifice harm those who are enslaved and those who are sacrificed. A group of consenting adults getting married harms no one.

Marriage between two people creates family. Marriage between dozens creates chaos.

This is your opinion (with no supporting facts). It is not everyones opinion. Polygamy has been practiced throughout history without bringing about chaos.

Your argument is no different then the homophobes 'it will destroy the institution of marriage' argument.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. What adults do impacts society and children as well

A stable marriage of two people (no matter the gender) is good for children and for society in general. The more folks you add to the mix, the more chaos you bring the potential for.

Yes, polygamy was practiced in Utah and they gave it up as a condition of statehood.

Polygamy is harmful to children and that, in the final analysis, is a good reason to say no to it.

No, polygamy would CHANGE the institution of marriage, but thankfully it won't be allowed.

[bowens43]

76. What about facts?

You keep saying that polygamy would be harmful to children and to families but you don't seem to have anything to back that up. Interracial marriage was at one time 'harmful to children' , gay marriage is considered by most to be 'harmful to children'. We know that interracial marriage is NOT harmful to children, we know that gay marriage is NOT harmful to children. I suspect that polygamy, when it existed, was not harmful for children. Do you have any evidence that it's harmful to children or is that just a feeling that you have?

How would polygamy 'CHANGE the institution of marriage'? Why would that be a bad thing? How would polygamy harm the children? Seems to me the bigger the family unit the better. The loss of a single member through death or divorce would have less of an impact if a larger support structure was in place.

I'm asking specifically how polygamy would harm traditional marriage, children or families. This same argument was used to oppose interracial marriage and is now being used to oppose gay marriage. Why would that argument be invalid for interracial marriage and gay marriage yet valid for polygamy?

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. Polygmany

Right now, polygmany is only practiced in a few spots in the U.S. and it is dones so illegally there. It is a predatory practice that enables older men to marry many young wives and collect numerous welfare payments from the state.

Lacking any other evidence than that IN THE U.S., how can you argue it is anything other than harmful?

I think it's obvious that polygamy would change marriage in a big way. Are our courts ready to handle custody suits involving three, five or 35 parents? I doubt it.

[chiburb]

84. Muddle: A little research and a link...

Snip:
But one social anthropologist (among many) who has given serious thought to the subject, David Murray, then research director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington, said that, in fact, many decent people do not abhor polygamy.

More than three-quarters of the cultures in the anthropological record, in fact, have allowed it.

"These are not generally otherwise immoral or licentious cultures," Murray told me, citing the 19th Century Mormons and the civilizations that appear in the wife-intensive Old Testament.

"They tend to be very regulated and have a high degree of what we would call family values. For instance, they're great for child care."

The historical taboos against polygamy in our culture are not so much sexual - -they predate our strong modern association between romance and marriage -- as they are social and economic, Murray and others said.

Polygamy has worked well in villages and small agricultural societies where the practice of a man taking multiple wives, by far the most usual form, provides secure upbringing for kids, key political alliances among numerous families and inclusion in family life for virtually all women, particularly when war depletes the supply of men.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-zornlog.story

(Scroll down)

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Many don't, Many more do

Most cultures used to practice slavery. They grew out of it. So what's your point?

The examples you give -- villages and small agricultural societies -- bear no relation to America in 2004.

[Pithlet]

89. That's the main reason why I'm against it.

I agree with everything you just said. I am for allowing any two people, same sex included, to marry. Allowing for same sex marriages does not change the fundamental structure of marriage in any way, and society really has no compelling reason, other than the opinion of some, usually religiously based, to disallow it. Polygamy, on the other hand, would create a whole new set of problems.

[daveskilt]

91. Having lived in Utah...

and seen the multiple wives of the polygamous families nearly every day.... I say seen because if i tried to talk to them they ran. If there was an equitable plural marriage I would have to think about that....but ALL of the ones I saw were an excuse for at best misogyny and control and at worst they were as close to slavery as you can get without actually being slavery. these wives with their trademark huge chins from all the inbreeding and homemade floral and denim dresses were easy to spot but none would so much as make eye contact with you. Polygamy has been illegal in the US since 1881 when the law was changed to stop mormons from voting. (incidently it was legal to shoot mormons on site in missouri until 1992!)

Yes it goes on in places like colorado city but it is almost universally a cultish controlling abusive practice.

[daveskilt]

92. you're right universal was a bad choice of words.

it could include marrying kids, or cats or trees. I just see this as such a basic human rights issue that i dont even like to differentiate and say hetromarriage gay marriage. just marriage. between any two consenting, nonrelated adults.

[cryofan]

9. I don't support it

we need kids in order to work and pay into Social Security. So in order to get these kids, we bribe parents by cutting them a deal on taxes. That costs us some money, but we cannot do without the kids.

So, how does it help us to cut non-reproductive pairings with a tax deal?

I do not see the motivation for me to support gay marriage. This has nothing to do with morals or anything like that. It is a wallet issue, a business transaction.

[ClintonTyree]

12. Adoption?

It happens, in some progressive states that is.

[shanti]

71. thank you

i was about to mention that...

[truthspeaker]

14. married people don't get a tax "deal"

Check out your return next time you file. Congress got rid of most of the marriage penalty but the standard deduction is still bigger for two single people than it is for two people married to each other. Gay couples who want to get married are actually volunteering to pay moretaxes than they do currently.

The tax breaks come when you have kids - and that's because raising kids is very, very expensive. It's not an incentive - it's a response to the demands of the people.

The government doesn't have to bribe people to reproduce. Most of us will do that of our own initiative.

[Hammie]

70. Amen

Since both parents generally have to work to make ends meet, you actually pay a higher tax rate than if you were single making the same amount of money. Part of the Bush tax cut was supposed to eliminate this "penalty" but I don't know if it really did.

[chiburb]

15. Who said same-sex marriages don't/won't produce children?

Assuming you're right that children are produced to achieve a tax break (LOL), why wouldn't 2 men or 2 women want the same break? They could get it through adoption or AI...

[daveskilt]

94. or cloning...

[veganwitch]

25. marriage as a wallet issue

first of, the marriage industry is a huge money maker. the catering, the flowers, the dresses, the bands, the photography. thats all lots and lots of money. why cut that off to any segment of the population.

im sure you could get a caterer to do a marriage to a man and a goat (lets go down this freeper path), he gets paid nonetheless.

and gay men (lets be totally sarcastically stereotypical) are big fucking spenders. they are going to want the best dj, top bar liquors, the best most extravegant food. their wedding will probably cost more than your average het wedding.


and about children. are we going to start checking het couples for fertility along with syphilis when getting a marriage licsense? are couples going to have to guarantee (by penalty of a fine, cause if they aint going to create money producing offspring, they might as well choke up money now) they they will have 1.5 children?

your argument is assinine. just look at the number of pictures from the SF weddings where gay couples had their children in tow.

[bowens43]

28. You see marriage as a business deal?

I do not see the motivation for me to support gay marriage.

How about equality? No reason to support that? By your logic, since slavery made good economic sense, it should be reinstated. A wallet issue, a business transaction.

[cryofan]

49. it's a business transaction!

And what the hell immoral about making a deal with some citizens in order to pay the bills for the future?

Are you REALLY saying that you are objective here? Puh-leeze!

[veganwitch]

52. but why assume that...

het couples will always have children and same sex couples wont?

i think enought people in the thread have mentioned adoption and other forms of child procurment that having the ability to "make your own" doesnt cut it for a reason to allow some folk to get married and not others.

[cryofan]

56. why assume a released apple falls down instead of up? Clue: statistics!

It is a statistical play.....

[veganwitch]

58. what are the statistics for gay couples adopting or having children

right now you seem to say that only hetrosexual couples have children and that has shown to be false.

answering my own question:

http://www.lmfct.org/news_notjustfamily.htm

"In Connecticut and the rest of the nation, about one in three lesbian couples and roughly one in five gay male couples were raising children in 2000, the census report found. About 39 percent of opposite-sex unmarried partners have children."

lets looke just at this. 20% gay male couples have children 33% of lesbian couples have children. together that over 50% of committed same-sex couples have children and no right to marry and all the legal and financial protections those provided. yet those 39% of unmarried het couples could get hitched just like that. 53%. 39% statistically the non-married same-sex couples are winning.

[M155Y_A1CH]

33. Look at it this way

I don't see it as a tax issue at all. It seems to me, all the big tax incentives are for child dependants.

Most couples, gay and hetero, both work outside the home. These people are intitled to their deductions whether filing jointly or seperately.

The issue is that of the ability to form partnerships with protections. The right to visit your loved one in the hospital. The family of your spouse could bar you out of the room as a non-relative.

Survivorship issues are a problem.
Your Will may be contested because you left money or your part of the house to your partner (who helped buy the house), instead of a "family" member.

Insurance companies give steep discounts to one partnership and none to another, the difference being the sex of the insured.

It's not about taxes it's about fairness.

[foreigncorrespondent]

36. Ok then...

...so what about the heterosexual couples that get married, who CAN'T have kids, or the couples who CHOOSE not to have kids?

[veganwitch]

53. shhh!!!

dont try talking sense, it confuses things!

[foreigncorrespondent]

55. LOL (n/t)

[mondo joe]

74. Your're mistaken in these ways:

1. Gays DO have kids - there's a "gayby boom" going on. In fact every gay person I know right now has at least 1 kid and some have more.

2. Infertile heteros are able to marry - what's more, those who have no intention to reproduce are able to marry. Reproduction is not and never has been a requirement for a marriage license.

3. Homosexuals pay into their own social security but their spouses are denied survivor benefits - are you willing to swindle a minority out of their contribution to fatten up yours?

[skippysmom]

81. Do you really think

we need to bribe people to have kids? Do you think people actually say, "well, I'm not sure if I really want kids...but that $1000 tax credit is so attractive?" Never mind that raising a kid costs far more than these tax credits provide.

[ulysses]

83. so, a question - should infertile hetero couples not marry?

[Rockholm]

103. Please read this then....

Here in Massachusetts the other day, there was a anti-gay protester with the sign "Adam+Eve=6 billion people...Adam+Steve=0 People" While that is true, please know not only is the earth overpopulated, we gay and straight folks have been adopting your unwanted children. Great, so Adam and Eve can produce a child. In or out of wedlock. One needs not a ring to make a baby. When that baby is not perfect or just unwanted, adoption (remember, most anti-gay folks are also anti-choice) it could go into foster care. State care. We then adopt and it becomes private care. If you anti-gay marriage folks REALLY thought this was "about the children" then you would want us to get married and form legally committed relationships with ALL of the tax (yes business) benefits that marriage enjoys. It then protects the children.
It really steams me when an married immigrant couple from another country moves here and INSTANTLY they have more rights and benefits as married than I do. And my ancestors have been here since the Mayflower and have fought in EVERY war to defend this country (this latest war doesn't count in that total). Nothing against those who move to this country for a better life, just an inequality that I see.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

122. I pity those children

who were only conceived for the tax credit the government gives them, not because their parents wanted or loved them. Hopefully, at some early stage it ceases to be a business transaction and turns into a loving family.

[Brewman_Jax]

13. Civil rights for all diminishes none

n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I fully support gay marriage

I have no problems with it, and I fully believe it is a constitutional right.

I do, however, have reservations about gay couples adopting children, which is why, when given a choice, I would prefer civil unions over marriage. Since children are an unconsenting party, I don't feel it right to risk the proper development of the child and I feel the rights of the child take priority in the matter. Of course, I still feel the child is better off with gay parents than in a foster home, but I strongly feel priority should be given to straight parents. I sincerely apologize if this offends any of my DU brethren, and I in no way imply gay couples make bad parents. I think the scenario just creates a lot of hard problems that no one really has a good answer for.

[truthspeaker]

23. do you have any evidence that having gay parents affects development?

I haven't heard of any. I'm not flaming you, but I'm wondering how you arrived at your position.

[veganwitch]

26. how would a civil union over marriage change parenting?

[LoverOfLiberty]

35. Adoption

Maybe what you mean to say is that you would not want to be adopted by a gay person. There has been absolutely no evidence that children raised in gay households "risk proper develpment", so the rest of your opinion is just that, opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. It is opinion

And no, it's not based on scientific evidence, though I haven't found compelling evidence to the contrary either. What I do know, however, is that based on my own life experiences, I can easily see how hard it would be for a child to have gay parents. For one, it injects the sex discussion far too early in the development of a child. I don't think it's possible for a child not to realize there's something drastically different once they start playing with other kids. I don't feel that children should be thinking about sexuality at an age like 4 or 5. And speaking of other kids, I can say with a relatively high amount of certainty that, like it or not, a kid with gay parents is going to be harassed at school. That's definitely not fair, but that's a reality, and forcing a child to go through that unnecessarily is even less fair. Then we get to puberty... as if that's not a confusing enough time for EVERYONE as it is.

I don't think I need a lot of scientific evidence there... those are just some simple leaps of the imagination as to how difficult it would be for a child. And really, that's just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of those things might not be fair, but unfortunately, that's the world we live in. Unless there is no other way, meaning, no other potential parents for the child, I don't see the good in putting a child unnecessarily into harm's way. Again, none of this has to do with the gay parents themselves. I'm sure there are just as many good gay parents as there are straight ones. But these are circumstances well outside the control of just about anyone, and unless there's a true revolution as to our attitudes towards homosexuality in this country, I don't like the idea of taking that risk unnecessarily.

[chiburb]

50. Everything you said above...

Could apply to the offspring of an interracial couple. I heard those EXACT arguments in the '60s.

[kiahzero]

113. There have been studies done

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare5.htm

The main concern is other people making fun of the children... that's like saying, "Well, non-Christians shouldn't have children, because they'll be made fun of at Christmas time!"

In other words... it's silly.

Another example: I go to protest Bush. Freeps come and start a riot. I, therefore, should not be allowed to protest Bush. That's essentially your arguement.

I think you're sincere, but check out the link I sent (and others on that site, for that matter).

[kayell]

62. Oh, please

This is the same arguement that used to be used against interracial marriage (or at least "miscegenation"). That the poor little children would suffer, would be ostracized. Well you know what - this is STILL a crappy arguement.

You "in no way imply gay couples make bad parents." Yet you think they shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

As the lesbian parent of a wonderful daughter, and the grandparent of a happy healthy and also wonderful biracial child, I find your attitude ignorant and insulting. What matters in a childs life is the love and care that they are given. If you are worried about societies negative influence on that childs life, you should ask yourself if you are part of the problem.

[chiburb]

63. That's what I said in post #50...

Just not as eloquently or "experientially"...
Thanks!

:-)

[kayell]

69. Sorry, I saw your post right after I blew up

Yes, I agree that the attitude is virtually identical. I absolutely disagree with the people who think there is no connection to the struggle for black civil rights. There may not be the exact same situations, be there are substantial similarities, and we are often fighting the exact same enemy. Predictably, they often use the same stupid language and reasoning.

[veganwitch]

best. avatar. ever.

i just wanted to add that.

[kayell]

80. Thank you, I'm SO happy for them

For anyone who doesn't recognize the rather blurry couple - Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, together since Valentines Day 1953, married in SF on February 12, 2004.

[daveskilt]

95. dont they just look subversive and wicked

and now that they are married they will creep into your childrens rooms and gayize america...mwuhahaha.

basically this isnt about anything but homophobia. more basic. it is about fear of the other...same as racism...everyone has some measure of fear of those that are other from them. recognizing that, accepting it and realizing that it is irrational is how we become a civilized people. Seems the west has a long way to go to civilization.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. Ignorance is

Not reading the post in its entirety. I don't seem to remember typing that gay people should be banned from adopting altogether. What I did type was that I feel other options should take priority (aka, giving straight couple preference.) Further, I also said that I was sure there were just as many gay good gay parents out there as there are straight ones. Perhaps if you didn't pick and choose what you wanted to hear, you'd have seen that.

Further, if you're trying to compare this in any way to the struggle minorities had in this country, you need to get off your high horse. There is no way measurable that gay people have it even 1/10th as bad as blacks ever did. That's not to say any sort of hardship is acceptable, but your comparison crosses the line of decency.

This is even ignoring the apples-and-oranges comparison you make. Interracial marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children questioning sexuality prematurely, which is by far the bigger argument I pose.

But instead of calling me ignorant and making me completely tune out anything positive you have to say, why don't you take the opportunity to CONVINCE someone, who is very clearly not being closed minded and trying to be as polite as possible, that your point of view is the correct one? Perhaps you could've changed my mind about the whole thing instead of just tearing into me.

[kayell]

79. Quite frankly, I feel no more need to try to educate or convince you

than I feel to try to educate or convince charmingly anyone else about bigotry. The idea that bigotry must be of the EXACT same level and degree that another group has experienced IS just plain IGNORANT. (yep, I said it again) So my struggle is not as bad as your struggle, is not as bad as the Jewish struggle, is not as bad as women's struggle, is not as bad as ....

I read your entire post and I got madder the farther I read. You managed to spout a nice selection of homophobic garbage all under the guise of "I'm only thinking of the children", and then follow it up in this post with:

"Interracial marriage has absolutely nothing to do with children questioning sexuality prematurely, which is by far the bigger argument I pose. " Which seems improbably to imply that merely being raised in a household where the parents are gay rather than heterosexual will make kid's think about sex far sooner than they would have after being raised in a "normal" heterosexual household listening to mom and dad through the walls, watching any tv channel you want to name, simply being alive in our world.

I'm not in the business of educating you, (I'm far too tired and pissed from MY struggle) but you seriously need to examine what you are really saying and believing. You seem to think that making little cutesy disclaimers can let you off the hook for bigotry. Sorry, It doesn't work that way.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

82. If that's how you want to be

So be it.

I'm not going to make any apologies simply because I don't 100% fully take your point of view. Fortunately, my opinions don't require you to agree. I'm also not sure how you can call someone that actually supports your cause a bigot. I do believe in at least civil unions, and if push came to shove, I'd support full gay marriage (and yes, even full gay adoption). I had stated that above. I'd just prefer to make it so straight couples have the preference. If I'm an evil bigot for that belief, I'm okay with that. I'm secure enough in knowing who and what I am to not to get into a pissing contest with you. Right now, I don't think very pleasant things about you either, but I'm sure you disagree with that too and it's really pointless to express them.

Either way, I'll still support your cause because I believe it's the right thing to do. You apparently thinking name-calling is the best way to get your point across - which is fine. However, I wouldn't expect to draw in many other supporters with that method.

Best of luck!

[mondo joe]

75. Every Major Study Shows Kids of Gay Parents Fare as Well

Every major study shows kids of gay parents fare as well as their counterparts raised by hetero parents.

This was, in fact, a major point in the Hawaii same sex marriage case - the opposition said it would be bad for gays to raise kids. But every study introduced into the case asid the opposite - these kids fare as well as others.

And if you look at the Florida gay adoption case you'll see an impresive list of major child health and welfare organizations king for gays to be ABLE to adopt because they do a good job.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

115. Define "major"

Because there doesn't appear to be one. I just went through the case brief put out by lethimstay.com. None of these studies are conclusive because the vast majority of them have the same major problem - the sample taken. With the exception of one, all of the studies were small samples. A majority of the studies were non-random samples, and a few were even self-selected samples. The one that didn't contain a small sample was a self-selected survey, which is no better than an internet poll. One of the first things you learn in any kind of social research is that a small sample will not produce reliable results. Even worse, one of the "studies" cited did not even do any first hand research - it merely analyzed previously existing materials. That's not any better than writing a paper for school!

The opposition's case wasn't any better, I might add. As far as I can tell, no definitive study has proven anything one way or another (and I can be reasonably sure that if such a study existed, it certainly would've been used.)

Not that this matters at all, because it should clearly be a case by case situation and a full ban is wrong. In my opinion, however, it should be a determining factor.

[rbnyc]

85. All children are unconsenting.

Children of straight parents are also unconsenting. Many of these parents are abusive, drug addicted, fundy wackos, and various other kinds of ill-suited jerks. Do you really believe that a child is less likely to have a good life just because their parents are gay?

I wasn't going to make this announcement until next week, but I'm pregnant, and I'm bisexual. Should I not be allowed to keep my baby? Or is it okay for me to keep my baby because I'm maried to a man? Should I keep my orientation a secret from my child? If something should happen to my husband should I not allow myself to be in a loving relationship with a woman because I have a child? Can you answer all of these questions just on the basis of my sexuality without knowing anything else about me?

Seriously, I think you should think a little harder about your position.

EDIT: From reading your other replies and first post more closely I see your main concern is the way my child might be treated by others who have a problem with my being bi? My child might be picked on for having a liberal mother too? Or an artist for a mom? Or maybe I'm too fat?

We can't make imporatnt decisions based on fear, especially based on fear of people who are wrong. We validate their hatred and prejudice when we do so.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

100. Unreal...

It seems like people leave out the part where I'm only really arguing for straight parents to be given preference over gay parents because it doesn't conveniently fit into their "you are a hateful person" argument. If you don't want to read my whole post, don't comment. Re-read it, then please edit your comments. I could go through your post point by point and tell you exactly where I've addressed exactly what you said already, but it's pointless because it doesn't seem you'll read that either.

And no, I don't want to take your child away from you. Congratulations!

But to address your last point. Some important decisions do need to be based on fear. It's one thing choosing for yourself to be a martyr. It's another to thrust someone else into that role unless you're absolutely, 100% sure it's the only way to go. Sounds kinda like an anti-Iraq war argument, no?

[daveskilt]

101. im willing to say I dont know

I dont know what would be best. But I still dont really get the what the arguement is to limit adoption on the basis of sexuality of the parents. maybe it could be harder for the kids? But then that is a bit too close to the arguement that hurt some friends of mine. They adopted a wee boy and after 3 years the kids crackhead father shows up, says he is clean (for 2 months) and demands his kid. The Georgia courts tore this little guy away from the only parents he had ever known to put him with a felon - because they thought it would be better and less difficult for the kid to live with parents of his same race. Now maybe that is true in a more racist than average place like here - but it is low on my list for what is best for the kid. maybe all other things being equal the hetero couple should get preference - it may be easier for the kid - but it still isnt fair and it still isnt right. You were brave to bring this up here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

112. There is no good rule of thumb here.

It's a good point you make about horrible straight parents (one I've already noted for those who continue to call me a bigot).

No, there's not a rule of thumb as to who's going to be a good parent - gay or straight, anyone can be great or anyone can completely suck. And I don't think being straight should be the sole basis of approving or denying adoption... but I do think it should be a factor. It isn't fair and it isn't right, but adoption is about the child - not about the parent. Adoption is about finding the best home possible for the child, not about the best interests of someone who wishes to be a parent. Period. And all things being comparable, I, in my own humble opinion, don't feel it's worth risking the development of the child. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I certainly don't have all the answers. That's just how I feel.

[kayell]

102. "I'm only really arguing for straight parents to be given preference over

gay parents."

See, the problem is that many of us are reading the whole post, we understand exactly what you are saying, and we believe that what you are saying is homophobic.

You seem to believe that you can make biased statements like this and then get out of them by saying, but, gee, I really do support you all, even as all that you say indicates that you see gay couples as second class citizens.

[rbnyc]

106. Thank You.

That's exactly where I'm coming from.

Funny how the poster said I should re-read the post and edit my comments, when I have an edit that stated that I re-read the post, understood the concern, was still angry and thought it was still a fucked up attitude.

Anyway, thanks for understanding where I'm coming from.

[kayell]

108. Yep, had the same problem myself a few posts up thread

It is very, very frustrating to hear homophobic slogans from someone who then claims "but I'm really one of your best supporters". Uh, thanks, but no thanks.

On a completely different note - CONGRATULATIONS on your wonderful news! :bounce:

[rbnyc]

109. Thanks.

I wasn't going to say anything til I reach 3 months, which will be next Wednesday. I wonder how many people will find out in this thread.

:)

[Pithlet]

119. Oh

Congratulations! I'm so happy for you.

Edited the subject in case you wanted it a little more low key.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

110. Just because I don't agree with you entirely

That doesn't make me homophobic. It's funny, this is the EXACT SAME TACTIC that everyone here criticized Bush for using. Anyone who disagreed with him was unpatriotic or supporting terrorism. Just because I don't agree with you completely and totally does not mean I hate gay people! That's completely unacceptable and that's why I asked you edit your post!

[rbnyc]

116. I bet some of your best friends are gay.

So, you don't hate gay people. You just want to abridge their family rights because kids are better off in straight households, and not because you think gays are bad, but because other people think gays are bad.

You're still using sexual orientation to indicate what rights a person should have and where children are better off, and that attitude is going to get you exactly what it got you. No need to edit further.

No matter how many times you say you have nothing against gays, to think that straights should get preferential treatment in adoption is a homophobic attitude.

You can compare me to George Bush all day and night, which is pretty laughable. It's not going to make your attitude less wrong. Sorry.

[chiburb]

117. Rbnyc...

Are you sure you aren't Iverglas posting as rbnyc? You're WAY too logical not to be...

:-)

[rbnyc]

118. Actually...

...I thought I was being my usual emotional self. I do admit to being an emotional thinker.

;-)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. Last post.

I'm not going to respond because this is going nowhere. You obviously think everyone who doesn't completely and totally agree with you is a bigot, so things like reason and logic aren't really getting through here. I've given you the opportunity, several times, to civilly discuss the matter and perhaps to enlighten me, and you've declined in favor of grade school name calling.

Good luck to you in the future. :toast:

[Hippo_Tron]

135. Doesn't single parents raising children do the same thing?

Children sure as hell don't have a say in whether their father to be is going to abandon their mother when she gets pregnant.

[TNOE]

39. Found This Extremely Interesting:

From an e-mail I receive from the Conversations With God author Neale Walsh.

CwG Weekly Bulletin #81: Going Home

My Dear Friends,

Someone sent me an email this week saying that the "Presidential Prayer Team" is currently urging people to..."Pray for the president as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

I do not know what the "Presidential Prayer Team" is, or if there even is one, much less whether, if it exists, it actually issued the above plea. I have learned to take with a grain of salt anything I see or read on the Internet. Nevertheless, having said that, we are certainly all aware that President Bush has said he would like to find a way to "codify" marriage between a man and a woman as the only marriage to be legally recognized in this country.

A group calling itself Protestants for the Common Good has just released a fascinating document that indicates what the "Biblical Principles" of marriage are, based on a reading of the Holy Bible. This group says that a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles would say the following:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female.* (Gen 19:31-36)

The latest CwG dialogue book, Tomorrow’s God, to be released March 2, talks specifically about the problem of creating civil laws based on scriptural texts. It is an extraordinary book containing an astonishing prediction: that humanity will create a "new God" for itself within the next 30 years---and describing in detail what that God will be like, and how our daily lives will be affected by this extraordinary theological development in all areas of our collective reality, including politics, economics and business, even education.

I hope that you will pass the word along about this insightful new CwG book. I also earnestly hope that the above commentary about the president's wish to codify marriage stimulates you to explore this important issue of the intersection of religion and politics, one of many that are examined up close in Tomorrow’s God.

Tomorrow’s God may be ordered right now (see below) from us or at Amazon.com. It will be sent to you immediately upon release the first days of March.

Many blessings,

Neale

*Editor’s Note: We thought this was a joke and we researched it and found that although this quote has been very loosely paraphrased, it refers to a story about Lot and his daughters which is indeed contained in those lines. We also found that Protestants for the Common Good does indeed exist in Chicago with a staff, a board of directors and a mission statement.


To Order Book: http://www.cwg.org/tomorrowsgod/tomorrowsgod.html

[opihimoimoi]

46. Whoa, thought this was the Land of the FREE

Guess not.

We can only Pray for Sanity and Reason to return to our Nation.

The rules of marriage should be open unless injurious to the general health of the Nation. This leaves out incest and marrying children, including our own. But Gay marriages do not imperial our Nation. In a way they help lower our birth rate which is good considering our Human population is under duress from lack of space.food.

Poor US, we are so confused, we Humans follow LOLOs we think are well meaning but too many are evil, pretending to be good presidents.

[av8rdave]

51. The entire topic illustrates the hypocrisy of the right...

"We want the government OUT of our lives. The federal government has too much power! It's not the government's business to tell you how to live your life!"

as long as you don't have an abortion, and as long as you don't try to marry someone of the same sex. Sheesh!

av8rdave

[truthspeaker]

54. I like to put it this way:

Republicans think the government has no business whatsoever inquiring about the contents of your gun safe, but has every right to regulate what goes on in your bedroom.

[Suspicious]

97. I fully support same-sex marriage -

and like the author of the article, the fierce opposition to it leaves me extremely perplexed. It's one of those things that just seems like a no-brainer to me. If two people, no matter their gender, love and care for eachother, why in the world would anyone take issue with these two people vowing to commit the rest of their lives to loving and caring for one another? :shrug:

So then, being the naturally inquisitive person I am, I started questioning my seemingly instant aversion to the word "polygamy" (since it seems to be one of the issues raised every time you have a heated discussion with someone on the opposite side of the same-sex marriage issue), and I found that the only rational problem I had with the idea of polygamy, in my own mind, was the fact that it conjurs up images of oppressed and downtrodden women, with one man ruling over them. Actually, I don't know how rational that is, but I'm going to give it some more thought. It might just be the roaring feminist in me.

I do wonder, though, if polygamy was legal - what would become of employer-provided health insurance for families (not that it isn't already on the endangered benefits list)?

Regardless, The Plaid Adder has written another excellent essay, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

[chiburb]

98. Thank you...

For a thoughtful, intelligent post. And especially for having read the artcle, which was the original point of the thread.

Good night.

(edited for syntax)

[kayell]

104. Re: Polygamy

I've had the same reaction you have, with the image of forced teenage weddings and virtually imprisoned women. But thinking about it rationally, polygamy, or polyamourous relationships no more need lead to abuse than the average single heterosexual marriage does. While there are certainly plenty of examples of abuse in both, does that mean that we should outlaw marriage as an institution, or work on prosecuting abusers?

Someone here recently suggested that the legal solution to insurance, Social Security benefits etc. would be to treat spouses whether 1 or 5 as a single "marital unit". Similar methods could be used for dealing with offspring benefits - a set amount per family? I have to admit that I haven't followed this idea too far, since it isn't of great interest to me (in fact, personally a turn-off), but I'm sure that the legal and practical quandries could be worked out.

[Suspicious]

132. Great points.

I lost track of this thread, and I just found your response.

You have made some very valid points, and I appreciate the perspective. (Any issue I find myself having an instant reaction to, such as polygamy, usually causes me to go into several days of introspection, until I feel satisfied that I have pondered the idea thoroughly enough to reach a legitimate conclusion - I'm weird, that way...) I had not even considered the abusive heterosexual marriage statistics angle, and it's an obvious one. Like you, polygamy does not appeal to me at all on a personal level, but it's an interesting topic - my mind has been expanded!

The "marital unit" and set amount per family benefits solution is very logical, as well.

Thanks for your input!

[Plaid Adder]

99. Wow, this is some thread.

Thanks, chiburb!

So far the most hopeful thing I've seen in the forums all day is a thread started by someone else saying that seeing pictures of the couples who got married in SF and the joy on their faces had changed his opinion on the issue. I feel like this is something a lot of straight people have a hard time understanding--how much it means to us to have the legal recognition.

My partner is a lawyer, and I guess because of her relationship to the law, it really, really matters to her to be legally validated that way. She carries around a pocket copy of the Constitution, so we can always refer to it in case of need. She has a special section of her backpack we refer to as the "Constitutional pocket." (There is also a "statutory pocket" and a "common law pocket.") This is one of the little things I love about her.

If they put that fucking amendment through, we're not gonna want to have the Constitution in the house at all. For my partner it will be like losing a friend. And that will make her very sad, and that will make me very, very angry.

So you know what, this time it's personal. We fight the FMA on the hills, on the streets, in the beaches, and so on and so forth. The Constitution is not a toy, nor is it the plaything of a small group of vocal and influential bigots.

:argh:

The Plaid Adder

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[kayell]

105. That is one of the best things that Mayor Newsome has done

get the images of all the happy couples out in front of the entire US. People are seeing pictures of couples that look like their neighbors, their relatives, their grandmothers. Who can look at the picture of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon embracing, married after 51 years together, and think that is a bad thing?

[chiburb]

114. Hey Plaidder! Wanna feel some encouragement?

Mayor Daley said Wednesday he would have "no problem" with County Clerk David Orr issuing marriage licenses to gay couples -- and Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built.

"They're your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists, your politicians," the mayor said. "They're someone's son or daughter. They're someone's mother or father. . . . I've seen people of the same sex adopt children, have families. great parents.

"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else.''

"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," he said.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gay19.html

[Cannikin]

130. "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

I dont agree....

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? Don't they stand before the LORD and make these vows? "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? Don't they stand before the LORD and make these vows? "something can't be a sin 100 years ago and not be a sin now"

You know, King James and his group cut out the parts that even THEY thought were utterly ridiculous, like angels breeding with man to create giants ,and such...So why cant we just cut out Leviticus and Paul as apocrypha also?

The same books of the bible that condemn gays, also promote selling your daughter into marriage or slavery, among other bizarre things.

They seemed to have stopped considering pre-marital sex a sin....Contraception...Oh, and what about divorce? Don't they stand before the LORD and make these vows? all of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist.

These religious folks pick and choose what they want and come up with rationalizations for the parts they don't want to follow.all of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist.

These religious folks pick and choose what they want and come up with rationalizations for the parts they don't want to follow. All of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist.

These religious folks pick and choose what they want and come up with rationalizations for the parts they don't want to follow. Don't 'traditional' couples stand before the LORD and make these vows? all of these and more have been pushed to the wayside. To say a sin is a sin is simply not true.

These religious fundies are the biggest bunch of ignorant, fearful hypocrites ever to exist. They HIDE behind their religion, not embrace it.

[chiburb]

131. OT...

In your sig line: should it read "known" as Washington? Or am I just not getting it?

[Politicub]

134. Heteros need to think of thier own children

You parents out there, would you honestly want a closeted gay man to marry your daughter?

Many of the people on the right make the argument that gay people already have the same marriage rights as everyone else -- that is, they may marry someone of the opposite sex.

This is true, but who would want thier son or daughter to marry someone who is in the closet? Sounds like a disaster that is waiting to happen (indeed, two of my very good male friends were at one time married to women. They came out and a divorce soon followed.)

I just can't see how allowing two people who love each other, who aren't related and who are of the age of majority, to get married to one another will harm anyone else's marriage.