Wow, I get wrapped up in my own personal world for a coupla days, and find out I almost missed this: the Iowa Supreme Court said that banning gay people from getting married is unconstitutional.
Iowa?
Awesome.
And perfectly correct. I’d add "of course", but some folks don’t get it. But it really is simple. We have two choices, legally: allow any consenting adults to be legally married, or allow none. This is because there’s a difference between being married legally — in the eyes of the law — and being married religiously. If your established religion hates teh ghey, then (besides that being your loss) don’t allow them to marry within that religion. But the State has no legal right to tell people to be married or not. So if it allows consenting oppositely-polarized heterosexual couples to be married and exact benefits from it, then they cannot consistently bar any two consenting adults, heterosexual or otherwise.
When we make laws barring one kind of marriage or another, we’re pussyfooting around the actual problem: some people are ooked out by gays. If that’s you, well, then, that’s you. You are what you are (though you can also strive to be more). But just because you’re personally uncomfortable with it, doesn’t mean a) it’s wrong, and/or b) it should be illegal. I think "reality shows" are an abomination upon our society, but I don’t think they should be illegal, and I’ll pit my abhorrence for them against anyone else’s homophobia any day. At least mine is based on critical thinking.
Of course, not everyone sees it this way. My irony gland nearly detonated upon reading this:
“It’s, quite frankly, a disaster,” said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a nonprofit research and educational organization committed to strengthening the family.
It’s ironic, you see, because he’s not really committed to strengthening the family. He’s committed to weakening other families (and you can see this for yourself by going to their website). And we know those gay couples really are families. Here’s why:
Dawn BarbouRoske told the group, “We’re proud that our kids will be able to grow up knowing their family is respected.”
Her daughter added: “Hi, I’m McKinley, and I’m really, really happy. I feel that my family has always had this right, and today it is true. No longer shall we be just people who aren’t allowed to be married. We are able to get married.”
She has a daughter? Hey, so do I! And I know I have a family, so hers sounds like a family to me, too.
I can’t believe I have to point stuff out like this sometimes, but the very existence of that "Family Policy" group shows that it needs to be pointed out.
I congratulate the canny and wise decision of the Iowa court, and tell the folks who live in the Hawkeye state to in fact keep their eyes open: there is already talk of trying to push through an amendment to make gay marriage illegal, since that’s voted upon by the people. So Iowans, perhaps the choice will be up to you. Will you think critically and do the right thing, or will you let your hearts and minds be closed on this issue?
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Well they went with “Iowa Family Policy Center” because it sounds better then ‘Iowa Center for the Oppression of Gays and Other things we don’t like’.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
While I completely agree that gay people should have every right to get married, grow apart and eventually get divorced like everyone else, I just don’t like the government stepping in. Somehow, somewhere, the government will screw it up just like it tends to screw up just about everything else.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Unfortunately, marriage legislation requires government intervention. Leaving it up to the churches is a real recipe for disaster.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Turns out Iowa is generally pretty progressive on civil rights issues. Who knew? Not me, and I’ve lived here for years.
http://www.oneiowa.org/courts_history.html
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Great post. I read that there is no way this could possibly be reversed until 2012 according to Iowa law. This means that people will get used to the idea and that a ballot measure could have a very hard time. There really are no rational arguments to be made in opposing total equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens. All bigotry is irrational.
In a free society if you oppose gay marriage your only choice is to not marry a gay person.
Frankly another reason I celebrate this decision is that it is another sign that religion is losing it’s influnce in the U.S. Religious people can no longer set the agenda and call the shots for the rest of us.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Ah, a sunbeam of reason from Iowa. Good on you folks! Now if these groups like the ‘Iowa Center for the Oppression of Gays and Other things we don’t like’ (sorry that was just so spot on I had to steal it TheGeek) would stop trying to BE the legislators for a while, we may actually move on to a modern society!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I think making any admenments based on discrimination to any constitution should be deemed unconstitutional. Because you know, it’s a slippery slope if they’re allowed. That is, they could ammend a constitution to force blacks to sit in the back of a bus or make it so Republicans can’t vote. A constitution should be for all peoples not just a few…or excluding a few the rest doesn’t like; making where some are more equal than others. You know…like what California’s Proposition 8 did.
Great write up about this though.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The reason the gov’t has to be involved in this is because there are all sorts of laws that are dependent on a definition of family (i.e. inheritenance laws, tax laws, etc….) The ruling says that gov’t can’t define the family in those laws to exclude gay families. The ruling isn’t telling churches what they have to accept as a family, simply what the gov’t itself must accept as a family.
The only way to eliminate the need for gov’t here is to eliminate all the laws that provide families some sort of right or benefit.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I went to college in Iowa and remember some good old pride marches and protests there…happy day indeed!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
@ Ray:
“While I completely agree that gay people should have every right to get married, grow apart and eventually get divorced like everyone else, I just don’t like the government stepping in.”
Dude, they already *do* step in. Why do you think homosexual couples couldn’t get married before? All this does is get the government *out* of the way (much like laws banning, say, sex toys got government out of people’s bedrooms).
Of course, some might argue that there should be absolutely *no* government recognition of marriage by the state. If that’s the case, great. Just remember, that means removing tax benefits, health benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritence rights, etc, from hetero- as well as homosexual couples. I don’t think most people would support something like that.
As an aside, the most baffling comment I came across was one in this article:
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_iowa_gay_marriage.html
“The Polk County attorney’s office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson’s ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.”
Apparently *someone* doesn’t understand how separation of powers works. One of the *primary roles* of the judicial system is to act as a check on the actions of the legislative branch, and that specifically involves striking down laws that violate the state and/or federal constitution. Of course, as we all know, an “activist judge” is one that doesn’t rule the way you want. Apparently separation of powers works the same way.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
so now it is okay for 2 consenting adults to get married legally wrt government (if not religion).
so the next logical step is to question why it can only be 2 consenting adult? why not 3 or more?
(devils advocate is fun!)
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Must… resist… telling… light… bulb… joke…
*Bites on hands*
AARRGGHH!!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Not just Iowa!
Just last night, the Vermont House voted to approve a bill allowing gay marriage, following the Senate having done so the week previous. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Governor of Vermont is going to veto the bill. With some luck, the House may get the 5 more votes they need to override the veto and let Vermont grant civil rights to all Vermonters who want to marry.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Yeeha! And I’m quite shocked to see that it was IOWA of all states that did this. I’m crossing my fingers and hoping they don’t pull a prop-8 on it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
While I definitely agree that gay marriage should be legal, I strongly disagree with you about the value of keeping reality television legal. Remember, alien species are judging us by our broadcasts.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Some years ago, I noticed that the various religions and governments didn’t agree on what marriages should be allowed. So I decided to go back to the really old definition of marriage: If two consenting adults stand up in front of their community and say that they are married, I’ll take them at their word.
And rob, I’m not terribly fixated on the number two. If three or more people want to call themselves married, I’ll happily accept that. “Consenting adults” is still important to me, though there is some redundancy – I am also of the opinion that people under a certain (somewhat hazy but late teens) age can’t really give consent. I also recognize that there are other legal issues, like property and tax law, that my attitude doesn’t address at all.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@rob:
Good question. Why not? No, really, why not, if the individuals involved are consenting adults that are cognitively unimpaired?
(Incidentally, for those who will next propose human-animal marriages, or adult-child marriages, it’s that “cognitively unimpaired” thing that’s the key. ie, like any other form of contract, the state must deem the individuals capable of deciding to enter such and arrangement (marriage is, after all, just another form of contract). Children and non-sentient creatures are therefore excluded.)
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Why is everyone shocked that it’s Iowa that did this?
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I’m fully for equal marriage rights!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I’m very happy for Iowa. Living in Minnesota, I might be heading down there soon to take part in nuptuals! On a side note that is also wonderful…Sweden adopted gay marriage this week, too!! Yes! The world CAN move forward!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@Todd:
Maybe because, according to Wikipedia:
“A 2001 survey from the City University of New York found that 52% of Iowans are Protestant, while 23% are Roman Catholic, and other religion made up 6%.”
Granted, it’s not the most conservative state based on presidential voting results (the democratic candidate has won 5 out of the last 7 elections), but it’s certainly not what I think of as a hotbed of teh evil liberal socialism.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I can’t wait to hear the cries of “activist judges!!1!” from the Religious Right.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for posting about this, Phil; I too had no idea that this was going on. What a welcome bit of good news!
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
How exactly is the government “stepping in” here, and especially how is it doing anything now it hasn’t been doing for centuries w/r/t heterosexual marriage?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“But the State has no legal right to tell people to be married or not.”
BA,
I may be wrong on your legal reasoning, but I think you are basing this on the 14th ammendment: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Strictly speaking, a law banning the marriage of one person to a person of the same sex, if worded correctly, does not violate this clause. The law would be applying itself equally to all people which is the intent of the ammendment. It is a subtle distinction. If this subtle distinction were ignored, the State could not tax individuals at different rates nor could the State provide benefits to one group of people and not others, i.e. Social Security, welfare, etc. As it is, all people that make X amount of dollars pay the same tax rate. All people of a certain age recieve Social Security benefits. That argument not withstanding, I can not come up with a very good secular argument to ban gay marriage. But I think in a strict reading of the constitution, banning of gay marriage would be legitimate.
In constitutional cases I try very hard not to judge the case on what I would like for an outcome or what I think is fair and just but rather on a strict reading of the constitution. I would much rather preserve the integrity of the constitution and go about social change by influencing the hearts and minds of the American people, work to change unfair laws through legislation, or amend the constitution than to try to manipulate the constitution so that I get the result I want. Somtimes that can be a tough battle.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
@VisionEngineer:
“The law would be applying itself equally to all people which is the intent of the ammendment. It is a subtle distinction. If this subtle distinction were ignored, the State could not tax individuals at different rates nor could the State provide benefits to one group of people and not others, i.e. Social Security, welfare, etc.”
Please explain to me how such reasoning doesn’t also allow racial discrimination? For example, suppose a law existed that said blacks and whites could not intermarry. Are you telling me that, as a strict constructionist, you believe that’s perfectly legal?
If the answer is ‘yes’, that’s fine… except that it flies in the face of past judicial interpretation of the constitution (as far as I’m aware, anyway).
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I am reticent in posting this, and I do so with the caveat that I am pro-marriage for gay people.
You say that you can think critically and allow gay marriage, or you can allow your “hearts and minds to be closed on the issue.”
I don’t really think those are the only two options? There is a lot of passion on both sides, but there is also good thinking happening on both sides, and I feel that maybe we aren’t recognizing that there are intelligent thinkers that think gay marriage should be illegal for reasons that are not based on spirituality.
Anyway, that aside, go Iowa! I expected Oregon or some other “hippie state” to allow gay marriage before a place like Iowa.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Why is almost every organization with “Family” in its name pure evil?
s/Family/Patriarchy/ and it starts to make a little more sense.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Ah, a bit of reason from Iowa. I hope California follows suit and either strikes down or repeals Proposition 8.
Now this issue does raise an issue of where to draw the line. I’m going to ask some of the same questions that opponents of same-sex marriage ask, but for different reasons.
Should polygamy be legal? Should two heterosexual male friends be allowed to marry so they can take advantage of inheritance laws? What about blood relatives? What about box turtles?
An opponent of same-sex marriage would probably ask these questions expecting the obvious answer to all of them to be “Oh, no, that would be horrible!”, with the conclusion that extending marriage rights beyond what’s “traditional” (no, not harems and concubines, *modern* “traditional”) will inevitably take us down a slippery slope to degradation.
But I ask them as serious questions to which I personally don’t necessarily have all the answers.
I’m personally convinced that, in granting the rights and title of “marriage”, the state has no business discriminating between committed opposite-sex couples and committed same-sex couples. I dislike where most states currently draw the line because I think it’s insufficiently inclusive. But once we settle the same-sex marriage question, there will still be questions of how much farther we should go. For example, I dislike the exploitive form of that’s been practiced by some religious, but I can’t think of any good reason why the state should forbid, say, three committed people to form a legal marriage if they want to.
So where do we draw the line?
One solution is to get government out of the “marriage” business altogether, and handle it all through contract law. But marriage still grants rights that you couldn’t get via a contract; to whom should the state grant, and to whom should it deny, those rights?
Ok, I’ll stop rambling now.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
A good day for the “Iowans”! We’ve had gay marriage here in Spain for nearly 4 years now, and as far as I know the sun still rises every morning…
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
/Wiping tear from eye.
/Saluting an ear of corn.
/Hoping against hope the California Supreme Court is as reasonable.
/Waiting for civilization to collapse.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
[...] April 3, 2009 at 15:15 · Filed under Belief Iowa lets people get married [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@Mario:
Yeah, but is the institution of family falling apart? Is there rampant drugs and prostitution as your entire society collapses, all thanks to gay marriage destroying the very fabric of society? Are frogs raining from the sky? Are dogs and cats LIVING TOGETHER?? Because *that’s* what you have to fear from gay marriage. Apparently.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
As an Iowan, I’m pretty damn proud of this, however, I will be pretty active if they try to go Prop 8 on us. I bet our local conservative people like Jan Mickelson is going insane.
By the way Phil, you should have said it was a Cyclone state, not a Hawkeye state because it would probably upset even more people!
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It could conceivably come up for a vote in 2010, but both houses of the legislature would have to pass amendment bills both this session and next session for that to happen. Since it’s unlikely to even be looked at this session because of the budget crisis (and the Democratic majority), 2012 is the earliest practical date. That gives us 3.5 years to find out that nothing bad will happen because of same-sex marriage.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Actually, allowing “oppositely polarized het couples” to marry is what’s causing the rate of failed marriages to skyrocket. (over 50%, from what I hear) I’ve always felt that the right of people… all people… to marry should be something you have to work for… not just be given out freely after doing body shots one night in Vegas…
Oh, BTW… my dog and three cats live together very nicely, thanks.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Careful, pretty soon other states will start to catch up to us in Canada. Then we’ll have to think of something else clever and progressive to stay ahead. Now, if we can just get rid of the people trying to drag the Great White North back into the dark age we can make that happen…
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
@Brett
If a law said that no black man may marry a white woman (or vice versa) it would violate the 14th amendment. The law would not be treating all people the same. If a law said no person may mary another person of the same sex, the law is being applied equally to everyone.
“blacks and whites cannot intermarry” is not definitive enough to even be a law.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Must respectfully disagree — reality shows must be made illegal, they are a pernicious drug that rots brains!
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@VisionEngineer:
So a law saying “no black man can marry a white woman, nor can a black woman marry a white man” violates the 14th amendment, but a law saying “no man can marry another man” doesn’t?
I think you’re a little confused, because to me, those sound *exactly the same*. ie, they both restrict who can and can’t marry based solely upon arbitrary physical characteristics (in one case gender, in the other case ethnicity).
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
How, exactly, are they different? In both cases, a marriage is forbidden by a physical characteristic, and an alternative is available.
Obviously, history would disagree with you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
rob says:
If all three are consenting adults, why not? Seriously, why not?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Rob says: “so the next logical step is to question why it can only be 2 consenting adult? why not 3 or more? ”
Careful, Rob, the real start of the slippery slope is allowing heterosexuals to marry. That could lead to gays marrying, and then 3 or more consenting adults and then animal lovers and then who knows what?!?!?!
Ban heterosexual marriage before it’s too late!!!!!!!
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Since reality shows are not so real; they should be outlawed based on false advertising.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
So pleased with Iowa. And to throw further fuel on the Black/White things above: When I am presented with some small-minded idiot who states “One Man, One Woman!” (and yes, they use caps when they say it), I usually answer:
“Wait – I think you have it wrong. Don’t you mean one WHITE man and one WHITE woman?”
It usually sends them off in an apoplectic fit…. which was my entire point.
JC
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Or maybe rephrase that as “no person may marry another person of a different race.” Wouldn’t that law be applied equally to everyone?
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Hey, the JREF account has been brought back!
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@Keith Thompson:
> One solution is to get government out of the “marriage” business altogether,
> and handle it all through contract law. But marriage still grants rights that
> you couldn’t get via a contract; to whom should the state grant, and to
> whom should it deny, those rights?
It’s not so simple when law has to intervene in matters such as child custody,
property division upon divorce, even if it could jettison leftie like “entitlements”,
welfare payments, and pensions.
So it seems essential for there to remain some political (judicial) supervision
of the marriage concept, and therefore some lines must be drawn. Even if
they wiggle over time.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
And keep an eye out for April 29th! The Herschel Space Observatory and the Planck satellite will be launched!
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
But are they married????
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Well, I’ll be the first one to bow my head in shame. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Period. Anything else should be called something else. By allowing for same sex marriages, we are changing the definition of it. Essentially, we obviously disagree on the merits of this unnatural relationship, but equating that to a natural relationship only destroys the fabric of our moral traditions (admittedly declining at break-neck speeds these days). If we don’t listen to our hearts and stand up for the rights of heterosexuals, we will see ourselves become the persecuted. This shows up, as an example, with the imprisonment of Christians for speaking out against homosexuality–a clear and irrefutable morale standard. Before you disregard this statement know that it is likely to happen under the guise of new hate crime laws. I don’t believe in this oppression of Christianity that proudly hoists the banner of human rights protection. So by all means, marry your cousin, your dog, your car, etc.; just don’t complain when the State finally wakes up and says enough is enough! Oh and I won’t be resting on my laurels while our society of relativistic attitudes pulls us deeper into a moral abyss.
By the way, is this a pro-science or an anti-Christian blog? I am quite confused as of late. Believe it or not, they are not mutually exclusive! Thanks for listening, sir.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Amusing.
If they keep at it like that, they’ll leave the courts no choice but to remove all benefits from married couples. Probably including any and all government regulation of the institution.
Then who has destroyed marriage?
On the up side that would allow progressive religions/churches to marry whomever they want. I doubt the Unitarians have any big issue with performing same-sex unions.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Go Iowa! Ha! And now who’s ahead of the curve! Huzzah. Possibly, not doomed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
@Brett:
“I think you’re a little confused, because to me, those sound *exactly the same*. ie, they both restrict who can and can’t marry based solely upon arbitrary physical characteristics (in one case gender, in the other case ethnicity).”
You are correct that they both restrict based on arbitrary physical characteristics. I’m not arguing that point. It is irrelevant. There is no constitutionality against being arbitrary or restricting people. Many of our laws are arbitrary and place restrictions on people. In my example, one law applies to different people differently. A black man CANNOT marry a white woman. A white man CAN marry a white woman. The other one applies equally to all people. NO ONE may marry someone of the same sex. I admit that this is a subtle point. I am looking at this solely as a point of law and constitutionality, not what I may feel is fair or right or even just.
@Naked Bunny: (I like the name, BTW)
I doubt that those old laws were worded that poorly. I could be wrong. I have never looked up the actual statutes that forbade interratial marriage. Feel free to post them if you can find them. But wording that poorly would be sufficient cause to overturn any law. In any case, those laws were overturned whether for poor wording (most likely not the case) or applying unequally to different people.
The logical conclusions of ignoring this point would be that many of our current laws are unconstitutional: tax law (diffent people taxed at different rates), drinking age (or any law based on age), welfare, public aid, social security, etc. These all treat different people differently. But they are constitutional because they apply to ALL people the same way. All people making X amount of money are taxed at the same rate. All people over a certain age get social security. It is extremely important to be consistent. We may not pick and choose when we want to apply the constitution and when we will not.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
By the way, is this a pro-science or an anti-Christian blog?
@Scott: Is Christianity anti-Christianity? I only ask because the Christian penchant to act like, well, jerks seems overwhelming. Do you people even know what you believe? Sheesh, GET OVER YOURSELVES.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
@ Scott:
Arguments against your comments can be found in profusion at salon dot com. Just search for any news story regarding california’s proposition 8 and you will find them.
I will only say this: your logic is flawed. You claim marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. You claim allowing otherwise will change the definition of it. You further claim that this will result in the destruction of our moral traditions.
Further, you imply that allowing gay people to get married will somehow harm the rights of straight people.
I will ask you in a very straightforward way, so there is no misunderstanding:
1) Who “defined” marriage, and why is that definition immutable, unlike pretty much all our other social definitions?
2) Are you unaware of the fact that within our own culture and its antecedents, “marriage” has been defined differently in different ages? (number of wives, status of wives, rights of wives, age of wives, race of wives, to name a few variables).
3) Whose “moral traditions” are threatened, and why? By what means does gay marriage threaten them?
4) and this is the kicker… How exactly does gay marriage, or anyone else’s marriage for that matter, affect your right to marry in any way?
Honest answers would be appreciated, sir.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@Greg
“no person may marry another person of a different race.” Wouldn’t that law be applied equally to everyone?
Maybe it would work if you could actually define race precisely. You cannot. You could never make that law specific or precise enough to pass constitutional muster. Same sex has a very precise definition. There is no ambiguity.
And in case anyone misunderstands, I am not arguing for or against same-sex marriage in this forum. I am simply making a constitutional argument.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Dr. Philip Plait:
Sacrebleu! Qu’est-ce que c’est? The world’s economy is in deep recession, and yet you call that Iowa Supreme Court ruling “Awesome” news. You Yanks overstate the word “awesome” so often that its ‘currency’ has been devalued.
I can’t believe this is an astronomy blog!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Scott:
> Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Period.
I think the word “sacred” is the key to your argument, and to my refutation of it. Anything that’s “sacred’ is something that the government needs to stay out of.
A church can choose to marry or not marry anybody it likes, for whatever reason; that’s its right under the First Amendment. I wouldn’t want to require, for example, the Roman Catholic Church to perform and recognize same-sex marriages. But then, they don’t perform marriages for non-Catholics either, do they?
The state has a different set of obligations.
We’re using the word “marriage” in two different senses here. The sacrament of marriage, for those who believe in it, can be restricted in any way required by some particular religion. (And note that some churches do perform same-sex marriages; should those marriages be recognized by the church but not by the state?)
But we established a long time ago that state-sanctioned marriage needn’t have any religious component. And the state should no more discriminate against same-sex couples than against non-Catholic or mixed-race couples, even if some religious institution might say that such marriages are wrong.
(Note that we don’t have civil baptism. I’m not sure what conclusion I’m trying to draw from that, but it’s an interesting point.)
As for the “rights of heterosexuals”, just what rights are being violated? My heterosexual marriage is just fine, thank you very much; denying somebody else the right to have what my wife and I have doesn’t strengthen my marriage in any way.
Does the fact that two guys can get married somewhere really weaken *your* marriage?
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
@Keith Thompson
> As for the “rights of heterosexuals”, just what rights are being violated? My
> heterosexual marriage is just fine, thank you very much; denying somebody
> else the right to have what my wife and I have doesn’t strengthen my marriage
> in any way.
Certainly, by itself. The worry is more about the subsequently falling dominoes.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Jacques Meade wrote:
> I can’t believe this is an astronomy blog!
Actually, it’s Phil Plait’s blog. He gets to write about whatever he wants to.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
@Rob:
@Keith:
Don’t expect them to expand ‘marriage’ rights to any combination of people greater than two any time in the near future. Divorce gets REALLY messy in those cases.
On the other hand, there’s nothing to prevent a group > 2 from writing up a contract that specifies how their ‘marriage’ works as far as division of property is concerned.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
@VisionEngineer:
“In my example, one law applies to different people differently. A black man CANNOT marry a white woman. A white man CAN marry a white woman. ”
Right. And a man CANNOT marry a man. A woman CAN marry a man.
It is, quite literally, the exact same thing. It truly baffles me that you can’t see this. In the case of race, the law applies differently depending on the race of the individual. In the latter, the law applies differently depending on the gender of the individual. It’s *exactly the same*.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Go Iowa! I <3 my State!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
It is, amongst other things, an anti-bigotry blog. If your form of Christianity requires bigotry, that would be your problem.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
@ Scott
Let us consider two examples. My friend, Suzanne (or ‘Zanne), is a devout Christian — believes in Christ, goes to church every Sunday, and has been living with her Significant Other for some three years now. My father happens to be an agnostic*, and has been living with his Significant Other for over a decade.
* Or possibly an atheist. Haven’t checked recently.
The state of Nebraska happens to allow one of these people to marry their Significant Other. As it happens, it is the second — my father and step mother have been civility married for years, and yet my friend, Zanne, can only get married to her girlfriend in her (Christian) church, but the state bans her from recognizing it civilly. Meaning she’s not on her spouse’s health care, they cannot get next-of-kin rights, and so on.
And you say that the atheist is in a more sacred union than the Christian. Or that talking about my Christian friend and her Significant Other and their legal rights is somehow anti-Christian.
For anyone who says they can precisely define same sex, I offer two questions:
1. What do you call a person with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or any other intersex person? Especially given that the genders on the birth certificates often are are based on appearance of external genitalia at birth, and not either the state of mind of the person, their chromosomes, or their internal organs.
2. Since the state of Iowa allows for someone to legally change his or her gender, does that mean that a MtF transsexual and a man can get married, but a FtM transsexual and a man can not? Does it depend on their state — a MtF has to be post-op, but a FtM must be pre-op? Does the marriage get annulled if one person gets a sex change?
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
@Bret
“Right. And a man CANNOT marry a man. A woman CAN marry a man.”
That is not the same as “No one may marry someone of the same sex.” This is why wording of law is extremely important. You are using a different wording than I am using. Much legislation is carefully worded to avoid unconstitutionality. Legally, it makes all the difference. I don’t see why you can’t see that.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
@VisionEngineer:
I’m pretty sure the technicalities of the wording have little bearing on whether or not the *effect* of the law is to violate equal protection. And the simple fact is the *effect* of a law stating “a man cannot marry a man and a woman cannot marry a woman” (which, as you seem to have admitted, would be every bit as unconstitutional as a law banning interracial marriage) is exactly the same as a law stating “only a man and a woman may marry”; that being, an unconstitutional discrimination based on gender.
Honestly, your kind of nitpicking is the worst kind of strict constructionism. It allows you to arbitrarily decide, based on your own beliefs, how to interpret the constitutionality of a law, based solely upon the technicalities of the language rather than the underlying *intent* of the law (which is, as it happens, one element a judge uses when determining how to interpret a law).
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Yes. That would be the point, in fact. You chose to word the two examples differently to create the impression that there was a meaningful difference. One can choose alternative but precisely equivalent wording which shows that no such difference exists.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@Brett
I think you would be sorely dissapointed in our legal system!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@VisionEngineer:
No, I’m just disappointed in your approach to constitutional interpretation. You see yourself as a strict constructionist, trying to protect the integrity of the constitution, but what you’re really doing is nitpicking base on word choice. Fortunately, the Iowa court doesn’t seem to agree with you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
@Brett from Canada:
MuahahaHAHA! Yes to all of those, but that was how things were here before gay marriage was allowed, so no problem there.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
[...] Plait over at Bad Astronomy tells it like it is on the issue of what a family is and why the law should not get in the way of that. I agree with him [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
the intent of the law is to limit marriage to a man and a woman. it is not to insure a happy union, or a satisfying one, or anything of the sort. Merely the legal recognition of a many centuries old western norm. (including the not necessarily happy part
)
I always get a kick out of claims that gays are not wanting ‘special’ rights, when in fact, they do want special rights. the fact of the matter is, any gay can marry any person of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. Again, the law does not recognize desire for one’s partner, or anything of the sort…it legalizes man + woman. Period.
So the fact that a lesbian may not want to marry a man has zero relevence to the law. She can marry any man just like any other woman can, just like any other woman who may not like her husband all that much can, just like any other female can for any other reason. this is actual, true equality before the law and gays already have this.
what they are asking for IS a special right. they want the right granted them to marry outside the current legal norm. that, by definition, is a special right.
Ok, now with all that out of the way, lets get to the meat. The meat is, regardless of the State’s position on all this and the fact that gays want special rights in the current legal environment….is that the solution here is that the State should not be in the marriage buisness at all in terms of OKing who can marry who. it is perfectly legitimate to have them in their proper role of enforcing the contractual side of marriage..and illegitimate to have it enforcing religious norms of any kind.
whoever wants to marry whoever, so long as all are of legal age, is no buisness of the state. If man wants to marry woman, woman wants to marry woman, woman wants to marry three guys and another woman…all good. this is a purely contractual arrangement.
to protect the rights of those who object to being forced into contractual dealings with marriage contracts they don’t like, these folks should own the right to trade and do buisness on any basis they so choose, including discriminating between marriage contracts for any reason they so choose.
this provides defense of the rights of all on all sides. gays can marry, strong christians don’t have to rent to them. all sides rights defended, State not imposing religious norms.
in other places, when I’ve made this case i’ve gotten some resistance from gays, upset that I am backing allowing plural marriages in any form and equating it with their situation. well, the fact is, that these other unconventional forms are every bit as legitimate issues of freedom of choice as gay marriage is, and the reason they don’t like this is because it makes the issue politically difficult for them. people argue, and correctly, that if gays can get married, why shouldn’t these other folks, since we’re not following old norms any more. And that is precisely the point…polygamy and multiple marrige has every bit as much legitimacy as gay marriage once we decide religious norms should not apply, because even subjective secular objections to plural marriage among people of legal age is still subjective discrimination against other people.
bottom line. remove the state from issuing permission or regulating who marries who, leave it enforcing the contractual angle of things, allow all kinds of marriage among adults, and defend the rights of objectors by allowing them to refuse dealings with contracts they don’t like.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“Any” two adults Phil? Hey, I’d like you to meet my blind pal Oedipus! While I’m all for pair bonding between nearly any consenting members of our species regardless of gender, being from Utah I’ve seen a few of the genetic defects that arise when close relatives get recessive with each other. That’s one taboo that has valid genetics to back it up.
Huzzah Iowa!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@Brett
You call it nitpicking. I call it following the letter of the law. This approach goes on every day in our legal system. This is a well established practice. It is actually something that is vital to our legal system. And actually I wouldn’t know if the Iowa Supreme Court did or did not disagree with me. The decision was based on the Iowa state constitution with which I have not studied. If the decision does follow precisely what the Iowa constitution says, I’m all for the decision.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@MartinM
And two different wordings make two different laws.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Look up intersexuality sometime. The medical community would disagree.
Biology does not lend itself to the binary answers humans seek, and history has shown that poorly worded laws can last a long time and cause a great deal of misery. Better to err on the side of freedom and liberty.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
@VisionEngineer
“Maybe it would work if you could actually define race precisely.”
I suspect that you define sex very precisely purely based on genitalia. That is the simple way our brains try to understand the world and it totally understandable. I suspect you view race in a similar way though your statement above acknowledges there is more to it. There is more to a person’s sex as well. I also believe it is possible to define race as precisely as you are defining gender… just categorize by physical features as you are categorizing by genitalia and there is precedent for doing just that in regards to race.
Taking a different approach to your wording it would be just as appropriate to state “some people may not marry other people”. There are laws prohibiting marriage based on things such as age, etc. that have actual reasons for the law and not allowing people of the same sex to marry does not anymore than heterosexual marriage does except when a religious doctrine is used as the rationale though there has been plenty of FUD regarding this mainly promoted by the religious organizations that promote that same doctrine.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I love the smell of smug liberal superiority in the evening.
Gay marriage is, among other things, a way for activists and agenda-driven gays to force EVERYONE into validating and recognizing homosexual behavior as acceptable. This will manifest itself as increased discriminatory litigation (legitimate or not) as well as compulsory marriages performed by organizations that have no desire to do so, under threat of prosecution and prison time. Well done.
Hey, while we’re at it, why don’t we start forcing pro-life physicians to perform abortions. Oh, wait, we’re about to do just that as well.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
@ adam:
So, Adam, what is “unacceptable” about other people’s personal behavior that does not involve you in any way, or affect your life in any way, or hurt anyone in any way? Please be specific, as you seem to be basing your argument on what must be some fairly awful side-effects of gay marriage.
And, question number two, why do you seem to be against a court ruling that outlaws discrimination against gay people, but horrified by the prospect of “increased discriminatory legislation” against…um…”other people”? Again, care to offer specifics about why one is any different from the other?
Or will you be like the poster, Scott, above, who claimed to be on a mission but could not even respond to a simple request for further details of his reasoning?
I look forward to your detailed follow-up.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I call Poe on adam.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@ Adrian:
Alas, were it only so. He represents an all-too-common segment of the population, a large percentage of which led to the passage of the odious Prop 8 in California. They are religious bigots masquerading as the defenders of freedom and morality. They also tend to be hypocrites, picking and choosing which features of their religion demand letter-for-letter compliance and which features they can conveniently ignore when it suits their own particular vices.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 pm
[...] Iowa lets people get married | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine By ryantester Iowa lets people get married | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
If heterosexual marriage is so “sacred”, then why isn’t divorce illegal?
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Stick to science and astronomy Phil. You’re good at those.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Last year, Iowa had severe flooding. Iowa also had severe flooding in 1993. If Iowa has severe flooding within the near future, it is a safe bet that some pinhead will attribute the flooding to the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision.
There are tornadoes in Iowa every year. If tornadoes hit Iowa again this year, it is a safe bet that some doofus will attribute the storms to the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision.
According to some folks, this is how the Almighty expresses His displeasure: by unjustly hurting people, including people who had nothing to do with the supposed offense, and by wrecking property like a petulant child.
I discuss the case (in a more scholarly fashion) at the JREF forum website, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91881.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“Adam”: Gay marriage is, among other things, a way for activists and agenda-driven gays to force EVERYONE into validating and recognizing homosexual behavior as acceptable.
No, its a way for two people who love each other to be happy together.
How does it affect your (presumably) heterosexual marriage? Answer: not one jot. Unless you’re a nutter who wants to enforce his own religious preference on everyone else.
Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. That is fact. Get over it.
I’ve given Phil a hard time over the last few months due to a lot of his political opinions. But on this one, he is dead on.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I am just waiting for the day when group marraige is allowed, also what about the transgender community? Do you allow people to change their sex on their birth certificate because they feel that way? Or is that a mental illness? If you do allow it, is it only after a surgery or hormone replacement? or can it be on a whim? How about the idea that a man who thinks he is a woman can get government grants and scholarships just meant for women?
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I have been following this issue for a while over at Pam’s House Blend, and when SSM became legal in California a lot of people posted their wedding photos on the same day and a couple days later. It was wonderful to see how happy they were, not only because they were able to marry their partners but I think also because they were finally being treated as equal in the eyes of the law. This made the whole Prop (H)8 thing even more sad. I’m glad that Iowa did this, and I’m hoping that Illinois will be doing it soon. There’s a civil union bill going through the Illinois General Assembly. I’d be nice for all of us to live in an “all men are created equal” society, at least as far as this issue goes. There’s still Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which is also a fairly nasty bit of legislation. Being straight and not being in the military I didn’t know too much about it and thought that it was something along the lines of people not being able to serve openly but it not being a big deal. I learned at PHB and later with the translators being fired that this wasn’t the case.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@ Becca (and partly @ Keith)
Forgive me if I don’t answer all of your questions, but I am kind of a hurry. I admit that ‘sacred’ can be confusing to many because our government has bastardized that term quite a bit by its actions and laws. I can only say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Undoubtedly, monogamy has not always been the “standard” but again, marriage was intended to be a man and a woman. The confusion comes in because there are two separate problems: a spiritual side of it and the legal ramifications. For me, the spiritual is an easy argument for me to make, but ultimately we probably have two differing views on that (if you are not a Christian). Homosexual sex is deviant behavior, and is a sin. Period. So to me, there is no question about the union being an ‘unholy’ one (anti-christian is probably not a good term here, but it is certainly not Christ-like or as God intended)
So, as far as your specific question about the Atheist. I don’t know that I know enough to answer fully, but I believe that the union would be no more holy than the homosexual union, albeit legal in the US. So in this case, we are getting into only the legal/financial aspects that I object about.
In response to the chromosomal anomaly, I think we are in a whole different situation. We are no longer talking about cut-and-dry homosexuality. Admittedly, this is a unique situation that needs its own separate discussion. However, we should not be writing overarching laws for the majority (gender established) based on some anomalous cases.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope I addressed your points.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Adam wrote:
“Gay marriage is, among other things, a way for activists and agenda-driven gays to force EVERYONE into validating and recognizing homosexual behavior as acceptable.”
not realizing that what’s happening is that:
Gay marriage is, among other things, a way for activists and agenda-driven media (rhymes with “bores”) to force EVERYONE into invalidating and recognizing homosexual behavior as unacceptable.
Oh those activist judges, ruining the country. They should move to France!
(Did I miss any mantras?)
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
“Gay marriage is, among other things, a way for activists and agenda-driven gays to force EVERYONE into validating and recognizing homosexual behavior as acceptable. This will manifest itself as increased discriminatory litigation (legitimate or not) as well as compulsory marriages performed by organizations that have no desire to do so, under threat of prosecution and prison time. Well done.”
I disagree. I think it could be better done. My husband has yet to discover the joy of the “love that dare speak its name” and I have yet to have a hot lesbian woman force herself on me. We keep waiting and hoping, but it still does not happen.
I think our community is sorely lacking in activists and agenda-driven gays. They must be too focused on paying their taxes, raising their children, and loving one another to force themselves on me. Perhaps I need to move to a bigger city.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I think the whole marriage thing is very backward and ancient nonsense. Married people should have no special benefits from government. In fact let them pay double (if not triple) for everything !! After all they have been the ones in charge and making the rules. Unmarried people should have a voice too. Down with marriage. Lets have a better way.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
@Scott (and others)
Your bigotry offends me. Bigotry is deviant behavior. It is sinful to me. Period. I think we must enact legislation to ban your church.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I love it that Phil posts about this – emphasizing that this is about critical thinking, yet somehow it becomes political. Keep posting Phil!
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, right, gays are just dying to get married in hostile settings. It really sets the mood for the ceremony.
No, we’re not. No physician was forced into doing abortions before Bush implemented the conscience clause you are referring to, and no physician will be forced to do them when they are rightly abolished.
This is the trouble with your side. You buy into the horror stories being spread around by your leaders and then you repeat them as gospel. It doesn’t help your cause one iota if you keep regurgitating untruths that are being fed to you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Scott, you say that same sex marriage is not “Christ-like”. Says who? For all we know, Jesus (if he existed at all) could well have been gay.
After all, he lived into his thirties, unmarried, in an era where late marriage was rare indeed. He hung out with a dozen men; women seemed to have little role in his life.
Maybe the Bible isn’t telling the whole story about why he was crucified.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
@Keith
>I think the word “sacred” is the key to your argument, and to my refutation of it. >Anything that’s “sacred’ is something that the government needs to stay out of.
I understand your feeling that sacred is something the govt. should stay out of. I simply disagree; whether you believe it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles and they will always be principles that will make us a great Country.
>A church can choose to marry or not marry anybody it likes, for whatever reason; that’s >its right under the First Amendment. I wouldn’t want to require, for example, the Roman >Catholic Church to perform and recognize same-sex marriages. But then, they don’t >perform marriages for non-Catholics either, do they?
What you don’t see here is that the government is enacting laws that will REQUIRE Christian churches to marry gay couples, even if they do not want to! (otherwise it can be considered discrimination) THAT is what my point is: this sets a precedent for the homosexual community to take away that freedom. I’m not opposed to two people living together and considering themselves married, but I’m opposed to the State recognizing it as such and for society to say “yes, I’m ok with their example.” I’m not for taking their freedoms away, I’m opposed to creating special privileges for them that don’t exist anyway.
>(And note that some churches do perform same-sex marriages; should those marriages be >recognized by the church but not by the state?)
No they should not be recognized by the state
>But we established a long time ago that state-sanctioned marriage needn’t have any >religious component. And the state should no more discriminate against same-sex couples >than against non-Catholic or mixed-race couples, even if some religious institution might >say that such marriages are wrong.
Where/how was this established?
>As for the “rights of heterosexuals”, just what rights are being violated? My heterosexual >marriage is just fine, thank you very much; denying somebody else the right to have >what my wife and I have doesn’t strengthen my marriage in any way.
Well, rights as tax payers for one. We are supposed to shoulder these unions’ and benefits required of them with our own tax dollars. Second, there are anti-discrimination policies set forth on that precedence that can conflict with my morale values. (eg, if I’m a photographer in Vermont and a gay couple wants me to shoot there wedding, if I refuse on morale values, I can be sued for discrimination). So I would say my write to free speech is threatened, at best. What I’m saying is that by equating a homosexual marriage to mine cheapens the meaning of that union on moral grounds. Again, it looks like we’ll just disagree because we have different moral values (presumably, since we are having this discussion!).
>Does the fact that two guys can get married somewhere really weaken *your* marriage?
As above, it doesn’t in my eyes, but it does in the eyes of our children. Sadly, our society is not on a good path (outside of gay marriage) in keeping marriage in high regards. So what we get is more adultery, more kids out of wedlock (sp?), more abortions, more divorces, and so on. Moral degradation of our society does not move our nation in a positive direction. Same-sex marriage is yet another nail in the coffin for the sanctity of this great institution. One day we will all lament “what have we done?”
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
@Shane
If you think I am intolerant, than so be it. I just happen to have a moral code that not only isn’t immutable, but it shouldn’t be! (otherwise, what good are morals?) Just remember that if people enacted laws on brash opinions, we would not even have the freedom to have this discussion!
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@ Donnie
Obviously your agenda is to incite some sort of emotion from me. Sorry bub. I will say that there is more proof that Jesus lived than any other figure in history. Look it up! I can point you to some good sources. Also, I really think you should try reading the bible. Seriously! It may sound like fantasy to you, but believe me, I was in your shoes at one point. I’ll tell you this: I am so much happier and a better person because of my faith. Thanks for listening, even if you don’t take me seriously.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Oh my God! It has already begun. I just looked out my window and those hooligan gays have started rounding up Christians! If you believe in the Bible, then run! Try throwing your naked daughters at the gays to distract them if you must, but by all means, get out!
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Maybe this is a good place to bring up the fact that human sexuality isn’t all that simple and clean-cut. We’re really attracted to certain attributes, not to either one gender or the other. The reason we define ourselves as mainly straight or gay is that the attributes we’re attracted to are more feminine or masculine. For example, I like a somewhat small, slender type with feminine facial features. I’ve always ever been into women, but there could easily be a man somewhere out there who fits that description perfectly, and if I’m attracted to him does that make me gay?
Well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. We should just allow people to make their decisions and live happy lives. If you believe God doesn’t like such unions, leave that to God to sort out.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
@Scott
What you don’t see here is that the government is enacting laws that will REQUIRE Christian churches to marry gay couples, even if they do not want to!
Is that what you’re worried about? Well, you can relax. This law will in no way force any church to do anything it doesn’t want to. It just forces the state to recognize same sex unions.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Scott,
At one time I was like you. Devout Evangelical Christian totally opposed to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general. After leaving the church, I had to re-examine my beliefs, and what it was the “good book” says.
First of all, Jesus, the supposed head of your church, says nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Secondly, I came to the conclusion that it does not matter if 2 people that fall in love with each other happen to be of the same sex. According to Jesus, isn’t love the supreme commandment? Does it really hurt you if your neighbors happen to be gay?
Thirdly, human sexuality is far more complex that gay/straight. This former Evangelical Believer knows that all too well. It took me almost 40 years to come to peace with my own sexuality, which is neither gay nor straight (hint hint: am-BI-sexual). I have never been at such peace. Note that your God did not bring me such peace. I found that peace inside myself. Your religion is about control, and that is the bottom line. Did you ever ask the question as to WHY your God considers it a sin? Don’t give me the “God didn’t make Adam and Steve” argument. That simply does not wash, nor does it make sense.
I suggest, before you judge others, you actually read what your holy book says, before you pass judgment upon my LGBT brothers and sisters!
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Scott: according to your religion there are any number of deviant behaviors — pornography, premarital sex, strip clubs, masturbation, sex not for procreation, contraceptive usage, not to mention thought crimes of lusting after young women/men, and so on.
So why do I suspect that it’s only the gays you bother to speak out about? When was the last time you did something to fight or speak out against the flood of porn in our society? Given the numbers involved, I am sure that the surreptitious use of porn by people in married relationships has damaged many times more lives than gays could possibly do.
Finally, you call homosexuality “unnatural”. Have you ever spoken to a committed gay coupe about their love (both physical and emotional) for one another? It may be unnatural to you (and it is to me–I cannot imagine being sexually attracted to another man) but there is nothing more natural to them than their affection for each other.
I know a gay couple who have been in a relationship for at least 15 years and are now bringing up two wonderful and well-adjusted daughters with the help of the lesbian couple who are the mothers. (Yes, each of the four parents is a biological parent). Even one of the grandparents who had rejected his son when he first came out, came around once his grandchild was born. You could not hope to meet a nicer family, and to call what they have “deviant” is, well, deviant.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
@Tacitus:
Amen to that!
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Posting from Canada….I don’t know if this will work….using a pirated internet signal…
…we’ve had same-sex marriage for six years now…Society has broken down…You probably saw it on Fox….riots in the streets….churches burned down…armies of gays roaming the streets….can’t hold my position much longer….send us more guns….
For the love of god, please help…..
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Yikes. Just re-read my post. I hope no one took that seriously.
It is supposed to be humour or, as you might know it, humor. It’s not my fault if you can’t spell.
Back to my position.
I’m guarding the rear.
David
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Scott,
Thanks for your suggestion regarding Bible study. However, I assure you there’s no need. I’m the son of a Lutheran minister. I probably know the Bible better than you do.
Your claims about the historicity of Jesus are just comical. Look it up!
And when it comes to your other comments, of the two of us I don’t think I’m the one with the agenda.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
@ tacitus
For your first two paragraphs, you shouldn’t assume what I have and have not spoken out about. I believe pornography is the #1 killer of our morals in this country (yes, worse than homosexual behavior, but they are not mutually exclusive either). Even pornography within a married couple’s house is probably damaging, as you say. However, this issue is about gay marriage, so I’d appreciate staying on that topic.
By unnatural, I merely mean the fact that there is nothing beneficial in a natural sense (procreation). I actually have some gay friends, and they seem loving enough. I am not anti-gay people, I am against them acting out their desires in a sexual sense. But an argument can not be made on the basis of the example you know any more than I can make an argument based on the few gay people I have met. So, you don’t think there is anything deviant about anal sex? What would be deviant in your eyes (I am seriously asking). Heck, if I had a son that was gay, I would still love him, but I would not “come around” and accept his behavior (assuming he acted on his desires) as acceptable.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Adam, Scott, and anyone else who’s arguing against gay marriage….
My wife and I have be married for 13+ years. Neither of us were married before. Our marriage has been recognized by both state and federal government. We’re quite happy being married to each other. Heck, we still hold hands.
Now, if you can convince me that same-sex marriage is a threat to my marriage, I will immediately join you on the picket lines. I’ve yet to see anything that comes close to even beginning to convince me that same-sex marriage is a threat. But if you have an argument, I’m willing to listen.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
@ Donnie
Being the son of a Lutheran minister makes you no expert at the meaning of the bible. It doesn’t sound like you have truly given the Lord your heart, otherwise you would not be speaking in your sacrilegious tone.
Ok I’ll bite. How do you refute the life of Jesus? You honestly expect me to believe that there is not enough to substantiate Jesus’ existence? I mean, you obviously don’t believe in the His Resurrection, but you don’t even buy that Jesus lived?
I never said I have no agenda. My agenda is to spread the truth!
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
@ OtherRob
Oh, I’m not arguing that my personal marriage is threatened. My argument is only for our marriage as an institution is being cheapened. Also, some of our personal rights (if you share similar beliefs as Christians) can be threatened. I made some points earlier on this, so I won’t bore you here. Anyway, congrats on your 13+ years! I’m still madly in love with my wife @ 8+ years, myself!
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Scott,
It’s well past my bedtime, so I won’t continue this debate. I will make only one last comment: a great deal of evil has been, and is being, done in this world by those who believe themselves to be in possession of “the Truth”.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
@Scott
So, you don’t think there is anything deviant about anal sex?
Well, I’m pretty sure there’s a little more to being gay than anal sex. Also, and I don’t know how to say this delicately, but when I’m having vaginal sex with my wife, it still seems a bit deviant. But that has more to do with how our society views sex, rather than there being anything wrong with it.
One of your main objections to this ruling seemed to be based on the fact that it would force churches to perform gay marriages. Now that you know this isn’t the case, have you backed off any?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
@ scott:
I presume your mission to “spread the truth” also involves a campaign against businesses being open on Saturday? And initiatives to require capital punishment for adultery, misbehaving children, drunkenness, and all the other conditions proscribed by the Old Testament?
No? Why not? Why do you pick and choose from among the Bible’s many rules and regulations?
Leviticus calls the eating of shellfish “an abomination,” the same language it uses for a man who lies with another man as he lies with a woman.” Why are you not out there fighting to ban oyster bars?
I am being serious, here, Scott. Please answer these questions. Because, you see, I believe you are a hypocrite. You pick and choose your biblical passages to support whatever offends you, but ignore the countless others that don’t.
When was the last time you offered up a lamb before the altar of god?
Do you encourage the slaughter of enemy prisoners of war, as Yaweh demanded of his warriors?
Seriously. Please answer me directly. Prove to me you are not a hypocrite.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Oh, I’m not arguing that my personal marriage is threatened. My argument is only for our marriage as an institution is being cheapened.
I’ll add this to my list of questions for you, Scott:
How is your marriage “as an institution” being cheapened? How does the fact that thousands of other people want to marry their loved ones “cheapen” your marriage?
Again, please offer details, as I truly want to understand your position.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
@Scott
I will say that there is more proof that Jesus lived than any other figure in history. Look it up! I can point you to some good sources.
Please do. I don’t know whether Jesus actually lived or not, but I believe the earliest reference to Jesus are from about 60 years after the crucification. If I’m wrong, let me know. In any case, saying there is more proof of the existence of Jesus than anyone else in history is demonstratively false. Is this “spreading the truth”?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
@ Donnie
Late for me too! I understand your statement, and I agree. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong (for what it’s worth) Thanks for chatting, sir! I hope you don’t mind me saying God Bless you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I am a man married to a woman.
Gay people marrying does not “cheapen” my marriage one bit.
I find it insulting that someone suggested it would.
By the way, Leviticus also says it is a sin to wear clothing made of 2 different fabrics (look it up). All you Christians better throw out your cotton/polyester blends before you risk a good stoning.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
@ kuhnigget
I’ll do my best, but forgive me if I miss something. My dogs are getting restless
You are very confused. I would never presribe to know the Bible inside and out, in fact, I am always learning. Even reading it through only gives you surface ideals. With that said, there are many things which are clear. On thing that you are missing (it’s not your fault, it’s just that you don’t know) is that when Jesus died for our sins, he took on sacrifice himself! Essentially, by him sacrificing himself, he removed many of the old testament requirements from our own souls. One example is the sacrifice of animals. No longer are we required to spill blood of an animal to atone for our sins, because through Jesus we are atoned. I won’t give too much more, but I assure you it is an awesome prospect that is available to everyone reading this!
With that said, I submit that I am not a hypocrite at all, and I do hold dear all of the teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t retract from the purpose behind the 10 commandments and other laws from the old testament at all, in fact. I hope I was able to communicate succinctly enough, I apologize if it was not.
As for your second question:
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I was going to respond to Scott, but he claimed that Christian principles should be made into law, which is a clear violation of the first amendment to the constitution.
This country was NOT founded on Christian principles. The right to a representative government is listed nowhere in the Bible. Nor is freedom of religion, right to a jury trial, freedom of the press, et cetera. None of that stuff is mentioned in the bible.
Therefore, I propose that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles. Instead, I propose this country was founded on classical liberalism. Click my name for a wiki link to classical liberalism.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
With that said, I submit that I am not a hypocrite at all, and I do hold dear all of the teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t retract from the purpose behind the 10 commandments and other laws from the old testament at all, in fact. I hope I was able to communicate succinctly enough, I apologize if it was not.
If that was your answer, then I can honestly state that you are a hypocrite. Where does Jesus say ignore some of the Old Testament, but not the rest? Why do you get to pick and choose, when Jesus himself did not mention homosexuality at all?
Why do you not rail against working on the sabbath? Why do you not campaign against clam bakes? Why do you wear cotton/polyester underwear? Why do you not stone adulterers and put to death unruly and drunken children?
Why, for that matter, do you live with a woman at all? Didn’t Jesus tell his disciples that he was their family?
Please, answer these questions, because I truly have not been convinced that you are not a hypocrite, willing to pass judgement upon me, and claim that my marriage is somehow cheap, while it is you who are failing to live up to the expectations of your god.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@ Jose
Fair enough, “any figure in history” was meant to be “in his day.” The earliest non-biblical (if you refute its history) was a man named Philo, who was born 15 A.D. and lived in Alexandria. But I submit that the new testament is going to be such a wealth of verifiable historical references that it should be considered prudent to use it as the basis of Jesus’ life. If you deny me that, then we don’t have much else to say.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
@Scott: How does it “cheapen” the institution of marriage? If it doesn’t cheapen your personal marriage, who’s does it cheapen? If it doesn’t cheapen anyone’s marriage, how can you say it cheapens the institution?
You also say:
“On thing that you are missing [...] is that when Jesus died for our sins, he took on sacrifice himself! Essentially, by him sacrificing himself, he removed many of the old testament requirements from our own souls.”
Why are you arbitrarily choosing to apply this to such things as eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blends, but not to men sleeping with other men?
And why are you arguing against women sleeping with women? Is that prohibited anywhere in that book of yours?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@ Daffy
Sometimes, the Word insults. For that, I don’t know what else to say. As far as the clothing, perhaps we shouldn’t waste time arguing about things I already discussed (Old testament laws and Jesus’ sacrifice and what that meant).
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@Scott
I believe pornography is the #1 killer of our morals in this country (yes, worse than homosexual behavior, but they are not mutually exclusive either).
But everyone knows the internet is for porn. So the internet is the #1 killer of our morals in this country! Figures, Al Gore invented it. QED.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
As far as the clothing, perhaps we shouldn’t waste time arguing about things I already discussed
You didn’t discuss it. You ignored it.
I ask again, why do you get to pick and choose which of God’s laws you get to follow?
Please respond.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
@ all (the late night brings out some tempers, it seems)
Even though I mentioned this so shortly a time ago, I’ll state it a different way: Jesus died on the cross for us. When He did so, He died for our sins, and thereby allowing us to transcend to heaven through Him. I am not picking and choosing anything! Cloth material, sacrifices, persecution laws, etc. that you are asking about are not necessary to be saved!! I need to be clear about that. Once you have accepted Christ into your heart (believe that he lived, died on the cross, and then was resurrected 3 days later), then you must continually strive to live as he did. The Old Testament laws were originally intended for the Israelites (His original chosen people), but the bible clearly depicts that Jesus’ sacrifice spiritually atoned for the sin with which we are born. So, although we do not ignore the old testament laws–we must understand them but focus on following Jesus’ path. Old Testament God is New Testament God is God. There needn’t be a division of ideals there.
If you can’t understand that, then I can’t help you. If you don’t believe me (heck, I wouldn’t expect you to), I implore you to read the Word of God and find out for yourself. Thanks for the dialogue, but I think it’s time to bow out. God bless our nation.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@Scott:
So why are you still opposed to homosexual marriage? Didn’t Jesus remove that restriction?
And of course, why should your religious beliefs decide what is legal or not for people who don’t share those beliefs?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@Scott:
Yeah yeah… Jesus died on the cross… yeah yeah, Mithras, Horus, and a host of other gods died for us too… which one… hmmmm…. prove that your Jesus is any different, other than from the inconsistent bible
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Scott, everything you repeat fails to answer the question.
Why do YOU get to pick and choose what to ignore and what not to ignore?
You claim you “do not ignore the old testament laws” but that is exactly what you are doing if you don’t honor the sabbath, do where cotton/polyester blends, don’t stone people to death for adultery, and on and on.
You sir, for all your sanctimonious holiness, are a hypocrite. Furthermore, you are an affront to your god because you are placing your own conveniences above his law.
Run away and hide from me if you like, but you cannot hide from your God.
Have fun, as I hear he’s got something of a temper.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I’d still like for Scott to explain why his religion should be the basis for our secular government.
He can read the bible, but the whole “establishing religion” clause in the first amendment is way above his reading level.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@ James
Ok, I’ll give you one more (sigh). You are assuming, of course, that the New Testament doesn’t mention sexual deviance being a sin. Of course, you would be wrong (see Paul’s books).
It’s not MY religious beliefs but God’s law. But of course, we (as humans) are not always enacting laws that are righteous, so yes, we imperfect beings are left to do the best we can. We DO get it wrong sometimes, which is my whole point for talking to you. Let me say also that there are many different groups considering themselves “Christians” but don’t assume that if you know when you know them all. In other words, for someone to say that homosexuals are going to hell don’t know what they are talking about. Only God makes that judgment. What we SHOULD say is that sexual deviance is a sin and needs to be forgiven through Christ. So yes, that should be in line with all other sins that EVERYONE commit daily! Still, there is hope for all. THAT, my friend is the good news!!
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Scott,
Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Period. Anything else should be called something else.
The something else would be civil marriage, the kind of marriage that takes place regularly with men and women throughout the country.
Sacred means religious. If your religion prohibits gay marriage, how does this change anything for you?
Do you have to attend gay marriages?
Do you have to place the garter on the leg of a gay man?
How is your religion weakened by this?
How is your marriage weakened by this?
Why do you have such a perverse interest in what others are doing in their bedrooms? Coveting thy neighbor’s husband?
By allowing for same sex marriages, we are changing the definition of it.
Only if we have defined it according to certain religions?
Essentially, we obviously disagree on the merits of this unnatural relationship,
Your unnatural obsession with the sex lives of others, or some other unnatural relationship?
If we don’t listen to our hearts and stand up for the rights of heterosexuals, we will see ourselves become the persecuted.
We need to keep persecuting them, so that they do not have a chance to persecute us. If you are afraid of the karma, maybe you should not have engaged in persecution to begin with. We should hope that gays will not retaliate for people like you.
This shows up, as an example, with the imprisonment of Christians for speaking out against homosexuality–a clear and irrefutable morale standard.
Imprisonment? Where?
If it were a clear and irrefutable moral standard, then all of the people commenting in favor of this are clearly and irrefutably immoral.
So by all means, marry your cousin, your dog, your car, etc.
Somebody has been drinking a little too much of the hyperbole sauce.
Consenting adult humans. You should not project what appear to be your fantasies onto the rest of the world.
By the way, is this a pro-science or an anti-Christian blog? I am quite confused as of late. Believe it or not, they are not mutually exclusive! Thanks for listening, sir.
Do all Christians believe that gays are evil? No.
The government should not be in the business of passing laws, or not overturning laws, based on religious grounds. As long as the law does not interfere with the practice of religion, there is no basis for religious opposition to this law. Unless there is a fear that the preacher and congregation will all run off and participate in gay marriages. I don’t expect that.
I understand your feeling that sacred is something the govt. should stay out of. I simply disagree; whether you believe it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles and they will always be principles that will make us a great Country.
And yet the citizens demanded a Bill of Rights, to protect them from state religion, before they would consent to the Constitution.
(eg, if I’m a photographer in Vermont and a gay couple wants me to shoot there wedding, if I refuse on morale values, I can be sued for discrimination). So I would say my write to free speech is threatened,
And if a gay couple wants you to photograph anything else, how is that different from photographing a marriage?
>Does the fact that two guys can get married somewhere really weaken *your* marriage?
As above, it doesn’t in my eyes, but it does in the eyes of our children.
Maybe you have not done a good job of pointing out what is important to your children, if you think that this is a threat to them.
I just happen to have a moral code that not only isn’t immutable, but it shouldn’t be!
Making it up as you go along may get you in trouble.
I am not anti-gay people, I am against them acting out their desires in a sexual sense. But an argument can not be made on the basis of the example you know any more than I can make an argument based on the few gay people I have met.
We could apply the same argument to treatment of Jews, blacks, or even women.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
@ kuhnigget
If by “running” you mean going to bed, then I suppose I am guilty. I have tried to explain the basic principles. I assure you that striving to live as Christ is not convenient at all. Historically, we have been persecuted like no other. But that is the call of Christ.
As I am not gaining any ground, I will merely go in peace and hope that some small amount of light has arisen in your heart to God. Just give it a chance and you will not regret it. There is no hate that I speak of, only love. You can not understand that until you accept Him into your own heart. I appreciate the chance that you gave me to try!
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Frankly, I think religious fundamentalism, bigotry, and intolerance are the tools of the devil, crafted to turn people away from Christ, and that those who call themselves “Christian” yet use it as an excuse to do others are doing the Devil’s work.
Above all, the Bible tells us to love our neighbour. If you can’t love them for who they are, but try instead to force your own self upon them, how can you call yourself Christian?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Scott, I’ll accept your comments about pornography as read, but you still seem to have some serious misconceptions about marriage:
This is nonsense. Your definition of “unnatural” invalidates all sexual relations and marriages between couples unable to have children. So infertile couples and anyone over 50 need not apply for a marriage license? And are you really arguing that every sex act except for unprotected intercourse is unnatural? That would be news to the millions of married (and unmarried) couples — including millions of Christian couples, no doubt — who have all sorts of fun in the privacy of their own bedrooms (I won’t go into detail since this is not the type of place for graphic details, but you catch my drift).
So your fine with them cohabiting with each other, and sharing their love for each other, just as long as they keep it platonic — or at least they avoid that one orifice you seem to be so concerned about. (I guess I’d better not mention the fact that many straight couples perform all the same sex acts as gay couples — do we need to start going around and canceling their marriage contracts too?). If not, why the double standard?
I don’t have to like it personally (and nobody is asking you to either) but any act that is between two fully informed and consenting adults that does not engender a serious risk to life or limb of either party involved would seem to be a reasonable standard to set. If that standard is followed, what people get up to in the privacy of their own home is nothing to do with me or anyone but the people involved.
Would you accept him and his partner into your home? Would you treat them and any children they are raising as a family and as family? That’s the ‘coming around’ I was talking about — nothing to do with accepting what they get up to in the bedroom when you’re not around. It may surprise you, but gay people don’t usually like to rub their sex lives in other peoples’ faces.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Scott:
You are a coward, as well as a hypocrite. You run from the questions I ask, because you cannot answer them without revealing your own duplicity.
You take on an air of holiness, and dare to assume things about me that you cannot possibly know. You don’t know me. How do you know I’m not a devout Christian? How do you know I’m not “saved”? What egotism! What arrogance! You assume these things because my opinion dares to be different from yours? You honestly think your god cannot see through that level of hubris?
And one more thing, Scott…Historically, you have been “persecuted like no other?” Even if that laughable statement were true (a few million jews and gypsies and homosexuals might suggest otherwise), to take that as some sort of call to arms, as you implied in your first post when you stated you weren’t going to “sit on your laurels” is to go against one of the most basic of Jesus’s teachings, is it not? “If thy enemy slaps you, turn to him the other cheek.” Or maybe you’ve never read that particular line?
Run, Scott. Go to bed. Cover your head to hide from the nasty homosexual persecuting you. You, sir, are a coward, a hypocrite, and…a very poor debater.
Sweet dreams.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Historically, we have been persecuted like no other.
I suppose you could make an argument that Christians have not been persecuted exactly “like” no others. But I’d like to see an argument made that Christians have experienced more persecution than Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, Gays and Women. That’s just what I can think of off the top of my head. If we add “in the last 1500 years” I think the task becomes impossible.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Scott says:
I hope you have a long, happy marriage, Scott. I really do. I love being married. It’s one of the best things that’s ever happened to me. I’m a better person because of it.
That said, I have to ask you the same question that Kuhnigget and others have asked you. How is the “institution of marriage” threatened when two people who love each other want to make the same committment to each other that my wife and I made and, I assume, you and your wife made? Does not the fact that so many same-sex couples so fervently desire to be married only strengthen the institution?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@tacitus
“Yeah, right, gays are just dying to get married in hostile settings. It really sets the mood for the ceremony.”
Speculate all you want. I’ll be sitting here with a big bag of “I told you so”s when it starts happening.
“No, we’re not. No physician was forced into doing abortions before Bush implemented the conscience clause you are referring to, and no physician will be forced to do them when they are rightly abolished.”
Read a little. Obama has intimated the very real possibility of legislation regarding this very thing.
“This is the trouble with your side. You buy into the horror stories being spread around by your leaders and then you repeat them as gospel. It doesn’t help your cause one iota if you keep regurgitating untruths that are being fed to you.”
No. This is not from reading horror stories. This is from reading into the policies that may be enacted by the current Congress and administration. My father is an OBGYN. He has done plenty of research and is well aware of the ways in which these things will affect him.
And don’t you dare lecture me about buying into horror stories. Your “side” is the one infamous for fearmongering, hyperbole and outright lying to get the public to think what it wants. You don’t want to get into that with me, I promise you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
@kuhnigget
“So, Adam, what is “unacceptable” about other people’s personal behavior that does not involve you in any way, or affect your life in any way, or hurt anyone in any way? Please be specific, as you seem to be basing your argument on what must be some fairly awful side-effects of gay marriage.”
You’re right, it doesn’t affect me personally in any way, and honestly I couldn’t care less what gays do in their private lives. I don’t agree with a lot of things people do with their time, but if it doesn’t affect me, then I don’t care. However, I draw the line when it becomes law for me to accept that which I find morally objectionable. I would feel the same way if I were forced to sanction any other such behavior, such as, for example, heterosexual pre-marital sex or adultery. It all falls under the same category and the point is that gay marriage condones behavior and forces me to condone it by extension of the law.
“And, question number two, why do you seem to be against a court ruling that outlaws discrimination against gay people, but horrified by the prospect of “increased discriminatory legislation” against…um…”other people”? Again, care to offer specifics about why one is any different from the other?”
Because I don’t feel gays are being discriminated against in any way whatsoever. Marriage is what it is and a redefinition, once again, forces me under penalty of the law to accept it. I object to such coercion. I’m sorry that gays feel like they’re being mistreated. I really do. I would expect such resistance myself if I felt like I were entitled to marry my sister and if I truly believed that I was in the right I’d cry about it too, I’m sure.
It’s not about being bigoted or about discrimination. You guys make everything out to be “us vs. them” and it’s nothing but constant whining that just becomes white noise. Like you’re some oppressed segment of society subjugated under the smothering boot of the big bad religious right. Give me a break. Grow up. Heaven forbid you’d actually respect the fact that some people have a certain standard of morality and might fight for it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
That’s all very well, Scott, but why do fundamentalists always single out homosexuality as the one ‘sin’ to rail against (well, that and abortion)? And why is it the one ‘sin’ that they seem so adamant to require our secular government to legislate against (and it’s not just gay marriage — they would roll back “Lawrence vs Texas” if they could, making gay sex illegal). There is no movement to ban sex outside marriage. There is no activism to roll back the tide on divorce laws (I guess there are too many divorced fundamentalists for that to get any traction), there’s barely any fight left to ban pornography. Yet all these three things have had magnitudes more of an affect on marriage than gay couples getting married ever could.
It’s this hypocrisy that gets people so riled up against you, Scott. You single what is (at best) a minor cause of the “devaluing of marriage (though I doubt the effect is even measurable) when you do absolutely nothing to fight against other, much bigger issues that definitely have had a major impact on traditional marriage. Yes, I know you have basically lost those fights already (as you will this one too, soon enough) and the rest of society, including many Christians, would not countenance rolling back the clock on those issues, but that doesn’t absolve you from the charges of hypocrisy when you go after the minority gay community.
BTW: I do appreciate you engaging in the debate and keeping it civil (not that everyone is). You are somewhat in the lion’s den, but I guess that can be fun from time to time. Just you believe there is hope for us yet, we believe there is hope for you too
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Oh, I don’t doubt a very small number of gay couples will be out to cause mischief eventually, but I ask you this — has there been one incident reported of this happening in places where gay marriage is/was legal? I certainly haven’t and if there is one thing I am sure of, it’s that if it has happened, then the religious right would be howling for blood about it nightly on every single possible news outlet.
As I said — overblown scare stories designed to keep the faithful fearful.
As for forcing doctors to do abortions — remember all that right-wing hysteria and scare stories about the Democrats chomping at the bit to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”? You know, the rules that the Senate recently voted *not* to ever allow back by a majority of 87-11 (yes, including 46 — a large majority of — Democrats). See now, that’s the type of hysteria I’m talking about.
It’s not hard to figure out.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
@adam
Speculate all you want. I’ll be sitting here with a big bag of “I told you so”s when it starts happening.
I’ve said this a couple of times already, but there are no rulings or laws that can force any church or group to marry gay people. It’s a non-issue.
Read a little. Obama has intimated the very real possibility of legislation regarding this very thing.
I read a lot. Where exactly did you find this?
And don’t you dare lecture me about buying into horror stories.
I’ll do just that. Back up your horror stories, or be quiet.
Marriage is what it is and a redefinition, once again, forces me under penalty of the law to accept it.
How exactly could you be penalized under the Law?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
@ Adam:
Thank you for responding. Now my turn.
And what you find morally objectionable is paramount…why exactly? You are not being forced to “sanction” anything. It is the state that is granting same-sex couples the same rights as the state grants to opposite-sex couples. You are not the state. You are merely part of it. The leviathan has many components, the vast majority of which are not you.
Then you are ill-informed. The very reason the suit against the state of california, for example, went to court is because there were exactly 1138 instances of federal law that granted heterosexuals special rights that gay people did not have. 1138. Count ‘em. 1138. Even the state’s domestic partnership law discriminates against gay people in the very application process! Straight people must pay an $10 to file the application. Gay people must pay $33 to file the same application. No discrimination, indeed!
And the right of free speech compels me accept a self-centered fool spouting ignorance. Deal with it, crybaby!
No, it’s not, is it? It’s about your religion, and it’s so-called “morality” that you want to shove down everyone’s throat. Well here’s some news for you, the USA is a secular state. It always has been and–god willing–it always will be. The people of this country are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, but they have absolutely no right to proclaim those beliefs the law of the land.
Marriage has been defined and redefined throughout the ages. Learn some history. Learn from history, and learn to get along with people who are different from you.
Have a nice night.
April 4th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Becca Stareyes, LukeL
From Lambda Legal and the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, 2006:
Iowa changed its birth certificate statute to allow the state registrar to issue a new birth certificate when the state registrar receives a “notarized affidavit by a licensed physician . . . stating that by reason of surgery or other treatment by the licensee, the sex designation of the person has been changed.” This language recognizes that not all transgender people will complete their transition by having surgery, but that they can still be recognized as the new sex if they have completed whatever treatment is necessary as determined by their doctors.
Iowa will change both name and sex, and will issue a new birth certificate rather than amend the old one.
You will need an original letter from your SRS surgeon, and an original or certified copy of the court order for your name change.
Ms. Jill France
Chief, Bureau of Vital Records
Iowa Department of Public Health
jfrance@idph.state.ia.us
(515) 281-4944
——————-
Note that the change of birth certificate will be ignored by a number of states, who will annul any marriage to either sex if requested by an interested party. Like a relative, or an insurance company, or a bank, or…..
The same situation applies to men with de La Chappele’s syndrome (46xx chromosomes) even if they’ve fathered children. They’ll be deemed legally female, but as they have a male BC, can’t legally marry a man. It also applies to women with CAI or Swyer syndrome, even if the latter have given birth. Their 46xy chromosomes make them legally male, and their female BC won’t allow them to marry a woman. There is an enormous amount of ignorance and Bad Science in some state jurisdictions.
Oh yes, and those men and women with Kleinfelter syndrome, 47xxy, are out of luck too. They’re neither men nor women, and as “a marriage is between a man and a woman”, can’t marry anyone, regardless of the US Constitution’s”equal treatment” clauses.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:00 am
[...] Iowa lets people get married [...]
April 4th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Actually, Iowa and you are perfectly wrong.
Marriage is not a right. Anything that the government issues licenses for is a privilage, and not a right, and marriage licenses may be denied under the constitution for any of a variety of reasons.
For example, we can (and do) deny marriage licenses to consenting adults who are already married, who are incompetent or otherwise not allowed to consent, and in some states we deny marriage to people seeking marriage to someone to whom they cannot logically be married. Someone of the same sex, for example.
Defining marriage as a relationship between a single man and a single woman is not some new fundie idea. This is the basic concept of marriage as it exists in most societies, and while it is often modified to allow multiple marriage, modification to allow same-gender marriages is actually rare (keeping in mind, of course, that gender-changes are somewhat more common, often allowing same-sex marriages among differentially-gendered individuals.)
The use of the english word “marriage” to refer to same-gender relationships is actually relatively recent. Before it emerged, and in the word’s original sense, the concept of a same-sex marriage is simply nonsensical.
Marriage is a legal fiction and in many ways a minor inconvience to the state. The people are not entitled to it. It exists at all because there are broadly believed to be societal benefits to the marriage of breeding couples. Without going into the subject in much detail, these benefits simply do not exist with homosexual couples, or non-reproductive heterosexual couples. Verifying the sex of prospective marriage partners is east. Verifying the intent of a heterosexual couple is hard.
Now, did that come from my religion? Did it have anything to do with morality, with or without quotes?
It didn’t. This issue is a lot more complex than the typical “free-thinking” (by which we mean “often surprisingly dogmatic”) leftist imagines it to be, and a lot more irrelevant than either side thinks it is, but it would be nice if courts could stop claiming that constitutions say things that they don’t.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:27 am
So, sterile couples should not be allowed to marry ? And marriages should be dissolved after the last child leaves home ? I suppose humans are only one more kind of cattle in your bizarro world ?
April 4th, 2009 at 4:27 am
@JediBear
Anything that the government issues licenses for is a privilage, and not a right, and marriage licenses may be denied under the constitution for any of a variety of reasons.
What reason is there to deny gay couples the right to marry?
For example, we can (and do) deny marriage licenses to consenting adults who are already married, who are incompetent or otherwise not allowed to consent, and in some states we deny marriage to people seeking marriage to someone to whom they cannot logically be married. Someone of the same sex, for example.
There are good reasons to not allow two siblings to marry, but there’s no logic in saying people of the same sex cannot marry.
Defining marriage as a relationship between a single man and a single woman is not some new fundie idea.
Who’s saying it’s new? Anyway, it’s irrelevant.
Without going into the subject in much detail, these benefits simply do not exist with homosexual couples, or non-reproductive heterosexual couples.
Please do go into detail. Gay couples may not be able to reproduce with each other, but they can still raise children with all the benefits a traditional family provides. And I’m sure you’re aware that many people get married for reasons other than making babies.
This issue is a lot more complex than the typical “free-thinking” (by which we mean “often surprisingly dogmatic”) leftist imagines it to be, and a lot more irrelevant than either side thinks it is, but it would be nice if courts could stop claiming that constitutions say things that they don’t.
The courts in Iowa came to the conclusion that a law denying marriage to a group of people for no reason was unconstitutional. That’s what courts do. Laws denying gays the right to marry are no better than Jim Crow laws.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Jedibear, what is the maximum time you would allow for a couple to reproduce? What penalty do we impose on them for failure to reproduce within their alloted time? Do we insist on proof of intent to reproduce to defer the penalty?
My wife and I were in the position of your “non-reproductive couple”. We had tried and tried. What a pair of parasites we must have seemed to your ideal view.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:48 am
What gets me is the way the homophobes cherry-pick the Bible for quotes to justify their point of view. Well, I can play that game too:
Try I Samuel Ch. 18: “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David [...] Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.”
And then try II Samuel Ch 1: “Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
Now I could be wrong here, but isn’t marriage a covenant? And the second one doesn’t sound strictly heterosexual to me…
So, homophobes, just get over yourselves. Live and let live; love and let love.
For the record, husband and I married in 1970 (still together) and we have two children. The marriages of gay couples does not affect that in any way whatsoever.
–
April 4th, 2009 at 5:51 am
@JB: So someone should be obliged to get a divorce after menopause or a vasectomy? Given that there is then no chance of a child…
April 4th, 2009 at 6:10 am
So, where is the Constitution does it give anyone’s religion the right to tell the rest of us how to live?
Seriously – if you’re religious beliefs are so threatened by two consenting, non-blood related adults getting married, you should re-examine those beliefs.
Again, how does this, in any way, effect you?
April 4th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Apparently, according to Jedibear, since I don’t ever intend to bear children, I shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Heh. I guess it’s a good thing that I don’t ever intend to marry, either.
Marriage, historically speaking, was a *financial* contract. In the past, there were negotiations and money and/or property was exchanged. (In some areas of the world, this is still the case.) If the woman in question was of child bearing age, this was sometimes a factor – but not always. Property and titles were more important. People would first consider what would be brought to the marriage in both financial remuneration, and class status/prestige. The subject of children was secondary, at best.
April 4th, 2009 at 6:22 am
And these are the same types of arguments that some “Christians” used to justify the laws making inter-racial marriages illegal as well.
Can you, in any way, make your argument against civil unions of same-sex couples, without bringing religion into it?
April 4th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Scott: “@ Daffy
Sometimes, the Word insults. For that, I don’t know what else to say. As far as the clothing, perhaps we shouldn’t waste time arguing about things I already discussed (Old testament laws and Jesus’ sacrifice and what that meant).”
Yes, sometimes it does; that’s some Word of God you have there. Try Psalm 137:9 for a really insulting bit of BS.
So Jesus negated the Old Testament, did he? Then why are you insisting we follow it? Why is it in your Bible at all?
April 4th, 2009 at 6:46 am
But tacitus, divorce and adultery don’t cheapen marriage. It’s in the bible, after all, along with polygamy.
April 4th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Scott: “I will say that there is more proof that Jesus lived than any other figure in history. Look it up! I can point you to some good sources. ”
That has to be the single dumbest—or most dishonest, I’m not sure which—statement I have ever seen. An incomplete list of figures with more historical proof of their existence:
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
Tsar Nicholas
Cu Chulainn
Queen Elizabeth
Kung Fu Tze
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander the Great
Attila the Hun
Nero
Ramses II
Genghis Khan
Vlad the Impaler
Socrates
Aristotle
Cleopatra
Constantine
Eric the Red
Crazy Horse
Attakullakulla
Adolf Hitler
Mussolini
Chuang Tze
Gautama Buddha
And that’s just off the top of my head…
April 4th, 2009 at 7:08 am
@JediBear:
“and marriage licenses may be denied under the constitution for any of a variety of reasons.”
Those reasons cannot be discriminatory based on gender, among other restrictions. There cannot be a law stating “a white man cannot marry a black woman” for example. For the same reason, you cannot have a law stating “a male cannot marry a male.”
If two consenting adults want to marry, you cannot limit who you will or will not give a license to based on race, gender, religion, et cetera.
Keep in mind that almost every judge who has ever ruled on this agrees with my interpretation of the law. I’m not some crackpot making up my own interpretations. Heck, Iowa’s supreme court was unanimous.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Copy and pasted from another source, but I would just like to point out that Iowa has always been ahead of the curve…
In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.
In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.
In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:26 am
The homophobia displayed by Scott and adam on this thread should be recognized for what it is: a lack of empathy for their fellow man, and a fundamental inability to transcend their own small world.
Scott, if you really accept Jesus in your heart, you know you have to love your neighbour. And not just the one that you get along with really well, and who shares your views and beliefs, but also the ones who live their lives differently. If God has a problem with homosexuality, he is perfectly capable to do something about it when the time comes (although one wonders why He made them that way in the first place). In the meantime, ask yourself: What would Jesus do?
April 4th, 2009 at 8:46 am
@ Jedibear:
What everyone else said.
And about this:
Now, did that come from my religion? Did it have anything to do with morality, with or without quotes?
No. Nothing to do with your religion, nor morality or quotes. Just opinion. Your own opinion to be precise, unsupported by facts, presented as if it were handed down from Vishnu himself.
Thanks for straightening everything out.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Consent and good faith (more the legal use of the term good faith not the religious use of the word).
Beyond love, these are in my mine the two important factors of a good relationship. Interestingly enough looking at the Jewish form of marriage, the ketubah or marriage contract is just that a business contract. It is a legal contract more than a religious one and fulfills pretty much all of the modern day requirements for a legal contract, consent, good faith, consideration (exchange of rings) etc.
I see no reason from this point of view how entering into such a legal contract cannot take place regardless of who the participants are. As long as there is love, consent and good faith (legal).
Incidentally, as someone who has and is still dealing with USCIS as part of getting a green card, I have to prove that my marriage is not a sham (at least twice so far). I will note that “normal” Americans don’t generally have to prove their marriages are not shams as evidenced on a seemingly daily basis of celebrity marriages and divorces (cough, Britney Spears, cough). Does that cheapen my marriage? I couldn’t care less.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Totally OT, but the latest Analog arrived at my house the same day this decision was announced.. and in their regular “reference library” section near the back (pretty nearly always the first thing I read) there was a vshort but very complimentary review of a certain book that opens with the line “The Universe is trying to kill you.” Yep, two good things in one day. Another state grows a collective brain and Death from the Skies gets reviewed in Analog
April 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Oh happy day! When the state washed church failure away.
It is great news, but on a further and not totally unrelated side note I would have been much happier if it had happened before the state and church divide back in ’00. Now it is up to, mainly, the still by name “Church of Sweden” to hash out if the church itself will opt out of marriage altogether (by naming it something else) or if some priests will be allowed to do so.
Alas, this question was left unresolved by the then state church resistance to follow the state’s (and, not coincidentally, the people’s) wishes.
One religion denies the others their similar beliefs, and by implication it’s own.
In other news today, dog bites man.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:46 am
“it’s” – its.
Time to quite while I’m still behind, seems I need a rest.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:46 am
@Jose:
“There are good reasons to not allow two siblings to marry, . . .”
Other than genetics, what are they?
If it’s a major worry, what if the two siblings did not have an active sexual relationship?
April 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Double failure!
“quit”. [Rereading twice. Thise tim eet wil bee nyet spelink prublem, Ah dair yoo!]
April 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
*Sigh*
‘Some people’ are just confuzzling and frustrating beyond “belief.”
As soon as someone says “God says…” or “The Bible says…”, it’s over.
(Change to any Deity or Scripture of your choice).
Whatever the issue, debate becomes pointless, logic a joke, reality moot, ethics-which-are-actually-ethical irrelevant.
If the golden rule is “Treat others as you would like to be treated”…there are a hell of a lot of masochists out there (and I ain’t talking about in the bedroom).
–Cheers for Iowa
April 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@ unquiet_mind:
As soon as someone says “God says…” or “The Bible says…”, it’s over.
Actually, it’s usually, “The BUYbuhhl sezzzzzz…”
Have to get your preachy accent right.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The title of the website is–was–Bad Astronomy, dealing with science, technology, etc. I fail to see what anyones’s opinion of a purely social issue–marriage–fits in this context. Please stay on topic.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I am totally overwhelmed by the knowledge shown by both sides of this discussion. You are so knowledgeable.
So I am really worried about myself and my wife’s soul.
You see apart from actual sex we like to masturbate each other and sometimes ourselves.
Like I mean together. Is this sinful?
Should I tell our Pastor? Should I ask her to loin in. (oops)
True heteros want to know.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I may regret throwing my hat in this ring, but to any and everyone who has cried bloody murder that “marriage is a sacred institution” would do well to look into the history of marriage.
Marriage is social engineering designed to solidify a self-reproducing mechanism to ensure a workforce/consumer force.
That’s it. Your “sacred institution” is barely 100 years old.
Wanna cite the various “holy texts”? Look at the multiple wives and surrogates of the major biblical characters.
It never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get about two dudes getting married.
I read in this thread “What we are talking about is redefining the word marriage”. So what? We redefine words all the time! This is nothing new.
The history of social progression is making a wider net that is more inclusive. Those in opposition to gay marriage: you will be left behind, clutching onto your outdated conservative values that restrict the rights of people you claim to treat as equals.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Back to the original post:
Word, Phil Plait. Word up.
April 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Gee, I so wish the Religious could experience what I have experienced,,,a spontaneous Mystical happening.
Then they could go around starting new religions, each of which would depend upon their individual world views. I expect the noise level would rise to incredible heights,,,
Keep up the Good work, all you agnostics and atheists. THIS version of God heartily approves,,,
Love,
Gary 7
April 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Why, oh why, do i have to click on the comments link? It’s like watching a train wreck…
@Lee Holmes, as has been said many many times this is not a science astronomy blog it is Phil’s blog and he can write about any dang thing he wants to write and I for one am glad he does. If anything this is a skeptical blog, an anti-stupidity blog. Phil does a good job labeling his posts, don’t want to read them, don’t, only read the astronomy posts. Phil, please stray off topic as much as you wish.
@Some Canadian Skeptic- I’m glad you did threw your hat in the ring. Marriage is not ‘sacred’. Gays deserve the same rights everyone else enjoys, hell any non-traditional (and as you have pointed out it’s not very traditional) marriage/grouping/joining should get the same benefits, group marriages, etc. I’m hesitant about polygamy just because, as recent news has shown, it seems that some are not very equal towards women and they are coerced into it, but guess what these are fringe religious leaders taking advantage of these girls. I have known quiet a few ‘poly’ people that are more then happy with their situation. Polygamy, polyandry, group marriages, Dominate/submissive, gay marriages, straight marriages…. what’s the difference? if they are happy, and most are, more power to them. It IS unconstitutional to give benefits, next of kin, inheritance, and other rights to only those marriages condoned by a single religion… or ANY religion.
Now look what you all have made me do, not only did I click on comments, I had to get involved in the morass of stupidity.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
It ain’t over until its over. Because there is a three-year interval until the constitution can be changed, Monday morning the REPUBLICAN caucus will discuss two measures concerning the Supreme Court ruling _ 1) marriage licenses will not be “sold” to non-residents. One will need to establish (6 months + 1 day) residency, and, of course, pay Iowa income tax, or 2)the fee for Non-resident marriage licenses will be increased to $10,000. Verbatium from the mouth of a Republican member of the House.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
@ Rift:
That’s okay, the bigots have long since fled after the rest of the gang didn’t buckle beneath the weight of their stupendous and well-supported (koff!) arguments.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@kuhnigget
Durnit! I’m late to the party and you guys scared ‘em all off? I brought my logic and everything, but didn’t get to use it!
April 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@ Scott: what about the rules in the New Testament that say women are not allow to be in a position of authority or allowed to teach men? This is a strict, unambiguous rule found in the New Testament, not the Old Testament.
So do you think women teachers should be outlawed? Should women be barred from politics and management positions in business and government? Should women be barred from being judges and police officers because such positions automatically entail power over men? Should women even be allowed to vote, since that gives them the ability to make decisions regarding what male politicians do and ultimately the rules that are passed over male citizens?
April 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
@ Todd:
Ha! That’ll learn ya to spend time away from the computer!
April 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I’ve never seen ‘the rest of the gang’ buckle under kook arguments, and I’ve been following Phil’s stuff, geez, at least 15 years when he had a little forum with about 12 regulars and the occasional nut job wander past. Then Planet X, the Fox moon hoax show, and Hoagwash, oops, Hoagland, had to go and ruin anything.
Originally it was just Phil showing what was wrong with astronomy in movies and tv (hence the name) and debunking old myths. (like the one about you can see stars at the bottom of the well that a junior high school teacher told me).
I kind of get choked up and teary eyed about how far we’ve all come (Even though I can no longer call myself a ‘regular’, i’m afraid comment threads like this ugly one have kind of scared me off of participating)
To the rest of ya-
Fight the good fight.
Doubt, always doubt.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Lee Holmes, the title of the thread is “Iowa lets people get married”. Was it really a surprise to you that this thread wasn’t about astronomy? And what of the other threads that are about astronomy? Are you loudly cheering “Huzzah” on each of those threads?
April 4th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
JediBear,
Marriage is not a right. Anything that the government issues licenses for is a privilage, and not a right,
So the right to bear arms is not a right, if a license is involved? The 2nd amendment is just a privilege?
April 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
kuhnigget,
@ Todd:
Ha! That’ll learn ya to spend time away from the computer!
He’s been busy reasoning with the anti-vaccinationists who are appalled at the lack of Jenny Love on this site. Todd is amazingly patient.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
@doofus
So I should have said reason. Big deal. I was making a point, not arguing the merits of siblings getting married. Stay on topic.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
@MikeinJapan: Yeah, I can’t figure out why everyone’s surprised that we’re talking about IOWA here. Most of my closer relatives on my fathers side of the family are from there. This is the state where people hide marijuana plants in the middle of their corn fields. None of my relatives do this, but all of them know somebody… (not that I’m condoning pot use, but…)
Yeah, Iowa’s where the party’s at, don’tcha know? Go get drunk then go cowtipping, or if you have a large enough group, go make crop circles.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
As a Libertarian, I have no concerns about same sex marriage. It just means more business for divorce lawyers which means more divorcees being ripped off.
I agree that two (maybe more?) cognitively unimpaired persons should be able to establish the legal union or partnership called marriage. So at what age can we say someone is cognitively unimpaired and can we test for it? This is a science blog, right? Some recent studies have shown that judgement relative to avoiding risky behavior (and believe me, marriage is risky) is not fully developed in most of us until we are in our mid twenties. So should the age of consent (not for parents, but the government) be set at say, 25? Or perhaps there could be a psychological test.
I noticed that many of the posters take a decidely anti-religion or anti-Christian stance in their entries. I’m an atheist, but I have sense enough to recognize that millions (whoa, billions) of people have been immersed in religious activity for most of their lives. The fact that their beliefs are based on ancient scriptures and dogma that have not one whit of viable evidence to support them does not alter the fact that they truly believe what they were taught.
What I find interesting about the religious aspect is perhaps the lack of posts relative to Islam. Islamic folks are not posting so I understand there is no one to respond to. But you all know that they are adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and in general treat women as having fewer rights and lower status than men.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and Muslims seem to be somewhat (maybe a lot) more likely than Christians to employ violence as a means to expand their religion. A few years back information was published indicating that of over 180 armed conflicts going on in the world, all but one involved Muslims. Yet many in the media and some who post here seem to really enjoy sticking it to the Christians. Hmmm, is there a fear factor here? Are Christians less intimidating and thus easier to attack or denigrate. Think about it.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
@ actuator:
While I suspect you are a troll looking to start an Islam-bashing thread, I’ll take your post at face value and provide a very simple answer to your final question, the one you wanted us to “think about.”
To wit, nobody here was enjoying “sticking it to the Christians.” What some of us did not shrink from, however, was calling out the Christians who posted their opinions masquerading as reasoned arguments. If a Muslim were to post a similar “argument,” that is to say an opinion based on their religion, not on demonstrable fact, then I seriously doubt you would see any shortage of “attacks.”
Think about that, and have a nice night.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@Jose: I thought I was on-topic, but I obviously didn’t state it well enough.
Your original post did state “”reasons (plural) and I was curious as to what they were. To me, it sounded like you had a whole list ready to go. My intent was not to be confrontational, but to learn what they would be.
It seems the main point of this thread is who should be allowed to marry each other.
Depending on one’s religious/and or social viewpoint there seems to be certain rules.
This got me thinking. If a pair of siblings wanted to get married (and again, avoid generating their own offspring), based on all the arguments presented, what would be wrong with that?
April 4th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Daffy:
You forgot Bono on that list.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@doofus
Personally, I don’t care if siblings get married. I was just making the point that, in that case, there is a valid argument that can be made against it. In the case of gay people getting married, I don’t see a valid reason.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
@ actuator: In the U.S., it is the Christians who are in a position of power and trying to force their beliefs down everyones’ throats. That is the issue here.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:56 am
While I was skimming through some of these posts I gotta say I was pretty applauded by some of your responses. I simply can’t believe that there are posts here that say things like “why not let 3 or more adults get married if they’re all consenting?” Believe it or not, but I feel pretty strongly that marriage is a sacred union before God between a MAN and a WOMAN and if you don’t like it you can get the hell out.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:20 am
@kuhnigget
No no no, they’re just resting. On the Sabbath. Otherwise they’d be hypocrites. And speaking of hypocrites…
@Scott
Your non-answers to kuhnigget’s point have yet to dispel the notion that you are a hypocrite who is using religion to support your bigotry. The point is not that hard to understand, so either you’re being extremely ingenuous or disingenuous. And either way, I hope you realize what a terrible representative of Christianity you’re being: I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t thank you for being clueless or dishonest.
So, let’s try again: whether or not Jesus died as a sacrifice for your sins makes no difference to whether or not a particular act is a sin. I do not get to murder people and say “oh, it’s ok to murder now, because that whole ‘thou shalt not murder’ thing is SOOOO Old Testament”. You know this. Furthermore, being the good Bible reader that you are, you also know that Jesus said that he was not repealing the law, but completing it. So, to kuhnigget’s point: if being teh gey is a sin pre- and post-Good Friday, then so is not having a parapet on the roof of your house; conversely, if Good Friday means that it’s now ok to eat shellfish, then it means that it’s now ok for me to bonk blokes. Otherwise, you’re cherry-picking, aka being a hypocrite.
Oh, I know I know, the NT mentions the evilness of gayness. Yeah, well…
1) how many times did Jesus mention it?
2) show me one NT reference (by anyone) that refers to the evilness of committed gay relationships (which is what’s under discussion), rather than, say, pederasty or temple prostitution.
3) show me any indication that the sins listed in these NT references are taken to be an exhaustive list. Otherwise, so what? some sins got mentioned — that doesn’t mean that simultaneous-linen-and-wool-wearing is no longer just as much of an abomination as bumsex (it just didn’t get mentioned in that list).
4) as has been previously mentioned, women being in authority over men is also proscribed. Do I see you leading the charge to right this terrible wrong also?
Bottom line: there is no logically consistent way to use your religion to condemn homosexuality without also condemning yourself for many other violations. Which is why you’re being called a hypocrite. Because you are, whether you see it or not.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Oh, and Dr P: great title for this post!
April 5th, 2009 at 7:41 am
I have one question.
How do the Greek Gods feel about gay marriage? How about Odin? On which side does he drop his hammer? We’ve heard from the Old Man in the Desert faction, now how about all the other folks?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:49 am
I don’t think the Greek gods cared too much about homosexuality, seeing how the ancient Greeks practically invented gayness.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:01 am
To be fair, that is ‘right-wing Christians’ you refer to.
I enjoyed reading Mel White’s “Stranger at the Gate”. There seem to be a lot of Christians with an open mind to this issue. And in Europe, there isn’t even a problem among most of them really.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Yeah, I guess I spoke to soon. Strollin’ through the trollin’ …
@ Peter:
Believe it or not, but I feel pretty strongly that marriage is a sacred union before God between a MAN and a WOMAN and if you don’t like it you can get the hell out.
Believe away!
And, uh, “get the hell out” of what? I’m sure you don’t mean the country, because, obviously you’re well educated enough to understand that this is a secular nation based on the rule of law, not the whim of any one (or two hundred million) citizen’s god. Right? Surely you’re not, oh, I dunno, ignorant of that fact?
April 5th, 2009 at 11:07 am
My favorite quote on the subject of “unnatural” by John Dobson:
“Anything that happens … is natural.”
(He goes on to say “a battleship is just as natural as a tree.”)
April 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“I don’t think the Greek gods cared too much about homosexuality, seeing how the ancient Greeks practically invented gayness.”
The wording just made me GOL (giggle out loud).
thx
On another note, some comments in this thread almost make me feel “traditional” in comparison. NOT in the sense of (politically) conservative, mind you–I rather prefer to identify myself as a “progressive” rather than “liberal,” but as the right-wing has co-opted the latter term to be some kind of insult, I’ll also wear that badge proudly. But, I digress…
Um, siblings marrying? Just ew, ew, ick, and ewww. M’kay?
And “group” marriages? Certainly doesn’t provoke the kind of violent reaction as the previous, yet…something about it feels off to me. In terms of the sexual/emotional aspects, whatever floats your boat. But as a form of marriage, well, I guess I’ve got my own ‘prejudices’ about what the term “marriage” means–namely a legal contract, conferring relevant benefits, between two consenting (and non-biologically related!) adults. Essentially. Not because there’s anything “sacred” about it (HAH!), or b/c it’s an institution I have any personal investment in (I don’t), but, realistically…
Frak. Realistically, i’m just thinking ‘out loud,’ and procrastinating doing all the work that I really *need* to be getting done, so…yeah.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Peter, I’m a little confused by your statement. The posts have been clapping for you?
Hint: try looking up the meanings of words before using them.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@ Peter:
“I feel pretty strongly that marriage is a sacred union before God between a MAN and a WOMAN and if you don’t like it you can get the hell out.”
Ummm….get out of what? The world? Life? A free and open democracy?
I don’t think that you have the authority to issue such a charge. Nor does your church.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Michael L,
True, I did. On the other hand, does Bono exist after the cameras are turned off?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:10 am
As many others here, I’m confused as to how people can feel so threatened and outraged by the fact that two adults who love each other can get married. As someone who’s fallen for members of the opposite gender as well as the same.. I fail to see how it makes any difference to the government or to any religious group whatsoever who I marry.
I wonder if the same people who’re against two same-gender people marrying would also have been (or *are*) against people of different ethnicities marrying. It’s exactly the same issue.
I loved my kids’ response here in Canada when they legalised gay marriage. Total bewilderment at the fact that it *wasn’t* legal already. That’s the kind of acceptance that I like to see
April 6th, 2009 at 8:07 am
@Scott
Essentially, by [Jesus] sacrificing himself, he removed many of the old testament requirements from our own souls.
Good to know!
Which ones were removed? Oh yeah, and which ones weren’t?
Of course, then one must ask why some were removed and some weren’t. Which leads one to the uncomfortable question of how it is that YOU get to decide.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Most of the people who are frightened by gay marriage are also critical of gays for being “too promiscuous.” So why deny them an institution that promotes fidelity?
In my experience (anecdotal and limited, I grant you), most of these homophobes are concealing latent homosexual tendencies in themselves and THAT is really what they are terrified of.
But for whatever reason they are doing this, bigotry is still repugnant.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:59 am
It amazes me that this issue is so contentious and everyone’s opinion about it so deeply entrenched that noone was able to respond to my comment without either putting words in my mouth or making unwarranted assumptions about me.
This is not a debate in which logic or skepticism or science is employed on either side. Neither side is right. Neither side is even wrong.
@Rogue Medic: As constructed, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does in fact bar Congress (and, by the extension of a later Amendment, the States) from (among other things) requiring licensure for a Citizen thereof to keep a(ny) weapon or to bear it upon his(/her) person. That this, and the implicit restriction of the various States has not been dilligently enforced is something of a problem in American jurisprudence and, as such, not really a good example.
@The rest of you: Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
I don’t oppose homosexual marriage. (To say nothing of DINKs, tragically infertile marraiges, or couples growing old together after the children have left the nest.) I don’t support it, but I don’t oppose it.
What I *am* doing is pointing out that allowing homosexual marriage requires the expansion of the word’s definition beyond what we may reasonably expect was the intent of lawmakers who enacted laws allowing marriage, and that doing so is therefore the prerogative not of courts, but of legislatures.
FWIW, marriage is clearly not the same thing as sex. Children may result from sibling unions whether the siblings may marry or not. Therefore, there is no logic by which we may bar siblings from marrying. Consequently, and since the state of Iowa wisely prohibits reasonless discrimination in licensing, we may suppose that the state of Iowa must allow siblings to marry and to gain all the legal benefits thereof. While we’re at it, discrimination on the basis of marital status is usually seen as odious as well.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:00 am
On the other hand, and again for what it’s worth, you’re biologically programmed to regard your sister as disgusting, and multiple marriages are rare even in jurisdictions where they’re permitted. So meh.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@ Jedibear:
If that is your argument, Jedi, then I think it’s even easier to refute.
We have changed the definition of words beyond what their original users intended numerous times in the past. Hence, black people were redefined as wholly human, instead of 2/3s human.
Legislation is indeed the way the marriage laws in this country will ultimately be codified, but as with similar issues in the past, it is almost always the courts that have prodded both state and federal legislatures into action. The courts are as much a part of the process as the lawmakers themselves.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
@JediBear
Do you have a link to the very first Federal or State laws enacted regarding marriage? Also, do you have links to any supporting documents that clarify intent of said laws? Thank you.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
kuhnigget-
Usages /do/ evolve over time, but it is actually the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure that new usages /do not/ undermine the original intent of a law.
After all, a new usage may just as easily create a great injustice as benefit a vast number of people through the creation of a new institution with similarities to an existing one.
You will, at minimum, need a better example. After all, black people didn’t go from “2/3 human” to “wholly human” by the whim of an activist judiciary combined with a new usage concocted by a group with an agenda. The fourteenth amendment was an act of Congress, and was fully meant to be applied just as it was in Brown v. Board of Education.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Todd W. — Do your own legal research.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Jedi, you have to know that laws — including marriage laws — exist because people know they can be used to shape people’s behavior in ways the lawmakers (i.e. the ones with the power) believe are beneficial to society. As those beliefs change, so do the laws.
Thus with marriage laws, once it was accepted that interracial relationships were perfectly natural, those marriage laws were changed. In the same way the increasing acceptance of the same sex attraction as a natural phenomenon is increasing the pressure to change the marriage laws to accommodate this change in attitude.
But despite claims of being on the “slippery slope” there is no such widespread acceptance of incestuous or multi-partner marriage. Indeed, good cases can be made that it is not in the interest of society to encourage such behavior. The risks involved with incest are obvious, and the history of multi-partner marriages shows us that there is widespread scope for abuse and the oppression of women where such marriages exist. Sure, that need not be true in all cases, but society has reserved the right (in many cases) to legislate on the side of caution (seat-belt laws, helmet laws, food and drug safety laws, etc. etc.) and there is no reason why marriage laws should be exempted from that standard.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@JediBear
I thought it would be beneficial to the conversation if you provided a link to the sources you were using to form your arguments here. That would put us all on the same page and help everyone understand where you are coming from. It is standard practice, I’m sure you understand, for one to cite one’s sources.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
JediBear,
So what if it changes the legal definition? Are you suggesting our laws should not evolve along with our culture?
If so, I assume you support slavery, women not having the vote, genocide against American Indians, and abortion.
(Yes, folks, abortion was perfectly legal when this country was founded; it was the preferred method of birth control. Look it up.)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
@ Jedibear:
Usages /do/ evolve over time, but it is actually the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure that new usages /do not/ undermine the original intent of a law.
The judiciary is not limited to that. If that were true, Brown v. Board of Education would not be the landmark decision it was. In that case, there was no new usage. It was the old definitions that were being challenged.
Again, the judiciary is part of the process. Trying to label judges doing their jobs as “activist” is nonsensical politicking.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@JediBear
Well, I’m not sure if this is the definition you’re using, but, I found one at www (dot) lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm. In it, we find that indeed, marriage is a
So, slaves are not allowed to marry. Good to know in case slavery is ever legalized again.
We also find that
So, idiots, lunatics and infants cannot marry, but if you’re a guy 14 or older or a girl 12 or older, you can get married, as long as mom and dad say it’s okay.
We also find there that the marriage doesn’t count if one is already married to someone who is still living, the parties are related a la descendant/ancestor (but cousins are okay), one of the persons is incurably impotent, one person commits adultery (can’t marry the person ya had the affair with)
Marriages in foreign countries are recognized, as long as they are not “repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws”, so I guess if two men or two women get married in Canada, the U.S. won’t recognize it because a bunch of self-righteous folks think it’s icky.
Also:
Sorry, girls, but all that money you earn, well, it’s his now. Suffrage be damned.
Doesn’t this kinda make the wife the husband’s slave? But slaves can’t be married… Hmm…
Okay, those of you women that refuse to change your name, well, you’re using the wrong legal name. Would that be fraud?
Who cares if the father is an abusive drunkard, the mother ain’t getting custody.
This suggests that any child born outside of marriage has absolutely no rights at all as regards inheritance or any claim of relationship to the parents or the rest of the family, at least in a legal sense.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@adam:
“Heaven forbid you’d actually respect the fact that some people have a certain standard of morality and might fight for it.”
I completely and utterly disrespect and disregard the fact that you push your “morality” upon others, especially when it infringes upon those pesky “inaliable rights” held to be self-evident. Rights, by the way, to which Christianity does NOT own a majority interest.
Stop your whining. We don’t want to hear about it. And get your “morality” out of our public.
Thank you.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Heaven forbid you’d actually respect the fact that some people have a certain standard of morality and might fight for it.”
Sounds like something Al Qaida would say. That’s the trouble with most religions: people will kill for them.
And that violates MY standards of morality.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
JediBear,
You appear to be stating that there is no basis for your claims.
This is a mostly scientific blog. If there are debates on a topic, it is not uncommon for a person to suggest that a certain piece of research supports their position. If the citation is not included in the comment, it is common for someone to ask for the citation to support that claim. The inability to provide citations is something that leads readers to the conclusion that, you just made that up.
Did you just make it up?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“So, Adam, what is “unacceptable” about other people’s personal behavior that does not involve you in any way, or affect your life in any way, or hurt anyone in any way? ”
it does involve others in other ways. claiming it has no effect on others is provably false. until people are free to refuse to engage in contracts with marriages they do not like, those in said marriages can force interaction with those contracts on the unwilling.
marriage forces others to participate. Explaining how this force is ‘fair’ or prevents this or that doesn’t change this…gay marriage DOES force others to participate in the contract in the current legal system.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“it does involve others in other ways. claiming it has no effect on others is provably false. until people are free to refuse to engage in contracts with marriages they do not like, those in said marriages can force interaction with those contracts on the unwilling.”
No more than heterosexual marriages force gays to “interact” with straights.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Homosexuals are just gay!
April 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“No more than heterosexual marriages force gays to “interact” with straights.”
Correct. In that case State coercion is forcing gays to participate in straight marriage contracts, whenever they are engaged in a tranasction which requirese them to recognize or interact with said contract.
Decouple the State from defining marriage and allow all marriages of adults, with no discrimination between straights, gays, plural or other arrangements, and defend all sides rights by allowing all to refuse contracts they do not with so recognize.
All sides free, all sides protected.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
The Old Testament laws were originally intended for the Israelites (His original chosen people),
Why is it that this idea of an original “chosen people” strikes me as just plain racist nuttery?
I often wonder whether people who claim the Bible is the source of all “morality” have actually read it at all?
In the Bible:
Lot has sex with his daughters,
Jephthah sacrifices (murders) his daughter to keep a promise with Yahwah,
Abraham nearly does the same to his kid,
a priest kepeps two “angels” from being molested by a mob – by chucking out his daughter and a concubine (female sex slave) to be gang
raped to death instead,
King Saul shows mercy to a opposing groups king by not slaughtering him and the prophet Samuel comes in and abuses the king for showing mercy – and then chops the king (an unarmed prisoner) into many pieces,
the Israelites go about committing “divinely ordered” genocide left, right and centre,
.. & so on & so on, ad nauseam
*This* is what these religious nutters call “the good book??!” ;-(
People that believe this is all “good” & “Gods word” also reckon their beliefs give them the right to poke their noses into everybody’s bedroom &
everybody’s intimate relationships? WTF??
Those people, can all go do something that Phil Plait won’t allow me to
say ..
To everyone else, whatever floats your boat, your lives & loves are your own business. Oh & Iowa – ’bout time! Took you long enough to make the
right choice but at least you are ahead of all too many others.
This should NOT be news. It should be basic common sense that consenting loving adults everywhere can marry as they please. That still isn’t
in so many places is well .. just sad really.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Add Vermont to the list of states allowing gay marriage! Another state rids itself of some discrimination!
April 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
MtnGoat: “Decouple the State from defining marriage and allow all marriages of adults, with no discrimination between straights, gays, plural or other arrangements, and defend all sides rights by allowing all to refuse contracts they do not with so recognize.”
Good idea; and if Mr. and Mrs. Straight American feel like refusing to sell their property to any of them uppity colored folks, they should be free to do that, too. If an employer wants to fire all his Jewish employees that should be OK. And while we’re about it, let’s make it perfectly OK to refuse service to Irish people. If we play our cards right, maybe we can start killing Indians again, too.
Or we could just accept that people everywhere deserve civil rights and quit being ignorant, superstitious savages.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The right to refuse contracts IS civil rights, and the idea that you can cure differences by threatening innocents over what is their right to reject, the superstituous savagery.
Instead, what happens is the laws you presumably support merely *hide* racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the rest. People don’t stop being racist or whatever because you force them to accept blacks. What they do is hide it…and in doing so, it can’t be dealt with openly.
Instead, blacks do buisness with people who hate them and might reject said buisness, but they don’t even know they are dealing with people who hate them because the haters cannot show it legally by refusing trade.
What appears to be in evidence here is that you are fine with gays being able to force others to participate in their marriage contracts. Or with straights being able to force people to participate in theirs.
And all this in spite of the fact that it is this forced participation that is one of the reasons allowing gay marriage is so strongly embedded…every single resistor realizes they will be forced to consent to approval of participating in a practice they fundamentally oppose….gay marriage.
So instead of allowing all sides to express themselves openly, so that disagreement can take place above board and be dealt with…you prefer applying force to people violating no one elses rights. I can’t say it’s an unusual position, but I can say it is backwards and wrong, IMO.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I’ve yet to see *any* reasonable explanation or demonstration by the anti-gay marriage side here as to how on Earth allowing two consenting adults who truly love each other and yet happen to be of the same gender somehow makes their own marriages less secure or how it undermines marriage in any way.
(Yeah, I’m person number nine thousand and ninety-nine to make this partic. point but there’s *still* been no reasonable reply and the anti-gays are still trollin’ on so it clearly needs making again – and again until they either come up with a rational reason or finally admit there isn’t one.)
You’d think with marriage being an institution in as much trouble as it is (mainly from average straight people & celebrities like Britney Spears, & Madonna) with fewer and fewer wishing to belong to that instituition*; any pro-marriage folks would be keen to embrace the one group in society that are still keen to adopt the practice.
Really anti-gay marriage folks, aside from homophobia, what is your problem with it?
If you can’t come up with anything even vaguely rational, that isn’t sky-fairy bronze age religion related (& no, saying marriage is about children or reproduction just doesn’t apply not all straight married couples can – or want – to do that.) then its simply time for the anti-gays to get over themselves and admit defeat. Period.
——————————-
* Mae Wests’s words about marraige “being a fine institution but she’s not ready to be institutionalised” or something on those lines springs to mind.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
D’oh! Only the second paragraph -theone inbrackets was meant tobe italicised there. So easy to forget a > & < tag. Html coding for everything sux.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
@ Mtn Goat :
So rather than pass laws to give people of different races & gender orientations their inalienable human rights you’d do ..what exactly?
Rcaism isn’t acceptable. We shouldn’t tolerate discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin. Or their sexual preferences either.
Okay, maybe some racists feel they can’t go out and incite hatred and goalong totheir KKK rallies. Maybe they bottle up their irrational hatreds for fear of the law. Masybe they swearand mutter under their breath every time they see a happy gay couple or a black woman sitting at thefront of a bus.
You know what? I’m cool with that.
Racists can hide their socially unacceptable racism all they like and die unsatisfied taking their white hoods and bigotry to the grave with ‘em.
Hopefully with society’s values changing their kids will eventually wonder what all the racist / homophobic nonsense was ever about & why poor old mutterin’ granpoppy had this odd thing against perfectly normal and acceptable things like their happily married lesbian neighbours – or the black folk bein’ onthe front of the bus … or even a black man being president.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
we’re pussyfooting around the actual problem: some people are ooked out by gays. … But just because you’re personally uncomfortable with it, doesn’t mean a) it’s wrong, and/or b) it should be illegal.
See that’s where lacking a real (that is to say, Bible-based) sense of morality gets you. Ethics becomes just a matter of pick’n'choose or as the satanists say, “do as thou wilt.”
If ethics is just personal “feel good” choice up to anybody & everybody of whatever low standards & character, of whatever doesn’t get you “ooked out” as the BA puts it then where do you draw the line?
The BA isn’t “ooked out” by homosexuals marrying – & so that’s fine?
Is he “ooked out” by a brother marrying a sister? If he or, in his weird liberal world, a minority of other activists isn’t – does that make it okay
too? Should we force brother–sister marriage upon everyone as legal just
because a few noisy sicko’s think that’s okay too?
What about a father marrying his daughter – or son?
What about having multiple wives or husbands?
What about marrying your pet?
Your car?
A rubber doll?
A corpse?
Yeah, all that “ooks me out” alright. It turns my stomach and revolts me just like men marrying men. And the argument for that is exactly the same as the argument for any of the other sinful perversions I’ve listed above, incest, paedophilia, bestialty, inanimate objects, necrophilia, … & sodomy too is on that list -as it should be -as they should be.
Yet the screeching, overpowering, message of the godless liberal homosexual lobbyists (the one its become almost a thought-crime to ignore)is:
“Hey, whatever your fetish, however disgustingly depraved you are, that’s alright, go do it!”
That’s morality to them, nothing but whatever poor standard seems right to them & anything & everything goes. Morality then, goes out the window along with God. (Throw God out and, of course, morality necessarily goes out with Him.)
So according to the BA & the gay lobby, we should start getting used to sodomy, men lying with men, women with women, fathers with sons, mothers with daughters, sisters with brothers, men with rubber dolls, animals and corpses & worse.
The Homosexual lobby is the thin end of the wedge, its open slather on marriage killing it off by making the word itself meaningless – the very DEFINITION of marriage is restricted to one man and one woman joined by God.
And God, unlike gays is the source of morality & ethics, a trustworthy source that doesn’t just “go with the flow.” The only trustworthy source of moral law which is an absolute, eternal, accurate, objective source that, despite atheists claims, is very real – as they’ll one day find for themselves! A Divine Source that is of perfect moral character and in a perfect position to judge. Who doesn’t say, “Oh well let people do what they wish however depraved, its their right to do so. And to rub it in our faces & we just need to shut up and die.” (Which seems the attitude of many pro-homosexual, – maybe personally homosexual & therefore unreliably biased – posters on this blog.)
God made his position on sodomy & the gay lobby very clear. Look it up in
the Bible for yourselves – its the bit where He destroys the Sodomites and their notorious city along with their fellow sinners in Gomorrah.
Allow men to marry men and there’ll be NO limit. Why should there be if anything goes? And everything will go.
Anyone noticed how along with rise of the gay lobby we hear more and more child molestation in the news? How along with atheism becoming common, pornography and sexual deviancy seem ever more ubiquitous?
There’s your rational evidence and argument if you dare to draw the right conclusion from it.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
MtnGoat, people didn’t deal with homophobia, sexism, or racism before antidiscrimination laws were enacted. Except for gay-bashings and lynchings. Do you really think that’s a good state of affairs?
April 8th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Then again,
You clearly do not advocate following all of the Bible. Only those parts that please you. You are not God, but you claim that the religions that do not follow your selective approach to the Bible, are Godless?
Your ranting is very anti-Christian.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
@ Then again :
“… the very DEFINITION of marriage is restricted to one man and one woman joined by God.”
A couple of questions for you Then Again :
(if you’re not just doing a “troll & run.”)
That ‘joined by God’ bit there; does that logically mean you have to believe in god to get married? That atheists cannot marry?
If so, which god, & /or gods and goddesses? If, say, you believe in Aphrodite, Neptune & Zeus its okay to be married but if you belive in Jehovah its not or vice-versa?
(Btw.,I’m pretty sure the Flying Sphaghetti Monster is cool with whatever ..)
Does it imply that if god isn’t real, if s/he/they just doesn’t exist then all marriages are invalid?
Really I’m curious. It is the logical inference.
Now to answer your slippery slope argument about where we “draw the line” is actually pretty easy – if the people involved are
1. consenting adults
2. of sound mind, (much like any contract),
3. if under no duress ie. really willing &
4. truly committed to each other
.. Then that’s fine. They can get married. If not, not. Simple.
I really just don’t see gay marriage as leading to men being allowed to marry children or corpses (sheesh, that’d make for a fun wedding ceremony – NOT!) or any of the other ridiculous extremist hyperbole you spout.
As for morality being part of religion, of god making all moral law and that stuff – nonsense!
The way I (and most people with 21st century minds) see things :
*People* make god in their own imagined image – & the morality that goes along with their religions.
At the time the bible was written – by multiple often contradictory authors with blended middle-eastern mythologies – slavery was common, genocide of tribe against tribe was accepted, and life was totally different. We’ve changed since then, learnt a lot, understood a lot through science, made our lives much better and happier. The bible has stayed stuck in the mode of thinking of two thousand plus years ago. Its been used to justify slavery, sexism, racism and oppression. Its hardly the ideal guide to *anything* least of all morality.
Its funny you mention Sodom & Gomorrah – I have read the bible although I don’t belive in it as you do – & I know that shortly after surviving its destruction, Lot and his daughters were alone in a cave. Thinking they were the only one’s left in the world; Lot’s two daughters deliberately got their father blind drunk, then had sex with him in order to keep humanity going by procreating with (what they thought was) the only living male left – daddy. The Bible doesn’t condemn them or anything – just notes the story and calls Lot the father of another people that the Israelites went on to exterminate.
Is *that* your model of perfect morality? Is it “moral” that god destroys a whole city for bumsex (although whether that was even the Sodomites crime is debatable) but keeps quiet about daughters (who, btw. aren’t named but then heck, they’re just females) breeding with their father out of sheer desperation? Do you actually know what the bible says or just your preacher / televangelist?
Also out of sheer morbid curiousity:
“we should start getting used to sodomy, men lying with men, women with women, fathers with sons, mothers with daughters, sisters with brothers, men with rubber dolls, animals and corpses & worse.”
Worse? What’s worse? For a supposedly holier than thou, clean-livin’, god-fearin’ christian, Then-Again you sure seem to have a dirty mind!
;-P
Perhaps you should open it out for an airing sometime? (& no, trollin’ on the BA’s blog doesn’t count as ‘airing’!)
April 8th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@Then again
See that’s where lacking a real (that is to say, Bible-based) sense of morality gets you. Ethics becomes just a matter of pick’n’choose or as the satanists say, “do as thou wilt.”
Yes. It’s much better to do your pick’n’choosing from a book that has its rules dictated by the ravings of evil murderous monster. That’s where true morality is found.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
@ Then Again :
So you think the only reason people don’t go around having sex with animals and corpses is because a big sky daddy tell us not to?
You think we can’t figure out that that’s bad idea all by our selves?
That’s just … sad.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Geez, I go away for a day and a whole new crop (crap?) appears.
From Then Again:
See that’s where lacking a real (that is to say, Bible-based) sense of morality gets you. Ethics becomes just a matter of pick’n’choose or as the satanists say, “do as thou wilt.”
Classic FAIL. Christians and Jews do not have a monopoly on morality. Nor is “real” morality a constant. What passes for moral behavior has changed countless times through the ages. You can agree or disagree with those changes, but society changes nonetheless. If you don’t like it, move.
Anyone noticed how along with rise of the gay lobby we hear more and more child molestation in the news? How along with atheism becoming common, pornography and sexual deviancy seem ever more ubiquitous? There’s your rational evidence and argument if you dare to draw the right conclusion from it.
No, can’t say as I have noticed that. Maybe you’re just more in tune with child molestation than I am. Perhaps you have some valid statistics (you know, “rational evidence”?) to support your observation. Koff! Koff! Sorry. That was tough to type. I already know you don’t have valid statistics, because you just pulled the statement out of your ass so you could add it to your list of grand pronouncements from on high.
Here’s another thought for you: maybe local news media are showing more and more sensationalism in general, be it in their neighborhood or across the country, and that’s why your finally tuned child molestation radar is picking up more reports of it. I believe, if you do a little googling, you will find that relative to the population that sort of crime is down.
And this clarification:
The Old Testament laws were originally intended for the Israelites (His original chosen people)
Actually, the many disparate parts of the OT were gathered together from various Yaweh worshiping tribes in the Levant. “Israelites” did not exist as a united people (except for those living specifically in the small kingdom of Israel, to the north and not including Jerusalem) until King Josiah used the collated Pentateuch to artificially unite them under his own leadership in Jerusalem. That’s one of the reasons there are so many contradictions in the OT…the various books came from different source mythologies, united in Yaweh worship, but rather different in their traditions.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
@ petrolonfire:
So you think the only reason people don’t go around having sex with animals and corpses is because a big sky daddy tell us not to? You think we can’t figure out that that’s bad idea all by our selves?
Most of us can, yes. Most of us know that you don’t lie with animals and corpses – just as you don’t lie with someone of the same sex because it’s naturally disgusting, vile and immoral. Our conscience instinctively revolts at the notion – if we have a good one.
Unfortunately, however, there are always a few people who are pyschopaths or plain evil who lack that conscience, who are deafened or corrupted or hardened too much to know the difference between right and wrong, sinful lust and true love. Sadly, as our society becomes more and more corrupted, departs more and more in rebellion from God’s way, such perversions and such perverts are becoming more common as a direct consequence of the rise in atheism, liberalism and the gay lobby.
Also, and you’ll no doubt mock me unmercifully for saying so, there is a real spirit of evil that possesses some people’s minds and delights in all that is foul and evil. It can be seen in the eyes of some serial killers and evil men. The devil and evil spirits are real. But then you are probably willfully blind to this other aspect of life. I pray you awaken to it.
I see no one has denied – because, of course, they cannot – the correlation between the loss of moral values and religion and the increase in our societies cases of child molestation, pornography and perversion. Homosexuality, the devaluing of marriage and the family, the rise in “do-whatever-you-choose-ism” is leading, among other things to the breakdown of our civilisation. Are you all really so blind you do not see this?
@ José Says:
Yes. It’s much better to do your pick’n’choosing from a book that has its rules dictated by the ravings of evil murderous monster. That’s where true morality is found.
Clearly you hate God and have issues there. God is nothing like how you or Dawkin’s mob of fools portray Him. Atheists like you just don’t get it. But you are right in your conclusion (though not its sarcastic tone):
Yes – true morality is to be found in the Bible! Not the whim of political activists and perverts like the gay lobby who hate god and morality and love sin.
@ Spectroscope:
Everyone knows that even the devil can quote scripture – albeit out of context and distorted almost beyond recognition.
Is it “moral” that god destroys a whole city for bumsex (although whether that was even the Sodomites crime is debatable) but keeps quiet about daughters (who, btw. aren’t named but then heck, they’re just females) breeding with their father out of sheer desperation? Do you actually know what the bible says or just your preacher / televangelist?
I do know the Bible and I do know there is much there that scholars have been baffled by and failed to grasp. I don’t claim to be perfect – I am not God. Nor are you. God understands everything and it is the height of hubris, blasphemy and arrogance to attempt to judge Him as you do.
God moves in mysterious ways and we are not meant to understand everything all at once. If we had complete understanding it would not be faith. However, I would note that in the Bible story you mention with Lot’s daughters their *intent* was not sinful. Their actions were not done for lust but survival so that even an atheist can surely see some difference there! Plus the tribe that resulted getting wiped out later – is that not some sign of God’s judgement on such incest?
Now to answer your slippery slope argument about where we “draw the line” is actually pretty easy – if the people involved are
1. consenting adults
2. of sound mind, (much like any contract),
3. if under no duress ie. really willing &
4. truly committed to each other
.. Then that’s fine. They can get married. If not, not. Simple.
Is it? What if the two people who meet all your criteria there are brother & sister, or father and daughter, grandfather and grandson? Is that really okay with you? If it is I can only despair. Have you no instictive revulsion at such matches? If not, it proves my point.
That ‘joined by God’ bit there; does that logically mean you have to believe in god to get married? That atheists cannot marry? If so, which god, & /or gods and goddesses? If, say, you believe in Aphrodite, Neptune & Zeus its okay to be married but if you belive in Jehovah its not or vice-versa? (Btw.,I’m pretty sure the Flying Sphaghetti Monster is cool with whatever ..) Does it imply that if god isn’t real, if s/he/they just doesn’t exist then all marriages are invalid?
Interesting point. Aside from your juvenile mockery of Christianity by placing it at the same level as empty idolatrous and made-up religions.
Yes, *if* there was no God, if atheism were correct – which its NOT – then there would be no “Holy Matrimony”. There’d be nothing Holy at all. Life would have no validity – in fact apart from God theree would be no life at all.
In such unholy empty circumstances then, yes, no marriage would be valid. That is where we are heading now with the gay lobby trying to render marriage meaningless by making it between anyone, any gender & anything.
Atheists now; why do *they* seek marriage knowing it is a state of Holy Matrimony? It puzzles me. They don’t believe in any Holiness, in any Sacred bond, of God joining men and women as they should be joined -yet they seek to be married all the same. Why? Then again, why do people who have denied God do anything? What are they living for? What Purpose does their life serve? You’d better ask one.
Now that you put it that way (& I hadn’t thought of it this way before myself) I guess by the correct definition of marriage:
1 man & 1 woman JOINED BY GOD
then atheists are NOT properly married (although the law and convention says otherwise.) You DO need God in marriage – as in all things. Even if some of you just don’t get that.
@ Rogue Medic:
You clearly do not advocate following all of the Bible. Only those parts that please you. You are not God, but you claim that the religions that do not follow your selective approach to the Bible, are Godless? Your ranting is very anti-Christian.
You woudn’t know what Christianity is. I never claimed – & nor would I ever claim – to be God. That is, however a claim *you* are effectively making for yourself by claiming *your* ideas on morality are better than GODS!
I do indeed advocate following all the Bible. Not the bits taken out of context, mocked and warped but the core truth of it – that Jesus taught us to love our neighbours as ourselves, to live buy His word, follow the Ten Commandments and so on. I’d tell you more but then I’d be preaching & this is not the place. I suggest you search for God yourself – visit a church, speak with a priest. You may learn something and gain your life!
Incidentally, yes, I do know that I too am a sinner. We all are. I make NO claim to perfection or holiness. I am humble enough not to claim *I* personally am able to judge morality – I leave that to God.
Atheists on the other hand have the arrogance to claim *they* can judge morality for everyone. That their personal opinions on morality outweigh everything God tells us in the Bible. They, not I, say we can pick’n'choose & now if everyone can judge morality then the lowest criminal, the worst rapist, the sickest sociopath, their judgement must equal that of the priest or the professor or the President or anybody else.
Can you really not see how this mindset demolishes any value to the very notion of morality? How it leaves us all adrift without God or *any* morality? That is the inescapable path of atheism and the gay lobby – a world where the “moral” choosing of the sickest serial killer, the worst and most depraved of perverts is somehow as valid as that of a normal person or a god-fearing person.
This is one good and rational reason why gay marriage must always remain illegal.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
@ Kuhnigget:
Classic FAIL. Christians and Jews do not have a monopoly on morality. Nor is “real” morality a constant.
The FAILURE is all yours. True Christians (not jews or anyone else) really DO have a monopoly on Morality – the Almighty Lord Himself says so & your denying it or not wanting it to be true will never change that.
Real morality is indeed a constant as is God’s Law.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Homosexuality is a Sin. period. No ifs no buts.
No sophistry or atheist denial can make it otherwise.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am
@Then again
God is nothing like how you or Dawkin’s mob of fools portray Him. Atheists like you just don’t get it.
If God did inspire the Bible, then he’s responsible for his own portrayal. Don’t blame me. What am I not getting?
April 9th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@ Then Again :
True Christians (not jews or anyone else) really DO have a monopoly on Morality – the Almighty Lord Himself says so & your denying it or not wanting it to be true will never change that. Real morality is indeed a constant as is God’s Law. etc ..
… & your basis for saying this is???
Oh wait, let me guess, “God sez so, its in the Buy-Bull .. ”
Riiiight.
Sorry but outsde of your own cult that’s just not good enough anymore.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:33 am
then again,
I never claimed that my ideas on morality are better than God’s. I only pointed out that your fundamentalist sect picks and chooses in a very anti-Christian way.
Why do you think you preach religion to me. You contradict the words of Jesus, but claim to be a Christian. Maybe you are the one who needs to seek penance.
You contradict that with your selective attempts to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to convert to secular law.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Oh well, I forgot to close more than one of the html tags, but I think it is clear what I mean.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:15 am
@Then again
You mean people like you? If it’s not you, why do you let a book dictate your morality?
I’ve never met an atheist who would say that, but isn’t that exactly what you’re doing in the name of God?
Yes, everyone can make their own moral decisions, even you. That doesn’t mean I agree or condone what everyone else considers moral. Making decisions based on what a book says is not moral.
Yes, all of those relationships make me squirm. But I also have a revulsion to people like you who are unable to make moral decisions by themselves, and must instead leave moral decisions up to the amoral pseudo god of the Old Testament. I seriously don’t understand how anyone who lives their life based on the teachings of the Old Testament can consider themselves moral.
And if your not pick’n’choosing what you like and don’t like from the Bible, why not leave gay people alone for a while, and go after rich people instead. Here’s an issue that Jesus couldn’t have been more clear on as being incompatible with Christianity, but I never see any conservative Christians fighting rich Christians. Instead they look to these people who spit in the face of Jesus as moral beacons.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:54 am
@Then Again
You claim that the entirety of the Bible should be followed, and that you aim to do that. So, here are a few questions for you:
* Do you wear clothing made of two fabrics, like a cotton/poly blend? That is an abomination, according to the book, so I assume you do not do that and that you rail against it just as much as you do against gays.
* Do you eat shellfish? That, too, is an abomination, so you must not do that and must also be vociferous against the practice.
* If your child disobeys you and is drunk, do you follow what the laws of the Bible say and put him out for the rest of the village to stone to death? If you don’t, then you’re violating your book.
Those are just a couple of the laws from the book. Remember, there are more commandments than just the ten you mentioned in passing. Also remember, that it is God’s place to judge, not yours. You can follow the book to guide your own morality, but the moment you begin judging others, you are violating that book and acting against God. If gays are truly sinning in God’s eyes, then God will deal with them.
Also, no one has refuted your claims about some correlation between a rise in atheism and a rise in pornography, etc, because you have presented no evidence. When you start providing statistics, valid studies that do show a correlation, then we can start to discuss it. Otherwise, you are merely arguing from a biased perspective that sees evil everywhere, even when it may not be present at all.
And may I just close by saying that you have an awful lot of hate in you. Perhaps you should speak to a priest about that.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:29 am
@ Then again :
Yep. Same old bronze age sky fairy bulldust I see. Sigh.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:29 am
“And God, unlike gays is the source of morality & ethics, a trustworthy source that doesn’t just “go with the flow.” ”
Your God advocates the brutal slaughter of babies. So much for “trustworthy source.”
Psalm 137:9 Look it up.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Indeed as has been pointed out numerous times here &elsewhere the god of “teh buy-bull” (nice line – may have to pich it!) esp. the OT is one of the nastiest characters in all fiction – a genocidal, jealous, vindictive, petty, ugly, infanticidal, bullyimng, sexist, racist, tyrant.
(To quote something like what Richard Dawkin’s wrote in the ‘God delusion.’)
Frankly, if I had the choice of being made in Yahwah’s image or a chimpanzee’s, I personally would pick the chimp every time!
Turn the troll over, I think he’s done!
April 9th, 2009 at 9:22 am
At Then Again:
Vishnu can beat the crap out of Yaweh any day. Vishnu is stronger than your god. Vishnu’s laws are more powerful than the laws of Yaweh. Vishnu shall send his wife Lakshmi to provide wealth and prosperity to all who follow Vishnu’s moral code.
Yeah, sounds pretty much the same as your Old Testament crap.
And the logic is just as stupid: god is good because this book says so. who wrote the book? God. How can you prove it? Because it says so in the book.
Right.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
By the way, why is it these Christy types are always so hung up on buttsex?
It’s never about love, or companionship, or mutual masturbation or anything…it’s always buttsex.
Kind of makes you wonder what goes through their minds, what they’re focused upon, what they can’t stop thinking about, what’s with them always…in their daydreams, their night dreams, their thoughts, their…secret desires…
April 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“So rather than pass laws to give people of different races & gender orientations their inalienable human rights you’d do ..what exactly?”
pass laws that defend their inalienable rights.
which do not include the ability to force others to approve of, or participate in contracts they do not agree with. These laws violate the rights of others, just as laws preventing gay or plural marriage violate the rights of those adults.
“Rcaism isn’t acceptable. We shouldn’t tolerate discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin. Or their sexual preferences either.”
Where these things violate people’s rights, I could not agree more. Where they do not, then that is that persons freedom to be an idiot.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“By the way, why is it these Christy types are always so hung up on buttsex? ”
could be the disease vector thing, an epidemiological fact that gay buttsex is associated with higher rates of infections of many kinds not found in heterosexual encounters, for the simple reason that, like it or not, the anus is designed as an exit, and contains all kinds of bacteria and organisms which are perfectly OK in one’s butt, and not so great smeared inside a urethra.
i don’t care who bangs who in which portal, but let’s at least be honest about the risks and outcomes of doing so.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
“MtnGoat, people didn’t deal with homophobia, sexism, or racism before antidiscrimination laws were enacted. Except for gay-bashings and lynchings. Do you really think that’s a good state of affairs?”
Course not. And those were likewise violations of people’s rights. Unjust violations of this groups rights is zero reason to validate unjust violations of a different parties rights.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
How exactly are your rights being violated? Perhaps I’m just not getting it but the only way they would be infringing on your rights would be if they insisted on you being in a gay marriage or your church being forced to marry them.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:05 am
@MtnGoat
i don’t care who bangs who in which portal, but let’s at least be honest about the risks and outcomes of doing so.
I think the point is that although some gay men have anal sex, being gay is not about anal sex. It’s about being attracted to members of the same sex. I haven’t done a survey, but I’m pretty confident that there are plenty of gay men who want nothing to do with inserting or having something inserted into that area, just like many straight people don’t. Still, many Bible thumpers seem obsessed with anal sex, and I doubt the risks involved come into play for most of them.
April 11th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Some opponets of same sex marriage are under the illusion that America is a Christian Nation. America is a secular nation where Christians just happen to have to same rights as people of other religions or people with no religion at all. I am delighted that President Obama stated last week that we are not a Christian Nation.
Last week Vermont legalized same sex marriage and Washington DC decided to recognize same sex marrriages from states that allow them. At least three other states including New York are considering equal marriage laws this year.
If you read what opponets of interracial marriage were saying five decades ago it sound just like the arguments we hear against gay marriage. They even claimed that traditional marriages would be undermined. I’ll bet that within ten years gay marriage will be legal in all fifty states and people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
This is a free society and freedom includes sexual freedom. In a free society if you are opposed to homosexuality your only choice is to refrain from sleeping with someone of the same sex.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fslog%2Ethestranger%2Ecom%2Fblogs%2Fslog%2F&feature=player_embedded