Why Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t (Is) A Threat to Heterosexual Marriage


Oh, we liberals love to laugh
at right wingers, mostly evangelical Christians, who claim that same-sex
marriage is an assault on "traditional marriage." If a gay
couple down the street gets married, we reasonably ask, does that invalidate
your marriage? Are you going to get a divorce in protest?
These retorts leave our opponents sputtering,
mostly because they grasp for a lie to cover up for their homophobia,
and few people can really lie smoothly. Or they commit the fallacy of tautology, claiming that marriage simply is
between a man and a woman, many of them knowing as they say it how lame
that sounds — after all, everyone but the dumbest among us understands that marriage
is whatever society agrees it is.

However, just because conservatives dance
around why same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional"
marriage, it doesn’t mean they’re crazy or don’t have their reasons for opposing it.
Mostly, they know that their reasons won’t sit well
with the general public. Which is why I read with amusement Tara Parker-Pope’s piece in the New York Times about why same-sex relationships
might be healthier on average than opposite-sex marriages.

The article had a tin ear for what makes opponents of same-sex marriage
fearful. Conservatives say that gay marriage is a threat to "traditional"
marriage, and this article all but answered, "Oh yes it is and thank God
for it."

The article was very convincing if you’re already convinced that
marriage equality, and equitable marriage, are good things.

    Controlling and hostile
    emotional tactics, like belligerence and domineering, were less common
    among gay couples.

    Same-sex couples were also
    less likely to develop an elevated heartbeat and adrenaline surges during
    arguments. And straight couples were more likely to stay physically
    agitated after a conflict.

Sounds good, right? But
the reason for lower stress levels goes right back to why same-sex marriage
is indeed a threat to "traditional" marriage [emphases below are mine].

    Notably, same-sex relationships,
    whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than
    heterosexual ones…

    While the gay and lesbian
    couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones,
    they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that
    the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll…

    The egalitarian
    nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those
    couples resolve conflict.

The Times
article argues that the equality modeled by same-sex relationships could
influence opposite-sex marriages to adopt that kind of equality. This is exactly the assault on "traditional" marriage that conservatives
are talking about.

In 1998, the Southern Baptist
Convention made a point of highlighting Ephesians 5:22-23. Not a random choice, this was a direct reaction to the creeping peril of feminism. The verse
made it loud and clear that "traditional marriage" is not egalitarian at all,
but that women should "submit to your husbands as to the Lord."
Which sounds like sound common sense to the largely male leadership
of the fundamentalist movement.

And now those yappity-yap decadent
liberals are telling us that not only should same-sex marriage be legal,
but that it might actually teach straight couples a thing or two. Opposite-sex couples can learn how
to relate more equitably, and equal marriages are happier.

Happier, pray tell,
for whom?

Not for the men who would suddenly be living in a world
where dishes don’t just do themselves and diapers aren’t changed
by magic. Men who face the prospect of having to give
up being right in every conflict, having to take the
wife’s opinion on finances seriously, or even of having their right
to name their wives after themselves called into question might dispute
the idea that they’d be "happier" in this new egalitarian world.

Like the husband
in this scenario:

    Can you explain just how
    submissive a wife should be towards a husband without losing her identity
    and respect?…..

    Today the kids were eating
    a hamburger in the car, and they were looking for a drink. My husband
    says to the kids, "Grab your bottle of water" (they keep a
    bottle in the car at all times). Well, I remembered I had a can of soda
    in my purse, so I gave it to them, and he says I undermined his authority!
    I didn’t think it was a big deal, but he did.

Do you think that guy is going
to read an article in the Times telling him gay marriage is good because
it might provide a model of equality for his own marriage? I suspect this man reading it will only be reassured that gays should not
get married, if they’re going to give his wife ideas about how she
has equal authority in their marriage.

The Times article doesn’t
hide the fact that it’s straight women who suffer from inequality
in opposite-sex marriage.

    "Heterosexual married
    women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only
    in the house but in the relationship," said Esther D. Rothblum, a
    professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. "That’s
    very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live
    with."

But fundamentalists would probably
argue that the solution isn’t to change marriage so women are happier
in it (because remember the threat of men with dishpan hands), but to
change women so they are happier being second class. Like this article:

Pray each morning that God
will guide you and give you a servant’s heart.

Do those with a servant’s
heart demand that their masters share the housework with them?
Not if they want to keep their jobs, they don’t.

The New York Times article read like
it was trying to soothe opponents of same-sex marriage by telling them
that their fears of a spreading contagion were ill-founded and that
same-sex marriages might actually be a model for more happiness through
equality.

But what if your opponents think that equality is the
very contagion from which they have to protect their own marriages?

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • invalid-0

    On The Subject of Same Sex Marriage
    Admittedly, I am not an expert on this subject. I acknowledge that people can have different perspectives on life. That we tend to envision the world through our own interpretation of how that perfect world should look. In regards to the union of same sex couples verses heterosexual couples, where does reality lie?
    The basic component of the argument lies in the acceptance of the union of same sex couples. Cultural changes such as this that strike at the core of social acceptance are not easily resolved. Women struggled for an equal vote. African Americans fought for equal rights. The difference between these fights and those of Sam Sex Marriage is that they stood on their own. African Americans did not ask to be called Caucasian so that they would have the same rights as their white counterparts in society. Women did not ask to be called men to gain an equal vote. They weren’t just fighting for equal rights. They fought for respect and recognition of who they were.
    Many states have taken steps to respect gay rights. However, in this case that doesn’t seem to be enough. The word ‘Marriage’ has been established over time and throughout history as the union of a man and a woman. Again, we are asking the majority of Americans to accept changes in their lives that they fundamentally oppose. Only because a few people with enough money, education and influence have pushed their personal agendas into the political process. We certainly must have more important issues to deal with.
    Some argue that they need the title endowed by Marriage to fulfill their commitment to love one another. We all agree that true love cannot be restrained by a mere word. Being able to mark the ‘married’ box gives the appearance of social acceptance. That acceptance must first come from the individuals involved by accepting who they are. Requesting to change the way the world interprets the word ‘marriage’ is simply a quick and easy way around finding that acceptance. Social change is difficult for everyone regardless of which side you are on. Short cuts will only create greater resentments on both sides of the issue.
    Aside from enabling same sex relationships to hide behind the guise of the term ‘marriage’, the only other benefit is financial. Now I completely understand the desire to save money wherever I can. What are we saving, and whom is it affecting? One could be file taxes as married rather than single. Inheritance tax could be avoided. More people would be eligible for military benefits. And, of course, insurance benefits could be shared. I guess that does add up to a lot of money. Money that someone is going to have to pay one way or another. As a result, taxes go up, insurance rates go up, has anyone even looked at the financial implications of this “little” change?
    I can understand the logic of trying to take care of someone you love. But the intent of family deductions was to give relief to a man and a woman who were legally married in order to ease the burden of raising children who would in turn hopefully become contributing members of society. Now there are all kinds of arguments along these lines so let us just cut right to the meat of the matter. It is about the money. Ok, I’m all in favor of everyone getting a break. But why do you have to be gay to get a break. If I have two widowed aunts, one has a healthy pension and benefits, and the other one does not, I would like them to be able to get married. That way they could both share the wealth. For that matter if a father and son got married, they could completely avoid inheritance tax. The incest argument is kind of out the door because just like gay marriage, they cannot physically have children, so, what’s the harm.
    I guess we could carry this line of thought on for a while so I’ll stop there. Safe to say we haven’t resolved this dilemma. What we need is to understand that there is a shift in our society towards acceptance of what the union between two people consists of. We now have to determine how we will define it. However, we must do it in a way that maintains the rights of all people involved; encourages people to accept themselves and one another for who they are; and then together work to address the financial needs of our society as a whole.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Actually, the beauty of same-sex marriage is that it’s a simple issue—there’s no argument against it that isn’t based in bigotry, the idea that some people have more rights than others based on race, class, religious affliation, gender, or sexual orientation.  As a nation, we reject bigotry, so same-sex marriage should be legal.  Creating a "separate but equal" marriage-esque contract is definitely against our national anti-bigotry principles. 

     

    As I demonstrate above, even the convulted arguments about protecting traditional marriage  are based in sexism, the idea that women are beneath men and marriage is an expression of that.  As a nation where women supposedly have equal rights, that is also against our national character.

  • invalid-0

    what I’ve been saying since the prospect of a “Defense” of Marriage Amendment in Wisconsin reared its ugly head. Not ONE oppponant of same sex marriage has been able to articulate a cogent argument to keep marriage strictly between a man and a woman. (Or in the case of the DOMA in Washington State, between a FERTILE man and a FERTILE woman).
    What makes the acceptance of same sex marriage even more difficult is the idea such acceptance will also strike at the heart of sexism. That seems to be too much for some people, to both accept gays and woman as equal. As the recent Democratic primary battle showed, Americans are not quite ready for an honest dialog about misogyny.
    We want to sweep it under the rug with lame jokes, and rants about “feminazis” because it makes us so uncomfortable
    IN closing, that article, and your blog post ought to be editorials in every major newspaper in the country.

  • invalid-0

    I know such enlightened, educated liberals would consider any reference to religion or the horribly abused idea of morals comedic, but some of us don’t object to people being happy or legally accepted together, but to the actual lifestyle of homosexuality.

    I don’t have a problem with feminism or equality, but if I’m going to believe one part of the Bible is divinely inspired (and I choose to), I cannot pick and choose which parts I like or dislike; the editor’s standard is as high as his perspective is unfathomable by our mortal minds. If you like, we can ignore that God decrees marriage a holy institution between a man and a woman, but he simply decrees homosexuality vile and offensive to his nature.

    I don’t have any problem downloading copyrighted music, movies, or software for free, and sleep soundly at night, but it doesn’t mean I’m in any position to criticize God’s condemnation of theft. You might choose to be happy your whole life with another of the same sex, and I’d be glad to see you find completion in it, and the God I believe in and find very real loves you and your partner whether you love him or not, but he isn’t ever going to change his law.

    You say that marriage is whatever society deems acceptable, but marriage is a holy, religious concept that society has borrowed and muddled beyong recognition. So often entered thoughtlessly and broken recklessly, the tragedy isn’t the genders of those entering it but that anyone might enter it thinking anything less of it.

    I’m continually surprised such opinionated, liberal, educated (meaning above such ignorant things as religion) people so passionately desire joining those they ridicule in a holy relationship inspired by God’s own love for his creations.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, indeed, heterosexual marriage has always classically been “the process by which a man gains a useful unpaid servent and a woman becomes one.” I had that figured out some years before hitting menarche and therefore decided that under no circumstance would I ever marry. When at about the time of my 40th birthday Newsweek declared that a woman of age 40 had a greater chance of probability of being killed by a terrorist than of getting married, I wrote in response that this was welcome news as I would find being killed by a terrorist the less dire fate.
    So is same sex marriage better ? Well there are three obvious advantages. One, there is absolutely NO RISK of an UNWANTED PREGNANCY (which, if not solved by Goddess’ grace in granting a miscarriage, must result in either an unwanted child or an abortion). Two, the two partners have NOT be socialized to view each other as being alien in character, incomprehensible in mind, nor inherrently inferior or superior in talent or status. Three, there are no arguements about leaving the toilet seat up or down.
    Quite seriously, the fact that a gay encounter cannot possibly result in an unwanted pregnancy is reason enough to make that type of relationship MORE honorable, more moral, than a heterosexual encounter. Those who deplore abortion should be encouraging gay sexuality. We should all be bisexual enough that we use gay sex for pleasure and heterosex only when both parties are earnestly committed to begetting and rearing a child. Sure, that’ll be the day.
    Quite seriously, when both partners are of the same gender, then gender ceases to be a mindless automatic way of pre-deciding who should be leader for this activity or that and who should undertake this bit of work or that. This opens the way for choosing how a given activity is done and who leads that activity by considering the actual interests and talents of the two parties. Eg maybe one likes to cook and the other doesn’t ; maybe they both like to and so take turns or do it together ; maybe neither one can do more than nuke a TV dinner, so they live out of the freezer or eat out a lot.
    Does the possibility that same sex couples set the example of a more egalitarian relationship mean that mixed sex couples are going to follow that example ? Not necessarily. It might of course encourage young women who can find within themselves a potential for bisexuality to cultivate their gay side rather than their straight side. But the smart ones may already have figured that one out.
    As for the toilet seat, well I think there is a real economic oppertunity awaiting someone. Since there already exist toilets that flush themselves when their infrared sensor tells them that the occupant has left, surely it would not take the genius of an Edison to design a toilet that puts its own seat down when the occupant has left.

    One way out of the arguements about “marriage” would be for the State to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let’s have a separation of religion and state on this issue. Let the state offer ONLY CIVIL UNION, ie a civil contract with civil court enforcement, for EVERYONE, straight or gay. The civil contract would set out the civil responsibilities and rights between the partners. Within some limits they could choose their own terms. For couples without children, the range of terms allowed would be limited only by concepts of fairness and equitableness. But , as Margret Mead pointed out many many years ago, we should distinguish between unions that are childless and unions that have created or adopted a child. Once a child has entered the picture, the contract terms should require both parties to have very substantial and unbreakable responsibilities towards that child. The State does have a legitimate interest , indeed an over-riding interest, in requiring those who produce children to be responsible for rearing them to become acceptable citizens. (And in my opinion , the State has a legitimate interest in preventing those unwilling or unable to fulfil such responsibility from producing children. At a bare minimum, the State should make it as easy as possible for those unwilling to rear children to avoid having any in the first place.)
    With the State no longer in the “marriage” business, those people who view marriage as some kind of religious sacrament would be free to marry within whatever religious organization (church, temple, mosque, etc) they wish to. Such a marriage would have NO LEGAL STANDING but only religious standing. Such a marriage would be bound by the rules of that particular religion.
    Does this separation of “marriage” from “civil union” mean that one could be civilly united without also being married or married without being civilly united ? Yes. But we already have that. The obvious example is the Catholic marriage, in which divorce is not available : those married in the Catholic Church can be civilly divorced and civilly re-married to someone else, but in the eyes of the Church they are still married to one another ; the tax laws and the inheritance laws follow the civil divorce and re-marriage, not the religious ones.

    Alternatively we could eliminate all laws that discriminate between married and non married persons. Let everyone pay the same taxes. Let the same inheritance taxes apply to everyone. Let everyone obtain their own insurance (and be required to obtain insurance for their minor children). Let everyone have the right to specify who gets to visit them in the hospital if they are consious and let everyone specify in advance (by Durable Power of Attorny for Health Care) who makes health decisions for them if they should be unconsious or incompetent. We would of course retain laws that require all persons who bear or beget a child to be responsible for that child’s support ; those laws should not discriminate between married and non married parents, as the child has just as much need of and right to support regardless.

    Meanwhile I should note that it is now more than 24 hours past the time at which California has begun celebrating gay marriages and Goddess has in Her wisdom not seen fit to smite the cities of Sacramento and San Francisco, nor even seen fit to smite the Justices of the California Supreme Court. Maybe She has more important things to worry about.

  • invalid-0

    bigotry toward women has been excused with religion, as well (please reread the part about submissive wives.) try again.

  • invalid-0

    but if I’m going to believe one part of the Bible is divinely inspired (and I choose to), I cannot pick and choose which parts I like or dislike;
    You have already picked and chosen what parts of the Bible to like or dislike, you’ve just rationalized away the many many parts that are incompatible with modern society. I’m not even talking Old Testament stuff or Amish-style clothing either, I’m talking about remembering that God rains on everyone’s crops (Jesus) and gossip is from the devil (James).

  • invalid-0

    I agree, I have been thinking this for a long time–that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and only have civil unions available, with marriage being a religious commitment in whatever religion the couple wants–gay folks can get married at the local Unitarian and fundies can get married in whatever church they want with whatever rules they want. I also knew 2 sisters who could have benefited with a civil union–the one who was my client commented to me once–why should my co-worker who keeps having children be able to cover her spouse and a crew of kids while she(who was unmarried and childless) not be able to cover her sister, with health insurance? Civil unions could be between any 2 individuals who want to automatically make the other in charge of health issues and automatically receive any benefits.
    I did find this article interesting as I have not thought of the idea that gay marriage might actually be threatening to the average fundie man who wants to keep his status as head of the family!

  • invalid-0

    Not sure what your point was. I’m not picking or choosing anything. Jesus said love the sinner hate the sin, no one is perfect, let God judge. I’m acknowledging the human rights of everyone, male and female, straight and gay, and acknowledging his law regarding that.

    Your quoteless quotes relate to gossip and God… treating everyone the same? Not sure where you were going with gossip… but you’re right, God blesses and judges everyone equally, and loves everyone equally, regardless of their choices.

    He’s also judging everyone equally, regardless of their beliefs.

  • invalid-0

    I love my wife and would give her anything she felt strongly about, because I know she would do the same. We respect each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and that means putting her before myself… submitting… out of gratitude for seeing how she puts me before herself.

    I’m sorry you think I’m making excuses. I’m trying to straighten you out; I don’t think gay marriage is structurally different from straight marriage, I don’t think it’s true marriage at all. I don’t think conservatives think their marriages work and two men or two women wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, might undermine society, I think they recognize that marriage has a purpose more holy than tax filing and legal rights.

    Before you object to God saying the wife should submit to her husband, you might notice God said you should submit every aspect of your life to him. That seems much broader and potentially offensive to me.

  • invalid-0

    I won’t belabor the point(lessness) of the “left handed compliments” about “enlightened liberals”; at least you had the grace to come right to the point of your opposition to gay marriage.

    but to the actual lifestyle of homosexuality.

    Tell me, kind anonymous, how do homosexuals live any differently from heterosexuals like us? They get up in the morning and go to work, worry about bills, volunteer in their community, attend church, go out to bars and restaurants; et al. Except for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, homosexuals pretty much live EXACTLY the same lifestyle(s) as heterosexuals.
    Except, they worry about getting evicted from their apartments, harassed on the streets, fired from their jobs, and physically attacked (or even killed) just because they are homosexual.
    Is that the “lifestyle” you were referring to?

  • invalid-0

    I agree with anonymous on ending state-sponsored marriage. If people want marriage to be a religious institution alone, then we need to disentangle it from the legal system. Let people marry and divorce in the church. Then let families of all kinds make legal agreements to secure health insurance, inheritance rights, and all that other stuff – perhaps through civil unions as anonymous suggested.

  • invalid-0

    Oops I guess I was agreeing with Alpha Bitch! Shoulda read that one first!

  • invalid-0

    I’m trying to think of a word other than lifestyle to describe homosexuality, but if you can think of one you’re less likely to put quotes around, share.

    Maybe we can just make the sentence “but to actually being homosexual”. I know, typing this, that I am offending every homosexual, the millions of them, that might read it, and it’s definitely not my intention (nor was I intending to give a compliment when I said enlightened, I was laughing as I typed it). I don’t know if there’s any way to tell someone who feels both righteous in their beliefs and victimized because of them that your faith condemns their choices without offending them.

    I am apologetic, because I know so little differs between my life and yours, I am just explaining one of the basic tenets of my faith. God has given man an ideal to aspire to and condemned what offends him, and homosexuality is one of those things, regardless of how socially acceptable or legitimitely victimized they might be.

  • invalid-0

    I also like the idea of legal civil union instead of muddling the ideal of marriage.

    Though your view of marriage as servitude is regretably skewed. Alpha Bitch is an interesting name for someone who objects to dominate roles in relationships. I would give anything and everything for my wife, without hesitation, because I implicitely trust she would do the same for me. Where does that fit into your view of marriage?

  • amanda-marcotte

    The government shouldn’t marry anyone at all. The Constitution forbids establishment of religion, period.  Marriage licenses are not, contrary to your hopes and dreams, about pushing your religious beliefs on others.  Did you know Muslims are allowed to have standard issue American marriage licenses?  Buddhists?  Atheists?

     

    Your belief that this is about "holiness" doesn’t hold up.  If marriage is about what god wants, then surely two atheists or Buddhists shouldn’t be allowed to marry.  But we are, as long as we’re straight.

     

    No, marriage by government is a civil institution.  It’s responsive to the needs of citizens, who have a right to be equal.  Your belief that women should "submit" to men is not upheld in our Constitution that holds all citizens equal or in the Civil Rights Act that identifies women as men’s equals.  Your church can do what it wants.  But you can’t impose your dogma by the state.  That’s theocracy, not democracy.  

  • http://trishwilson.typepad.com/the_count/ invalid-0

    You neglect to consider that many gay people consider themselves very religious, but don’t necessarily subscribe to your own personal bible bias, and so do want a Holy Marriage. While you expect god to punish them at some point for being gay, they may expect you to be punished for being intolerant. Opinions are like holes in the ground, everyone has one. Your argument fails for the simple reason (out of many better ones) that your heretic and blasphemer is someone else’s prophet.

    Regardless, the reality is that the laws of this country and many states within it have defined the specific term “marriage” as having a special, desirable status, so folks of all types aspire to it and you’re just going to have to deal with it.

    As a personal aside, it heinous, immoral and downright wrong that the god does not wish it so excuse (from the putative merciful god or its loving demigod crotch fruit) is used to justify bigotry against women, gays and anyone else on the hate list du jour, to the credulous sheeple.

    This god concept really needs to be exorcised so as to stop it from corrupting the thought processes of the weak minded and then we can move on with our lives without being frightened of shadows and we can redirect all the money and energy expended on god to actually improving the human condition.

    // WOOT! WTG Amanda, from The Countess.

  • invalid-0

    Marriage is a holy institution that the aforementioned atheists, etc., have tamed for public consumption. I don’t believe women should submit to men, I believe marriage is about submission of yourself to the well-being of another, and your pride keeps you from knowing real love.

    Whether the law lets you marry or not, it’s not the ideal of marriage, a reflection of God’s love. I’m not voting against gay marriage because it doesn’t matter to me, it’s not real marriage. Bottom line is, you shouldn’t need the government to sanction your sexual deviancy, any more than I need the government to teach me what love or marriage is.

    Pedophiles are harrassed, imprisoned, raped, and murdered far more often than homosexuals. The government labels people pedophiles and rapists for having consensual sex with anyone under 18. Most of the outcry against pedophilia is religious in nature. Why aren’t there articles here victimizing these people, the hard life they go through for their sexual preference, just like homosexuals. Why aren’t you supporting them as equals, demanding their rights?

  • invalid-0

    Wow, the weak minded being corrupted. You dare speak of intolerance before saying that, you’re making me laugh. Contradictions, contradictions. I can tolerate and discuss your beliefs without calling for their abolishment, but you obviously cannot do the same, a true sign of a weak mind.

    In addition to that failure, what arrogance. Judging God or his law. I don’t know how old you are, but if you were 100, what arrogance to think your perspective or experiences put you in the position to understand or judge the creator of the galaxy. I think most of your kind are so caught up in their self-worth and pride, unable to submit their pride or desires in even another person, that the idea of one supreme, flawless being will never be acceptable to you.

  • invalid-0

    28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

    The (straw)men that are always trotted out when people mention the passage telling wives to ‘submit’, the ones that expect self cleaning dishes and self changing diapers, are not ones that love their wives as their own bodies, they are not ones that nourish and cherish their wives as christ does the church.

    Please include proper context to your blatantly inflammatory quoting.

  • invalid-0

    from the usual right wing disease: Sweepingus Generalizationus.

    Marriage is a holy institution that the aforementioned atheists, etc., have tamed for public consumption.

    Bollocks. Marriage started out as a civil institution before religious groups co-opted it as a sacrament. Atheists had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

    I don’t believe women should submit to men, I believe marriage is about submission of yourself to the well-being of another, and your pride keeps you from knowing real love.

    Ah, I love the smell of ad hominem attacks in the afternoon. Where do you get the idea I’ve never known real love?

    Whether the law lets you marry or not, it’s not the ideal of marriage, a reflection of God’s love. I’m not voting against gay marriage because it doesn’t matter to me, it’s not real marriage. Bottom line is, you shouldn’t need the government to sanction your sexual deviancy, any more than I need the government to teach me what love or marriage is.

    More fallacies, this time of Causality. What makes you think it’s not real marriage? Because children aren’t produced? Then the marriages of heteros who either can’t have children or those who have decided not to have children wouldn’t be real marriage either. Oh, and I see you feel the need to add another ad hominem attack. I’m not gay, where did you get the idea I was?

    Pedophiles are harrassed, imprisoned, raped, and murdered far more often than homosexuals. The government labels people pedophiles and rapists for having consensual sex with anyone under 18. Most of the outcry against pedophilia is religious in nature.

    A word to the wise(and not so wise): Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Plus, most pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL men. Your final sentence isn’t true, there are secular arguments against pedophilia.

    Why aren’t there articles here victimizing these people, the hard life they go through for their sexual preference, just like homosexuals. Why aren’t you supporting them as equals, demanding their rights?

    Once again with feeling: pedophiles are CRIMINALS, homosexuals are not. Another distinction: homosexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION, not a preference. Because most pedophiles are heterosexuals, it’s easier for them to pass as “normal” members of society. Quite a few of them are married, with children of their own, so they don’t need to lobby for equal marriage rights.

  • invalid-0

    The Christian religion leaves many people cold, plus I am one of many women turned off by the attitude towards women expressed by religious conservatives. Or,the person you are replying to is a non-Christian who is offended by Christian proselytizers who told him/her the religion he/she follows is false.
    I don’t believe that person’s idea was to judge your deity, but the attitudes of those who follow “God’s law” so blindly they want laws passed to shove these “laws” down everyone’s throats.
    And finally, you will have to realize there are people out there in this world who don’t buy creationism, or even the concept of a “supreme being” watching the galaxy. (IMHO: Cats certainly are supreme beings. Well,they sure act like it. LOL)

  • invalid-0

    Why thank you for your kind comments!

    Yes, I can be intolerant; as far I can tell I’m coming late to that party. I do call for its abolishment as it has no place, no validity, no truth. The way I see you is the way you see an adult who still believes in Santa Claus. It’s rather sad, actually.

    I have no arrogance, just speaking the truth. What you fail to comprehend is that god is a meaningless concept, so talking about “how can I dare, etc.” is also meaningless. Judging god is simply critiquing an idea. God is just another idea in the marketplace that has had a free ride for far too long and is now finally having to compete.

    Yes, I know, you have to pigeonhole me as a this or a that so I can fit into your world view. Dandy, whatever floats your boat.

    As far as god and religion, yes, I am quite bitter. Bitter at the bloodshed, the intolerance, the bigotry and the wasted energy. If the money and energy spent kissing god’s ass thorugh history was spent on education and eradicating poverty and disease, we really would have your paradise, but on earth. Any concept, god or whatever, that demands blind obedience and worship, but gives woefully little back except pain and suffering has no place in the world.

    You bet I’m bitter. We invented god and we now need to uninvent him because the way it is going right now, the inmates appear to be in control of the asylum.

  • invalid-0

    To the person who compared homosexuality to pedophilia–you are truly sick-it makes me wonder if you are one. The fact is that one does not have to have Christian beliefs to know that pedophiles are evil–it is pretty much agreed upon in all religions and among atheists. As the mother of a girl who was molested by her heterosexual father –I can tell you that it is evil. Sadly she still struggles with this –still stays in contact with him trying to forgive him. He claims that his addictions(alcohol and pot) led him to this behavior–but I know lots of people who have had addiction problems who don’t molest children! And the scary thing is that now he is “conservative Christian” who listens to Rush Limbaugh and hates homosexuals–he spouts this stuff to our daughter. THis in fact has her less and less wanting to talk to him anymore–good riddance I say! Anyway–though there may be dis -agreement about when one is old enough to consent(some cultures may see it as earlier than the arbitrary 18 of our laws)there is NO disagreement that children CANNOT consent to have sex with an adult–thus it is always wrong.It is also wrong when the older person has more power then the younger–thus while a 16 yr old might consent with his/her peer–it is abuse when the adult is in a postiion of authority such as teacher or priest andcertainly I canot imagine anyone disagreeing that it is wrong for a father. I have been a part of a survivers support group and the stories are so sad–most of the sexual abusers are not only heterosexual men–but men who are conservative Christians! This is not to say there are not good Christian men–I have a brother who is one–but he does not beleive homosexuals threaten his marriage. I do think the state should get out of marriage though–as I stated in an earlier post. Of course, maybe gay and lesbian folks will help marriage to be better for heterosexuals bieng good role models–I guess we will have to wait and see if their divorce rates are any better or worse!

  • invalid-0

    Marriage is a holy institution that the aforementioned atheists, etc., have tamed for public consumption

    Marriage existed long before Christianity. Marriage existed before any modern religion.

  • invalid-0

    Marriage started out as a civil institution before religious groups co-opted it as a sacrament. Atheists had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
    I mentioned atheists because the poster before did, and one of the oldest historical documents around, the Bible, states differently. I know the book is a bit controversial, but it’s very easy to state what you do without having a source.

    What makes you think it’s not real marriage? Because children aren’t produced?
    Obviously you didn’t read most of the posts here. It’s not real marriage because it’s society’s creation, allowing homosexual unions. Children have nothing to do with it, I already said I believe real marriage is a religious union and wondered why so many anti-religious people chased it like the lottery.

    Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not… Another distinction: homosexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION, not a preference.
    Because we have made homosexuals noble victims of their biology, and not people who make a choice. In a less democratic nation, homosexuality might be illegal too, and we don’t have to speculate, there are plenty of islamic nations where it is punishable by death. Whether I, a male, am attracted to tinier body types, smaller women, younger anatomy, or big hairy penises, the attraction might be genetic, might be biological, but putting my penis near the kid or the cock is a choice I have. If homosexuality is not a preference, then pedosexuals in jail everywhere are poor victims of their own biology, born to be with children, and persecuted despite the fact that They get up in the morning and go to work, worry about bills, volunteer in their community, attend church, go out to bars and restaurants; et al. Except for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, homosexuals (or pedosexuals) pretty much live EXACTLY the same lifestyle(s) as heterosexuals.(From another comment)

  • invalid-0

    I’m sorry for your daughter. Molesting or abusing anyone, of any age, is wrong. No matter what I say, the responders on here keeping thinking I said women should submit and homosexual marriage threatens mine. This is ridiculous, I have repeatedly attempted to bash the idea out of your heads, that Christians feel you are threatening the world. The Bible simply will not allow for homosexuality.

  • invalid-0

    I never quoted Ephesians, either blatantly or subtly! One of the posters admiring this article did. If anyone here took the time to read replies, I think… if your comprehension managed this, that you would realize every single response where I’ve described marriage is an exact mirror or man submitting to woman who submits to man. I’m not going to summarize it again, for the third time on this page.

  • invalid-0

    You’ve presented your opinion against religion, and I know, 100% I can never persuade you otherwise. Likewise, nothing anyone can write on here can undermine my faith that God judges our actions and decisions according to his perspective and has condemned homosexuality.
    The idea that any movement of ours could create paradise on earth is flawed. You know the reality as well as we all do, man is flawed and selfish and poverty and ignorance will exist as long as one man is willing to put himself before another. It’s almost as if man is imperfect, and his attempts to help fellow man and impose rules and justice in society are reaching towards a higher ideal… like… god…

    Keep telling yourself you’re not as ignorant or selfish as the rest of the Earth.

  • invalid-0

    I’m happy to see you’ve finally stopped pussyfooting around and let us know what you really think of gays. Condemned huh? To hell I would have to imagine. That’s so darned decent of you. You know, anyone that doesn’t think there’s something wrong with that condemned concept has some serious issues to deal with before they should allowed to play with the class.

    The comment that comes to mind is that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, and people like you, who won’t even acknowledge that a secular paradise on earth can happen, should happen or is even worth attempting are a very big problem. Indeed, one could even argue that your ideas could make you an enemy of humanity. The shenanigans your god pulled in the old testament are certainly enough to convict it of crimes against humanity. Yes, yes, we know, we’re it’s toejam, it can do anything it wants with us. Pfft, right, and we tend to jail abusers, not worship them.

    No, we know you won’t change your mind and frankly we don’t care, we’re quite satisfied waiting for you folks to fade away. Oh, yeah, you’ve been around for thousands of years… but I’m afraid time has still been accelerating for you all along. We just want you to understand that the free ride is over and that we are no longer afraid to let people know. First Jewery, then slavery, then women, then apartheid, then gays and now atheists. Looks like you all are batting zip.

    I made the following post in a discussion of ID on Fark, which encapsulates what we’re talking about:

    Oh come on… the existence of ID seems to me to be a good sign. Think about it; up until a several hundred years ago, heretics and blasphemers would be imprisoned or executed. Less than a hundred years ago, US state governments could and did prohibit school courses which contradicted the bible. Today, the best christians can do is attempt to get equal time for their god (and are failing at that.) How the mighty have fallen and are still falling.

    The enemy is science, and it demonstrates how small the judeo/christian/islamic god is (actually, any god, but in this country I’m stuck with the psychopathic ones) when compared to the profound wonders of the whole of nature and the universe. They can rant and rave, spout nonsense, lie to themselves, wring their hands, harm me, damn me, pray for me or just stick their heads in the sand. It will make no never mind because they’re way past their freshness date and are becoming more and more stale and inconsequential as each generation goes by.

    Enjoy it while you still have it, you’re a dead end and we won’t miss you.

    // Too bad the christian bible isn’t the one with the world on a turtle’s back.
    // Would have been a hoot to see them defend that.

    Are we intolerant? You bet, we learned from the very masters themselves. We’ve been pushed around by christian intolerance and arrogance for thousands of years and now we’re finally pushing back. No, we don’t want to co-exist with you, we want you to go away. (Yes, I fess up, loosely based on Auric Goldfinger talking to James Bond on the laser table)

    I have to tell you anonymous, I’ve been having a good time chatting you up.

  • invalid-0

    Wasn’t Mary a “young girl”, usually 13 or so in the stories? Your God, by the moral standards of sane people, is a child rapist.

  • invalid-0

    In those days, girls got married around 13 or 14. Mary was already engaged to be married when She conceived by the Holy Spirit.

  • invalid-0

    Marriage is like a lottery sometimes.
    But I digress. And I disagree with you. Marriage was invented as a CIVIL institution long before it became a religious sacrament. Even heterosexual people get married by a judge, or a ship captain, or even an Elvis impersonator. In the state’s eyes, their marriages are just as real as those performed in a church ceremony.

    Another distinction: homosexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION, not a preference

    Again I state: pedophiles are CRIMINALS, they have the urge to commit a sexual PERVERSION. Not the same as an ORIENTATION. Something is wrong with their brain chemistry to make them sexually attracted to young children of either gender. The vast majority of homosexuals are drawn sexually to someone of the same gender, but another consenting ADULT. Do you understand now? Pedophiles are sexual predators, they belong behind bars where they can get professional help for their disorder and are prevented from harming more children.
    In closing, it’s not nice to mess with my comments and twist them around.

  • invalid-0

    The bible also commands the faithful to “smite” (I assume it means “kill”) anyone who eats shellfish, works on Sunday, or wears clothing of mixed fibers. If any murders based on those criteria were committed today, does anyone really believe the jury would buy “the bible commanded me to” defense?

  • invalid-0

    who see homoesexuals as “perverted”, it’s all too easy to compare them with pedophiles and the red herrings just keep coming. It wasn’t that long ago that a Texas law banning sodomy was thrown out and homophobes screamed the laws repeal would result in more instances of child rape.

    It is complete b.s. of course, but the Christian right is feeling mighty threatened these days. The forces of reason may be pushing back, but the “dominionists” are hard at work to roll back the gains the women/gay/non white/non Christian movements have made in the past few decades.

  • invalid-0

    on the Bible, it’s NEVER been based on the bible. Unless the Christian right someday gets its way, U.S. law will NEVER be based on the bible. While the bible is an important historical document, it is mostly a work of fiction, of stories adapted from older faiths and should not be taken literally. It was never meant to be taken literally.
    An interesting side note: the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used as a “reason” to deny equal rights to gays; but I’ve found some evidence on the internet that suggests this is a MISTRANSLATION. The story is actually a condemnation against selfishness and inhospitality.

  • invalid-0

    I am not going to comment on whether same sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage or not, since there are a number of comments that do this very well.
    I will however make a comment about marriage and homosexuality. To date, it would be wise to point out that the divorce rate among homsexuals is about the same as with heterosexual couples–about 45 per cent of the population. Marriage in USA society confers far more in legal responsibilities and advantages than is at first mentioned.
    In addition to the financial advantages, it also confers the ability to adopt children. I have a real issue with this. I say this because of the pain and trauma so many homosexual men have endured in a world of heterosexuality.
    When a man and man are “married,” they will have the legal right to adopt children. I personally do not want to see a heterosexual child adopted by a homosexual couple any more than I would like to see a homosexual child adopted by a heterosexual couple. Given the fact that at this time, there is no way to tell a young child’s orientation, and given the fact that homosexuality runs in between 3 to four and one half percent of the population, it is both responsible and valid to concede that a child needs the stable environment to both grow and become socialized. While I know a number of homosexual men, and as much as a personally like them, I don’t believe that they would be the best parents in raising a heterosexual child any more than I feel I could properly raise a homosexual child.
    And, no, given my experience, I’ve seen far to much pain
    resentment and pyschosis in male homosexuals to believe that they were properly raised by their parents.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t know if there’s any way to tell someone who feels both righteous in their beliefs and victimized because of them that your faith condemns their choices without offending them.

    Try looking in a mirror when you condemn. That is the only person that should care about your religious opinion. Your religion, or anyone’s ‘faith’ has no bearing on civil rights. The majority of opinion has no bearing on civil rights in this country. In other words everyone has the right to be treated equal under the law, and if you don’t like gay marriage, the only thing you can do about it is not have a gay marriage.

    You don’t have to like homosexuality. It’s your right to have an opinion. But when it comes to the law of this land, equality is the only option. Of course, you could move to one of those fine countries you mentioned, that put homosexuals to death. Maybe you and your faith would be happier there.

  • harry834

    not a voter, nor a Congressperson, nor a judge, nor a citizen of this country or another.

    We can’t even see or touch him, much less know if he is a real person.

    But the voter, the citzen, the legislator, the judge, etc ARE real people. These are the participants in a democracy, not invisible "Gods".

    When imaginary people are given a higher seat at the decision-making table than real people, we’re all in trouble.

  • invalid-0

    suggests the gender of the parents doesn’t matter as much as there are TWO adults to mentor the child as he or she grows up. In essence, two gay men who adopt a boy who will grow up to have heterosexual orientation won’t make the kid “gay”, if that is what you are afraid of. I feel it is better the child have the support system of two stable adults-even if they are gay-rather than just one stable adult simply because some in society are more “comfortable” with heterosexual parenting.

  • invalid-0

    I think homosexuality is a perversion. You have got to get more convincing than stating that as the difference. Homosexuality certainly is not the biological urge to reproduce, so if it is an urge, I’d classify it with putting my penis in animals, children, tree trunks, rubber bands, etc, a perversion, something deviant that arouses you.

  • invalid-0

    …for just making up a fact. I wish someone would state something other than conjecture…
    Since we’re stating things we believe that others might not, I think God existed long before you decided man created him.
    Looong before.

    But congrats on figuring everything out in like, a couple decades of life.

  • invalid-0

    The Bible certainly does not command the smiting of those who do not observe the Sabbath, or any of those things. God himself destroyed two cities for rampant sexual deviancy, but I’m sure he’s cool with ordaining gay ministers.
    New Testament, Jesus came and made a new covenant with the world. Before his arrival, and the option of redemption through faith, stark legalism was the only rule by which the Jews lived; perfect Justice but not very merciful. Jesus was perfect mercy, grace to the undeserving for nothing but faith and submission. Jesus himself said he freed the world from the “eye for an eye”, blind justice of flawless law. No one who knows God could possibly believe he wants people smited, he made it pretty clear he can smite much more powerfully.
    I kind of regret that this has become a discussion of religion, and digressed from the perfectly biased article ridiculing conservatives. Obviously, when it comes to the most published book in the entire world, people have plenty of misconceptions about it. If I were to read the article above and pick out the points I most disliked, it reads as condemning and unforgiving as you abridged version of the bible.
    This is where you assure me you’ve read so much of the Bible you not only know what you’re talking about, but you’ve got it all figured out on your own.

  • invalid-0

    One last time (since you seem unable to grasp the whole of a response), the article (remember that thing up there?) is stating the supposed reasons conservatives oppose gay marriage, and the only purpose of my replies is to suppose that the reason might be actual condemnation of homosexuality, and not terror that the world might be less conservative.
    If America votes to legalize gay marriage, in every state, it certainly will not affect my life or marriage in any way, or my faith, or my God. The Bible begins with choice and God has never abandoned that. I am not attempting to turn anyone hetero or condone the heinous idea of killing people for their sexual choices.
    You, the repliers as a group, are taking my faith and it’s law as a personal attack, and attacking God and his law in return. I am indifferent to your opinions, though I don’t mind sharing ideas, because as ridiculous as you might find my beliefs, I find yours equally ignorant. In summation; screw who you like, and print as many certificates as you want, you’re not making the world more tolerant, you’re making it more tolerant of perversion. This is not the modern day civil rights movement, bringing equality to the oppressed homosexual, the people you live and work with have just as much right to be disgusted by you choosing to imitate marriage and sleep with your own gender as you have the legal, civil right to choose to do so; unless the goverment segregates queers from public schools or builds a reservation for you, lay your noble flag down and quit making a mockery of true injustice.

  • invalid-0

    The Bible states that the world will become more and more secular and leave religion behind as time passes. That, fortunately, isn’t the end of the story.
    Anyways, I do see more and more people stating that religion is dying, and always presuming that it’s because man is becoming more enlightened and leaning less on old illusions. I’ve always thought the idea of purpose, perspective, truth, and eternity much more enlightened than your view of violent, pointless, brief existence, so I won’t be joining you.
    Every affront against God you just listed, every horrible offense to his perfection, from your made-up word Jewery to apartheid, and then all the the things you listed that aren’t terrible crimes (gays and atheists are not oppressed, segregated victims, they’re loud, demanding neighbors), were the result of the learned, enlightened governments of that time. God has never persecuted his own creations, black, white, perverse, ignorant, or arrogant. I think the latest, enlightened victims of our time are those who continue to see the divine around them, not those who want everyone to hug them because they like screwing different things.
    :)

  • invalid-0

    I would reply that nothing is apart from Him, not even you and your vote. Don’t think you’re thwarting God’s law, you’re fulfilling it. Why would he want a vote?

  • harry834

    you are saying the bible does not explicitly demand its readers to kill the "immoral", correct?

    I can buy that, for all I know of the book. I have not read it.

    But it does demand that any immoral person must be condemned. That condemnation is not necessarilly violent.

    I don’t think this is necessarilly bad. Justice and morality – secular or religious – depends on the condemnation of evil.

    But the problem lies in the fact that we assume the bible was written by this magical, invisible, all-powerful creature in the sky, that "made it pretty clear he can smite much more powerfully." Your quoted words.

    Isn’t it more likely that the book was written by people, rather than this creature in the sky called "God"?

    And if that’s the case, then do bible-supporters have any reason to say that "God" is on their side? Isn’t it just the human dudes who wrote the book?

    I like horror movies as much as anyone, but should we really believe that we must do what the invisible man says or else "he can smite much more powerfully"?

    Aren’t you just saying: "I won’t destroy you, but God will".

    You are teaching people to be afraid of ghosts…

    Is this respectable discourse?

    If you can explain yourself, please do.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t really want this to become a discussion of the inspiration behind the bible, but since you asked me to explain myself I’ll try to sum it up briefly.
    Humans wrote the Bible. Many of the books are named after the human who penned that section. They wrote it at God’s demand and exacting editing, and the test of their writing was that no part of the Bible should contradict itself. There are people who think there are contradictions (condemning someone and loving someone might seem at odds to anyone who’s never had to punish their child) but the idea is that the Bible is divinely inspired. The only part God wrote with his own hand is the 10 Commandments on the mountain with Moses.
    Christianity is faith, trust. You don’t trust people when you first meet them, you trust them over time, as they prove themselves worthy. As you live by the Bible, as you study, that time spent breaking your misconceptions and learning about God builds trust in the book and He who inspired it.
    As for condemnation… God is perfect. Unlike humans he has no flaws, no sins, no filth of spirit or actions. He has given us choice, the ability to understand evil and all of the above, but he is Perfectly Just. He cannot be Just and allow any sin; perfect justice is harsh and unforgiving. However he’s also perfect Love and perfect Mercy; he cannot destroy his creations, who he loves, mercilessly, even if it is just and deservable. So he provides the opportunity, made clear through his interaction with humans over the centuries, mostly his chosen people, the Jews, for us to be spared despite our flaws and choices through faith.
    So God has condemned us as sinful, selfish, and perverted, and it’s justice. Most people acknowledge murderers need to be punished, but the idea that hating someone is equally punishable seems wrong, since everyone has committed it.

  • harry834

    how come he’s not a registered voter?

    how come he never shows up at his "house"?

    you know where I’m going, which is my point:

    It’s very slippery and dubious for human societies to cede their decision making power to this imaginary person who never shows up.

    And when some human beings claim "God" is on their side – that is their way of looking for an easy way to win the argument. Because who will challenge you if this almighty "perfect, unforgiving-but-all loving" creature is on your side?

    Who will challenge you?

    Here’s my answer: Anyone smart enough not to believe in ghosts will see through that, and demand you answer, rather than hiding behind "God"

    Did "God" tell you to deny gay people the right to marry? Or is that you, and you don’t want to take responsibility for it?

    The next time you debating a civil rights issue, and you claim "God" supports your argument, try again. Invisible ghosts can’t help you in a debate.

  • harry834

    yes, a loving parent will discipline and punish their child when they do something wrong

    BUT, punishment can only go so far before it becomes abuse.

    Therefore this "God" is not necessarilly perfectly just by dishing out the harshest punishments. We all know that severity of punishment must have a stopping point. Otherwise it is cruel and unusual

    And not every "aberrant" act is wrong.

    Women were burned at the stake in the name of "God" for seeming "aberrant". There only crime might have been speaking up for themselves. Christianity was forced on "savage" native peoples in order to "save their soul". Today, we insist that they have a right to their own culture

    The point: Not every person who looks "aberrant" to you actually is, and using "God" as your defense does not make your actions justified

    Moreover, many who believe in God don’t take the same positions that you do. Many religious people support same-sex marriage. Janine is one such person.

    And if that were two few choices, there are many more religious people who have mixed feelings on the issue altogether. Religious believers span the gamut in how they feel about gay people, abortion, end-of-life care, etc. They don’t necessarilly take a position one way or the other. Or if they have an opinion, they don’t believe they have a right to impose it on others. Or even if they did wish others would take their positions, they don’t think its the most important thing.

    They may feel the world is better off without gay marriage, but they understand there are other things worth fighting over, like poverty, Darfur, disease. These things are more likely to bring ALL religious folk to the table regardless of their views on the culture war issues.

    What about immigration? Some evangelicals have worked to give sanctuary to "illegal immigrants". They don’t think their breaking God’s law. They think their supporting it.

    Though this might be the one case where conservatives will uphold state law before God law. Aye…

    So religious believers follow "god’s law" in every different way.

    Final point: Can you really hold "God" responsible for your negativeity against gay marriage – or is it finally time you took responsibility for your own feelings and beliefs?

     

  • invalid-0

    I think homosexuality is a perversion. You have got to get more convincing than stating that as the difference. Homosexuality certainly is not the biological urge to reproduce,

    Congratulations! You have committed the Fallacy called Post Hoc,Ergo Propter Hoc. You have decided that the urge to reproduce is normal and not having this urge is perverted. Homosexuals don’t have the urge to reproduce, therefore, homosexuality is a perversion.
    Silly anonymous!
    The urge to reproduce isn’t a constant among humans who can use reason to rise above previously primal urges. IE: Some heteros DON’T want kids. Like me. I realized a long time ago I don’t have the right temperament to be a mom and the world will be better off if I DON’T reproduce.
    Homosexuality is sexual desire for a person of the same sex. Next time,reach for a dictionary instead of the Bible if you want the correct definition of a word.

  • invalid-0

    why did He create people who are homosexual, and then turn right about and condemn them as “perversions”? Facing condundrums like that can either drive you nuts, or make you realize God has nothing to do with this matter, or anything else God has been credited with.

    BTW: I discovered this rather witty diary over at the Daily Kos and wanted to share the URL with all of you. It covers some arguments no one has brought up yet.
    http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2008/6/21/112534/650/displaystory//

  • http://psychosupermom.blogspot.com invalid-0

    I’ve read letters and articles galore, arguing that the gay marriage issue is different from other equal rights ‘because they’re asking to be called something else’, ‘women and blacks have no choice in who they are’, and so on. Leave the equal rights issue aside, or even whether we should define marriage based on a bible to which not everyone subscribes, or based on years of misogynism. I have yet to hear one single reason why gay marriage hurts anyone.
    I’m straight, happily married, and I can’t see how anyone else’s marriage affects mine at all. I have two sons, I hope they marry and give me grandchildren, regardless of whom they marry. And it’s not like we heteros have done such a wonderful job with marriage – I’m on my second one, and don’t even get me started on Britney Spears.
    Frankly, I want to shake all these ‘defense of marriage’ zealots and steal a line from William Shatner’s appearance on a Sat. Night Live sketch, where he spoke at a Trekkie convention and eventually lost it, shrieking, “I have one thing to say to all you people – GET A LIFE!” With our shaky economy, world problems galore, gas at ridiculous prices that are still increasing, and our inability to cure the common cold, much less find comfortable high heels, can’t you people find something else to worry about?

  • invalid-0

    River Journey;

    You say that the difference between the women’s movement and equal rights for African Americans is different from the quest for equality for the GLBT community because they “stand on their own.” Women didn’t ask to be called men, African American’s didn’t ask to be called white.

    Well, homosexuals are not asking to be STRAIGHT, either. These issues all share one common characteristic: it is a group of people who seek to be EQUAL in rights to the majority. Whether gay, female, black, or whatever, denying a group of people a legally recognized right that is given to others creates a second class citizenry of them.

  • invalid-0

    You, the repliers as a group, are taking my faith and it’s law as a personal attack, and attacking God and his law in return. I am indifferent to your opinions, though I don’t mind sharing ideas, because as ridiculous as you might find my beliefs, I find yours equally ignorant.

    Excuse me?

    In summation; screw who you like, and print as many certificates as you want, you’re not making the world more tolerant, you’re making it more tolerant of perversion. This is not the modern day civil rights movement, bringing equality to the oppressed homosexual, the people you live and work with have just as much right to be disgusted by you choosing to imitate marriage and sleep with your own gender as you have the legal, civil right to choose to do so; unless the goverment segregates queers from public schools or builds a reservation for you, lay your noble flag down and quit making a mockery of true injustice.

    Do you realize that you just made the same error you accuse us of? Talk about striking out there, anonymous! No, you don’t merit scorn. Just pity.

  • invalid-0

    is the notion that homophobes believe they can read God’s mind and know Her opinions; or even believe God is 100% on their side. To raise the incredulity factor even more, some are dumb enough to open their mouths and actually make these claims in public. For an omnipotent deity, God certainly has a lot of people willing to (supposedly) speak for Her.

  • invalid-0

    I understand you feel threatened and you are frightened. The world is not so much becoming more secular as it is becoming more religiously diverse.

    You see, religion-particularly in America-isn’t dying, it’s CHANGING. And extremely conservative types(like you) who don’t like change are understandably nervous.
    A recent poll from the Pew Center indicates that most Americans (in the poll’s sample) are more open minded about religion. They don’t feel they follow the one “true” religion, or that there is only one way to interpret their religion’s teachings. They also feel all religions are a path to eternal life.

    The only exceptions to this rule were Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, the majority of adherents of these religions believed only their religions were “true”.

    Unlike the mindsets of those(like you) who like their situations in simplistic black and white terms, I know my existence is not and will not be brief, nor violent nor pointless. If it makes you feel better to believe otherwise, go right ahead.

    But you will still be wrong.

    For that, this agnostic woman who sees the divine in everyone (even the gays and atheists you despise), pities you.

  • invalid-0

    Well, it’s sort of obvious that he’s against same marriage… It’s right there in the bible. :-|

  • mellankelly1

    Well, it’s sort of obvious that he’s against same marriage… It’s right there in the bible. :-|

    First, God didn’t pen the bible (or translate it – or decide which writings would be included in it)… secondly, what makes your bibleGod THE authority on marriage?  Why would God be anything but perfectly fine with two people (might I add: consenting adults) professing their love and fidelity to one another and being legally united to one another?

  • invalid-0

    1)the U.S. constitution is the basis for American laws, not the bible. In short, I don’t give a rat’s butt what the bible says.
    2)change some words around and you will see the arguments against same sex marriage were once used against interracial marriage. God was supposed to be opposed to that as well.

  • invalid-0

    to respond to your points one at a time :
    (1) I am glad you find the idea of civil union for everyone interesting. Some others who posted also seem to like the idea of separating state regulated civil union from religion regulated marriage.
    (2a) My early view of heterosexual marriage was shaped by observance of my parents. Probably most people’s initial impression of marriage is shaped by the observation of their own family. and this was in the 50s when women had been pretty much brainwashed into putting themselves last, with hubby first and kiddies second. My mother always spoke of having dropped out of her Masters to marry and that she wanted to go back when we children were old enough. She never did. I asked her about it one day when my younger brother and I were both in high school. “well I don’t think your father would like me to.”
    (2b) See the book “Second Shift” by Arlie Hochschild, a sociology study of actual division of labor in housework and child care in mostly well educated couples in one of the more enlightened parts of the country. The take home message was that although the wives were employed full time in paid jobs, the husbands still did only a minor share of the work at home. There was variation, but only a few husbands did anything like half, and many did only a token amount. So yeah, to me that does make the wife to a serious degree an unpaid servent. And a servent at tasks I personally dislike : anyone who visits my home would see that as a housekeeper , I am the Anti-Martha.
    (2c) It would be interesting to do a similar study of gay couples. Right now I don’t think anyone really knows if the division of labor is more equitable or not. And it’s possible that the answer for lesbian couples might not be the same as for male gay couples.
    (3)”Alpha Bitch” is said a bit tongue in cheek. I am a lifelong dog trainer and also a horseperson. To a dog person, bitches are usually admirable for their character. Anyway like most dog trainers, I am pretty assertive. That gets me called “bitch” by some men who do not have in mind the admirable qualities that characterize the female canine and who do not have in mind Tina Fey’s remark “bitches get things done”. If called a bitch, I simply reply “thank you, and remember that’s Alpha Bitch”.
    (4) It sounds , from your side, like you and your wife have a wonderful relationshio. Of course I’d also like to hear her version as to who actually does most of the giving. Not that I don’t believe you are calling it as you see it, but she just might see it differently.
    (5) Given that currently 50% of opposite sex marriages break up in divorce and some of those that remain include such evidence of bliss as spousal physical abuse, it’s hard to see such marriages as being a wonderful success. Maybe gay unions won’t do any better and maybe they will. (6) Note: the current issue of Newsweek (the one with Lincoln and Darwin on the cover) has a brief article saying that married couples with childeren report themselves less happy than those without children. (Comparison with single people was not made, nor comparison with gay couples.)