Um, just to clarify who's married to Bob (and who can't free herself from the tasty bag of potato chips that is this posting), it's me, Patti. My personal ifno was not being remembered.

I'm not ashamed to say I'm married to Bob, damn it! I want to shout it from the rooftops!

And to Katica, thanks. I hope you enjoy the recipe.

#101 Posted by: at March 3, 2004 01:05 PM

Yeah. My personal info seems to have been lost as well...

CJ said:
"if we are going to deem marriage a 'sacred union', then by definition, marriage is religious in nature"

I agree that IF we are going to use that definition, then it must be religious in nature. But when was it decided that we would use that definition? The Webster's definition didn't mention sacred at any point.

I'm pretty sure the only place sacrament came into it was in the discussion of religious marriage.

Marriage may trace its roots to religion, but it has long since been co-opted by society in general.

Like Chuck said earlier, creating two categories would only complicate the legal system and make it too easy for one group to confer extra rights on themselves and exclude the other group. That point holds true regardless of how the split between civil unions and marriage is designated.

#102 Posted by: briwei at March 3, 2004 02:45 PM

Hmmm..
If enuff people want to have tigers in there back yards should we let them?

If enuff people want to Marry little chidren should we change our Laws and morals?

If enuff people want to carry submachine guns should we make them?

If enuuf people want to be cannables (sp?) should we serve human flesh at our local restraunt?

Of course the answer is no to all these.

If enuff peeps are gay should we CHANGE the definition of marridge....


Hmmmmmmm

#103 Posted by: Paul M at March 3, 2004 03:26 PM

How many bad analogies can fit in one comment, Paul?

If enough people want to eat cheese, should we let them?

I'm sure I could come up with a bunch.

Let me see if I cna boil your argument down to its essence.

If a critical mass of people see an injustice being done, should we do something to fix that injustice?

Easy answer: yes.

It's even simpler than that. The Massachusetts state constitution does not prohibit any two unreated consenting adults from marrying, as far as I understand it. So, as the SJC ruled, there is no law stopping them from marrying.

So perhaps your question should be:

If there is no law against people exercising their freedoms, should we let them exercise their freedoms?

Surprise! It's YES again!

#104 Posted by: James at March 3, 2004 03:46 PM

Well you may think there bad but its the way most Americans feel (or so were told). I have no problem with you exercising your freedom BUT dont shove down my throat LMAO (no pun Intended). I think the gay commnity is making a huge mistake by forcin the issue of marridge by breaking laws. Anychance you guys had IMHO is now gone for changing the way Marriage is defined. You are splitting the country up over a simple word "Mariage". Instead you should have your own deal be it civil union or call it whatever you like. Good Luck you gonna need it!

#105 Posted by: Paul M at March 3, 2004 04:04 PM

I probably shouldn't dignify that last post with a response but is there a good reason that the people opposed to this all appear to be illiterate?

I know they aren't because they can actually make decent arguments (for the most part). Which means they are doing it intentionally. What I can't figure out is WHY you'd want people who you are trying to convince of something to think you were an ignorant asshole.

#106 Posted by: Bob at March 3, 2004 04:11 PM

Unlike you who so willingly calls me a asshole I tried to state my opinion. Its guys like you Bob (is that a noun or a verb...again LMAO) that make us opposed to your moral convicions! Please do not assume to call me ignorant when you dont even know me...Like I said before Good Luck (I really did mean that).

#107 Posted by: Paul M at March 3, 2004 04:26 PM

I believe one or two kids (or more scary, one or two poorly educated adults) are trolling this forum under various names to see what responses their homophobic rants can provoke. By posting badly constructed stream of consciousness arguments about morality and fallacies they prove that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I wouldn't be surprised if their IP addresses resolve to a middle school somewhere.

Don't feed the trolls, folks.

#108 Posted by: Mike L. at March 3, 2004 04:29 PM

I kind of figured that but I also kind of like calling people ignorant assholes.

#109 Posted by: Bob at March 3, 2004 04:35 PM

No biggie, Mike. It drives my hit count up.

This page is #1 on Google when you search for "reasons against gay marriage." Amazing.

Apparently, a lot of people are searching for reasons against gay marriage. They search their own consciousnesses and when they only come up with "I just don't want these people to be able to marry" they realize that it doesn't fly in an argument. So they turn to Google. And they find this thread.

This is how the people with extremely weak arguments are stumbling their way here.

All that some of these people (paul, f'rinstance) know how to do is to make a weak argument and then get insulted when they are called on it.

The fellow never answered my argument (because he couldn't) and then he finishes with telling us that the reason he (and others) are opposed to gay marriage has something to do with the way Bob expresses his opinion.

Let me make something clear here, for all the Petes in the world. Don't traffic in your weak arguments if you don't want to look like a fool. You're allowed to try to make your point here. If you can't do that, at least amuse us. This blog is for intelligent discussion and recreation. If you can't achieve intelligent discussion, you fall into the entertainment category.

#110 Posted by: James at March 3, 2004 04:54 PM

I thought certain things were not true about what you wrote. I am a single mother of a beautiful and above average two year old boy. I am a full time student to better the lives of my son and I. Although I may be young I am still very much capable of raising a child on my own. I also do not agree with saying straight parents raise straight children as do gay parents raise gay children. Tha is absolutely wrong in saying. I am against gay marriage as it is said in the bible that marriage is between a man and a women.

#111 Posted by: Rachel at March 3, 2004 05:16 PM

> Hmmm..
> If enuff people want to have tigers
> in there back yards should we let them?

Not sure what this has got to do with gay marriage. Someone's pet tiger could maul or kill you, I doubt you could open the paper and find the headline "Man Killed By Neighbor's Vicious Gay Marriage".

> If enuff people want to Marry little
> chidren should we change our Laws and
> morals?

Gay marriage is between consenting adults, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything either.

> If enuff people want to carry
> submachine guns should we make them?

"Man Shot To Death While Cleaning Loaded Gay Marriage". Nope, that one doesn't work either.

> If enuuf people want to be cannables (sp?)
> should we serve human flesh at our local
> restraunt?

"Man Slain and Devoured by Gay Marriage"

> Of course the answer is no to all these.

Well of course, if you pick obviously ridiculous extremes, you're going to get an obvious answer. This is fallacy's cue to make an appearance in your argument. So without further ado, he she is:

> If enuff peeps are gay should we CHANGE
> the definition of marridge....
>
> Hmmmmmmm

It's good that you want to contribute your opinion, but do leave fallacious arguments out, ok? Nobody wants to argue against another boring and achingly specious slippery slope argument, which is essentially what you have contributed here.

The subject on the table is Gay Marriage, not any of the other hypotheticals that you pulled out of the air and equivocated with Gay Marriage in a completely baseless manner.

Further on "changing the definition of marridge", I'm not sure what the definition of MARRIDGE is, so change it all you want. If we're talking about MARRIAGE then you may be missing the distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage. This debate is about legal marriage which is not defined as a union between a man and a woman.

My advice to you would be to read the comments on this post above your own, the slippery slope argument was already addressed, as was the distinction between civil and religious marriage.

> Well you may think there bad

It's "they're", not "there"... took me a minute to figure out what you meant there. Oh your analogies *are* bad, there's no question about that, I've already demonstrated that much. Your belief that Gay Marriage is "the wrong thing to do" may be well founded, but it's hard to tell because you haven't given any decent reasons to explain why you feel that way.

> but its the way most Americans
> feel (or so were told).

Here's a real headline for you:
NPR Poll: Gay Marriage Sharply Divides Likely Voters -- Evenly Split Over Civil Unions, 56 Percent Oppose Gay Marriage (link: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1567690.html)

56% by any and all account is not "most Americans". It is a majority, but it isn't exactly a huge majority. Were you to look at the numbers a few years ago it would have been a larger majority, a few years before that and the majority would have been larger. As time has gone on, the majority standing against legal unions for gay people has grown smaller and smaller. If this trend keeps up, it will become a minority.

> I have
> no problem with you exercising
> your freedom BUT dont shove
> down my throat

Who exactly is trying to force you to enter into a gay marriage? Nobody. So what exactly is being forced on you?

> LMAO (no pun Intended).

Laughing at your own lowbrow jokes? There's a classy way to make a point.

> I think the gay commnity is making
> a huge mistake by forcin the issue
> of marridge by breaking laws.

Civil disobedience has often played a role in equal rights conflicts, so it is probably inevitable. I don't condone lawbreaking per se, and the California law forbidding gay marriage is working its way through the court system there now and will probably not survive. It probably wasn't the best plan in the world for San Francisco to start issuing gay marriage licenses without first letting the court come to its decision.

> Anychance you guys had IMHO is now
> gone for changing the way Marriage
> is defined.

That remains to be seen.

> You are splitting the country up
> over a simple word "Mariage".

The country is splitting itself up. Gay people want to marry the people they love, and that is only natural. It is that portion of the country that can't stomach the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be two guys getting a marriage license, that is causing all the division. I don't believe gay marriage is harmful to the community, and therefore I figure most people should just mind their own business.

> Instead you should have your own
> deal be it civil union or call
> it whatever you like.

There's no such thing as separate but equal, point already covered in earlier comments.

> Good Luck you gonna need it!

No doubt, considering that most of the arguments against appear to be poorly thought out and unfounded or irrational, getting gay marriage on the books is going to be an uphill battle.

One thing is for sure. It's going to happen. It may take a long time.

> Unlike you who so willingly calls me
> a asshole I tried to state my opinion.

You're restating arguments that we've already heard and that have been demonstrated to be flawed.

If you'll look at what Bob wrote, he indicated that writing poorly, and with flawed arguments, makes one LOOK like an ignorant asshole. He didn't say you are one, but that the manner in which you choose to present yourself makes you appear that way, much as dressing like a mailman would make people think you were a mailman.

For example, making dirty little gay jokes (i.e. shove down my throat; is that a noun or a verb; etc.) in your posts isn't really a great way to show everyone what a good critical thinker you are. Instead it just makes you sound like a nasty close-minded person who hates gay people.

> Its guys like you Bob (is that a noun or
> a verb...again LMAO)

Open mouth insert foot. Bob is a married hetero. So am I. So is the owner of this blog. Your jokes are in poor taste, and your assumption that we're all a bunch of gay people because we're for gay marriage is in poor judgement.

> that make us opposed to your moral
> convicions! Please do not assume
> to call me ignorant when you dont
> even know me...

Your conduct thus far has not indicated that you are *not* ignorant. A bunch of faulty analogies, flawed arguments, and tongue-in-cheek hee-hee gay jokes aren't exactly the hallmark of an open-minded intelligent person. Horrible spelling and grammar also do not bolster an image of a person who is accustomed to thinking critically about an issue before speaking out on it.

I may be wrong, but I think Bob didn't actually call you ignorant, but if he had, it wouldn't be for lack of evidence. Far be it from me to speak for Bob but that, I think, was the point he was trying to make.

> Like I said before Good Luck (I really
> did mean that).

Thanks. I really mean that too.

#112 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 3, 2004 06:40 PM

You've made all good points Chuck and yes my last posts were not in good taste. The point of my original post was the fact that a minority of the population that are gay want equal (key word) billing on marriage. Why? When we equate one thing to another 1=1, 2=2, Man & Women does not equal Man & Man 0r Women = Women. I realize these are simple terms but there also very logical. It seems so cut and dry to me. Of course, I dont have to live my life fighting this battle. If I offended anyone was not my original intent.
PEACE

#113 Posted by: Paul M at March 3, 2004 07:11 PM

> You've made all good points Chuck
> and yes my last posts were not in
> good taste.

No biggie. We're all human and we all make mistakes. :)

> The point of my original post was the fact
> that a minority of the population that are
> gay want equal (key word) billing on
> marriage. Why?

To answer that question you would really have to try to put yourselves in the shoes of a gay person. Imagine you meet a girl named Cheryl and you think she's awesome. She's funny, smart, attractive, crazy about you, and great in bed. You date for a year or so and a very loving, romantic relationship develops, and you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with Cheryl, and marry her. But you can't. Because a slight majority of the American public thinks there's something wrong with your relationship with Cheryl. That it is in some way deviant, that the love is "not real", that it is an abomination in the eyes of their God.

You could settle for just living with Cheryl, but at some point you will be denied rights that any married couple can enjoy. For example, you get a job and want your company to cover Cheryl via their insurance plan as a "family member". You may love her, you may live with her, but without a marriage license she's not your family, so your company refuses. If you want Cheryl covered, she's going to have to get that coverage through her own employer or you're going to have to pay for it out of pocket. When tax time comes, you can't file as a married couple despite the fact that you live basically as a married couple, so no tax-break for you, which you probably could really use since you're paying Cheryl's medical insurance out of pocket.

Then you flip on the news and hear about Britney Spear's two-day frivolous marriage. How easily she gets to piss away a right that you are denied.

It really doesn't sound fair does it? But that's pretty much what it would be like if you were a lesbian living in, say, Texas.

When you find yourself asking "Why would gay people want equality?", I suggest you might want to consider "Why wouldn't I want equality?" I suspect there's no answer for either.

> When we equate one thing to another 1=1,
> 2=2, Man & Women does not equal Man & Man
> 0r Women = Women. I realize these are simple
> terms but there also very logical. It seems
> so cut and dry to me.

I realize it seems cut and dried to you, but must realize that MF (male-female), MM (male-male), and FF (female-female), are all unions between two consenting adults.

The differentiation between them based on the genders of the individuals seems irrelevant to me. Implying that one is "better" or "more natural" than the others doesn't sound at all like logical objectivity, it sounds very much like subjectivity based on personal feelings.

You may prefer to be the M in a MF pair-bond, so do I as it happens. You might find the thought of being an M in a MM pair-bond distasteful or disturbing, so do I as it happens.

But to deny a loving couple the right to marry each other because of your personal feelings about the nature of their pair-bond seems inherently prejudiced to me. I cannot in good conscience deny two consenting adults who are in love the right to enter into a legal marriage and enjoy the same rights I enjoy, no matter what I think of their pair-bond.

If we can allow Britney Spears to make a mockery of marriage without so much as a raised eyebrow, I can't see how we could logically deny a union between two people who desperately want it and are fighting for it.

> Of course, I dont have to live my life
> fighting this battle.

No you don't. Fortunately for you, you are not a member of a community whose members have to fight for the right to marry the people they love. You, like me, are simply awarded this right. Lucky us.

> If I offended anyone was not my original
> intent.

Likewise, and thanks for sharing your opinions.

> PEACE

Likewise.

#114 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 3, 2004 07:53 PM

to briwei: i'd like to clarify why i included that information: george w. actually said that marriage is "a sacred union between one man and one woman". that is a quote. however, the law makes no distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage when it awards marriage benefits to civillians. it assumes they are the same. when you apply for a marriage license, you are not required to state whether you are going to have a 'religious' ceremony/marriage. when you are married, you enter a contract that binds you by law, meaning you will receive life insurance -by default- should your spouse die before you, you can be present in an emergency room if they are unconscious, receive tax benefits, receive healthcare benefits without having to claim them as a gift, which is what domestic partner benefits require, adopt a child with much less hassle, etc. being that this contract is not religious in nature, it should not be subject to anyone's 'morals', it should be freely available to all people who want to enter into this type of partnership. gay couples have every much the right to marry as athiests, but you cannot have a discussion on marriage without recognizing the fact that 'morals' and 'religion' will skew someone's objectivity. i do not think that a good solution is to create two categories. the civil union should be available to everyone, without distinction of the gender of the parties involved. else it should be available to no one. the 'religious' marriage should remain a private ceremony for those who want to associate their union as an expression of their faith.

to paul m: i think there are more dog bite related injuries every year than there are tiger bites. maybe not in africa, but certainly in the states. the law shouldn't tell you what kind of pet you can own, but it should tell you that you must take the necessary measures to keep it from injuring others.
children should not get married, in my opinion. if the general populace doesn't deem them mature enough to vote in a general election, they must not be mature enough to make a lifetime commitment. i side with the populace on this. gay marriage is about consenting adults. what a stupid analogy.
should we /make/ people carry submachine guns? of course not. that's what "freedom" is all about. we don't /make/ people do anything (for the most part. don't come back with some stupid shit like making people pay taxes, or making them register their vehicles) i'll re-iterate that we are speaking of (same phrase, new emphasis) consenting adults.
should we allow cannibals? of course not. again, that violates your entree's right not to be eaten. plus, that's how things like mad cow get spread, eating from one's own species.
so, if enough people are gay, should we allow them the same basic rights we allow the rest of the population? of course we should!!!! when enough women wanted to vote in the early 19th century, they finally pushed for a change. do you think that was wrong?
i'm not answering your analogies because i'm afraid someone will read them and think you have a point. i'm answering them because the ignorance in them help validate my points.
since you're throwing out some fuzzy logic and math equations, i'd like to share my favorite with you:
X^2 - 3X + 2 = 0
the value of X is 1. the value of X is also 2.
i actually had an orgasm when i realized this. oh - i didn't totally cream my panties, but, you know, my face felt flushed and i was all warm and tingly inside. maybe i trembled a little bit.

as far as trolls, go, this isn't my blog. i do think that those posts add value because someone on the fence about this issue would surely have to recognize the lack of justification against gay marriage, especially when someone responds with a sound argument.

#115 Posted by: cj at March 3, 2004 08:11 PM

Can someone please post any contradictions in the Constitution regarding the banning of same-sex amrriages?? Are any of the amendments valid counter-arguments for anti-gay amrriages?? Just wondering, becuase I'd like to write something within my 10-page reseach paper concerning the Constitution and how gays aren't receiving equal rights and the pursuit of hapiness and whatnot.

#116 Posted by: Rochelle at March 3, 2004 08:31 PM

Concerning my pervious post: Is the only amendment I could use to defend my stand as pro-gay marriages the 14th Amendment, Section 1?? Or are there others available??

#117 Posted by: Rochelle at March 3, 2004 08:35 PM

I have the answer to all of your problems! Abolish the legal institution of marriage.

Whaaaa?

Yes, take the government out of our bedrooms altogether and do away with the legal definition of marriage. From now on, everybody who has been "married" instead gets to be in a "civil union." Let "civil union" be the government approved and recognized institution of a pair-bond committed to each other, and confer upon it all of the legal rights and privileges currently attributed to marriage (tax breaks, insurance benefits, inheritance rights, protection against self-incrimination, etc). Now there's no squabbling over who gets what rights. Everyone is equal.

Then return marriage to a cultural and religious institution. Allow churches or cultural groups to have their own deity-ordained definition of marriage. Let them marry and divorce by whatever dogma they see fit. Leave the government out of it. If you want to marry someone, all you have to do is get a church to recognize it. But if you want the legal rights of a civil union to go along with it, you need the paperwork from the state.

Now the "we're defending marriage" types can define marriage in as narrow and bigoted terms as they want and it won't affect people who are entitled to equal rights and equal protection under the law. Simple, ain't it?

#118 Posted by: Random Comment at March 4, 2004 12:32 AM

That's a great idea, Random, if we were dealing with rational people. As you can see, we aren't.

Marriage is currently the one place I can think of where church and state very firmly overlap. I'm not sure what would be harder: getting conservatives to admit that there's no reason to prevent same-sex marriages, or getting them to butt out of marriage entirely.

Butting out would mean giving up their grip on a quasi-religious institution - something they see as a loophole in the First Amendment, through which they hope to sneak more religion into government.

Good luck prying *that* out of their cold dead hands.

#119 Posted by: Julie at March 4, 2004 09:54 AM

No Chuck when I call someone an ignorant asshole I generally mean it (although I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to Paul M).

Speaking of Paul M. Look who can suddenly spell and write complete sentences. Congratulations!!! That overnight English course must have done some good! Either that or I was right about you only pretending to be illiterate.

Random comment- I suggested this as well but also noted that it would never fly with the general populace.

#120 Posted by: Bob at March 4, 2004 09:56 AM

> Good luck prying *that* out of their cold
> dead hands.

Agreed. Though Random has hit upon perhaps the most *logical* solution, completely separate church from state (as we purportedly strive to do), it is also an entirely unworkable solution because by and in large, people are not logical. At the risk of repeating myself, and Shakespeare: "man is a giddy thing".

IMHO, people will not stand by idly as the government tells them "Your hetero marriage of 20 years is now a civil union in the eyes of the state." I think they will react irrationally.

#121 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 4, 2004 11:47 AM

> Speaking of Paul M. Look who can suddenly
> spell and write complete sentences.
> Congratulations!!! That overnight English
> course must have done some good! Either
> that or I was right about you only
> pretending to be illiterate.

Or it just could be that he was firing off his comments rapidly and wasn't taking time to correct typos. I've no doubt "Zar" was deliberately making his posts difficult to read, but I don't think Paul M was.

#122 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 4, 2004 11:50 AM

Ah - the danger of rapidfire comments. Where you type "enuff" five times.

That's just plain "dissing" your reader.

#123 Posted by: James at March 4, 2004 12:05 PM

> Ah - the danger of rapidfire comments.
> Where you type "enuff" five times.

Okay okay... I'm trying to be charitable. I get the point. Enuff already.

;)

#124 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 4, 2004 12:12 PM

Well guys after reading this, the point is tolerance and acceptance for ideas and values you do not believe in. Apparently, this ideal does not discriminate, Id say 10% of the people on this blog have then. So when we ALL have them maybe the gay community will get what they so desperatly want.

#125 Posted by: Paul M at March 4, 2004 12:25 PM

Believe whatever you want Paul. The point is I'm not interested in your beliefs. The first post I made to this entry said that pretty much everyone on it had made up their mind and anything anyone was saying wasn't going to change it. I think people would agree that I'm pretty open minded about mst things but once I've made up my mind about something I'm not likely to change it. If someone had an argument that I hadn't already heard then I'd listen and agree or disagree but everyone keeps saying the same things over and over and over again. As I said I have no interest in your opinion and I also have little interest in changing your opinion (I have no interest in being a missionary). I have found this thread to be amusing so I've intentionally tried to goad people into saying more foolish things. If we were debating this in person I would certainly not have stooped to insulting people but we aren't.

#126 Posted by: B.O.B. (bob) at March 4, 2004 01:05 PM

The idea that we need to be tolerant of intolerance is the sort of rhetorical contortion that the far right is frequently trotting out lately.

And, I'd love to argue, but I'm having trouble parsing.

_"Well guys after reading this, the point is tolerance and acceptance for ideas and values you do not believe in."_

No, the idea is to allow all citizens to have the same rights to exercise freedom. Making it about a simplistic definition of intolerance leads to silly rhetorical contortions that have nothing to do with real people, or their lives.

_"Apparently, this ideal does not discriminate, Id say 10% of the people on this blog have then."_

Ideals don't discriminate, but I'll be charitable with this incoherent sentence. If you're trying to say that 90% of the people who posted in this thread discriminate (in the legal sense of the word, which is what matters here) against a group of people, you certainly haven't proven that. And you can't because you don't know these people. And I can tell you you're wrong, because I do know many of them.

_"So when we ALL have them maybe the gay community will get what they so desperatly want."_

Until we allow all people their rights under the law, as the constitution is written, we (as a group) will not have the freedoms we aspire to. If that's what you meant, then I agree.

#127 Posted by: James at March 4, 2004 01:11 PM

Ok so you don'r care what I think or believe. You don't want to change my mind AND you want to CHANGE the definition of something that has been around for centuries. Take that attitude with you its sure to go far.

#128 Posted by: Paul M at March 4, 2004 02:23 PM

Paul, Paul, Paul. Live and let live, man.

#129 Posted by: Patti at March 4, 2004 02:28 PM

Paul. You're barking up the wrong tree. I do not think civil rights should be left to the majority to decide (since they're proven they are miserable at it over the years) therefore I don't have to convince you of anything. I'm not even all that big a fan of democracy except there isn't anything better out there (there is a famous quote about this which I can't think of right now). I'd be perfectly happy living in a dictatorship as long as I was the dictator. I like to think I'd be pretty good at it too!!!
By the way I don't necessarily want to change the (legal) definition of anything but according to 4 judges here in Mass there is no definifition, at least in this state, that says marriage is only between a man and a woman. If other states want to discriminate that's up to them but I will say I think they're wrong.

#130 Posted by: at March 4, 2004 02:45 PM

sorry that was me

#131 Posted by: Bob at March 4, 2004 02:47 PM

I believe the quote to which you alluded was this:

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

- Winston Churchill, 1947.

#132 Posted by: Patti at March 4, 2004 02:56 PM

You know, Bob, that Patti really seems to understand you. You should marry her, quick before they "change" the definition of marriage.

#133 Posted by: Julie at March 4, 2004 03:19 PM

Paul, the constitution apparently missed the part where the definition was set in stone. It also seems to have missed the part where only men and women can marry each other.

I agree that marriage has been around for centuries. What you seem to ignore is that it's been changing for centuries.

And since when are we stuck fast to bad traditions of discrimination?

Your lament about my attitude and about not wanting to change your mind would sound a lot more sincere if you actually addressed any of my arguments. Having trouble changing your mind? Don't blame me, sir.

#134 Posted by: James at March 4, 2004 03:33 PM

>You should marry her,
>quick before they "change"
>the definition of marriage.

Or before you're forced to marry another man.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?i=2&n=1

#135 Posted by: Patti at March 4, 2004 03:43 PM

Geesh Chuck..you are a windbag, huh? :) Too bad you dont know what you are talking about....maybe try reading Leviticus 18:22...or Leviticus 20:13...better yet, try I Corinthians 6:9 OR Romans 1:26-32. You make your own decision. But remember there are always consequences to ANY of our actions that are against the Bible. In the end, you will have to explain TO GOD why you did the things you did. I'll be praying for you. Ashli from OREGON

#136 Posted by: Ashli at March 4, 2004 07:52 PM

Ashli, is this what it always comes down to? God as a boogeyman?

Boogity-boogity-boogity! If you don't follow the Bible, god is going to get you! That's just sad.

By that logic, we should be just as afraid that Cthulhu is going to drag us screaming off to R'lyeh.

#137 Posted by: James at March 4, 2004 09:42 PM

Ashli,

I look forward to inheriting your possessions after The Rapture.

#138 Posted by: Mike L. at March 4, 2004 09:56 PM

> Geesh Chuck..you are a windbag, huh? :)

No argument here. I *am* a windbag.

> Too bad you dont know what you are
> talking about....

Well now you'll get an argument.

> maybe try reading
> Leviticus 18:22...

I've already read it. If you'll take a quick look back and show me where I said "The Bible says homosexuality is just hunky-dorey" then you'll be justified in telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. But I didn't say that and so it is YOU who don't know what I am talking about. Perhaps you were "skimming" because I'm such a windbag, and only assumed I said the Bible approved of homosexuality.

But while we are on the subject of Leviticus (the book of Laws), let's consider the verse you quote:

LEVITICUS 18:22 --> "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination." (King James Bible)

Many of the laws of the old testament forbade various kinds of behaviors, and many of these were abandoned outright by Christ and his followers. Haven't you noticed that nobody ever taught you you were going to hell if you ate, say, lobster? But according to Leviticus, which you so haughtily quote, it's an offense to God if you eat escargot.

LEVITICUS 11:9-12 --> 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

So do you eat lobster? How about shrimp? Or Snails? Or Crab Rangoons? Or fried clams? If you do, you're breaking "the law", and as you are such a bible scholar, you are of course aware of this verse from the book of James.

JAMES 2:10 --> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Congratulations, if you eat a lobster you've also had gay sex in the eyes of God. According to the book of James *none* of the laws can be dispensed with. It is all or nothing. Which means breaking any of those laws in Leviticus that Christians don't follow, for example, sacrificing lambs to God,

>or Leviticus 20:13

Oh you mean where the bible recommends putting gay men to death? This verse:

LEVITICUS 20:13 --> If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So how many gay people have you put to death? None? You'd better start killing people like the bible says or you're breaking the law and are going to burn in hell.

Here's some other things from Leviticus to be aware of:

LEVITICUS 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

If you have sex during your menstrual cycle, you and the man you had sex with should be banished from the community.

How about this?

LEVITICUS 20:27 --> A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

So how many witches have you stoned to death? Better get busy.

LEVITICUS 20:10 --> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

How many adulterers have you put to death?

Here's one of my favorites:

LEVITICUS 19:19 --> Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Are your garments mingled of woolen and linen? Is the steak you ate the other day the flesh of a cow from a diverse herd?

My point is that according to the bible itself, the coming of Christ was an end to these laws.

ROMANS 10:4 --> Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:19-29 --> 19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

> ...better yet, try I Corinthians 6:9

I Corinthians 6:9-10 you mean?

I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 --> 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

This is an excerpt from a letter written by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians, not the word of God given to Moses or spoken through the lips of Christ. Further the cautionary words here admonish one that gay people can't get into heaven... depending on which translation of the Bible you read. Other translations the bible (K.J.V. for example) don't mention the word "homosexual" in that verse. But no matter, the point is that this verse isn't telling you to "OPPRESS THE FAGS". It's simply telling you not to be one, and if you believe in the bible and follow Christ, perhaps you shouldn't.

But then again, not everyone believes in the Bible and not everyone follows Christ. For example, I am an Atheist, so Paul's letters to the Corinthians, while interesting are (as far as I'm concerned) best placed in their proper perspective as documents immersed in the culture of Greece 2000 years ago. That doesn't make them especially relevant to our modern age. And in fact, it makes them completely irrelevant to nonbelievers such as myself. Since there is no kingdom of God to get into, I'm not going to worry too much about whether I eat snails, and what others choose to do with their genitals. My morality is Humanist, not Christian.

So 1 Cor 6:9-10 matters very little to me. Especially since it doesn't appear to have anything to do with matters of state, and instead discusses religious beliefs, which BTW aren't really relevant to a discussion of legal marriage, but then that point has already been made. Or did you miss that one too?

1 CORINTHIANS 6:18 --> Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Run from the gay people! As fast as you can!

> OR Romans 1:26-32.

Uh-huh, those who do not follow God shall be worthy of death. Sounds a lot like "kill the infidels". Newflash: we're not living in the dark ages. We're living in America, the land of religious tolerance and freedom. Last I checked it was 2004.

Grow a little. Or don't. Either way it's not my problem.

> You make your own decision. But remember
> there are always consequences to ANY of
> our actions that are against the Bible.
> In the end, you will have to explain
> TO GOD why you did the things you did.

What if we're not Christians and we don't believe in the Bible? There are other faiths in the world Ashli, and you're entitled to believe that yours is the one true faith, but that don't make it so.

In the end, I'll be a rotting corpse, returning my body into the earth and providing sustenance for all manner of future life. As far as I'm concerned I won't be explaining anything to anyone. That's my faith.

> I'll be praying for you. Ashli from OREGON

Waste of effort, Ash. According to many Christian sects, the *only* way into heaven is through Christ, and I am not a Christian, so you can pray until you're blue in the face, it won't do any good. Thanks for the thought though.

> this shyt is gay

And you're a moronic loser. Welcome to the majority.

#139 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 4, 2004 10:02 PM

>Boogity-boogity-boogity!

Ha ha ha!!! People here at work wonder what the hell I'm laughing at, but the story's too long to explain. Ho many posts are we up to now?

Look, if you want to believe in god, pas de probleme. As we used to say in the '70s, that's your bag. Just don't force your beliefs on others.

By that same token, if you want to get married, do it--just don't tell others they can't because they don't subscribe to your views, religious or otherwise.

I thought Christianity was all about love, tolerance, forgiveness, acceptance, turn the other cheek, etc. What I've seen in this whole debate--not just here on this blog but across the country--is hate. Isn't this contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the son of God?

Why does religion often bring out the worst in people? This is one of the many reasons why I'm glad that I don't have a religion. I live by the premise that people should look out for those who are less fortunate than they are, and that's my guiding principle.

#140 Posted by: Patti at March 5, 2004 09:40 AM

> Why does religion often bring out the
> worst in people?

Because it is the ultimate excuse.

If you are an intolerant hateful person, modern society frowns on you. Intolerance is seen as backward and impeding the progress of society by creating strife and friction for no good reason.

So intolerant people must either change, or come up with a good reason.

You can try science (or pseudoscience) but the findings of science are always changing and are open to challenge.

You can try logic, but if your logic is flawed people will catch it and call you on it.

You can try personal philosophy, but with little to substantiate it, it too will get laughed out of the room.

You can try all three with a lot of spin, and cherry picking the factoids that support you while ignoring the factoids that do not. But there will always be challenges, nobody who disagrees is ever just going to sit down and say, "yeah, you're right". If you spin and cherry-pick, people will challenge you for doing so.

But religion? Aaah! We have a winner! Religion is based on Faith, and faith by definition is belief without (or even in spite of) evidence. Who can argue with a mandate from your deity? Religion (if you REALLY believe in it) is unassailable.

It doesn't matter if it is logically flawed, scientifically unfounded, or philosophically obtuse, faith cares not a whit for these things. If you allow science or reason or modernity to make you question your faith, then you are sinning.

Which makes religion a convenient excuse to support one's intolerance. People once used the bible to justify the ownership of slaves, since slavery is not condemned by the bible (unless you're referring to the Israelites enslaved in Egypt).

Verses like these were often used by owners of black slaves in the early United States to justify whippings:

LUKE 12:47 --> And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Sure the verse is out of context, but spin is spin, even if you are spinning your faith. The bible is an enourmous work which spans thousands of years in writing. Many books were excluded by the egyptian bishop who decreed the particular assembly of books we now recognize today as the bible. But the remaining work is large and expansive enough that for every verse you can trot out, it's fairly easy to find one that countermands or conflicts with it.

Fortunately, the various Christian faiths also say that God is not fooled by spin. So if you employ the bible to justify your intolerance, you will face a reckoning, under those faiths.

But in the meantime, Religion is the last, best, justification for just about anything, because matters of faith cannot be argued.

#141 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 5, 2004 10:42 AM

Love?

According to Ashli we should be frightened into believing in god.

That just seems sad to me. I can understand the love angle. But, really, reducing god to a boogeyman? There's got to be a sin somewhere for that. Shouldn't you have more respect for your god than to trot him out like the villain in a horror movie?

#142 Posted by: James at March 5, 2004 10:43 AM

My mother used to work with the CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) program at the church we used to go to. She remembers one of the priest talking excitedly about the change in approach to teaching CCD (this was around the time of Vatican II, I believe).

He said they were going to talk about how people should do things "for the love of god" instead of out of fear that "god's going to get you." That amused her.

The Catholic church got a little more user-friendly then. Priest began facing the congregation instead of saying the mass with their backs to the people. Saying the mass in English instead of Latin also was a nice gesture, although the mumbo-jumbo element Latin added to the mix made people a little less apt to question what they were hearing, so in that respect, the church may wish that had never happened (blind obedience was a useful tool back then).

Tangent alert: I remember one of the churches we went to when I was a kid had a guitar player and we all sang hymns like we were at some spiritual love-in. Well, that didn't last.

Anyhow, I think it's sad when people trot out religion as an excuse to be shitty to others. There is little comfort in thinking their belief system may cause them to face a reconing--the damage they're doing _right now_ is what concerns me.

If you harbor nasty thoughts about someone because you don't like the color or their skin, the kind of sex they have, or how they cook their shrimp, have the balls to say it without hiding behind the "my god sent down this edict" excuse. If you're a nasty bastard, realize you do so because you wish to be and not because some god made you do it.

#143 Posted by: Patti at March 5, 2004 11:18 AM

When created Adam He created Eve not Steeve. So thefore, no man should mary a man. Its an hideous habbit.

#144 Posted by: Tino Brazao at March 8, 2004 11:09 AM
gay marige is completly grose and shuldent be alloud

biggitry is aslo commptelly grose and shuldnet be allod

As is your attrocious grammar and spelling.

When created Adam He created Eve not Steeve.

Ooo! Ooo! Here's my witty little catchphrase that I picked up from other bigots! Speak for yourself using your own words and ideas, or don't speak at all. If I wanted to listen to a tape recording of standard ignorant bile, I wouldn't need your help.

So thefore, no man should mary a man.

On a more serious note, your belief in Adam and Eve is not universal. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. There are millions of people worldwide who are not Christians, and who do not believe in Adam and Eve. Your proclamation that gay marriage goes against your personal religious beliefs is hardly a compelling reason to deny gay citizens the right to civil marriage. Your religious beliefs are YOURS not mine, and likely not the religious beliefs of a gay couple who want to be married, and the right gay people are fighting for is CIVIL/LEGAL marriage, not RELIGIOUS marriage, so why don't you butt out and mind your own business?

Its an hideous habbit.

Your personal tastes are YOURS not mine, and likely not the personal tastes of a gay couple who want to be married, so why don't you butt out and mind your own business?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing where your personal feelings end and where the lives of others begin. You may not like gay people; you may not like the gay sex act. Nobody is asking you to like either one, but the laws of this great land prohibit discriminating against people based on sexual preferences, and denying a civil marriage license to someone based on their sexual preferences is indeed discrimination.

#145 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 8, 2004 11:30 AM

I wonder if there is an MTTakeIQTestBeforeCommenting plugin...

#146 Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2004 11:41 AM

Hey, as long as it's not a hideous hobbit, right?

Good lord, James, why does your blog attract so many people who can't spell?

#147 Posted by: Patti at March 8, 2004 12:52 PM

Hi Everyone!
My name is Lisa and I am doing a report on if gay marriages should be illegal or not in Canada. I am attending college and have conducted several surveys about this issue. Now what I have to say is that Gays should be allowed to get married, but should not air it in public, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. Especially our children. Also, could you please wrap it up, so you don't spread aids to the rest of the country.
Thank You
PLEASE WRAP IT UP!!!!!!!!
No matter what we do or say we cannot stop them so hopefully we can get them to protect themselves.

#148 Posted by: Lisa at March 8, 2004 03:59 PM

Oh, like heteros don't ever ever spread STDs.

Who are these people who have these bizarre ideas?

#149 Posted by: Patti at March 8, 2004 05:16 PM

Hello from the USofA

I'm willing to bet that most peopel would agree that they'd rather not have the news filled with any informaiton about people's personal preferences and sexual activities. It's too bad that it appears to be necessary before people get their rights. Someday we'll look back on this and wonder why it was so difficult.

As far as condom usage goes (I assume that's what you're talking about) we've got the best of both worlds here in the USA. Large groups of prudish folks who object to certain behavior, and then also don't want people to be educated about condom use.

Somehow, they feel if they keep trying to push abstinence they can ignore the damage that occurs when people choose not to use condoms.

Good luck in your country.

#150 Posted by: James (DrMomentum) at March 8, 2004 05:22 PM