The purpose-driven hissy fit

If you vote to strip away the rights of fellow citizens for no other reason than your religious beliefs, then, yes, you are a bigot.

Religious beliefs should have no part in the laws of a secular society.

As for the idea that there would be no outcry if Obama had picked a liberal theologian, that's bullshit, Rod, and you know it.

Furthermore, imagine what Rod and others would be saying if Obama had chosen a Imam to give the invocation.

Yeah, there'd be no outrage from the Rick Warren's of the world. If you believe that, I've got some Enron stock to sell to you.

I would suggest that the one having the 'hissy fit' is the guy who equates simple disapproval of Rick Warren with 'Stalinism.'

"Simple disapproval"? To judge from some of the things Andrew Sullivan has been citing and linking to, some of the more vocal gay activities have been practically peeing their pants over this.

***

If you vote to strip away the rights of fellow citizens for no other reason than your religious beliefs, then, yes, you are a bigot.

Maybe so. Why do you imply that the desire of many of us not to subvert human society's traditional understanding of marriage and the relations between the sexes changed by a very small, very vocal minority who wish to do so merely by judicial fiat, is predicated solely on religious beliefs? Is it really inconceivable to you that people might actually have other, non-religion-related reasons for opposing this?

I think the consternation over Warren is overblown, but at least give progressives and the LGBT community their due. What would the reaction be from the GOP rank-and-file if the inauguration invocator (is that even a word) was pro-choice? Little things like equality and tolerance matter to liberals and progressives, just like abortion politics matters to conservatives. Picking Warren is going to ruffle feathers.

That said, Obama's response was appropriate. He said he didn't agree with Warren about a lot of things, but Warren has been very gracious towards him--when the pro-life movement was having a hissy-fit over Obama speaking at Saddleback--and he's returning the favor.

Religious beliefs should have no part in the laws of a secular society.

You mean that only religious beliefs of which you approve should have a part in the laws of a secular society, don't you?

Sorry, that above post was me:

Religious beliefs should have no part in the laws of a secular society.

OK, fair enough. Who's up for doing away with all that "thou shalt not kill" crap and solving our gay-rights conundrum the old-fashioned way . . . just like the other folks who thought "religious beliefs should have no part in the laws of a secular society" and made it stick?

Ten percent of them (at best), 90 percent of us . . . I like those genocidal er . . . public policy odds.

Face it, the God you hate is the One whose divine law (insofar it informs jurisprudence and human behavior) makes it possible for you to spit in the face of 5,000 years of recorded history -- and mores . . . and common law . . . and religious teaching . . . and the most ingrained of taboos -- and live to gloat about it.

Leaving aside Warren's positions on social issues, I think that he's an unwise choice because of his comments on Sean Hannity's show that seemed to argue that assassinating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was both authorized by Christian scripture and a desirable public policy option. How would Americans react if Ahmadinejad chose an imam with a similar position to play a similar official role? (It's quite likely that many such clerics already serve in the Iranian government, but having one perform a function as public as Warren's invocation will be would still probably cause an uproar.) Considering that some sort of negotiated settlement with Iran over its nuclear program is the only way we can avoid a Hobson's choice of badly damaging our strategic position in the Middle East by attacking Iranian nuclear sites or accepting a very high risk of a second Holocaust and nuclear terrorism on American soul, it seems like a very bad idea to choose Warren, who will quite likely bolster Iranian support for the highly unpopular Ahmadinejad and his positions and make it harder to make a deal with the more moderate elements in Iran.

"Traditional understanding of marriage?"

In most of Europe for most of "history", marriage was a business arrangement between families.

In ancient Greece, no ceremony was neccessary for marriage, only that the two people considered themselves married by mutual agreement.

In ancient Rome, marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval. Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.

During the times of the Roman Empire, until it was deemed illegal in 342 A.D., same sex marriage was legal and relatively common.

In Hong Kong, polygamy was legal until October, 1971.

In India, Muslims are allowed to have multiple wives.

The Old Testament clearly shows polygamy as a common occurrence.

So when many of you say "Traditional Marriage", you're speaking of a definition is is in the minority in terms of actual time espoused.

But it fits into your worldview, so facts and history be damned.

I see a few things happening here:

1) The "outcry" is overblown, and is being pushed around the newsmedia to stir people up, giving them better ratings, etc.

2) This is what happens when Christians organize like never before to illegalize something civilly that has NOTHING to do with Christian marriage, other than that the same word is used.

More money, more political effort, and better organization has come together at unprecedented speed and scale from the Christian sector to get gay civil marriage outlawed. Don't think homosexuals - who at least feel like their feelings and desires are totally natural, automatic, and uncontrollable as skin color - haven't noticed.

Because we've spent more time, money, and effort on getting gay marriage outlawed than we have on abortion, euthenasia, no-fault divorce, etc., we have communicated to the culture that we find gay marriage to be worse than all of the above. 45 million babies can get murdered in the womb and we'll SUBSIDIZE some of it, but don't let the gays get civil marriage rights or the culture will go to hell in a handbasket.

When we engage in divide-and-conquer politics, and get so angry and motivated, should it be a surprise that those we're against politically get as angry and motivated? How can we think that there aren't consequences to our actions?

David J White--

"Simple disapproval"? To judge from some of the things Andrew Sullivan has been citing and linking to, some of the more vocal gay activities have been practically peeing their pants over this.

Okay, so they're peeing their pants. Are they sending people off to labor camps? Are they building torture chambers? Have they executed dissenters? Words have meaning, you know. You can't just willy-nilly toos around accusations of "Stalinism" at anything you don't happen to like. I mean, that's just like what Hitler did to the Jews!

Mr. Favog--

I dunno, I guess I can think of a few secular, materialist reasons not to go around massacring people. Did you realize that your claim could be taken to suggest that the only thing standing between the average Christian and the urge to kill is religious prohibition? If that's what you meant, it doesn't speak well of the average Christian. (And not only that, it made you sound like Walter Sobchak.).

The anger and fear (of losing our rights) that we feel from this "outcry" is, I would argue, at a similar level as it is for those in the gay community who want gay civil marriage, and find us trying to stop it.

And the reason that many Evangelicals wouldn't be as bothered if Obama chose a Wiccan priestess, a pro-gay female Episcopal priest, etc., is because we know Obama is a "liberal". We expect his decisions to be dischordant with our beliefs. And non-movement Libs are just reacting to their feelings of betrayal because their guy, who they have wanted to believe (and have been told) will usher in a new "Age of Aquarius" isn't going down the party line on every. last. detail.

Are some people being reasonable for setting fire to the drapes because Warren is giving the invocation? No. But we neead to realize that when we organized like we did and still do on this issue, we asked for it.

I seem to remember that Obama is against gay marriage............why is this a surprise? I think Warren is a hoax, but I thought the same about Billy Graham and he did quite a few civic events.

Next thing will be they want an invocation without calling God "He".

Also, by the standard of the gay activists, no Catholic, Orthodox or evangelical clergyman is acceptable to pray at the inauguration.

"Of course you can't be talking about marriage, since as far as I know prop 8 allowed for gay men to marry women, just like straight men can."

If anyone here wants a gay man to lie, and marry their daughter as a straight man and have a sham relationship, please let us all know. If not, then desist with the idiocy that gay men are fine to marry straight women.

Max...

"As has been said, I don't see any right for anyone to marry."

Please look up SCOTUS decision Loving V. Virginia. Marriage is a fundamental human right, and that is specifically declared in the decision.

Duh.

Our Founders thought some things were just a tad too obvious to have to put in the Bill of Rights (like the right to eat, drink water and breathe actual air), but some folks like you just have to be spoon fed these things...

Hey Rod...

I knew you were going to use this as an excuse to whine about TEH GAAAAAAYYYYS, and you didn't disappoint me. How about a few words about concerning the Fundamentalist Loony Tunes who are writing in their anger over Warren accepting the invite from Obama the Anti-Christ??

Maybe you could also opine about that Hispanic guy who got beat to death in New York last week by some black guys who thought he was gay, while you are at it. That doesn't fit in with your "Christian victims" scenario, of course...

Rod,
I agree with you that those gay activists who are freaking out about this are having a hissy fit. However, it doesn't mean Favog, and others, aren't.

Favog apparently says;

"No longer is "tolerance" of gays and lesbians enough. No longer is it acceptable to treat homosexuals as brothers and sisters with whom we, as Christians, take issue on one area of their lives.

To treat those with whom we differ fairly and with charity is no longer sufficient. Now we must approve. Affirm. Or else."

When Christians become tolerant of gays and lesbians, when they treat homosexuals as brothers and sisters, when they treat them fairly and with charity, I guess we'll see if you're right. But, since that hasn't happened in the world we live in, this is all speculation on Favog's part.

Rod, you say;

"If Obama, who has long worshiped in a liberal Christian church, had chosen a progressive pastor who supports gay marriage to pray at his Inaugural, what would have been the big deal? I certainly wouldn't have cared, and would have considered it small-minded and petty for anyone to complain."

You wouldn't have. But you know dang well that a lot of the Religious Right would have. Not every gay person is complaining about this. And, frankly, you probably would have objected if Obama had invited someone who believed abortion was okay. I guess I'm making two points here. Comparing what you would do to every gay activist everywhere isn't the proper comparison, it's the religious right (writ broadly) vs. the gay activists. Also, picking and choosing an issue that you don't care about as much isn't exactly a fair comparison.

Last but not least, I'm going to repeat what I've said before. If you really don't have any problem with civil unions having all the rights of marriage, work to repeal DOMA. DOMA, as I'm sure you know, was a federal law passed to keep states from having to recognize gay marriages in other states. But it went beyond that. It made sure the Federal government and other states didn't have to recognize gay marriage OR civil unions. It specifically made sure that gays were not given the same rights as straight folks, NO MATTER WHAT THEY CALLED IT. If you want to keep marriage between just a man and a woman, start the Christian Rights movement to amend DOMA. If not, quit pretending you support equal rights for gays.

Hey Rod,

As an always gay sometimes activist, I agree with your sentiment, here and I have said so on the various gay blogs I read. I understand that the gay marching band is participating in the inauguration and I'm sure that gets your type upset, so it's a wash. If we gays are going to get exercised by every little act of symbolism, it's going to be a long four years.

As I've said to my compadres, Rick Warren is the type we need to (and can) win over.

The gay activists are idiotic, disgusting, selfish, SCUM. They want to be WORSHIPPED for having anal intercourse. They want the rest of us to loudly affirm their perversity, and will settle for nothing less. They can, and will, all go to hell.

Today's Word: 'Fred Pierce' will not be asked to speak at Obama's inaugeration. Or Rick Warren's church. Hopefully he'll speak to a therapist before speaking to the neurologist / cardiologist.

Celtic Dragon:

"If anyone here wants a gay man to lie, and marry their daughter as a straight man and have a sham relationship, please let us all know. If not, then desist with the idiocy that gay men are fine to marry straight women."

I would rather that not happen. I'd also rather not have my daughter (well, I don't have one, but I get your drift) marry a guy without a job and devoid of marketable skills. Neither of those (as far as I know) are illegal. The issue isn't whether all people have the right to wise, stable marriages. In this country, all adult men and women are free to enter into a marriage with a consenting partner of the opposite sex, regardless of orientation. The state doesn't care if they're screwing up their lives by doing so, they should have the right to marry.

And how did you know Fred Pierce was a Christian? All I can deduce from his post is that he's either a troll or a very disturbed individual. If you're psychic, I'd love it if you could tell me the lottery numbers for tomorrow.

As far as I can discover, Loving v. Virginia didn't declare marriage a "fundamental human right." It said:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

How is marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival...?"

Here's where it gets interesting. Loving v. Virginia cites, at this point (where the ellipses occur above) Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, a case having to do with mandatory sterilization of criminals. And as to the "fundamental" nature of marriage Skinner v. Oklahoma says:

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

If marriage doesn't imply at least the potential of procreation, I think the court's "fundamental freedom" argument goes right out the window, at least as it involves mandatory sterilization.

Further, the New York Court of Appeals, in its decision in Hernandez v. Robles, which did not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, wrote:

"But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I still think the burden is on the same-sex marriage proponents to explain how same-sex marriage ought to be a "basic civil right" and a "fundamental freedom" when it doesn't involve even the possibility of procreation as a direct reality of the relationship between the two specific people involved.

Loving talked about marriage being a "fundamental freedom." Relying on Loving, Zablocki described marriage as a "fundamental right" requiring rigorous scrutiny before being denied. The connection to procreation was implied in Skinner, but the later cases have dropped the direct connection to procreation. In fact, in Turner v. Safley, SCOTUS found that prisoners--some of whom may never consummate their marriage (and therefore, not procreate--still had a fundamental right to marriage.

Handsome Dan writes:

"Did you realize that your claim could be taken to suggest that the only thing standing between the average Christian and the urge to kill is religious prohibition?"

No, I realize that the only think standing between the average, messed-up, fallen sinful *human* is religious precept against cold-blooded murder and the culture and laws built around that precept.

(continued)

(continued from previous)

Throw all influence of religion out of civic society and law, and what you get is not more fairness but instead *anything goes*. Including murder, pogroms, genocide . . . and murderous gay bashing to the point of pogroms or -- as Adolf Hitler tried -- genocide.

This is the kind of thing countries usually end up with when the actually succeed in excising all religious tenets concerning the dignity of human life from law and the public square. In our own country, Wall Street is what you get when you succeed in excising "thou shalt not steal" from the culture and from standard operating procedure.

(continued)

I was trying to conclude that my faith leads me to be against Bush and his torture policy, too. But Beliefnet's stupid software keeps kicking every comment into anti-spam hell, so screw it.

It's just not worth trying to fight this idiotic Beliefnet comment system.

What Mr. Dreher forgot to mention in his piece defending "Reverend" (he certainly isn't revered by me) Rick Warren is that he said he wouldn't support men marrying children when he argued against gay marriage.

Now to me that is particularly insulting and unnecessarily inflammatory for in conjures up the understandable fear, hate, and disgust one would have at pedophiles and suggest that those feelings would be justifiably aimed at those of us who are gay. Raising the pedophilia canard is an act of vilification, not an act of making an argument.

I'm sorry but cannot bestow this honor, and suggest that he is a role model for civility, to one who raises the pedophilia card to make his "argument" against gay rights.

The "hissy fit" as Mr. Dreher derisively calls it, is justified.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that all gays are scum; I said that gay activists are scum. And that's pretty accurate.
Furthermore, all of you politically correct dips who side with the gay activists are weak minded foolish sellouts.

In Massachusetts they teach little kids about gay sexuality and gay marriage. It's sick. the kids are too young to learn about normal sexuality, let alone perversion.

The next step is surely that ministers will be arrested and charged with hate crimes if they simply tell the truth about homosexuality. Why should 99% of the population have to kowtow to a fundamentally disordered 1%?

The gays are going to keep pushing and there will be a backlash such as you have never seen before...

Well, Fred, why don't you get back to us when they start arresting ministers? I'm not holding my breath. Especially not if they're going to be arrested for "telling the truth." A minister who tells the truth is such a rare commodity that I hardly think he'd be arrested.

Mighty Favog says: Throw all influence of religion out of civic society and law, and what you get is not more fairness but instead *anything goes*. Including murder, pogroms, genocide . . . and murderous gay bashing to the point of pogroms or -- as Adolf Hitler tried -- genocide. I'm willing to take Favog's word for it that he doesn't mean that as a threat, but that's still what it sounds like. When a character in a TV show says "I'm not threatening you--just giving you a warning" . . . well, it's wise to assume a gun has just been hung on the wall. Those characters seldom turn out to be the good guys.

And right on cue, as soon as well-spoken gunslinger Favog leaves, the slightly more shifty-eyed, tobacco-chewing henchperson shows up to announce there will be a backlash such as you have never seen before... Well now, Miz Kitty, if that ain't a threat to the safety of this here saloon, I never done heard one!

What all this gloom and foreboding points to is a pretty simple tactic: Let us continue to run things our way--including our discrimination against you, to which we feel fully entitled--because if you try to change things, YOU will be the ones to get hurt! This is a transparent form of intimidation that has nothing to do with justice or reason.

Favog--

Well I feel kinda bad arguing back at you since you seem to be at some kind of technological disadvantage, but: Do you really need me to bring up examples of faith-based murder, genocide or gay-bashing? But let's leave those three aside for now: I find it particularly rich that you mention pogroms, which are, almost by definition, religiously-inspired mass murder.

Just one example of very, very many from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire :"The first pogrom is often considered to be the 1821 anti-Jewish riots in Odessa (modern Ukraine) after the death of the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Istanbul, in which 14 Jews were killed."

But...but...how could this happen, particularly in a society that was veritably soaked with religious observance? Could it be that there's no necessary link between religious feeling and moral (or even civilized) behavior?

And you really can't come up with a secular reason to refrain from homicide? Not even one?

Fred Pierce:

The gays are going to keep pushing and there will be a backlash such as you have never seen before...

"Look what you made me do!"

And do you really think that there's no good secular reason to refrain from homicide? None whatsoever?

It's just not worth trying to fight this idiotic Beliefnet comment system.

Were truer words ever spoken?

"Why can some folks call gays scum and manage to post, but I can't get a reasoned argument through Beliefnet's stupid filter?"

To beat the "stupid" filter, perhaps you could try writing something more intelligent.

quote: "Daniel is definitely (partially) right. Study Constitutional law for about a week, and you'll quickly find out that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. See Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia."

MLaw,

I think the historical context is pretty important in these cases, especially Loving. Interracial marriages were once illegal in many states because racists feared miscegenation. However, the assumption that all parties at the time operated under-and Erin alludes to this pretty strongly-was that procreation and raising children was central to marriage. Since it is biologically impossible for same-sex couples to have children together, I fail to see how cases such as Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail are relevant to the current debate over SSM.

Probably the best argument for abandoning the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one women that has prevailed in this country since its founding is that while our society has already deracinated procreation and child raising from marriage and now sees marriage and other "serious" relationships as primarily about the personal satisfaction and happiness of the consenting adult parties involved. I would argue that for the greater good of children and society overall that it would be best to maintain procreation and childrearing at the center of what marriage is all about. But our society has radically changed since the late 1960s, and there may well be no going back anytime soon.

If that is the case, then the definition of marriage has already been redefined. And although gay activists have rode this wave of change, they can't be blamed (or take credit depending on your point of view) for what has happened. If this is the case, however, the state shouldn't just issue marriage licenses (or civil unions if the state gets out of the marriage business) for same sex couples. It should issue them to all consenting adults who want to call their relationship a marriage. This could be for heterosexual or homosexual couples as well as polygamous or incestuous relations. Pretty much anything should go.

In other words, if procreation and childrearing is no longer central to our society's definition of marriage and if marriage is a "fundamental right" for consenting adults, then consenting adults should be able to define marriage however they see fit. Defining marriage as only between two people is completely arbitrary if marriage isn't primarily about reproduction. And allowing same sex marriage while forbidding polygamy or incestuous marriages would be a violation of "fundamental rights."

rr

"And allowing same sex marriage while forbidding polygamy or incestuous marriages would be a violation of "fundamental rights.""

Except no state in the union identifies polygamists or participants in incest as a protected class of people who are victims of discrimination. In California and Massachusetts, the courts and legislature have recognized gays and lesbians as protected classes of people who should not be victims of societal discrimination; that hasn't been extended to polygamists--although I can see orthodox believers making his argument at some point--or incest participants.

The problem with the alleged definition of marriage being intertwined with procreation is that there has never been any state (or any society) that has directly conditioned the marriage right on evidence of the ability to procreate. If you are going to use such a requirement as a prohibition, then there needs to be some evidence, at some point, that that requirement has ever existed or been enforced.

quote: "Except no state in the union identifies polygamists or participants in incest as a protected class of people who are victims of discrimination."

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be identified as such.

quote: "The problem with the alleged definition of marriage being intertwined with procreation is that there has never been any state (or any society) that has directly conditioned the marriage right on evidence of the ability to procreate."

Well, until very recent times it was pretty difficult to prove in advance of getting married that one could procreate. If I remember correctly, however, in medieval Europe if a man was found to be impotent right after he married, it was grounds for an annulment.
At any rate, procreation and child rearing has most certainly been at the center of how many societies, including our own for many years, has defined marriage. For example, in ancient Greece, which by the way had little problem with homosexuality, wedding vows often included the statement "I take this woman for the bearing of legitimate children."

I grant the fact that strictly speaking marriage has not been limited to those who don't or can't reproduce i.e. older couples who marry or younger couples who because of a medical problem are infertile. But marriage most certainly has been limited to heterosexuals. Why is this? Because procreation and child rearing has been historically seen as central to the very purpose of marriage. To argue that historically marriage hasn't been about in large part about procreation and child rearing is pure fantasy.

It's also worth mentioning that the "exceptions" above i.e. an older couple marrying or a younger infertile couple marrying do still resemble a heterosexual couple who has children. For example, if an infertile couple's condition could not be medically reversed, they could adopt. And until the child was told that he or she was adopted, he or she would simply assume the couple were his or her biological mother and father. The public in general would also assume the couple were the biological parents until they were told otherwise.

For older couples, they could be grandparents together and share child rearing together in that fashion. My maternal grandfather died before I was born and my maternal grandmother remarried a widower (who had a daughter of his own) several years later. He passed away three years ago, but growing up he was like a grandfather to me. If I had never been told he wasn't my biological grandfather, I would have never known the difference. If my grandmother had gotten together with another women this wouldn't have been the case.

Homosexual couples are simply so different from heterosexual couples that they cannot operate the same as an infertile or older couple. Mother nature and Darwinian biology are hetronormative. Since it is biologically impossible for two men together and two women together to have their own children, a child adopted by a homosexual couple will be raised without either a mother or a father and by a couple who under no circumstances could have brought the child into the world themselves. It is simply contrary to nature. At a minimum, one member of the homosexual couple would have had to gotten together with a member of the opposite sex to conceive the child. As such the child will thus always know that something is fundamentally unnatural about the arrangement. Biologically, Heather cannot have two mommies. Same thing goes for a grandparent relationship.

If our society redefines marriage as an arrangement in which procreation and child rearing is secondary to the emotional and personal fulfillment of adults, and if marriage is a "fundamental right" for consenting adults then we should let adults define marriage however they want. In that case there is no rational argument to forbid polygamous or incestuous marriages. But we should be honest about how we are redefining marriage. Historically procreation and child rearing have been central to marriage. Biologically speaking, only a man and a woman together can reproduce. Men and women are not interchangeable when it comes to this.

We can pretend all we want, but a homosexual couple is and will always be radically different from a heterosexual one. Liberals may get their way on "gay marriage." But at some level their problem isn't so much with social conservatives as it is with basic biology. It's strange that they like to accuse the right of being "anti-science" when their own ideology with respect to sexuality doesn't seem to conform in the slightest to basic biology. Maybe social conservatives should start using the "anti-science" accusation against the left. When it comes to gender relations, sexuality, and reproduction, some on the left most certain do seem to think their ideology can trump basic science.

rr

"Historically procreation and child rearing have been central to marriage."

You keep saying this, but there's very little evidence beyond the coincidence that marriage was between fertile men and women. There's nothing in the legal relationship that mandates procreation and child rearing. You can't deny a legal right based on a bit of historical mythmaking but no actual evidence.

"The idea that there actually are such things as "ex-gays" thus doesn't exactly sit well with left's ideological commitments."

Well, except there's little evidence that there are "ex-gays." What there is evidence of is a lot of psychological, emotional, and spiritual harm stemming from attempts to "pray away the gay."

The reverse-whining claim is a valid one, and another motivation for my desire to see a diverse crowd of clergy at the podium on 1/20.

"If anyone here wants a gay man to lie, and marry their daughter as a straight man and have a sham relationship, please let us all know. If not, then desist with the idiocy that gay men are fine to marry straight women."

****

I'll leave it to others to continue hashing out whether or not a fundamental right to marriage exists. But to the degree that such a right does exist, the gay man has as much right to marry women as do I.

That a gay man obviously doesn't WANT to marry a woman is not a fault of the law, it is a fault of the gay man's desires.

He seeks to define the institution according to his desires. He seeks the right to redefine marriage AND to redefine what he says he's doing in the process.

"do you honestly think that it is some random coincidence that marriage has historically been a man and a women?"

No. The legal relationship of marriage was created to protect women. Since man had power and authority--and because men and women are sexually compatible--it was the relationship that was given legal rights.

"Do you honestly think that procreation and child rearing has nothing to do with why men and women have married each other for thousands of years in practically every society on the face of the earth?"

Sure, it has something to do with it. But it isn't the primary or only reason marriage exists, which is your argument. If procreation were the primary or sole reason for marriage, there would evidence that those who can't procreate have been denied the marriage right. Except for same-sex marriage, there is no evidence in the thousands of years in practically every society where procreation was a requirement for the legal right of marriage.

Hattio,

You write: "If you really don't have any problem with civil unions having all the rights of marriage, work to repeal DOMA. . . . If you want to keep marriage between just a man and a woman, start the Christian Rights movement to amend DOMA. If not, quit pretending you support equal rights for gays."

As I've mentioned above, I favor civil unions for everyone, with exactly the same legal consequences. I think separating the word "marriage" -- which, rightly and inevitably, carries a lot of religious understanding, history, and freight -- from anything the government does would solve a lot. Accordingly, I favor the repeal of DOMA. And I'm theologically conservative. So there's at least one Christian who shares Rod's theological views on this issue who agrees with you that DOMA should be repealed.

As a straight, never-married guy, I find myself with a number of conflicting emotions and thoughts. To be sure, it’s something I consider “icky,” but it’s also none of my business.

On one level, I am hardly the most sympathetic to the gay cause. Yet, on another level, having never been married, and frankly, finding it difficult to get even a first date, I have a sneaking sympathy with many gays and lesbians, if only because I too know what it’s like to be told, in essence: “You are not good enough to give or receive love.”

With parents who needed no help from gays to ruin their marriage (they did that very nicely on their own, thank you), I find the notion that gays will ruin traditional marriage rather risible.

Searching the scriptures (as Jesus told us to do), I find repeated denunciations of, and warnings against, adultery and fornication, yet relatively few denunciations of, and warnings against, homosexuality. Paul warned against homosexual relationships, but Jesus NEVER mentioned the subject. Don’t take my word for it; go back to the Gospels and look, folks.

Common sense tells me that homosexual relationships are not the natural order of things, whether from a religious or even evolutionary point of view. Common sense also tells me that, as Christians, we might have other, bigger fish to fry.

Here then is my modest proposal. We codify marriage as a “contract between two, and only two, persons, not related by blood.” This rules out marriages to an animal, to a relative, or to more than one partner. We could even have a required civil ceremony, perhaps on Friday afternoon at the courthouse and then a religious ceremony Saturday at the church or Sunday at the synagogue. Basically, we will have heed Christ’s advice to render unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is His. As Scurvy Oaks pointed out, this kind of compromise could save conservatives from dealing with an even worse situation, where churches are harassed for not performing marriages for gays and lesbians. But there are even greater implications which we must consider.

It may be that we must fight what Galadriel called “the long defeat” I believe Rod has written about this before. I think we need to pick our battles. I think Jude makes a compelling point about spending our energies in the wrong places. Quite frankly, while the idea of gay marriage is new and foreign (even with my personal sympathies), the idea of Islamic polygamy is far more troubling. While I am less than thrilled by rewriting 200 years (not 5,000 years—I agree with EddieInCA) of history regarding marriage, I am VERY FEARFUL of the ramifications of Islamic polygamy and living under Sharia law. It’s a compromise we may have to make. I would appeal to all to get their priorities straight and pick their battles. Both gays and conservative Christians will find life very difficult under Islamic rule.

Thanks, RR. As always, your personal honesty is refreshing and most welcome. Enjoy your day, and come back for more if you can.

Shall we agree on the main point, fellow travelers? We must separate civil and sacramental, in the law, with explicit definitions and protections of both. While I maintain that rr and others are wrong to lump plural, incestuous and other such things here, the primary statements of the law are quite easy to imagine.

Sacramental: The Constitution protects all religions from governmental interference in their marriage customs and the religious requirements and prohibitions there of.

Civil: Address the economic, social and contractual discrimination inherent in the denial of civil marriage contracts to same-sex couples.

Any couple can get sacramentally married within the church or sect that welcomes them to do so. Such a marriage would have no relevance under civil law.

Any couple desiring to obtain the rights, privileges (and obligation) of civil marriage must acquire it according to the procedures established by local government.

We can have this discussion, ad nauseum, should plural marriage come up in a similar context. As for incest... I curmudgeonly assert that it will never come up.

"Shall we agree on the main point, fellow travelers? We must separate civil and sacramental, in the law, with explicit definitions and protections of both."

It's one of those great, philosophical goals. But in reality, it isn't going to happen. So, knowing that the U.S. isn't going to separate out the civil and religious institutions and they will be intertwined for at least another century, how do we move forward?

...that the U.S. isn't going to separate out the civil and religious institutions and they will be intertwined for at least another century, how do we move forward?

Daniel, if your assessment is accurate, then the short answer is: we don't. :-(

Jon,

I did not state my last part very well. I am a civilly unioned (aka married) gay man and I'm in full agreement with your post. What I was trying to say was that I am willing to believe to ex-gay ministries have the potential to help sexually addicted people who are not love/relationship-oriented to the same sex and whose sexual compulsiveness includes same-sex they want to escape.
I don't think exgay ministries can help gay people; those who feel called to celibacy might get some support, but the rest would be fighting a constant battle against their natural impulses for relationship and intimacy.

I hope I'm a bit clearer this time :-)

Rod Says;

"Only Reform Jews and mainline Protestants need apply to pray in public, according to gay activists. Good luck with the politics of that proposition, fellas."

See, this is where you cross from reasoned argument into completely hysterical hyperbole, as worthy of mockery as gay activists complaining about Warren. Gay activists are not saying traditional religious folks can't pray in public. They are saying that Obama shouldn't give them a platform. I disagree with them, and so do you. But, please, get down off the "persecuted religious majority" soapbox.

"Well, the right to equal treatment before the law for starters. Then how about the right to liberty? Or the right to the pursuit of happiness?"

What? In what way? They are treated equally before the law, and their liberties are not denied. The right to the pursuit of happiness is not in any documents of United States Law (the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding), but at any right they are not being denied that to any more of an extent than I am that I can't enter into a marriage with a supermodel.

As for the daughter thing, I addressed that above. Would you want YOUR daughter to marry a convicted felon? Then you plainly don't think convicted felons should get married. Either that or you're a hypocrite, or bigot, or whatever it is you're trying to assert about pro-marriage people.

I never said a gay man SHOULD marry a woman, it sounds like a very stupid idea to me. But they have that right, because that's equality under the law.

Favog,

"Who's up for doing away with all that "thou shalt not kill" crap and solving our gay-rights conundrum the old-fashioned way"

Your thinly veiled call for genocide against gays belies your "Christian" 'concern'.

Killing people causes demonstrable harm. Gay marriage does no such thing.

Be healed.

"If marriage doesn't imply at least the potential of procreation"

Which, of course, it doesn't. (And you well know it, too.) We let the sterile, the elderly, even those who choose not to procreate all to marry, despite what you think about it, Erin.

Procreation is not a requirment to marry. No one even asks if the couple are capable or intending to procreate.

"I still think the burden is on the same-sex marriage proponents to explain how same-sex marriage ought to be a "basic civil right" and a "fundamental freedom" when it doesn't involve even the possibility of procreation as a direct reality of the relationship between the two specific people involved."

And do you likewise 'think' that Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles-Windsor-Bono should have to similarly explaian their basic civil rights too,, despite the fact that these knnown adulterers/divorcees' marriage likewise doesn't involve even the possibility of procreation?

So selective.

"I know of no "Christian" who calls his brothers and sisters the equivalent of pedophiles, polygamists and the incestuous."

Well, unless they are.

YN,

"They are treated equally before the law"

Sorry, but that's (demonstrably ) incorrect (aka the bearing of false witness. There are some 1,176 rights, benefits and obligations (aka the "affects" of marriage)that do not accrue to gay citizens because of DOMA. There are 37 States in which a person can be legally fired (or not hired) merely for being gay. There are some 30 States that either passed laws or changed their Constitutions to ensure gay people are never given equality rights.

"and their liberties are not denied"

Howabout the civil liberty of marriage?

"The right to the pursuit of happiness is not in any documents of United States Law (the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding)"

So the pursuit of happiness is no longer an "inalienable right"? When did that happen?

"but at any right they are not being denied that to any more of an extent than I am that I can't enter into a marriage with a supermodel."

But you can enter into a marriage with a supermodel (did you forget about Anna Nicole Smith and her - very legal - marriage to a rich old schmuck)?

"As for the daughter thing, I addressed that above. Would you want YOUR daughter to marry a convicted felon? Then you plainly don't think convicted felons should get married"

Apart fromthe typical villification of gay people, you likewise seem to forget that convicted felons can get married in the good ole U. S. of A. (TM). Whether or not I think they "should" is immaterial.

Thanx 4 tryin'.

quote: "When you are the first in line to give up your marriage, we'll believe you."

I consider myself married because I made a promise to my wife before God. As with most religious conservatives, in my view technically the state doesn't have the authority in and of itself to confer a legitimate marriage in the first place. Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution for me, though of course it has legal ramifications because it means a shared household, property, children and the like. But theologically speaking, gay marriage is an absurd fiction no matter what the state says. As for my marriage, as long as the state doesn't mess with our share property, inheritance, insurance and the like, I could care less what the state chooses to actually call my marriage. Civil union would be fine by me. In other words, unlike gays I’m not so insecure that I feel some burning need for a state and societal seal of approval for my marriage. So yeah, if the line forms for civil unions, I’ll have no problem getting in it.

Quote: “You make it sound like all marriages will be forced to become SSMs. Reductio ad absurdum. OSMs still exist, ya know. They haven't been outlawed.”

I said nothing of the sort. I said that claiming that marriage is a “fundamental right” and pushing for SSM while at the same time denying the right of people to enter into plural or incestuous marriages is hypocritical and inconsistent.

Quote: “Of course the opposite side believes theirs is the "correct one". You need to make a better case than mere preference.”

Well, so too does the other side. If they are for SSM but against plural and incestuous marriages it’s pretty clear that they are all about mere preference, namely they have a preference for homosexual relations and want to use the state to force the rest of society to accept their preferences as valid and moral.

Quote: “You along with Scurvy Oaks who "favors civil unions for everyone, with exactly the same legal consequences" are living in La La Land, since they don't have exactly the same (nor even close) legal consequences. DOMA saw to it that they wouldn't.”

Well, there is nothing from stopping civil unions from having the same legal rights as state sanctioned marriages now have. Why not repeal the DOMA and replace it with civil unions for all?

Quote: “But if you mean that marriage/civil unions would of necessity be allowable for children, animals, the dead, siblings, or plural couples, that does not logically follow.”

The operative phrase here is “all consenting adults.” This includes heterosexual and homosexual couples, and any plural and incestuous relations. Children, animals, the dead, etc. cannot currently make legal contracts on their own and thus do not fall under the category of “consenting adults.” So this isn’t about eliminating all standards.

rr

rr,

Bravo for your first paragraph in your 5:31 comment. I concur.

rr,

"I consider myself married because I made a promise to my wife before God."

So? I also made a promise to my husband before God.

"As with most religious conservatives, in my view technically the state doesn't have the authority in and of itself to confer a legitimate marriage in the first place."

That may be your view, but the reality is the state does have that authority.

"Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution for me"

It is for me too.

"though of course it has legal ramifications because it means a shared household, property, children and the like."

And that doesn't apply to gay citizens because ... ?

"But theologically speaking, gay marriage is an absurd fiction no matter what the state says."

Not according to my faith. Or don't you believe in freedom of religion?

"As for my marriage, as long as the state doesn't mess with our share property, inheritance, insurance and the like"

Ah, but it's okay for the state to mess with our share[d] property, inheritance, insurance and the like. You could explain the double standard, no?

"I could care less what the state chooses to actually call my marriage."

The expression is, "I couldn't care less", and you may well not care. I do.

"Civil union would be fine by me."

I doubt it. Not if the state were free to mess with you share[d] property, inheritance, insurance and the like, as they can (and do) with gay unions.

"So yeah, if the line forms for civil unions, I’ll have no problem getting in it."

Easy for you to say because you know it's never gonna happen.

"Well, there is nothing from stopping civil unions from having the same legal rights as state sanctioned marriages now have. Why not repeal the DOMA and replace it with civil unions for all?"

Okay, like I said - you start it. Until then ...

"The operative phrase here is “all consenting adults.”"

I assure you that animals, the dead and children do not fall into that category. Beyond that, if the polys want to make their case, let them. We are discussing a commitment between 2 people. The incest comparison (aside from its odiousness) is unnescessary - brothers and sisters already have kinship (which marriage establishes). Thanx anyway.

Scury,

I assure you I have read all of your posts - and understood them.

I believe you're living in La La Land because you seem to actually think civil unions for all people is going to happen, and that already married people will simply give up that title/label for their relationships. It simply is not goinng to happen.

Delusional is what I call it.

quote: "So, under the current regime, you'd be willing to give up federal benefits, federal immigration rights, federal tax rights, have your health care taxed if you provide it for your civil union partner? Because that's the main difference between marriage and civil unions in 2008."

No, I wouldn't be willing to give any of these up. What I'd be willing to do is for the state to drop the term "marriage" altogether and substitute "civil union" instead. It would only be a matter of changing the words that are used. And yes, homosexual couples, those in plural and incestuous relations would get the exact same rights as heterosexual couples in civil unions, the same rights in fact that are currently granted by the state for marriages. In one sense this is purely semantic, though keep in mind that for religious traditionalists such as myself the term "marriage" is loaded with theological meaning.

rr

rr

Husband, or is it ex-Pentecostal?,

Churches or religious organizations should have the right to conduct "gay marriages" should they so desire. That's well within their rights to freedom of religion. Legally speaking I have no problem with that and in fact would defend their right to do so.

But theologically speaking, if you belong to a church or religious body that recognizes "gay marriage" and "married" you in such a ceremony that body in my view is ipso facto heretical and the whole thing is a null and void charade. It is a wicked mockery of a real wedding ceremony. And you can call your self the King of England for all I care. I doesn't make you so. If you are a man, you can never be a husband and married to another man in my eyes. If the state calls it a marriage, it still won't be a real one to me anymore than if the state proclaimed you the god Thor would make you such. Sorry, I and millions upon millions (actually billions worldwide) of traditional religious people will never recognize "gay marriage" as valid. When it comes to recognizing the existence of gay marriage, we're the equivalent of atheists. And we are well within OUR religious rights to believe the way we do.

And no, we're not just discussing a commitment between two people. We're discussing marriage.

rr

P.S. Aren't you a Canadian citizen anyway? If so, I'm not sure why your views, i.e. those of a foreigner should count on what we do in the United States of America.

quote: "So friggin' what? Who cares what is real to you? If the state calls it a marriage, it is - to them. It doesn't affect you."

That it is to them still doesn't make it a real marriage.

quote: "As are we. You just don't happen to like it, that's all."

No, it's not that "I don't like it." None of this is about likes or dislikes or feelings. It is that I believe homosexual behavior to be morally wrong and that there is no such thing as "gay marriage." No declaration by a government or religious body to the contrary will change that.

quote: "Blessed are you when people revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely in My name."
So, thanx 4 the 'blessing', rr. Apparently my reward will be great."

What have I said falsely against you personally? I would love to bless you and wish you all the best. I cannot, however, condone behavior that I believe God's word teaches is wrong. There are after moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior in both the NT and OT, for example Romans 1. And no, I don't buy the liberal revisionism on these passages that attempt to explain them away one way or the other. Look, I'm a sinner and have plenty of problems of and temptations of my own that run contrary to God's word. But if you are involved in homosexual behavior you need to repent and turn from it.

rr

Re: Well, polygamous relationships are certainly less unnatural and less problematic from a moral point of view than "gay marriage."

I'm not sure that marriage is "natural" to begin with. As a religious sacrament it has a supernatural element to it. As a human institution it is artificial and man-made, not natural at all. But as a practical matter, polygamy is far more problematic than gay marriage. Long historical experience with polygamy shows that it produces inequality and social instability since a relative few high status males end up monopolizing the female population, thereby reducing the women to mere possessions and leaving a significant number of unmatched, frsutrated men. One need look no further than the Middle East to behold the problems that polygamy (combinedt here with kin-marriages, which create another type of social problem) will produce. I don't see that gay marriage would create anything like that sort of trouble.

Re: But again, if we are going to move away from the traditional one man and one woman marriage to "the personal fulfillment of consenting adults," then the state should allow gay marriage and pretty much any kind of marriage (or rather civil union) relationship between consenting adults.

Why? You state this but don't include any backup reasoning for this conclusion. As I said above, altering the standards for an institution do not mean that we abandon all standards. If we can ban people from voting more than once in the same election, I see no reason why we must allow people to marry more than one spouse simultaneously.

Re: None of this is about likes or dislikes or feelings. It is that I believe homosexual behavior to be morally wrong and that there is no such thing as "gay marriage."

I believe that only men should be ordained to the priesthood or consecrated to the epsicopacy. It does not follow that I want the state to ban female ordinations or refuse to recognize the status of women who are priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church. Surely sectarian traditions of this sort are something we can agree to disagree about in the public square?

Polygamous marriages and families, however, tend to have more infighting and jealousy and thus are far from ideal.

RR, while I admire your consistent civil tone and usual clarity of thought, that quote is very frustrating.

The modern term is polyamory, "many loves". Plural marriages exist in everything but marriage license. Children are a part of those families. You are making two mistakes with your assertion:

1) You have no direct evidence for comparison. I have some, but only anecdotal and hearsay. Neither of us can make an assertion either way. I can make assertions concerning my observations, but again not about the general case.

2) You are stating expectation as assertion. It is to be angry about. If you've ever dealt with a teenager, your own or in a teaching context, you'd understand my point here: they feel that a thing is right, and sometimes (even often) their feelings are accurate. But they cannot seem to grasp the notion of empirical evidence.

Polygamy, plural marriage, polyamory, whatever it ends up being called, it is simply a variation of relationship and familial structure from our past history. Like all such structures, it has changed or evolved over time. It is still and shall ever be three or more people in a committed relationship, regardless of what the state recognizes or chooses to make legal or illegal... much like how you feel about your marriage, eh? :-)

The other point, and forgive me if I made it up-thread, is that you cannot seem to accept the notion that actual, proven harm to people and society is involved with incest, forcing children to marry adults, and such. That is not and is never the same as a theoretical, assumed or feared harm from something that also already exists, has a proven track record of beneficial results, and also has no more proven detriments than heterosexual relationships. Really, with a 50% divorce rate over decades, why don't you call for the abolition of heterosexual marriage, and replace it with arranged marriages controlled by clergy? How can you explain the double standard and the (from even my POV) egregious hypocrisy? Because there remain good marriages, well-adjusted children from them? Well, that is also true of homosexuals, documented, attested, measured.

If your sole objection to it reduces to lines from a holy text, you in fact and in the US have no grounds to prevent it. Society-at-large must agree with you first. It used to agree with you. That agreement is changing.

quote: "And anyway, if procreation is the highest good of marriage (as I think you believe; correct me if I'm wrong), isn't "more procreation" better than "less jealousy, infighting, etc."? So I'm not convinced that, based on the criterion that you put forth, polygamous families aren't superior to one-man-one-woman, and I'm not sure why you would think they are."

You have misread me. I don't believe that procreation is the highest good of marriage. I believe it is central to the purpose of marriage, but I don't think it is the end all be all of marriage.

In retrospect, you are correct that idea that plural marriages lead to more infighting and jealous isn't that great of a reason to oppose them. And from the viewpoint of civil, secular law I don't see much of a reason to oppose them, especially if we go in the direction that I've already noted.

From a theological point of view, plural marriages fall short of the model that we are offered in Genesis and that Paul writes about when he compares marriage to the relationship between Christ and the church. In both cases, it is one man and one woman. Oh, and no, I don't see Paul's writing as just an "opinion." I believe his epistles were inspired, though at times he deals cultural specific issues at times

O.k., more later if I have time to answer all of you. Dinner is now served at my house...

rr

Sigaliris has nailed all this nicely.

I'm certain that the homosexuals here are not deceived by rr's "oh I love you so much that I hate your behavior, and so I'll persecute you for it" stance. That's the very same attitude that fueled the Inquisition. (Persecution for your own good.)

We would all be better off considering our own sins, and leaving the (real and fancied) sins of our neighbors alone, as Jesus counseled. He said, don't judge, because the same measure you use on other people will be measured against you. If this doesn't cause rr and friends to reconsider, well, you-all are a lot bolder (or more foolish) than I am. Which of us can stand up to that?

expect to be so measure regardless of what I do or do not do.

You would think by listening to Friend that you can do whatever you want and get away with it; God will be fine with it

I didn't say that. I just said that Max is not God; my bad.

Max and rr, the main point I'm supporting is the necessary distinction between religious edict and secular law. Not meaning to contradict Max's correct statement about it being about the individual over everything else -- it mustn't be so -- but let us take my situation as the example. I am not Christian, I have never been Christian, and that distinction is critical to me. If you (Christians) are unable to call me to be a good citizen despite my not being a Christian, then you have no business being "in charge". No matter how good, beneficial, sane your morals may be, the moment you refuse to make room for agreement that is not total, you damage and eventually doom to failure all of your efforts.

We don't need to be a theocracy in fact to obtain the damages to our individuals and society as a whole that a theocracy will bring.

I don't know where else to go with that point. I do have a follow up, though, for rr:

I left my initial point, to which you responded (very well, from my POV), unfinished. Of course, we do not tolerate felons. Of course, we define the felonies according to the harm that is done by the perpetrators to their victims. That is the very point for which you do not seem to be aware. Asserting all in one lump that plural marriages, incest, forced consent of minors, etc. must be permitted if same-sex marriage is permitted is to directly and (IMO) egregiously contradict the societal decisions concerning the felonies and the very reasons they are defined as felonies. Disclosure: I feel as strongly about plural marriage as my gay friends do about SSM. So, a resounding "yes" to the fearfully stated notion that once SSM comes to legal status, plural marriage will be next. Damn right.

But, in the meantime, you may also be sure that I and my gay friends will deny any validity or veracity to the notion that harm comes from those forms of marriage to any extent that could possibly justify putting them in the same category as felonies. Indeed, sheer numbers makes any such assertion beyond ridiculous, there having been throughout human history many more children and women harmed under "traditional" marriage and its variants than could ever be accumulated by SSM or plural marriage, at least by any sane attempt to measure and predict it.

"Max and rr, the main point I'm supporting is the necessary distinction between religious edict and secular law."

Franklin, sorry, haven't been following this thread (or your posts) very closely. But let me say that I agree with what I've quoted of you above. Indeed, I make it a point here to NOT use my theology to argue for or against someting. Even though I do agrue WHAT my theology is when I see it ravaged or misrepresented here. However, religious edict, dogma, etc, should not be its own reason for becoming secular law.

But it is important to note also that secular law is NOT required to cnotradict religious dogma. One can reason and argue for a particular secular law that is in accord with a religious belief, but argued along other lines.

Otherwise all law would be impossible.

Otherwise all law would be impossible.

No doubt in my mind on that, Max. No doubt whatsoever. It is not, from my POV -- and from my reading of the founders -- where the various positions in the debate are based. It is and always must be about having the debate, on a common ground, where the only "price" of admission to the debate is the oath of citizenship.

Homosexuals are citizens. Polyamorous people are citizens. Pagans are citizens. Those are the subsets of citizens with whom I am most interested when it comes to those who contradict the notion of debate amongst equals on common ground. Max (and rr), I am not lumping you in with that last group... but I am asking, sincerely and fervently, that you make an effort to distance yourselves from them in your rhetorical choices. I am, also, not blaming you for the misunderstandings of others. In the grand scheme of things, our debates here at best mirror those that should be taking place, and sometimes are.

"I am not lumping you in with that last group... but I am asking, sincerely and fervently, that you make an effort to distance yourselves from them in your rhetorical choices."

Franklin, I distance myself so much from those you cite I don't even know who they are. That is, who seeks to deny you your right as a citizen to speak up for your beliefs and ideologies?

I disagree with those beliefs and ideiolgies of yours as I understand them, but won't tolerate anyone trying to silence you. (I'm not the one shouting, "Judge not..")

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by my rhetorical choices. How have my rhetorical choices seemed to align with those who seek to silence SSM advoactes, pagans, etc?

Or have I simply misunderstood what you meant?

Franklin, thanks, and Happy Feast of the Nativity to you and your's, or rather "Festivus for the Rest of Us!"

Franklin,

You seem like a rational fellow and I tend to agree with you on many things. I don't see myself as fundamentally at odds with you on this issue. Perhaps we are somehow speaking past each other, but and I'm very puzzled as it seems you have greatly misunderstood me on something. First, quoting from your earlier post:

I left my initial point, to which you responded (very well, from my POV), unfinished. Of course, we do not tolerate felons. Of course, we define the felonies according to the harm that is done by the perpetrators to their victims. That is the very point for which you do not seem to be aware. Asserting all in one lump that plural marriages, incest, forced consent of minors, etc. must be permitted if same-sex marriage is permitted is to directly and (IMO) egregiously contradict the societal decisions concerning the felonies and the very reasons they are defined as felonies."

Where did I lump plural marriage and incest with the forced consent of minors? I've said time and time again that state sanctioned marriages, or civil unions if we go to civil unions should only be for CONSENTING ADULTS. The phrase CONSENTING ADULTS is the operative phrase here and I REALLY want to stress this (hence the all caps that I generally avoid). I see heterosexual couples, plural marriage, SSM, and incest between those over 18 as in an entirely different category from anything involving children. Why? Because children aren't consenting adults. They normally aren't as emotionally mature or knowledgeable as adults and can't make legal contracts, including under most circumstances today get married. Laws are rightly in place to protect minors from sexual exploitation from adults.

In other words, I see a plural marriage in which for example two adult women freely of their own desire desire to marry (or get a civil union) an adult man and become his wives together as entirely different from say a 40 year man in some cult who forces a 14 year old girl to marry him. Likewise, two first cousins who are over the age of 18 and want to get married (this is illegal in some states) are in a very different category from say a 40 year old uncle who is forcing himself on his 14 year old niece. In the examples I've listed above, the 40 year old men are sex offenders who have committed felonies and should go to jail for a long time for them. The other parties are definitely not in the same category and should face absolutely no charges.

Please tell me if this is unclear. I'm still baffled why you think I lumped these very different kind of relationships together.

rr

RR, we are talking past each other a bit. I regret making it seem like I was angry with you personally, or that I was misconstruing your remarks. Let us mutually drop the minors from our descriptions, since I was including them as a general part of the premise. I agree, they do not belong. I apologize for what looked like a manipulation of our discussion.

I'll respond to your simplification in parts.

And again, as always the phrase "consenting adults" is the essential one here.

A very good start. I personally have informed consent at the very top of my list of ethics, and it plays a strong role in my sense of morality.

If we abandon the current definition of marriage as one man and one woman and allow SSM, I see it as inconsistent and hypocritically to not allow plural and incestuous unions for consenting adults.

I obviously agree concerning plural marriage. I insist that your including incest is the point I was rebutting earlier. Incest was, is and should remain a crime, regardless of consent. It is inconsistent objectively, but not at all hypocritical: incest leads to harm, immediately to one or both people in the relationship, and with greater degree of certainty for any offspring compared to any other mating of two people. I cannot object to incestuous couples per se, but I can and will withhold from them the sanction of law. Incest is a proven detriment to individuals and the community.

If you can show a reasonable, rational logic path from SSM to requiring the legalization of incest, I'll give it a hard examination. Personally, I believe there is no such thing.

After all, if marriage is a "fundamental right" and personal fulfillment trumps everything, why deny it any and all consenting adult who wants to form a union of their choice?

Emphasis added: that is a flawed assumption. I ask you to examine the logic path that leads you to that conclusion. One aspect of our culture over at least the last 40 years is the clear separation of marriage from personal fulfillment. Cohabitation, once a stigma only slightly greater than "slut" for a woman who has sex before marriage, has become a normal part of the evolution of relationships before marriage. SSM wants precisely and only the same economic and social privileges and rights that are part of the definition of marriage in the US. They want spousal designations for taxes, pensions, health care, etc. They want spousal rights under a variety of circumstances like hospital ERs, visitation, medical decisions. They want legal recognition of joint property afforded to the signatories to the marriage license. Here's the final straw to your point: they alread cohabitate just like heterosexual couples, so your "personal fulfillment" means nothing to them, or no more than it does to the rest.

I wonder if SSM is a detriment to a fundamental truth of the current situation: the state should have separated civil and sacramental marriage a very long time ago. SSM only serves to mask that truth.

Max, I'm still thinking about your last post. Please take the following as an initial step, since I want to make sure I understand both your points and your logic.

When the SSM Advocate decries "comparisons" to incest, or bestiality, he misses the point. At least in my case, the comparison is not between the acts, but the arguments that will be used to ligitimate the acts.

Well, my first criticism would be towards "at least in my case". Is it fair to say that should opponents to SSM lose their case to prevent legitimizing it, the same case, argument and logic should be applied to (as you've chosen to use in your argument) bestiality and incest? Why shouldn't those two be judged, debated and decided on their merits and detriments, each separately from each other and SSM?

It's my impression that because you (general, specific, wear the shoe that fits) insist on the initial premise, that all forms of relationships outside the heterosexual marriage model must be viewed together, as equals, and be subject to one all-encompassing train of logic. If that impression is accurate... do I need to go into why it's ridiculous?

Max, I'm afraid we are going around in circles. I own (at least) half that as I seem unable to clarify my point for you.

May I suggest, at this point, that we look at "consenting adult" from a new angle? However it needs to be stated to clarify the logic, I submit that we are not talking about "consenting" alone. We are also talking about responsibility.

No society, of any stripe, origin or intent, looks at rights as a binary function. It is never all or none. Rights are balanced with responsibilities, and in the US we have an explicit balancing in the Bill of Rights: no individual is free to exercise a right if it directly results in the injury of another person or the abrogation that person's rights. And, before you choose to raise it as a rebuttal, the US has no claim to that ideal based on its history. It has permitted or acted to injure or abrogate. Let us not get bogged down in that, please. The principle is valid, and IMO worthy of our focus in this topic, despite its mal- and misapplications.

And that's how I view incest, bestiality, the whole list being foisted upon SSM. "The gays got it, so now I'm entitled to it also" is a purely juvenile view, approach and attitude. I don't deny that such a thing could happen, and has happened in analogous situations, but please: no one I know wants to live in a society where rights are granted with no debate, no due consideration to immediate consequences, and no consideration of what those rights will mean to society at large. That is true anarchy, or at least the road to it.

May I ask, respectfully, that you clean up your examples? The incestuous couple with children are in Germany, as I recall. An Israeli woman marrying a dolphin is of little consequence to US society. Even if I allow such examples as relevant (I don't really care either way, to be honest), by what sanity can you claim the relevance of rare, aberrant examples to the general case? Are their millions of bestialists and sibling-lovers waiting in the closet for a new dawn of legal validation? There is not, and never will be... and I promise you, if such movements do develop and approach the level of SSM, I will have long since given up on the insanity of my fellows and left for somewhere else, where to be determined.

Franklin,

First let me say that I really appreciate and enjoying this excahange we are having. Further, I even agree with what your are saying, yet I say and think the same thing about "gay marriage" but what I think and say has little merit in the long run. At that is, in part, the point I'm trying to make.

Let me take a few of your points above one by one (please note, I don't disagree with your points, but only aruge that ultimately they are irrelevant to the course of history as it unfolds before us.) I'm not being a devil's advocate here, so much as trying to exlplain what is.

Yes, U.S. society is one thing, and Germay and Isreali law (or certain fights for certain rights) is another. Sort of. Please note that the Supreme Court does and has appealed to foreign law in majority opinions, while ignoring things like the Declaration of Independence. Also, Blackmun's opinion in Roe appeals to Platos Republic for precedent in ligitimizing abortion. So, when it comes to U.S. law as interpreted (and created) by the courts, foriegn influence is not off limits.

You ask, "...by what sanity can you claim the relevance of rare, aberrant examples to the general case?"

General case? I don't. But rights are not (and should not) be based upon the general case. Indeed, the desire for gays to be married is hardly the general case. Rights should not be simply a matter of numbers or the democratic principle. In fact, the opposition to Prop 8 (and that opposition's appeal to the previous court ruling overturned by Prop) recognizes that what's right and wrong cannot be left simply to how many are in favor or against. In that regard, I agree with Prop 8 opponents. That is, I agree with that opposition in the principle, even though I disagree with the particular conclusion in that case.

The famous (okay, even hackneyed) example would be of the three men and one woman voting on whether rape is okay. Vote tally: 3 in favor; 1 against. Rape okay according to the democratic principle. But of course rape is always evil; the numbers do not change that fact.

It doesn't matter how many bestiality and/or incest advocates exist. Just as "gay marriage" advocates will agree that the justification of their cause is not a function of how many "gay marriage" advocates there were in 1940, 1950, or even now. How many people want "gay marrige" has nothing to do with whether or not it is just, or proper.

"Are their millions of bestialists and sibling-lovers waiting in the closet for a new dawn of legal validation? There is not, and never will be..."

I'm not so sure. In fact, I think there are millions. But it doesn't matter. Even if you're right, even if there are only thousands, or dozens, so what? The propriety of those rights (or lack thereof) is not a funtion of numbers. Either they are human rights or they are not.

"... and I promise you, if such movements do develop and approach the level of SSM, I will have long since given up on the insanity of my fellows and left for somewhere else, where to be determined."

Franklin, I ask you seriously and not as a rhetorical baiting, why would these "fellows" be exhibiting insanity? I've long argued that homosexual attraction is an objective disorder. That is, the object of that attraction is naturally disordered; it is not the attraction proper to the nature of man. Now I think it safe to say that we agree that desires of bestiality and incest are likewise disordered in the object of that desire.

But why, given adult consent, do you consider one legitimate, yet the other insane?

And please, when that happens (and it will) please don't leave! We need all the good guys we can get! Besides, where would you go? The Vatican? ;-)

Husband,

I was trying to have a policy discussion. I've laid out what I think is the most desirable outcome (without regard to how easy it is to get there from where we are now), because, you know, that's one thing that people do in these comboxes.

You're pretty good at annoying somebody who's trying to find some common ground somewhere in the middle. If you want to turn me into a full-fledged opponent, just keep calling me delusional.

Franklin,

No problem about our earlier misunderstanding. I did post to you previously, but it appears to have been eaten somehow. So here is a brief response to your earlier post.

quote: "I insist that your including incest is the point I was rebutting earlier. Incest was, is and should remain a crime, regardless of consent. It is inconsistent objectively, but not at all hypocritical: incest leads to harm, immediately to one or both people in the relationship, and with greater degree of certainty for any offspring compared to any other mating of two people. I cannot object to incestuous couples per se, but I can and will withhold from them the sanction of law. Incest is a proven detriment to individuals and the community."

As long as the relationship is between consenting adults, I don't see how the state should really have the power to judge what is harmful or not and thus deny the right to marriage (or civil union) to an incestuous adult couple. For example, as far as I'm concerned things such as incest, S&M and homosexual sex are harmful and unhealthy one way or the other. I also see most divorces as harmful to the parties involved as well. I'm sure there are some radical feminists who see all heterosexual marriages as inherently patriarchical and thus wrong. Some radical gays might concur.

But what people see as harmful differs considerable and seems to be beside the point anyway. Once we go to the standard that "consenting adults" should be able to do what that want and have "rights to marriage" don't we cede the right to make judgments about what is harmful and what is not for consenting adults? Whose standard would we use for that anyway? The standard of conservative Christians? Of pagans? Of radical feminists? Of gay rights activists? I just don't see how this could be done.

As far as the issue of procreation and incestuous relationships goes, it's true that they are more likely to have birth defects. But there are couples who aren't related who because of their genetic make-ups are also likely to produce children with birth defects and other problems. If we don't deny the right to marry to those couples, how can we say that incestuous couples are any different?

I think Max is right as well. There may be more of these people current "in the closet" so to speak than we all think.

rr

Franklin,

I'm all for science, but I'm not sure sociology is science the way that arithmetic, geometry,and physics are sciences.

It's closer to meterology: It uses the tools of science to make guesses, sometimes really good guesses, but guesses nonetheless.

"you cannot begin to understand the trauma and incredible distress a homosexual goes through (have gone through, continue to be going through) when he or she is naturally attracted to the same sex, but is told by everyone around them that he or she has "chosen" to be a sinner, an abomination, etc."

Don't be so sure; you don't know me as well as you obviously think you do.

Regarding homosexuality in other mammals, so what? I don't look to animals for moral guidance.

Though, don't you find it even a bit ironic that in a discussion that gay marriage rights argumentation and bestiality rights argumentation will/can be essentially the same argumentation, that you would appeal to both (i.e. homosexuality AND animal sexuality) to make your point?

You state that gays have a higher incidence of suicide, and this because of the shame heaped upon them by society, by those always calling them sinners.

One, that is NOT science. Two, you have no way of knowing that the suicide rate is not due simply to the individual's recognition of nature and his personal desires/lusts to the contrary.

I've know many out gays, and they just didn't seem, well, very gay and happy to me.

We live in a Post-Christian West. Most gays I know have either written off the concept of sin altogether, or have at least written off the idea that gay sex is sinful.

But that really is at the heart of "queer theory" isn't it?

1. Homosexuality can't be sinful; it happens in nature: look at the animals
2. Self loathing among homosexuals really reflects the trauma of society's disapproval them and nothing more.
3. Homosexuals must embrace their "natural" desires and force society to accept them as well, because, hey, people are dying.

Personally, I think there's a lot of "science" to show that homosexuality is disordered, and that homosexual acts are damaging. Are the suicide rates of gays less than that of those who embrace incest?

Why is it that in your view the damage and trauma to homosexuals is the fault of a disapproving society, but the damage and trauma from incest among consenting adults is intrinsic?

In any event, love and consent of adults has been made the touchstone in these matters. The fact stands: homosexuals have blazed a civil rights trail that will be followed by the "others".

Franklin,

I think it would be useful as well to discuss the general case of "harm" and who sets the standards and definitions for this. I believe that the baseline requirement of "consenting adults" is a good, bare minimum one that people of pretty much any religious and ideological persuasion can accept. First, by definition people who do not or cannot consent to an action can't properly be said to be exercising their rights. A "right" means free and willful exercise. Second, our society doesn't see children, i.e. those who are not legally adults as capable of making contracts and major decisions on their own. I'm sure you agree with all this, but I wanted to clarify why the standard of "consenting adults" is the baseline minimum that finds very broad support in our society.

That being said, if we accept the rationale that SSM advocates give for SSM, namely that the state shouldn't make moral judgments and that marriage is a right for "loving, consenting adults," I'm really not sure how the state could legitimately deny a marriage or civil union license to pretty much any kind of arrangement that consenting adults come up with-heterosexual couples, SSM, plural marriage, incest, group marriage, you name it.

Liberals often get upset in these discussions when we religious conservatives try and point out what to us seems like the logical outcome of the ideas they use to justify SSM. Although religious conservatives see all arrangements outside the one man and one woman model of marriage as immoral, it isn’t necessarily that we equate SSM to incest. It’s that we fail to see how the justifications for SSM shouldn’t logically and in time inevitably lead to things such as legalized incestuous marriages/civil unions. We thus think the possibility of the “unintended consequences” of allowing SSM should at least be discussed (as opposed to emotionally dismissed) before going forward with SSM. And once our current definition of marriage is redefined to allow for SSM, it’s hard to see SSM marriage advocates being able to make a logical, consistent case against things such as incestuous marriages involving consenting adults. They may see incestuous or even in some cases plural marriages as immoral. But so what? If conservative Christians can’t impose their morality, why can liberals impose their morality that might see incestuous or possibly even plural marriages as wrong? I know you don’t oppose plural marriages, but some liberals on this site such as Daniel have voiced opposition to them.

Now I agree that issues such as incestuous marriages will be faced on a case by case basis. But I think we will inevitably face these issues in the future. After all, 40 years ago the idea of gay marriage was entirely unthinkable, even to the vast majority of people on the secular left. Heck, up until the late 1960s, most non-religious people in this country saw homosexual behavior as abnormal and harmful. The current idea that some SSM advocates use that opponents to SSM are bigoted theocrats would be considered absurd by your average agnostic or atheist in this country in say 1965. But things have certainly changed since then.

So we do need to discuss what standard of “harm” we might use for all this and what the full consequences of seeing marriage as a right for all consenting adults might be. I’m not necessarily against this standard. Our society no longer shares the common Judeo-Christian influenced standard on marriage and sexuality that it used to have. The baseline of “consenting adults” may well be the only common standard we have and the one that we must base state sanctioned marriages/civil unions upon. At any rate, I would argue our society needs to fully discuss the consequences of all before rushing into making SSM a right.

I don’t know if this thread will continue much longer and with Christmas approaching I don’t know how much more time I will have for this discussion with you. If it comes to an end soon, hopefully we can continue it on this site sometime in the future. I would like to close by saying I have found this discussion with you quite stimulating and cordiale. You have done a great job of discussing this issue in a calm and reasonable fashion. It gives me hope that this issue may be in time worked out in a reasonable manner. So happy holidays, Merry Christmas and I hope we can continue this in the future.

rr

RR,

Wanted to thank you as well for articulating far better than I could essentially the exact things I've been trying to say. You bigot! ;-)

"Max, I would gratefully welcome the Jameson, but I'm not so keen on cigars."

Yipee!! More for me!!

And yes, you are right about the "agree to disagree" thingie. It can and does serve a very useful purpose, only in my experience I would estimate that 99% of the time it's used to shut down discussion.

Franklin, wasn't it you with whom I had a protracted (and beneficial) exchange months ago about natural law and natural reasoning?

We must have that Jameson sometime.