a savage drunken pinball high on black-tar heroin

March 5, 2004 11:41 AM

Where is my gay apocalypse?
I have been waiting patiently. I have been staring with great anticipation out the window of my flat here in the heart of San Francisco, sighing heavily, waiting for the riots and the plagues and the screaming monkeys and the blistering rain of inescapable hellfire. I have my camera all ready and everything.
posted by badstone (166 comments total)

Nothing to discuss here really, just a fun read. One of those "best of the web" deals.
posted by badstone at 11:42 AM on March 5, 2004

Tubs of margarine? Ewww.
posted by Tin Man at 11:48 AM on March 5, 2004

Being against gay marriage doesn't make you right wing or a bigot, like this author suggest. The intolerance of the gay marriage movement against anyone who disagrees is amazingly.. intolerant, and as this article shows, a complete disconnect with the reality of how many people really feel about it. Sorry, there will be no riot or revolution in the streets.
posted by stbalbach at 11:48 AM on March 5, 2004

What is the "gay marriage movement"? I thought it was a bunch of people who support gay marriage but have different views on other things -- not a Big Nameless Monolith with intolerance.

Mark Morford's having fun, OK?

I repeat. Tubs of margarine? Ewww.
posted by Tin Man at 11:56 AM on March 5, 2004

Ooh, maybe there is something to discuss stbalbach. I guess I am guilty of what you're talking about. The gay marriage issue is a real rallying point for people on the left, a way to backlash against perceived intolerance, both institutional and cultural. There's a lot of bottled up anger against the right out there I suppose, especially for people like me, raised by racist, homophobic, narrow minded Catholics. So, instead of going to therapy like I ought to, I channel it into political outbursts.
posted by badstone at 11:58 AM on March 5, 2004

What I see is, if your pro gay marriage, anyone who is not is automatically labeled a bigot and right wing and conservative. The truth is there are many otherwise liberal freedom loving people who are on the left, who are also uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. So articles like this that paint the world in black and white come across as insensitive and intolerant.

With that said, it is funny.
posted by stbalbach at 12:04 PM on March 5, 2004

Surprise! Liberals can be just as intolerant as conservatives!

Where is my gay apocalypse?

In your gay dreams.
posted by mcgraw at 12:06 PM on March 5, 2004

Morford is having fun. For people new to his Morning Fix, his style takes a little getting used to and is almost always pretty funny while still being relevant.

He's among my favorite writers right now. Some of his columns are pure gold.

For a scary peak at the fury he invokes, he puts in Hate Mail a couple of times a week. The combination of spittle laced hatred and really, really atrocious spelling makes them well worth a read.

Gay marriage is about discimination and withholding benefits from people because their lifestyle is wrong. Its a stupid and sentimental opinion based on fear and ignorance.
posted by fenriq at 12:07 PM on March 5, 2004

Marriage: the loving, consensual union of two adults for practical, emotional, and/or procreative purposes.

Marriage: the union of a man and a woman for procreative purposes

The first definition includes you and me, stbalbach. The second one excludes me. Let's talk about "tolerance."
posted by divrsional at 12:09 PM on March 5, 2004

there are many otherwise liberal freedom loving people who are on the left, who are also uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage

Just as there are many conservative people who are entirely comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. It's not a left/right issue, it's a discrimination issue. I'm still waiting to hear a single logical argument against it which doesn't involve religion.
posted by biscotti at 12:13 PM on March 5, 2004

I'm still waiting to hear a single logical argument against it which doesn't involve religion.

That's funny, I'm still waiting to hear a single logical argument against it which does involve religion.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:17 PM on March 5, 2004

I'm still waiting to hear a single logical argument against it which doesn't involve religion.

Me too, but lets not ask for it in this thread. The remains of that horse are only identifiable by dental records at this point.
posted by badstone at 12:18 PM on March 5, 2004

Bush is gay.
posted by mcgraw at 12:21 PM on March 5, 2004

The intolerance of the gay marriage movement against anyone who disagrees is amazingly.. intolerant, and as this article shows, a complete disconnect with the reality of how many people really feel about it.

I don't give a rat's ass how you, or other people, feel about it. Your feelings don't carry the same weight as the rights to which I'm entitled. I want the same rights as my heterosexual peers. I do not want to be treated as a second-class citizen. Do you understand my intolerance of this discrimination?
posted by me & my monkey at 12:22 PM on March 5, 2004

What biscotti said. I'm all ears.

But there is just pure fear/hatred for anyone who is different in any way, a goat to be sacrificed if you will.

Damn evil Martians, it's all their fault!
posted by nofundy at 12:23 PM on March 5, 2004

Anyone who opposes allowing two loving and consentual adults to marry is a bigot. It's not a knee-jerk reaction or a hotly emotional point; it's the plain and logical truth.
posted by xmutex at 12:24 PM on March 5, 2004

Bush is gay.

So is his lover Condi.
posted by nofundy at 12:24 PM on March 5, 2004

Run and hide, Rick. The gay people in love are coming.

Dunno about anyone else, buy I got a chuckle out of this.
posted by deadcowdan at 12:26 PM on March 5, 2004

Condi gotta penis?
posted by mcgraw at 12:32 PM on March 5, 2004

I don't give a rat's ass how you, or other people, feel about it.
stbalback's right. The intolerance is palpable from the gay lobby.

Your feelings don't carry the same weight as the rights to which I'm entitled.
You're entitled? Sez who? Show me where marriage is a "right"

I want the same rights as my heterosexual peers.
Then become a heterosexual. Oh, and once again, marriage is not a "right."

Do you understand my intolerance of this discrimination?
I understand your intolerance ....
posted by darren at 12:32 PM on March 5, 2004

Being against gay marriage doesn't make you right wing or a bigot.

You're half-right. It doesn't make you right-wing.

This whole "but you're intolerant of people who discriminate against others so you're just as bad as they are" argument is getting a little old and not even a smidgen more logical.
posted by callmejay at 12:34 PM on March 5, 2004

I want to marry an animal.
posted by mcgraw at 12:35 PM on March 5, 2004

Can someone please explain to me just the financial side of denial of same-sex marriage rights? For example, why is there an anti-gay marriage tax of $5,528 average annual Social Security survivorship benefits which are denied each same-sex widow/er? Why do straight couples get family leave to care for each other in case of emergency, but their gay co-workers generally do not?

Please phrase your answers with financial, non-religious terms.
posted by Stoatfarm at 12:35 PM on March 5, 2004

I want to marry an animal.

Sorry, the animals aren't attracted to you. Except for the dogs who would consider marrying your leg.
posted by jonmc at 12:39 PM on March 5, 2004

i don't like to agree much, but i'm afraid i'll have to chime in on the side of xmutex, biscotti, et al.

marriage might not be a constitutional right or anything, but when certain people are granted a host of legal benefits that other people are not, solely based on their sexual orientation, that seems like intolerant discrimination to me, which is the basis of bigotry.

if you want to write marriage out of law (hooray!), and let everyone get civil unions for all of the legal benefits of partnership, i can understand that position. i can't understand allowing marriage to continue and not letting homosexuals marry.

for the anti-gay-marriage crowd to have any real argument, they would have to convince me (and the courts) that there is a non-religious reason why any government should be promoting heterosexuality. i don't think it can be done.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:39 PM on March 5, 2004

Morford is a fool! Can't he see that we're under attack?!
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on March 5, 2004

You're entitled? Sez who? Show me where marriage is a "right"

I refer you to several threads, from the last couple of weeks, in which this topic has been beat to death, shoved in a blender, liquified, poured into a landfill and allowed to mix with tin cans and used diapers. The bottom line is: the Supreme Court of the United States has, in a case involving interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, IIRC) declared that marriage is a right. You can disagree about whether that case covers the issue of gay marriage as most of us here think it does, but you can't say that it has never been declared a "right."
posted by deadcowdan at 12:41 PM on March 5, 2004

Sorry, the animals aren't attracted to you.

But they're soooooo attracted to you, McNally.
posted by mcgraw at 12:43 PM on March 5, 2004

jonmc, I think you should ignore mcgraw. He's attempting to commandeer quonsar's posting style, but doesn't quite have the personality to pull it off.
posted by deadcowdan at 12:45 PM on March 5, 2004

who are also uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage

I'd like to also point out that many of the "uncomfortable" people are also opposed to amending the freakin' constitution to codify their discomfort. I'm "uncomfortable" with clingy people who won't let me gracefully get out of a conversation, but I'm not going to support an amendment about it.
posted by callmejay at 12:45 PM on March 5, 2004

But they're soooooo attracted to you, McNally.

That's only because of the gravy stains on my jeans.

wipe my point off the wall, mcgraw. It just flew over your head.

I was refuting your comparison of gay marraige to bestiality.

Breaks down like this:

Gay marraige is two consenting adults (meaning they want to be married to eachother). Animals (and children, since that's the other argument people keep trotting out) cannot give consent.

Hence, the slippery slope to pedophilia and bestiality makes no sense.
posted by jonmc at 12:50 PM on March 5, 2004

Someday I'll have YOUR personality, Koedoot.
posted by mcgraw at 12:50 PM on March 5, 2004

I'm still waiting to hear a single logical argument against it which doesn't involve religion.

1. Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman.
2. Marriage conveys certain benefits (tax, health care, child custody, etc.).
3. There is no reason that same-sex couples should not be entitled to the same benefits.
4. By definition (see 1), same sex couples can not be "married".
5. By deduction (see 2, 3), same sex couples ought to enjoy the rights afforded to "married" couples. We need to call them something else.

Does that qualify?
posted by trharlan at 12:51 PM on March 5, 2004

no comparison intended there. was just kidding around. will behave now. apologies.

carry on.
posted by mcgraw at 12:51 PM on March 5, 2004

That's not an argument, it's an assertion. How is it better than if it started:

1. Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman of the same race.
posted by callmejay at 12:53 PM on March 5, 2004

And what's with the last names?

Besides, me and deadcowdan got married in San Francisco last week. Address us as Mr. & Mr. Koedoot-McNally, thankyouverymuch.
posted by jonmc at 12:55 PM on March 5, 2004

Jesse Jackson: Gay marriage rights are not civil rights

"But Jackson reiterated his support for the heterosexual definition of marriage, saying, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

Since Jackson's "culture" is American, he can probably find a vast majority of people who agree with him, if solely and exclusively on this single issue.
posted by hama7 at 1:02 PM on March 5, 2004

jon, I'm so pleased. Both you and mcgraw spelled my name correctly. That is the first time in history two people in a row have got it right.

But the marriage is over if you keep insisting that we honeymoon in Teaneck, NJ.
posted by deadcowdan at 1:02 PM on March 5, 2004

Heh, I can smell Teaneck from my window here in the West Village.

"But Jackson reiterated his support for the heterosexual definition of marriage, saying, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

Or in Jesse's case a man-woman-mistress relationship. I think he lost his moral authority awhile ago, hama7.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2004

Hey, all I can say is, I like intolerance. I like it. I'm ALL ABOUT IT. People with guns? I'm intolerant. (Sometimes I'm wrong, shooting is fun.) People who talk with accents or don't read books? I'm intolerant. (Also, sometimes, sadly wrong.) Muslims. Christians. Jews. I'm all about religious intolerance (Only occasionally wrong. Zen Masters, Agnostics, and Zoroastrians Rule!!!).

Intolerant people? Also a group I'm intolerant of. And moldy vegetables. And chewing tobacco. And incidentally margarine. My point? Nothing wrong with intolerance. Defining rights based on gender or a combination of genders? Uhhh, gee, that's kind of like not American.

Bozos who think "marriage" as a set of rights that should be granted based on a combination of genders? Not tolerant. And why is the State involved in the first place?
posted by ewkpates at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2004

You knew I'd show up here directly.


The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight. Of course I could broaden that problem to many cases of serial heterosexual marriage, and probably should. (Not all divorce is a sin, but many if not most are.) I am of the opinion that God still holds nations as a whole responsible for their actions (yeah, yeah, I know there's a whole herd of dead horses to beat on with that statement.)
posted by konolia at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2004

I have been waiting patiently. I have been staring with great anticipation out the window of my flat here in the heart of San Francisco, sighing heavily, waiting for the riots and the plagues and the screaming monkeys and the blistering rain of inescapable hellfire. I have my camera all ready and everything.

There's no screaming monkeys in the bible, and no doctrine which says wickedness of any kind draws immediate retaliation from God. In fact, immediate consequences of any kind of wickedness are relatively rare. Adam and Eve ate the fruit and it took them a lifetime to reap the consequences (good and bad).

The "God hates Shrimp" phrase is a malappropriated paraphrase of a passage that says: don't eat shrimp. More specifically: eating shrimp will make you ritually unclean (which is "bad", but not as important as many things, something that Jesus makes particularly clear in the parable of good samaritan. And there's ritual cleansing for ritual uncleanliness.)

I could go on, but maybe I'll just say: nothing like a shallow anti-biblical rant to counteract shallow bible-based ranting.
posted by namespan at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2004

Me too, but lets not ask for it in this thread.

Hell, badstone. First you won't let us discuss anything, then you say we can, then you try to specify exactly what we're allowed to discuss. Can I get a rulebook? Don't moderate your own thread.
posted by jpoulos at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2004

The truth is there are many otherwise liberal freedom loving people who are on the left, who are also uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

If it walks like a bigot . . . .
posted by archimago at 1:23 PM on March 5, 2004

Wikipedia on Loving v. Virginia.
posted by RylandDotNet at 1:23 PM on March 5, 2004

konolia: Be grateful you live in a country that allows you to hold your religious views in peace, as it does mine. If government were based on the opinion you expressed, both would ultimately be impossible.
posted by divrsional at 1:24 PM on March 5, 2004

The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight. -- konolia

Really?
posted by callmejay at 1:27 PM on March 5, 2004

You knew I'd show up here directly.

You give yourself too much credit.

have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight

like gambling? like drinking? like plenty of other state-sanctioned "sins"?

Here's a bumpersticker for you, konolia:

I don't give a flying fuck what your god considers an abomination...and I VOTE
posted by jpoulos at 1:29 PM on March 5, 2004

'Oh, and once again, marriage is not a "right."'

Wrong, I'm afraid. I suggest you look up the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also read the text of Lovings vs. Virginia.

As for showing a compelling reason why gay couples should be allowed marriage benefits, it's actually the state that has to show a narrowly-tailored and compelling interest in not giving gay couples the right of marriage, and that's just not been done.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:31 PM on March 5, 2004

either you accept gay marriage or you stop all the economic and legal rights that go with heterosexual marriage. it's a clear and obvious choice, yet i don't see many of those who object to gay marriage arguing for a complete separation of church and state....

on preview: jpoulos, unclench a little. deep breaths. it's only a friggin christia^H^H^H^H^H^Hwebsite.
posted by andrew cooke at 1:31 PM on March 5, 2004

Don't moderate your own thread.

until I get a special gold star next to my name, i don't actually expect anyone to do anything i say. relax, i'm just funnin'.


if you want to write marriage out of law (hooray!), and let everyone get civil unions for all of the legal benefits of partnership, i can understand that position.

now there's an idea that makes sense. if we'd actually just separate church and state with an amendment that says the state cannot award people based on their sacramental status with their religion, we'd be all set.
then this wouldn't be the election-ruining issue it has become.
posted by badstone at 1:32 PM on March 5, 2004

Watching jpoulos and konolia, (two people whom I know to be fundamentally decent people, despite disagreeing with them both frequently) here, I'm getting the feeling that "divide and conquer," is the ultimate agenda behind the whole amendment nonsense.

konolia, I beseech you, look beyond your narrow interpretations of the Bible. You may want to read Bruce Bawer's Stealing Jesus to see what I mean.

poulos, meeting confusion with hatred ultimately helps nobody.
posted by jonmc at 1:35 PM on March 5, 2004

like gambling? like drinking? like plenty of other state-sanctioned "sins"?

I don't consider drinking a sin, only drunkenness. Gambling is not specifically mentioned in the Bible as a sin-I don't personally think it's a great idea, and wouldn't vote for a state lottery, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it.

Look, I'm not getting worked up about gay marriage, and I'm not out picketing about it. All it is is a symptom of a society that more and more agrees with your bumpersticker idea. And I am fully aware that human hearts don't get changed in voting booths.

Oh, and Jpoulos, please don't make me trot out my story about my date for the senior prom being gay. I know you know I don't hate gay people.
posted by konolia at 1:36 PM on March 5, 2004

and yes konolia and co, that statement means i want to destroy civlization. by tomorrow morning if possible.
posted by badstone at 1:37 PM on March 5, 2004

It'd drive the mullahs mad.
posted by homunculus at 1:39 PM on March 5, 2004

on preview: jpoulos, unclench a little. deep breaths

Point taken. unclenching....now.
posted by jpoulos at 1:40 PM on March 5, 2004

Oh, and Jpoulos, please don't make me trot out my story about my date for the senior prom being gay.

Now you've got me intrigued. Do tell.
posted by Tin Man at 1:58 PM on March 5, 2004

The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight.

konolia, other than Old Testiment admonishments concerning cleanliness, I have yet to be shown anywhere in the teachings of Christ that homosexuality is an abomination. Christ's instructions concerning marraige have nothing to do with same sex or not, they are purely instructional as to the state and the law staying right the hell out of anyone's marriage. He ends with the fine directive: Whom God has joined, let no man put asunder. So if Adam and Steve are joined for life, shouldn't the state stay out of it, just as if it were Adam and Eve? Bringing up abomination disregards the teachings of Jesus. Simply put, that dog don't hunt.

(Feel free to bring up Paul, at any time, put I'm sure that you know where that argument will end up as well.)

I am of the opinion that God still holds nations as a whole responsible for their actions.

That's a nice opinion, but certainly not a Christian one. The Gospels teach quite clearly that each one is responsable for their own soul, and nobody else's. The new covenant is one of individual faith, not one of guessing at God's judgement. If homosexuality is wrong in His sight, I seriously doubt He's going to blame you that your government didn't put a stop to that abomination. If fact, Jesus pretty much guaranteed He won't.

I respond to your assertions simply because I think it a failing effort to attempt to seperate religion from reason in this debate, even though the Constitution and legal presidence require that we do so. Regardless, the religious reasons don't fly any better than the secular ones do, (at least for Christians) so why on Earth should one sympathetic to Christianity oppose same sex marraiges?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:01 PM on March 5, 2004

I don't get it. I don't understand how anyone can think the state can deny same-sex couples a marriage license.

It's a government issued license.

How can you justify denying government issued licenses on the basis of sexual preference? Would this be fair: No buildings licenses for companies employing gay workers.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:02 PM on March 5, 2004

The intolerance of the gay marriage movement against anyone who disagrees is amazingly.. intolerant

A tolerant society cannot allow intolerance, or it ceases to be a tolerant society. Nice paradox, eh?

Sorry, there will be no riot or revolution in the streets.

Agreed; the people who oppose gay marriage just make themselves look silly when they suggest that homosexuality will somehow bring about the collapse of civilization. Which is, after all, the article's entire point, though it seems like you may have missed it...
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:11 PM on March 5, 2004

How about this Consitutional amendment: Conservatives should have to wear badges that specify exactly which slice of history they pine for (and whether they pine for the historical version, the TV version, or the Rush version), and which pages of the Bible they prefer. That could really help a lot of debates get to the point sooner and save billions of dollars worth of typing time.
posted by badstone at 2:15 PM on March 5, 2004

I had dinner with some other gay friends last night, and the consensus was that, while we would all love to see full and complete equality under the law, this is a pretty effective trick by Karl Rove to distract the swing vote.

Going forward, I'm going to focus on what a stinker of a president we have. Lying, fomenting fear, and handing corporate welfare to his rich buddies are just not policies I can support.

Gay marriage is a done deal. Get that man out of office and it will take care of itself.
posted by divrsional at 2:16 PM on March 5, 2004

stbalback's right. The intolerance is palpable from the gay lobby.

So, what rights am I denying you, exactly? What am I stopping you from doing? Do you understand what intolerance is, or are you just willing to stretch the word out to mean whatever you like, a la Humpty Dumpty, until it's devoid of meaning? Yes, yes, I'm intolerant of my own oppression. Are you happy now?

You're entitled? Sez who? Show me where marriage is a "right"

Those nine folks in black drag have already done this for me, actually, haven't they?

"I want the same rights as my heterosexual peers."
Then become a heterosexual.

I had no idea my rights depended on my conformity with your religious beliefs. Have you considered moving to Saudi Arabia? I think you'd get on well there - fundamentalist Islam isn't all that different from fundamentalist Christianity.

The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight.

I don't understand. What does God have to do with the state? I had no idea the US is a theocracy.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:17 PM on March 5, 2004

The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight.

The problem with many arguments in objection to gay marriage, in my view, is that they fail to take into account the difference between a civil marriage and a church marriage. Why should the two necessarily coincide?

If a minister in a church performs a wedding ceremony between two people--whether the same or opposite sex--who do not have a marriage license, then they are considered to be married by the church, but not by the government. I don't see a problem with that situation.

Likewise, if two people of the same sex receive a marriage license and are married, they will be considered married by the government, but not by any church which does not recognize same-sex marriages. I don't see a problem with that situation either.

(Maybe it's just me. My standard response to know-it-alls who spout that "a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable," is, "A tomato is a fruit to biologists, and a vegetable to chefs. The culinary definition of a fruit is not precisely the same as the biological definition of a fruit." But I have a feeling I'm not alone in thinking this way.)

How does being "an abomination in God's sight" justify legal prohibition of same-sex marriages, given that the U.S. government is, by its highest law, religion-neutral? It seems to me that a religion-neutral government should not disallow something just because it is "an abomination in God's sight," if there are no practical adverse effects to allowing it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:20 PM on March 5, 2004

Okay, again, religious arguments against same sex marriage are not legitimate arguments.

People, get it through your heads. This nation is composed of all kinds of religious beliefs and those beliefs are protected. Your angry vengeful queer fearing god is not my god. Your abomination is my salvation.

The lame slippery slope to dogs and children is entirely too weak as well.

The true underlying fact is that there is no legitimate reason to deny same sex couples the same protections afforded unions of hetero couples. Anything else is discriminatory and ugly and just shows how short your horizons are.

The world's a changing, the ball is rolling, the box has been opened and trying to jump on it to mash it shut won't work. Like Martha Stewart's new cellmate will likely say, "Just lay back and enjoy the ride and it won't hurt so much."
posted by fenriq at 2:21 PM on March 5, 2004

"you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight."

Just out of curiosity, can you name any other things we currently give official civil authority to which are an abomination in God's sight? Being an atheist I'm very weak on the things your God considers abominations.

Don't we have legal protections against discrimination of sodomites? Would that be an abomination? Don't we constitutionally mandate freedom of religion for those who like to worship idols? Is that an abomination? We issue marriage licenses to people who have previously been divorced. Is that an abomination? We issue business licenses to, and collect taxes from, companies that promote lustful thoughts. Surely that's an abomination?

With the amount of government sanctioned abomination going on (don't even get me started on lying to the UN, secret meetings with the power companies, and executing prisoners), why is it being used in this one issue? I would think that if abomination were a real worry we'd be hearing it used in an attempt to dismantle a good percentage of current civil authority.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:21 PM on March 5, 2004

I'm not sure I've ever seen an ENTIRE SOCIETY falling all over themselves in a desperate bid to feed the trolls.

Stop feeding the trolls.
posted by aramaic at 2:23 PM on March 5, 2004

Heterosexuality is a religion now? Whew, I guess I'm saved after all.

The problem is that marriage is both a sacrament and contract. As such, a church has the right to deny you marriage for any reason they like, just as they have the right to deny you communion for any reason they like.

What is necessary is for the church and state aspects of marriage to be disentangled. Marriage should be entirely religious. Civil unions should be entirely, well, civil. Religious people could get both, if they could find a church to marry them. Problem solved.
posted by kindall at 2:30 PM on March 5, 2004

Devilsadvocate: I'm with you, buddy, 100%. That is all.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:40 PM on March 5, 2004

That's a nice opinion, but certainly not a Christian one. The Gospels teach quite clearly that each one is responsable for their own soul, and nobody else's. The new covenant is one of individual faith, not one of guessing at God's judgement. If homosexuality is wrong in His sight, I seriously doubt He's going to blame you that your government didn't put a stop to that abomination. If fact, Jesus pretty much guaranteed He won't.

Well, as an individual, He won't blame me, but I am still a citizen of this nation, and if He saw fit to allow us to have famines or earthquakes etc I still live here and I and those I love would be affected. This works both ways-gay people and atheists get to benefit from the blessings on this nation that God provides. We are so used to thinking as individualistic Americans that we forget there are some blessings we get by virtue of being part of a group.

With the amount of government sanctioned abomination going on (don't even get me started on lying to the UN, secret meetings with the power companies, and executing prisoners), why is it being used in this one issue?
Because this is the issue we are discussing. Of course you are right, this is not about ONE issue. How does our nation think about things like gay marriage-or abortion-or social justice-or racism-etcetera-God is concerned with all of these and more. But if you believe the first chapter of Romans (in the Bible) is the word of God-and I do-then it is pretty plain how God sees the concept of homosexuality and sexual impurity.
posted by konolia at 2:40 PM on March 5, 2004

Marriage should be entirely religious. Civil unions should be entirely, well, civil. Religious people could get both, if they could find a church to marry them. Problem solved.

Hear, hear.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:51 PM on March 5, 2004

I had dinner with some other gay friends last night, and the consensus was that, while we would all love to see full and complete equality under the law, this is a pretty effective trick by Karl Rove to distract the swing vote.

I'm thinking that this is a strategy that could backfire on Rove. A large part of how the Republicans have managed to stay in power is an uneasy alliance between the libertarian wing who are interested in small government, and the Religious Right that is pushing the amendment. Locally, this issue has already resulted in a key Republican leader leaving the party. Pushing this too hard may be the last straw for some small-government libertarians.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:52 PM on March 5, 2004

Well, as an individual, He won't blame me, but I am still a citizen of this nation, and if He saw fit to allow us to have famines or earthquakes etc I still live here and I and those I love would be affected. This works both ways-gay people and atheists get to benefit from the blessings on this nation that God provides. We are so used to thinking as individualistic Americans that we forget there are some blessings we get by virtue of being part of a group.

I have yet to see any benefits from God. I don't believe that any god exists. Many others believe in gods other than the Christian god. I see no virtue in being controlled by what I consider to be your absurd, irrational beliefs. And, since this is not a theocracy, but a secular democratic republic, what justification can you provide for exerting such control? If gay atheists were in the majority, would we therefore be justified in limiting the rights of straights and Christians? Or would we be required to have an apocryphal book of gibberish with which to justify our oppression of others?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:53 PM on March 5, 2004

"then it is pretty plain how God sees the concept of homosexuality and sexual impurity."

Well, sure. And I don't have a problem with that right up to the point where you decide that your God should have a say in my laws. When I think about God intersecting with government I think about the Crusades, and the Taliban, and the Inquisition, and Japanese nationalism, and Apartheid, and the Salem witch trials.

When the founding fathers talked about the "wall of separation between church and state", I think they were thinking about those same sorts of things. if we take history and the world at large as our case study I think we'll find many cases where mixing God's opinion into government has been bad, and few cases where it's been good.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2004

Well, as an individual, He won't blame me, but I am still a citizen of this nation, and if He saw fit to allow us to have famines or earthquakes etc I still live here and I and those I love would be affected. This works both ways-gay people and atheists get to benefit from the blessings on this nation that God provides.

konolia, I think you're being willfully obtuse. One of the neat points of the New Covenant is that God doesn't smite nations anymore. He doesn't send us angels, He doesn't choose upon whom hellfire rains (Presidents do that) and He doesn't help the Patriots win because some Boston Bubba prays that he'll give up child abusing should Brady get the MVP award. That's not how it works. The debt is paid, you know, by the guy on the cross? If we get blessings as a group, its because we've chosen to be excellent to each other, not because God is pulling strings with the weatherman, or speaking to us in dreams about our stock purchases, or Divinely inspiring the author(s) of the Constitution. These things are of human hand. Leave them as such.

And I knew that you would play the Apostle card (bringing up the Apistolic letters to the Romans and all). You know as well as I do that they don't speak for Christ any more than Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson or Jim Bakker do. Seriously, how can you claim to know the will of God? You claim that the letters are the word of God, but quite obviously, they're not. They are the missives of men, written as they interpret the word of the Lord. That doesn't make them Gospel, or at times, even credible. This weekend I watched a reality show called "House of Dreams" where one ignorant f@@k actually betrayed the trust of a "friend" because he believed that God instructed him to. How screwed up is that? God doesn't play in our lives anymore, because he doesn't have to; by belief we are saved. In fact, I know you've read the books enough to know that He promised that He wouldn't screw around with our lives. The choice from here on out is simply ours.

So I'm asking you, konolia, unless you are a prophet of the Lord, how can you really know what it is that God intends? If He put Maynard and Melvin together in love for life, who are you, and by what authority do you claim it, to split them from each other in rightious judgement?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:49 PM on March 5, 2004

How does our nation think about things like gay marriage-or abortion-or social justice-or racism-etcetera-God is concerned with all of these and more.

Just sort of noticed the whole racism thing in there. Out of curiosity, would God's stake in our nation's policy be of the "slavery is God's will, the races aren't equal, and God put the different races on different continents so He wills they be separate" variety? Or the more recent "All peoples are equal in God's eyes" argument? Both have been used as arguments for certain public policies in our nation's history - using the same book, no less.

The point being, even when you bring religion into public policy, there will be disagreements about the right interpretations. I believe church and state should remain separate, but even within religion itself I refuse to yield the moral high ground. My church (the UU down the street) believes the union of same-sex couples is as sacred as that of heterosexual couples. I refuse to let anyone tell me they are being more "moral" when they advocate relegating gays to second-class status, and I certainly couldn't countenance my government preferring the religious views of some other church over mine.
posted by Chanther at 4:09 PM on March 5, 2004

kirkjobsluder: I'd like to believe that, except that we're still feeding trolls. As we've seen here, there are swing-vote Americans who cannot accept a Federal definition of marriage that isn't as narrow as their own.

I have had a shift in my thinking over the past few days. The debate is one of the heart, inflamed by passionate beliefs on both sides of the issue. Those lesbian and gay couples who want to marry can fight that battle well enough with our tacit support. The day to begin the battle in earnest is 11/3/2004.

Never before has this country failed ultimately to ensure equal protection under the law, as provided in the Constitution. The question of Federal recognition of gay marriages is one of timing and priorities. The first step to be taken toward achieving this civil rights milestone is the defeat of George Bush.

I just don't believe the Libertarians, goddess bless their snarky hearts, outnumber the god-fearing demagogues, so I'd prefer to fight this battle after Bush is gone.
posted by divrsional at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2004

Santa Claus didn't get my Christmas list. Tooth Fairy hasn't left a dime under my pillow the last two teeth I lost. Easter bunny done shit on my carpet. God don't want me to marry my man.

Sucks to be queer.
posted by stonerose at 4:48 PM on March 5, 2004

Sucks to be queer.

"Gay people: can't serve in the military, and it's against the law for them to get married. I'm thinking 'Damn, who's got it better than that?"

--Chris Rock
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:12 PM on March 5, 2004

So I'm asking you, konolia, unless you are a prophet of the Lord, how can you really know what it is that God intends?

How do you know I'm not?
posted by konolia at 5:20 PM on March 5, 2004

Konolia, its nice that you particpate, especially without getting overly emotional, but it would be even nicer if you actually answered the questions people asked. The one I'm thinking of, which gets asked over and over and never answered by you or anyone who believes our laws should not recognize gay marriage, is what ONE NON-RELIGION based reason can you give us?

Otherwise, there are different answers to this question even within what is considered mainstream Christianity so it isn't possible they can all be correct. Even if they were to be considered which, of course, the SCOTUS has said we cannot.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:22 PM on March 5, 2004

The question of Federal recognition of gay marriages is one of timing and priorities.

indeed. I think conservatism serves the sociological function of slowing progress to a publically digestable speed, and according to a couple billion web polls just over 50% of americans are behind the curve. the window of opportunity is fading fast.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:27 PM on March 5, 2004

Tolerance = people on Metafilter calling others bigots (see respect-or lack thereof) for their stance on gay marriage.

Intolerance = Law banning gays from doing something non-gays do.
posted by john at 5:29 PM on March 5, 2004

"but it would be even nicer if you actually answered the questions people asked"

I'm sure konolia will correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think faith is about getting your questions answered. Rather the opposite - The faithful believe without the burden of those pesky facts and logic which we infidels are forced to endure.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:31 PM on March 5, 2004

trharlan, since no one else answered you I'll respond. Thank you for presenting a non-religious argument

1. Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman.

Where is such a law specified? Some states do not have such a law, and some states have laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in that regard. In Massachusetts soon it will be entirely legal for two adults of the same sex to marry.

2. Marriage conveys certain benefits (tax, health care, child custody, etc.).
3. There is no reason that same-sex couples should not be entitled to the same benefits.

Yup. So why can't we call this "Marriage"? It seems like the simplest solution to me. We already ascribe all these rights to those who are "Married" why do we need to go to all trouble to define some kind of separate but equal status?

4. By definition (see 1), same sex couples can not be "married".

Actually in some states they can (see 1).

5. By deduction (see 2, 3), same sex couples ought to enjoy the rights afforded to "married" couples. We need to call them something else.

(see 2,3 also) Pretty much if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck why do we need to call it something else? It seems to me you are simply debating semantics at this point.
posted by aaronscool at 5:35 PM on March 5, 2004

"I was not of course referring to people in general who are immoral or extortioners or swindlers or idolaters; to avoid them you would have to withdraw from society altogether... What business of mine is it to judge outsiders." Rom 5:10 and 12

"If righteousness comes by law, then Christ died for nothing." Gal 2:21

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Merchant of Venice: I,iii

You can't win with the bible, it swings both ways.
posted by SimStupid at 5:40 PM on March 5, 2004

"1. Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman."

Sometimes. But the whole point here is that this is changing. Right? And how can you base your logic on the conclusion you're trying to prove?
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:41 PM on March 5, 2004

The one I'm thinking of, which gets asked over and over and never answered by you or anyone who believes our laws should not recognize gay marriage, is what ONE NON-RELIGION based reason can you give us?

bill*, I think you miss the point. There is no reason (yet) for the religious to give a non-religious answer to your question, and really, if their beliefs are based in religion, why should they?

konolia - How do you know I'm not?

Quite simply because God said, through Jesus, that none
other would speak for him. I've approached you from a distinctly Christian point of view here. Not the one that accepts the watered down version of the Old Torah, or one who believes that the Apostles speak as with the word of God, or the radical idiot who prances across a stage screaming that every single word in the Bible is true (as if), but as one who takes the words of Christ at face value. I ask again, why should a Christian interfere with the expression of undying love, one to another, just because those two individuals have the same junk in thier underware?
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:43 PM on March 5, 2004

Konolia, sweetie, with all due respect I have to point out something:

The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight

Leviticus is the most often cited chapter that calls homosexuality an abomination worthy of death. So, reading on, are adulterers and problem children, who are recommended to be put to death by stoning. Having sexual relations with a menstruating woman leads to exile and abandonment. Other punishments include death by fire.

Being that the argument against homosexuality, and further, against gay marriage usually draws from America's 'Judeo-Christian heritage,' I suppose we all better head down to the quarry and wipe ourselves out using that logic (the offenses punishable by death don't end there). I just don't see how the religious idea of sin should enter into the administration of a geographic area (government) when it is defined by a constitutionally separate church.

Laws exist to protect us from grievous harm, say if you were to throw a stone at me. But the 'harm' in two people of the same sex marrying is incalculable and relative, whereas a black eye is pretty obvious. Sometimes laws and the common themes of morality do coincide, but that's not an exclusive arrangement. Killing, stealing and the lot usually do have religious sanctions against them. But the laws that exist to protect us against them aren't necessarily because of biblical concordance. Society in general is better of protected from these crimes. Where is the grievous and malicious harm in two people of the same sex entering into a covenant based on love, that may earn them a tax break or a deal on health insurance?

Our society, which is legally secular, ideally does not have abominations. Those are for you and your church to decide. As a homosexual and a minister (albeit a tish unconventional) my beliefs and my practices are mine alone, so long as they do not inflict real harm on another. Someone may find that offensive, but where in the law can we codify what is tasteful and what is repugnant when the harm in question only exists in potential and in relative terms?

I'm not out to bash your belief system on anything like that; I respect that you bring a different flavor to MeFi with your views and faith. I just want to put forward the argument the either the Bible* is taken literally, word for word, or is seen as a Midrashic, allegorical text from which one can gain insight and wisdom in their interpretation of the stories. Of course, that is all up to you, it's a personal decision, and enjoy the freedom to make that decision... just like the decision that two people of any gender make when they want to affirm their love and say "I do."

*Or any other book of wisdom from the world's religions, philosophies or dogmas
posted by moonbird at 5:50 PM on March 5, 2004

Continuing on with an oft-trod trail of thought: the purpose of marriage is either for procreation or the raising of children. If the couple intend to have children or adopt, then and only then should they get preferential treatment, on the assumption that children are an unproductive burden and therefore their parents or guardians need special assistance.

Spousal benefits beyond children are an all-or-none proposition: if a spouse is a "mutual-support dependant", and some entity, business or government, is willing to extend benefits, they should be universal. (Whether it is wise to do so *at all* is another question. A company employs you, they do not employ your spouse--so why should they pay spousal benefits at all?)

So the argument continues: how the does law give special assistance to those people, and only those people who are raising children? It cannot justifiably do so before the parents or guardians have legal custody.

Last but not least, "marriage taxes" are counterproductive except to penalize couples that want spousal benefits to support children, but not the children themselves.

So using these axioms, homosexual and heterosexual marriage as "mutual support dependencies", should both receive or be denied spousal benefits the same; as should they both be punitively taxed if they receive benefits for children but have no children--assuming that tax is itself just; and both should receive extra benefits if they are raising children--society having a prerogative for children to be raised well.

The only logical sticking point seems to be indirect benefits, and whether or not they are proper at all. Would you be willing to have your paycheck doubled if your spouse had no indirect benefits, like health care? This already applies to the vast majority of wage, not salaried, earners; except they get nothing for their spouse at all.

So is the real argument, "Homosexual marriage is bad for business?" Sounds oddly like a proposed hike in the minimum wage.
posted by kablam at 5:55 PM on March 5, 2004

Y'all, relax please. I am not the enforcer, and don't want the job if offered.

I ask again, why should a Christian interfere with the expression of undying love, one to another, just because those two individuals have the same junk in thier underware?

Because the first chapter of Romans tells me that God calls it lust, not love, in this case.

Marriage, and the act of sexual union, has meaning and symbolism. Marriage is, according to Scripture, a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church. A same sex union would be a lie about that relationship. God designed marriage as a form of communicating about Himself as well as a practical method of reproducing and of pair bonding. Sex is NOT just about making babies. God is an Artist, and everything He designs has meaning.


If I were an atheist or agnostic I would be arguing for gay marriage right along with the rest of you. If God were not in the picture there really would be no reason to feel otherwise. But God IS in the picture, and I serve Him; therefore His opinions are the ones that matter to me.
posted by konolia at 6:23 PM on March 5, 2004

I used to think that addressing the religious argument is futile, but now I see that once the tools of logic and reason have been removed, it still exists. Like Jesus walking on water they stand on faith alone. It's a miracle!
posted by john at 6:26 PM on March 5, 2004

Oh, and Wulfgar! there are prophets in the New Testament. In my branch of Christianity we believe that the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation, and the gift of prophecy is one of those gifts.
posted by konolia at 6:27 PM on March 5, 2004

konolia, you kind of sound like an assistant manager. "well I'm sorry but that's just our policy! I know, I know. I'm ver sorry. it's our policy though."

strictly off the record though, do you personally think we should amend the constitution to make it so that gays can't marry?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:33 PM on March 5, 2004

if you want to write marriage out of law (hooray!), and let everyone get civil unions for all of the legal benefits of partnership, i can understand that position.

This is the position I've been advocating since I first heard of the issue a few years back. I didn't know the bit about the Supreme Court calling marriage a right. I believe simply defining civil unions as state affairs and marriages as a religious sacrament is the best call. That way both sides can "win" with the Church determing what their requirements are and the state enforcing non-discrimination statutes. People can decide which they want.

Wulfgar!: It's been a pleasure reading your posts on this thread.
posted by infowar at 6:46 PM on March 5, 2004

People can decide which they want

...and that, right there, is the main problem. There's a big contingent that believes you shouldn't be allowed to decide what you want -- because you're wrong.

And the fact that you don't know you're wrong just proves that you are.
posted by aramaic at 7:06 PM on March 5, 2004

A same sex union would be a lie about that relationship. God designed marriage as a form of communicating about Himself as well as a practical method of reproducing and of pair bonding. Sex is NOT just about making babies. God is an Artist, and everything He designs has meaning.


Thus the beauty of love. I couldn't agree more ... except that you haven't clarified how a same sex union does not reflect the beauty of the individual and their love of the church. God designed the beauty of all love, homosexual, asexual, or heterosexual. It strikes me that all true love is a testament to His artistry, whether or not Paul or Peter admonish others for not following the law, as written. You still haven't clarified how homosexual love is an affront to God, save the salemanship of the lettered pitch to the Romans. I'd really like to hear the dictates of the Lord here, cause I haven't found the proscription against homosexuality in the teachings of Christ yet.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:09 PM on March 5, 2004

The problem with gay marriage, in my view, is that you have official civil authority giving sanction to something that is an abomination in God's sight.

Really? Cause when I talked to her, she seemed ok with it. Maybe you just caught her on a bad day. Oh...wait, you're big on the thundering angry god...oh, you know the one... not Zeus...um, not Thor, mmm, Odin?...no, that's not it...oh, yeah...the desert guy, speaks with a booming voice, lights flora on fire....right, right. Big on rape, mayhem, murder and incest...fun guy.

I seem to remember that his son was pretty nice...talked a lot about loving your neighbor, and turning the other cheek, and how you treated people was how you were treating the divine...but ya know, he died young, I'm not sure his message ever really caught on...other than as a rather macabre fashion statement, that is.

You know, generally, I don't argue with you, even though you've been getting more and more evangelical of late...but you're too smart for me to believe that you really think your religion automatically trumps every other belief system and that your belief should be imposed, Taliban fashion, on everyone else.

I'll not wear your burka dear...don't try to make it fit me.


I had dinner with some other gay friends last night, and the consensus was that, while we would all love to see full and complete equality under the law, this is a pretty effective trick by Karl Rove to distract the swing vote. -- divrsional

Bingo! I totally agree. We're all still talking about gay marriage instead of any number of issues that need to be debated. Religious arguments aside, the state has no right to discriminate against a segment of the population. Period. Religion has it's place...but that place is not in politics.
posted by dejah420 at 7:09 PM on March 5, 2004

" I can smell Teaneck from my window here in the West Village."

I can smell Jersey from here. You ain't special, Koedoot-Mcnally.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:13 PM on March 5, 2004

KirkJobSluder said: I'm thinking that this is a strategy that could backfire on Rove...Pushing this too hard may be the last straw for some small-government libertarians.

divrsional said: I'd like to believe that, except...

For what it's worth, KirkJobSluder just described me. I'm a conservative mainly for libertarian/small-government reasons (and hawkish reasons), not religious ones. I voted for Bush in 2000 and have been a strong supporter of his policies thus far in the war on terrorism, though his spending sprees in the last two budgets made me queasy. But his support for the FMA was the issue that lost him my vote this coming fall.

I don't like tinkering with the Constitution, period (it's not a very conservative thing to do), and especially not for something so vile and divisive and nakedly pandering as the FMA, which in its current wording would also destroy any states' or municipalities' civil unions/domestic partnerships even if the people in those areas voted for them. So much for states' rights.

Bush's throwing the weight of the presidency behind something like the FMA felt like a sucker punch to the stomach. I won't vote for a tool like Kerry, but now I can't bring myself to vote for Bush either.

So...yes, I do think his support of the FMA may backfire on him. It may have polarized moderates and gay-friendly conservatives (and don't-screw-with-the-constitution conservatives, and federalist conservatives) far more than it has the Religious Right. And from what I've read on other blogs, I'm not the only right-winger to have outright dropped him over this specific issue either. Too bad that the Compassionate Conservative turned out to be neither.
posted by Asparagirl at 7:19 PM on March 5, 2004

I predicted the same thing a few weeks ago, asparagirl.

Nice to know I'm not always wrong.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 PM on March 5, 2004

You still haven't clarified how homosexual love is an affront to God,

I can only point to the Bible. (You know I believe that it's the Word of God.) But I will say that to God the maleness/femaleness contrast is important. God represents Himself as Father, not the great neuter Parent. Of course I know that spirit has no sex, but apparently it does have gender. There is an essential maleness and an essential femaleness that goes beyond body parts.

And I AM like that assistant manager, all I can tell you is what the policy is, and not necessarily why the policy is in place.
posted by konolia at 7:32 PM on March 5, 2004

Well, if we learn anything from all of this it's that Love and Faith are both blind.

Unless we can find a compromise, I fear that this will only end in tears and bloodshed. This is what the seperation of Church and State was all about in the first place. Too bad people seem to have forgotten that.
posted by moonbiter at 7:33 PM on March 5, 2004

I will say that to God the maleness/femaleness contrast is important. God represents Himself as Father, not the great neuter Parent. Of course I know that spirit has no sex, but apparently it does have gender. There is an essential maleness and an essential femaleness that goes beyond body parts.

I see you are thinking on the same wavelength as George Saunders.
posted by moonbiter at 7:36 PM on March 5, 2004

Oh-and I think a constitutional amendment probably ain't happening. We never got the ERA passed, after all. I'm surprised no one has suggested just rewriting the thing.

Dejah, I'm not for sticking anyone in a burqa. I don't expect you to believe like I do or to be forced to act as if you did. But there are still enough of us out there who believe that same-sex marriage is not a good idea for our opinions to still count in this Republic of ours. And not everyone who believes the same as me on this is a Christian either.
posted by konolia at 7:38 PM on March 5, 2004

The critical, unadressed difference being, konolia, that your views affect me and my beliefs. My interpretation of the Constitution (the relevant document, please read it) does not impact yours even remotely. You say your beliefs affect my life. I say mine allow us each our own, distinct lives. I keep waiting for you to acknowledge that.
posted by divrsional at 7:56 PM on March 5, 2004

Asparagirl: I feel redeemed by your honesty, and I share your ambivalence about the consequences. As it happens I'm no Democrat either, but I know the Big Bad when I see it, and Kerry is merely the latest manifestation of the mindless, ongoing bad. I think my point stands, however. You are outnumbered by those who do not think, but vote with their church. And so I vote we shelve the issue till November.

jonmc: you need to update your zip code. Jersey stinks something fierce from Gay St.
posted by divrsional at 8:03 PM on March 5, 2004

I don't expect you to change, and yet you expect ME to. Odd, that.
posted by konolia at 8:04 PM on March 5, 2004

Heh. I was actually sniffin' Jersey from Hudson Street. But I'm home safe (olfactorily speaking) in Queens now.
posted by jonmc at 8:04 PM on March 5, 2004

Animals (and children) cannot give consent.

I see. So, if it is consenting anything goes. No regard to the rest of the community. Is that how it works?

Also, we will need to include bigamy and polygamy since that is consenting.
posted by stbalbach at 8:19 PM on March 5, 2004

I don't have the time to give this slugfest enough justice, but I'll say - this fare is far and above mass-media treatment of this issue.
______________________________________________

For the record, I'd have to say that social conservatives have been decrying the moral dissolution of modernity (read : urban culture, and with gays at the unspeakable cutting edge of the process) since Ibn Khaldoun and even earlier.

Human society is not growing any more vicious or decadent - behold the Old Testament.

And - the conflation of morality and even Christian ethics is silly.
posted by troutfishing at 8:25 PM on March 5, 2004

I don't expect you to change, and yet you expect ME to.

Dejah, I'm not for sticking anyone in a burqa. I don't expect you to believe like I do or to be forced to act as if you did. But there are still enough of us out there who believe that same-sex marriage is not a good idea for our opinions to still count in this Republic of ours. And not everyone who believes the same as me on this is a Christian either.

No, not really, though it would be nice if you could explain why your religious views should force others to live according to them rather than just you living by them.

And really, why are some things in the Bible now outdated but not others?
posted by billsaysthis at 8:29 PM on March 5, 2004

Also, we will need to include bigamy and polygamy since that is consenting.

If everybody involved is consenting, I see no reason why not. I, personally may not be interested in any of these things, I may even find some of them distasteful, but I have no right to impose my distaste on others, as long as there is no harm done.
posted by jonmc at 8:33 PM on March 5, 2004

I see. So, if it is consenting anything goes. No regard to the rest of the community.

"the community" should be considered. so, gay marriage, being of no danger to anybody, should be allowed. mixed fiber clothing, however, has GOT to go, regardless of how good anybody looks wearing it.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:33 PM on March 5, 2004

konolia: how does my being able to marry the man I love imply that I expect you to change?

stbalbach: if mutually consenting parties engage in life choices that do not harm the rest of the community, you're goddam straight. Get over it. It's been that way, in increasing strength, for over 200 years.

Polygamy is a bullshit issue. Check the numbers. Address the issue at hand.
posted by divrsional at 8:38 PM on March 5, 2004

i still haven't been given a good reason why i should give a rats ass who gets married.
posted by MrLint at 9:08 PM on March 5, 2004

Same sex marriage is fine, I don't think they should get tax reductions, though. Unless, of course, they adopt a child or currently have one, because tax reductions in a marriage license are granted on the understanding that they produce an offspring, thereby (hopefully) creating another functioning member of society. That would be so cool if same sex couples adopted kids because if they got the balls (or... uh... yeah) to get married, they are obviously serious.
posted by Keyser Soze at 9:28 PM on March 5, 2004

konalia: I don't expect you to change, and yet you expect ME to. Odd, that.

Interestingly, my grandmother went to the grave believing that neither interracial and interfaith marriages were a good thing. Legalization of same-sex marriage does nothing to change the definition of marriage in your own church, or in your own mind.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:31 PM on March 5, 2004

gay marriage, being of no danger to anybody

Not everyone agrees with that.

Polygamy is a bullshit issue. Check the numbers.

Check your history books it's not a bullshit issue and if it were legal either now or in the future you can expect it to become a lot more popular because it would be an encouragement for the behavior.

In any case, since the argument is that marriage is a "right" then the numbers don't matter so long as it's more than 1 (or 3 in the case of polygamy).

And also bigamy. They have "rights" also. Or do you define marriage as only two people?
posted by stbalbach at 9:32 PM on March 5, 2004

I am of the opinion that God still holds nations as a whole responsible for their actions
...
Dejah, I'm not for sticking anyone in a burqa. I don't expect you to believe like I do or to be forced to act as if you did.


So if the courts decide in favor of gay marriage, you're going to live with that, even though God's going to hold you partly responsible?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:36 PM on March 5, 2004

konolia: If I were an atheist or agnostic I would be arguing for gay marriage right along with the rest of you. If God were not in the picture there really would be no reason to feel otherwise.

If I am understanding this statement correctly, you are admitting that the only argument to be made against legalizing gay marriage is "God says it is wrong." Is this a fair conclusion to draw from your statement?

Now, given that a) many different religions (and indeed, even groups within religions) make widely varying statements about what God believes is right, and what God believes is wrong, and there appears to be no objective way to discern which group accurately represents the will of God, and b) our government is, by its own highest law, religion-neutral--how do you justify laws against same-sex marriage?

divrsional: Never before has this country failed ultimately to ensure equal protection under the law, as provided in the Constitution.

I'll assume you mean since equal protection under the law has been in the constitution, which is only since 1868. Still, you've never heard of Plessy v. Ferguson? (Hint: 1896, "separate but equal")
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:41 PM on March 5, 2004

Hrm, two more thoughts:

The civil courts already recognize two forms of marrital abomination: common law marriage and inter-faith marriage.

I think that Bush does stand to loose the election if he manages to split the party on this issue. Gore lost in 2000 partly because he failed to address a major split among progressives. It only takes pissing off a few percentage points to loose an election.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:46 PM on March 5, 2004

Devil's Advocate: you seem conveniently to have overlooked the word "ultimately" in my comment.
posted by divrsional at 10:26 PM on March 5, 2004

Not everyone agrees with that.

which is fine but I wish these people would show me some real evidence, or at least present an argument of some kind.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:35 PM on March 5, 2004

you seem conveniently to have overlooked the word "ultimately" in my comment.

So I did. Consider the comment withdrawn.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:38 PM on March 5, 2004

stbalbach: again, conveniently, you ignore the real challenge of my comment: What does polygamy have to do with who we are, as Americans, right now?

In other words, since you consistently cherry-pick the issue: Why are you conflating loving, MONOGAMOUS CONSENSUAL same-sex relationships with polygamous relationships, which, to the best of my knowledge, are rarely consensual, in the way I understand the term, but patriarchal, degrading to women, and otherwise completely irrelevant to the issue under discussion? I have met thousands of lesbians and gay men in my life, almost all of whom want the warmth, compassion, emotional security, joy, and growth experience of lasting intimacy with someone they can connect with. I have met no one who wanted polygamy. If they did, and I found their relationships caused no one any harm, then they would have my blessing. And yet, oddly enough, despite 30 years of being forced into the role of sexual outlaw, I have met none.

Please consider a direct answer to this vital question: How does the establishment of equal recognition for same-sex relationships impair your enjoyment of that same recognition?
posted by divrsional at 10:51 PM on March 5, 2004

because tax reductions in a marriage license are granted on the understanding that they produce an offspring

Is this a joke that I'm just not getting? There are no tax reductions in my marriage licence. Are there in anyone's? And "granted on the understanding that they produce an offspring"? Are you a complete loony? Where does it say that? Where does any government document say that?

The government isn't in the business of bribing people to breed, for god's sake, and it isn't the government's job to define the purpose of marriage. Who the hell would want to live in a country where it did?
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:28 AM on March 6, 2004

Maybe they think there's just one big well of wedding somewhere and that if gays are allowed to marry and draw from that well then we'll run out of marriage?

Konolia, your argument is that you have no argument. You have interpreted only those parts that fit your needs and overlooked and ignored other parts that refute your stance.

Sorry but you have no legs to stand on.

Because God says so isn't an argument. As was mentioned before, using the conclusion to form the premise to form the conclusion is the logical equivalent of chasing your tail. Its invalid and any and all arguments you make based on God's will are bunkum in the real world where people live.

Can we get off religion if this is the best it can do? What else can anyone use to argue against allowing same sex unions?

Nothing? Okay, let's move on to extracting the jackass in the White House.
posted by fenriq at 12:37 AM on March 6, 2004

(rummaging around in his desk drawer between posts)

Anyone got any paper clips?
posted by Samizdata at 12:47 AM on March 6, 2004

George_Spiggot, in America your income tax is less if you are married.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:19 AM on March 6, 2004

We are so used to thinking as individualistic Americans that we forget there are some blessings we get by virtue of being part of a group.

So God does bless Americans. You get all the material rewards and the feeling of righteouness too. By the same measure, those caught up in a famine deserve their plight, as a group.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:58 AM on March 6, 2004

One of the neat points of the New Covenant is that God doesn't smite nations anymore.... That's not how it works. The debt is paid, you know, by the guy on the cross?

I haven't been a Christian for many years, but that's pretty much how I understand the position. Which is it, konolia, Old Testament or New? 'Cause if it's the Old, you're going to want constitutional amendments against all kinds of things like shellfish and mixing fibers and like that.

Keyser Soze: So you want the tax advantages eliminated also for heterosexual couples who don't have children? 'Cause otherwise, your "argument" is pure bigotry.

jonmc: You're kickin' ass in this thread.

To back away from the snarling and biting for a minute, I was thinking of posting Laura Conaway's I'd Leave the Country, but My Wife Won't Let Me
from the Village Voice but I didn't think the front page needed yet another thread about gay marriage, so I'll take this opportunity to share it with y'all.

I want our politicians and religious leaders to stop going on television and suggesting that legalizing marriage for us would be like legalizing sex with dogs. My wife, in my arms? They are talking about my wife, in my arms. Do they know, do they care, how much that hurts? Where must we run to be safe from them?

I want my wife not to feel such pressure and fear that she curls up in bed at night and cries. On the night of Wednesday, February 25, a woman in Brooklyn lay crying because she can't understand why people would hate her so, why they'd have to denigrate a beautiful and private part of her life with the most heinous rhetoric. Think about that. My wife lay in tears because strangers are clamoring for the power to decide whether she belongs, whether the American promise should hold true for her—as if there were any question which way they'd vote.

What stands between us and them? A couple dozen senators, and some of those are on the fence. Where is our right to a meaningful marriage, to the honest pursuit of happiness? We want our justice and "domestic tranquility." Whose country is this, anymore? Someone tell me. I get the feeling it's no longer mine...

The privacy of this struggle may be the worst part, the continued aloneness of being. So many people don't get it. They say things to us like "Being married isn't all it's cracked up to be"—as if we weren't religiously married already, as if being blocked from the city clerk's door were great fun. They say, "Wouldn't civil unions be enough?" or, now that gay couples are marrying out West, "I'd hate for this marriage thing to win Bush the election." They say, "You really have to pay taxes like that?" and "Being domestic partners doesn't help you?" and "You should see the marriage penalty we pay." They say, "Oh, I wish it were different for you." They say, "Come to our wedding! We're getting married!"

Sometimes I think the greatest hindrance to our cause is the sheer force of the American legend. So strongly do people believe this country stands for freedom that they can't fathom it's ever otherwise. Sign a few contracts, the well-intentioned advise, and you'll get all the same rights as straight couples—that's an outrageous fiction, but not as outrageous as the notion that being almost equal under the law is good enough.

posted by languagehat at 7:03 AM on March 6, 2004

New York's gonna go gay.
posted by divrsional at 7:17 AM on March 6, 2004

So if the courts decide in favor of gay marriage, you're going to live with that, even though God's going to hold you partly responsible?

Yes.

Just so you all know, I am not here trying to win an argument, I am here giving a Christian point of view. There is a difference. I am not expecting to convert you to my view on gay marriage by what I say.

And just because Jesus died on the cross doesn't mean there aren't consequenses for sin. If I do something bad I can be forgiven but I still face the consequences. Just so with nations. There are consequenses for ignoring God's will on things.
posted by konolia at 8:03 AM on March 6, 2004

my sympathies.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:53 AM on March 6, 2004

God is the totality of hate in the universe.
He is going to kill every living thing because He hates life.
We know God hates us because He shows us His hate by killing us.
God is hate and his sword is Darwin.

I guess circular logic does work.
posted by kablam at 9:28 AM on March 6, 2004

in America your income tax is less if you are married.

True if you only have one significant income between you, quite true. But this is not the usual case, and the "marriage penalty" for two income households has been a reality for decades -- the fact that attempts have been made to address it in very recent years does not retroactively codify "marriage incentive" as a fundamental precept of the tax code. All the recent efforts have done is attempt to remove one perceived disincentive to marrying, not to actually provide a reward for doing so. And I know of no formal or informal document or statement by any part of the government, anywhere, that describes any part of the tax code as it relates to marriage (or really, anything else) as an incentive to reproduce.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:38 AM on March 6, 2004

Because the first chapter of Romans tells me that God calls it lust, not love, in this case.

Did you get any further in your readings, konolia? I would point you to the second chapter of Romans, which begins with the word "therefore" (indicating that this is the conclusion of the argument set up in the first chapter):

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. Rom 2:1

So you might be punished, konolia, but it won't be because there are gay marriages in America, but instead because "in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom 2:5)" "28 For he is not a Jew, which is oneoutwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."(Rom 2:28,29)
posted by boo at 10:13 AM on March 6, 2004

the riots will begin when the gay guys figure out they have to be monogamous for the rest of their lives lol.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:41 AM on March 6, 2004

My wife, in my arms? They are talking about my wife, in my arms. Do they know, do they care, how much that hurts? Where must we run to be safe from them?

I want my wife not to feel such pressure and fear that she curls up in bed at night and cries. On the night of Wednesday, February 25, a woman in Brooklyn lay crying because she can't understand why people would hate her so

All this does is illustrate that a core of the fight is about "feelings" and not really rights to do something. Laura can already go home to her wife. Laura can already sleep with her. Laura can choose to spend her life with her.

Laura and Mrs. Laura have an ever so-slight argument in their favor: it's easier for straight folks to enter into a legally and socially recognized union. The legal part is still accessible to them, with some effort and a lawyer. If there's any fight that ought to be made, it should be here, and it could probably be done by any interested lawyer with a sympathetic streak (or even a greedy market streak, if there's really such a market waiting for this). The social recognition is only achievable if they can change the culture, though.

So the fight isn't about liberties. It's about meaning, about trying to get other people to say that something is acceptable, normal, mainstream.
posted by namespan at 12:06 PM on March 6, 2004

Boo, are you being judgemental? ;-)
posted by konolia at 12:09 PM on March 6, 2004

"The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization."
posted by homunculus at 12:12 PM on March 6, 2004

konolia: Dejah, I'm not for sticking anyone in a burqa. I don't expect you to believe like I do or to be forced to act as if you did.

The burka is a metaphor...and I guess in my tired state, I didn't make it clear that what the metaphor meant was that if I'm forced to live under the rules that you believe that been set by *your* god, then I am, for all intents and purposes, forced to wear a spiritual burka, in that I am legally constrained to act in a way that befits how *your belief system* thinks I should be allowed to act.

I'm all about you believing what you want...I want the same freedom for the snake handlers, the polygamists, the guys with the headgear, the ancestor devotees, the left handed ducki temple swimmers, the naked dancing women, and the cosmic muffin worshippers. But I don't want any of y'all making laws that codify your religion into state doctrine.

It is a slippery slope to try and legislate religious fervor, no matter how well intended it is. The Constitution is the very defining document of our agreed society and to modify it to specifically exclude one minority to pacify another minority is abhorent. I'm am astonished that any American...any American...would want to deface that document by scribbling on it that it's ok to discriminate against *some* people.

I am here giving a Christian point of view.

Oh, but no...no you're not. You're here giving *your* take on Christianity...but you do not speak for all Christians.

Asparagirl: I could kiss you...but ya know, I wouldn't want to metafilter to get get a plague of locusts or anything. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 12:48 PM on March 6, 2004

konolia: What makes your particular take on your particular religion so special? You must know how many other takes on Christianity there are in the U.S. alone. You must know how many Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and agnostics and atheists there are as well.

What gives your beliefs special status? Why should your beliefs be so singularly important so as to not only govern your life, but to impose restrictions on how others may live theirs? You think God is on your side, but doesn't everybody? There are many Americans who believe God thinks homophobia is the true abomination.

How would you like it if the Muslims got to make the rules for you and forced you, a non-Muslim, to wear a burqa? Or if the atheists declared that worshipping God is an abomination and therefore illegal? What if heterosexual marriage was illegal and only gay marriage was allowed?

You've never responded to any of my posts in any thread, but I haven't given up quite yet.
posted by callmejay at 1:04 PM on March 6, 2004

Hey badstone, thanks for the pointer to that quote from Samuel! I gotta rush out & get my concubines TODAY!

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

Anyone got anything about gender restrictions on that? Anyway ... let's be sure that gets into the marriage amendment!
posted by Twang at 1:29 PM on March 6, 2004

am here giving a Christian point of view.

Oh, but no...no you're not. You're here giving *your* take on Christianity...but you do not speak for all Christians.

I said "a" view, not "the" view. (I used to be an English major.) And I knew the burqua was metaphorical.


What gives your beliefs special status? Why should your beliefs be so singularly important so as to not only govern your life, but to impose restrictions on how others may live theirs?


Everyone on this thread has a political point of view, and most if not all do things to further it-at the very least, I imagine everyone here votes. Just like everyone else I vote my conscience. Just like everyone else here on the 'filter I express my opinions and beliefs.

I catch a little heat here occasionally, even from people I like and who like me. Occasionally I roll my eyes at the things that others here believe and/or post. I believe many of you are wrong on some topics, and many of you think I am wrong on almost all. I can take it, and I presume most if not all of you can as well.

It's my America too.
posted by konolia at 2:05 PM on March 6, 2004

konolia: Boo, are you being judgemental? ;-)

That's your book, not mine. I'm not a Christian, so I don't have to agree that merely by condemning someone, you condemn yourself to the same fate. You--as someone who takes Paul's words as the words of God--presumably do. I'm just pointing out that, ironically, the whole point of the passage you and other Christians-who-condemn-gays use to prove that the God cares about homosexual sex, was that God cares less about the letter of the law (matters of the flesh) than about what is in your heart. I don't believe that you are damned (I did say "might"), and I don't even believe that you are a bad person, I just wonder how religious people can read the bible and get the impression that Jesus was preoccupied by homosexuality (about which he never uttered a single word) and miss the message that we are not supposed to judge each other (about which he spoke on many occasions at great length).
posted by boo at 2:15 PM on March 6, 2004

Konolia, thanks for responding. Of course it's your America, too. I apologize if my posts are too strong or personal, but I too have strong beliefs on this subject. I don't quibble with your right to vote,to have an opinion, or to practice your religion. I only take strong objection to those opinions which, if enacted, would place your own religious beliefs in the law -- in our constitution even -- at the expense of people with different religious beliefs than yours. "Your right to extend your fist ends at my nose."

Countries which favor one branch (or even many branches) of one religion over all others do not work with a pluralistic society. I submit that you would feel differently if you were in the minority and had others actively trying to take away your rights based on their own religious interpretations.
posted by callmejay at 2:22 PM on March 6, 2004

Jesus said,"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only few find it."(Matthew 7:13-14)Might better find out what that narrow way is.

He also said this in Mark 7:20-23:

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Homosexuality is in the category of sexual immorality.
posted by konolia at 4:25 PM on March 6, 2004

So Konolia you're saying that all those things that make a man unclean ought to be against the law in the US? Even leaving out some of the less tangible ones like arrogance, malice and envy, that's some constitutional amendment you've got going.
posted by billsaysthis at 4:58 PM on March 6, 2004

Sorry, hit Post too soon...

Konolia my point being that why should you (and other faith-based lawmakers) limit this fight to gay marriage and not the others? Seems, um, hypocritical to cherry pick the one thing that you won't be partaking in.
posted by billsaysthis at 4:59 PM on March 6, 2004

I say "sexual immorality" is lying to oneself and the world about who you love. There is nothing immoral about my love, and yes, the gate is small and the road is narrow that led me to life. It was made so by those who would judge me.
posted by divrsional at 5:15 PM on March 6, 2004

Somehow, sexual immortaliy, adultery, and lewdness are related to gay marriage. Hmm. As usual, those in desperate need of some way to prove an unprovable point are conflating gay people with promiscuity again. The fact that they can't distingish between being gay and being lewd is extremely telling of their opinion of gay people, regardless of who they took to the prom.

What about all those gay couples who don't even have sex anymore, but are together because they love each other? It happens to couples everywhere, including gay couples. Is that still lust and not love?
posted by Hildegarde at 6:19 PM on March 6, 2004

"evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

In my brand of Christianity, these highlighted words refer to using one's religious beliefs as a pretence to deny some subset of humanity the right to basic dignity, respect, equality and civil rights...except that I'm not a Christian. (But don't you think it is just a little arrogant to think you know exactly what Jesus meant by "sexual immorality?" Since he never mentions homosexuality specifically anywhere, how did you get this special insight?)
posted by boo at 6:21 PM on March 6, 2004

So Konolia you're saying that all those things that make a man unclean ought to be against the law in the US?


I was countering someone's statement that Jesus was never quoted as being negative on homosexuality. I can only make one point at a time, unfortunately. As far as law goes I am saying that I think marriage is between an man and a woman by definition. And I am saying that the reason I feel that way is that God considers any sex that is not between a man and a woman who are married to each other to be immorality.

I say "sexual immorality" is lying to oneself and the world about who you love I am not trying to be rude or flippant, but that is not the dictionary definition of sexual immorality. I understand that what you ARE saying is that you disagree with my viewpoint. And please let me state that I am not talking about who you love, I am talking about who you have sex with. Which in your specific instance is none of my business. But just because it is none of my business doesn't mean that God doesn't have an opinion on it. All I am saying, have said, and most likely will continue to say is that God has a negative opinion of homosexuality. Do with that information what you will. I am just the messenger, not the enforcer.
posted by konolia at 7:07 PM on March 6, 2004

Your God, Konolia. Yours.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:00 PM on March 6, 2004

First argument: Christians dispensed with much of the Talmudic law, but have remarkably little to replace it with.

In other words, Jews believe that Talmudic Law is a compilation of Adamic Law, Noahic Law, Abrahamic Law and Mosaic Law, with additional statutes, precedent and addenda. Each of these were separate covenants between God and man, with the last being between God and the Jews only.

Jesus dispensed with all of that. Christians really don't have their own set of laws, as they were never codified along the lines of the traditional covenants, which fit the standard contract format of the ancient world. Something that JHVH always insisted on, for some reason. Jesus wasn't so picky, relying instead on a few generalities.

So, as far as Jews are concerned, Christians fit into the category of gentiles, who are under Noahic law and its precedents, but not Mosaic Law. The Ten Commandments do not apply to Christians.

For this reason, Christians don't really have a leg to stand on, as far as religious law is concerned. They just have a patchwork of agreements made between God and mankind as a whole, and they try to piggyback on a contract that doesn't apply to them. Jesus just didn't get around to addressing most religious legal issues.

Jesus didn't tell them to hate homosexuals, or even homosexual acts. So they just make some sort of ad hoc patchwork of other people's laws to justify their actions.
It would be just as legitimate for them to borrow from the Moslems, Buddhists or Hindus to justify themselves.

Jesus didn't demand celibacy from Priests, or the Rite of Confession, or most other Catholic dogma devolved into its Protestant versions, either. In fact, he didn't ask for much of anything other than belief.

Not a bad chap, really. Just had a bad press agent.
posted by kablam at 8:37 PM on March 6, 2004

...but that is not the dictionary definition of sexual immorality.

Ok...here's the dictionary definition of immoral. The various plumbing of lovers doesn't seem be mentioned by any of these sources.

im·mor·al adj. : Contrary to established moral principles.

immoral : \Im*mor"al\, a. [Pref. im- not + moral: cf. F. immoral.] Not moral; inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience or the divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious; as, an immoral man; an immoral deed.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

immoral : adj 1: violating principles of right and wrong [ant: moral, amoral] 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn: base, dishonorable, dishonourable, unethical] 3: morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior" 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life" [syn: bad] 5: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

You don't know what Jesus meant, assuming he said it at all. You can't. You weren't there. But, for that matter, neither were the people who wrote the bible. Or the people who translated it, or the people who rewrote huge chunks of it to keep an English King happy. All knowledge that you have is extrapolated, assumed, and based on faith. Which is groovy for you. Yay believers!

But it isn't logic and it isn't rational. You can't prove, in concrete facts, that all people are not deserving of all of the same rights and benefits. And you would wrap this bigotry in angelic wings and claim that discrimination is right because that's the way *God* wants it. That scares me. It's that righteousness of soul that spawned punishments like the Scarlett Letter, and the witch trials. The puritan mindthink is just too much of a cognitive dissonance for me to be able to understand it...rather, it fills me with a sort of nameless horror.

And should the view become as widespread as you think it is, then I fear the coming culture war in this country. Because endorsing the discrimination of one set of people is a sure sign that other disfavored types are not far behind in the federalized censure.

Believe what you want, and be happy...but, faith has no place in legislation. The Law should be a domain of logic and impartiality. That's all any of us are saying.
posted by dejah420 at 8:57 PM on March 6, 2004

Sorry, konolia. God's actual message, which is delivered to those who've examined their lives and accepted the responsibility of free will, is quite different from what you've expressed. In fact, those who think they know god's will for other people do not have faith, but its opposite. The very fact that you feel you have a message to deliver to others proves the insecurity of your belief. In the real world, true faith is good enough for yourself and your own life. You have my sincere and abiding compassion.
posted by divrsional at 9:05 PM on March 6, 2004

MF couple (not married): Allowed.
SS couple (not married): Allowed.
MF couple (legal marriage): Allowed.
SS couple (legal marriage): NOT ALLOWED.
MF couple (church marriage): Allowed.
SS couple (church marriage)*: Allowed.

Which one of these things is not like the others? Which one of these things does not belong?

*limited range of denominations.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:10 PM on March 6, 2004

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

Time to pull out the rocks, people. Konolia, who shall cast the first stone?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:38 PM on March 6, 2004

That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.
posted by homunculus at 10:46 PM on March 6, 2004

I'm just waiting until I can claim my pet as a dependent. Then everything will be cool.
posted by jmccorm at 12:13 AM on March 7, 2004

konolia: I can only point to the Bible.

And I can only refer to what I learned in catechism. From the site:

The ultimate determinant of the morality of any act is the informed conscience of the one acting. In Catholic moral theology, the informed conscience has always held absolute primacy. Indeed, the conscience is so fundamental in matters of morality that if one's informed conscience dictates that one should directly break the laws of the Church or the Scriptures or one's state or nation, one has a moral obligation to follow that conscience no matter how contrary it may be to any other rules, laws, or precepts!

The Christianity you practice declares the bible to be the ultimate authority. The Christian faith I was raised in (a faith that I am admittedly conflicted about) declares that my conscience, rather than the bible or church dogma, should be what guides me. My conscience tells me that allowing gay and lesbians to be married in the eyes of the law is the morally correct thing to do. So whose faith do we choose as the higher moral authority?

The point I'm trying to make is that we as a nation, quite simply, choose not to make any one religion our higher authority - we look to the constitution when deciding what is right and fair. Looking back on how other countries have fared with institutional state religion, I think we have chosen very wisely.

We may disagree as to what we personally consider to be moral or immoral, but when it comes down to it the matter of gay marriage will be based on whether it is or is not constitutional. Since the right of gays and lesbians to marry persons of their own gender is neither explicitly stated or prohibited in the constitution, it will be up to the courts to examine and decide on the issue.

konolia, I have a lot of respect for you and heaven knows, we're on the same side of the argument more often than not. Please understand that those who oppose you on this are not ignorant or willfully disregarding religious teachings. My support of gay marriage comes from what I understand God to be - loving of all of humanity and disdainful of injustice and prejudice against any of His/Her creatures.
posted by echolalia67 at 1:03 AM on March 7, 2004

konolia said: God considers any sex that is not between a man and a woman who are married to each other to be immorality.

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

When did the law Twang quoted get changed in the Bible? Maybe konolia forgot, his version only applies to females. Oh, wait, they decided they could no longer get away with that sexism.

Maybe the real reason some of these folks don't want gay folks to marry is so that MAYBE some of us will condescend to give them a little fun when they sneak out on their wives. Married, we might feel the need to be monogamous, which obviously lowers their chances at getting some.
posted by Goofyy at 5:10 AM on March 7, 2004

Konolia, all I can say is that every argument/reasoning you've given in the last few weeks on this topic are exactly what similarly religious people said 40 years ago as to why interracial marriage should remain illegal. In fact more recently than that the dominant political faction in South Africa, who all self-identified as religious Christians, used the same generalized arguments as to why only white people were 'real' people.

By now people who seem able to read and write and think ought to understand that justifying social legislation based on narrow religious grounds is a bad, bad idea and get over it. Make your own life decisions based on such faith, sure, but don't try and force others to do so.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:58 AM on March 7, 2004