Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


OMG! Gay Marriage! The horror!
November 5, 2004 5:14 PM   Subscribe

Ever wonder how the world is going to hell in a handbasket if gay marriage runs amok? Our own digaman recounts his ceremony from a couple years ago, after being together with someone for ten years. Sounds like every other wedding I've ever been to (except for the lack of bridesmaids). I'm always telling family members that don't have gay friends like I do: don't fear them, I assure you they're just as boring as you and I.
posted by mathowie (218 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm kidding about the boring crack, but seriously, this account of a gay wedding sounds just as wonderful, meaningful, and touching as any other wedding. When you know gay married couples (I count at least four among my friends) you realize just how harmless this all is. It helps to put a face on what many call an abomination and I think Steve's account does that well.
posted by mathowie at 5:19 PM on November 5, 2004


I know more than a few gay couples in long term committed relationships, and since I live in Ontario, some of them are planning to marry. I think the thing that is striking about all of the relationships is how utterly normal they are. That was a very touching account of just how romantic normal can be.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:25 PM on November 5, 2004


What a beautiful story! Thank you for pointing to it, Matt.
posted by doublehelix at 5:26 PM on November 5, 2004


"wonderful, meaningful, and touching... harmless"

That's a value judgment, to call it what it is. They come from a worldview, with oughts and ought nots and OKs and standards of moral beauty and moral ugliness and "positives" and "negative" and so forth.

According to the Bible, God dislikes homosexuality so much that he punishes idolaters with it.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

Ultimately, homosexuality--like abortion and justice and every other issue--is a worldview issue, and more importantly, a God-issue. It has to do with whether or not you acknowledge His created order and whether or not you value God and His character above everything. In claiming that the Christian worldview misappriotiately views homosexuality, you're claiming the supremacy of your own worldview--again, to call it what it is.
posted by aaronshaf at 5:32 PM on November 5, 2004


Thank you so much, Matt. A link from you means a lot to me.

The most disheartening thing about this disheartening week has been watching folks on excellent sites like Daily Kos and MyDD distance themselves from equal marriage rights for all as something not worth fighting for. Then you have people like Senator Diane Feinstein, who owes her career to liberal and gay voters, telling reporters that gay people expecting one of the most basic rights of our society came "too much, too soon."

Some people will never be ready to acknowledge gay people as human beings. It will always be "too soon" for them. But even Dick Cheney didn't support Bush's marriage amendment personally, as he said in his debate with John Edwards. I believe there are many bridges to be built between moderates in all parties, and Democrats suddenly demonizing gays for supposedly causing them to lose this election is not the way to do it, or to reinvigorate their own party.
posted by digaman at 5:36 PM on November 5, 2004


It's clear from your comment, aaronshaf, that God is quite wrong, and probably not a very nice guy. Any being who can advocate the brutal murder of people for being homosexual clearly has a violent and bigoted temprament, and I wouldn't trust Him or His followers.

That's just my value judgement.
posted by Jimbob at 5:39 PM on November 5, 2004


The greatest, most perfidious evil on this earth has always been to value the dictates of religious above the well being of our fellow people (this is one of Jesus' central messages, by the way). I can tell a religion is wrong (factually, morally, whatever) if it tells its followers to hurt people. It's a pretty simple test, actually.

"Don't cause human suffering": how's that for a controversial value judgement?

If I believed that the Christian God, as described by aaronshaf, existed, I would be working with all my strength to find a way to destroy Him. For by His dictates, He is clearly evil.

That's my worldview!
posted by mr_roboto at 5:44 PM on November 5, 2004


According to the Bible, God dislikes homosexuality so much that he punishes idolaters with it.

God hates shrimp too, but I bet dollars to doughnuts you've eaten some before. Some things change over time, no matter what is written in a book.

Aaron, I know you're into God and stuff, but what do you think of eating ham? You know that Jews aren't into it and they believe Their One True Creator is right in saying that eating ham is bad, right? Just as strongly as you say God punishes Homosexuality. So if you eat ham (and I'm sure you do) you are DEFYING THEIR GOD OPENLY!!!!1!!1!

You see how this works? That values aren't 1-to-1 across the board with regards to everyone's religion?

Aaron, seriously trust me on this: get to know gay people. Really normal, boring as dishwater gay people. Gay people aren't drag queens on parade, they're normal boring everyday folks that read books and drive cars and shop at your supermarket. And they're just as harmless as your next door neighbors.
posted by mathowie at 5:45 PM on November 5, 2004


And in other, similar, better news: Saskatchewan OKs Same-Sex Marriage
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:48 PM on November 5, 2004


And they're just as harmless as your next door neighbors.

They probably are your next door neighbors!
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 5:52 PM on November 5, 2004


(self-link warning) I posted my own statement of faith regarding gays and the church on my blog just a few days ago. If you're concerned that Aaron speaks for all Christians, please go read it.
posted by tippiedog at 5:52 PM on November 5, 2004


Oh, and when people ask me why I have so many gay friends, I tell them honestly: I know them from church. That sometimes drops a few mouths.
posted by tippiedog at 5:53 PM on November 5, 2004


If you're concerned that Aaron speaks for all Christians, please go read it.

I know he doesn't speak for all Christians. In fact, it seems to me that he's speaking against Christ Himself.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:55 PM on November 5, 2004


I agree with aaronshaf. To be blunt, they put their thingy where poop comes out. The world wants to "normalize" something that is abhorred by God and is unnatural.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:26,27

I always wondered if "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" was STDs like AIDS and gonorrhea and the like. Something to think about....
posted by Sonserae at 5:59 PM on November 5, 2004


It's important to know that the epistles are written by Paul, including Romans, quite a different sort of thing compared to the Gospels. Paul was a filter for Jesus' and the Apostles words and views, and as a result one can only expect them to have been skewed to some extent. Paul was a man of his time, enlightened to only a certain extent, and I have always thought his writings were the source of many problematic ideas coming out of the New Testament. It's also important to know the circumstances surrounding his writings to the Christian communities in Rome (hence, the title "Romans"). Not all of the Christian communities he wrote to had the same circumstances surrounding them. Paul was brought up under rigid Jewish Law and in Romans he expresses the need for rigid adherence to the letter of the Law and for moral perfection. He is also speaking primarily to converted Jews and converted Pagans, which are understandably populating the heart of the Empire. Also, it is important to know that Romans is the one letter written more as a religious treatise than anything else.
posted by doublehelix at 6:00 PM on November 5, 2004


i believe in the christian god, which is to say i believe in the humble spirit who came as god incarnate and never said anything about homosexuality and said EVERYTHING about not judging one another. (hint: his name starts with a 'j' and is invoked to justify all kinds of evil shit he'd never approve of).

i also believe that law should not be based on religion, because it is purely subjective. gay marriage does not harm society and does not serve to create chaos or danger in our system. blowing up people for oil does. that's my family value. thanks for the link matt.
posted by glenwood at 6:01 PM on November 5, 2004


Sonserae, are you saying that gay people deserve AIDS?
posted by doublehelix at 6:03 PM on November 5, 2004


No...I'm not saying anyone "deserves" anything...but there are consequences for going outside the laws of nature. The fact is, there are diseases that only have been spread and incubated from either promiscuity or homosexuality or both...When you drive into a wall at 90 miles an hour, there are consequences for that. If you put your thingy where it says, "Exit only, no entrance", there are consequences for that too.
posted by Sonserae at 6:07 PM on November 5, 2004


I agree with aaronshaf. To be blunt, they put their thingy where poop comes out. The world wants to "normalize" something that is abhorred by God and is unnatural.

yes, and to be blunt, i have put my thingy where pee comes out into the place where my wife puts food. i hate to be so crude but damn dude. sex is a messy endeavor. just because the way some group of people does it happens to gross you out doesn't mean you get to make laws about it. don't you get it?
posted by glenwood at 6:07 PM on November 5, 2004


misappriotiately...wtf?

Well, this thread is going off the rails. Aaronshaf, you can talk around this issue any way you see fit. Homosexuality is the last sanctioned locus of bigotry in the world, and cloaking your prejudice in the scripture just makes you look all the more feeble for not having the balls to come out like any decent racist and just say it...gays ought to get on a spaceship and fly into the sun. Wouldn't that feel better?

Best of luck as the rest of the free world leaves you pondering your righteous indignation.

Thanks Matt.
posted by docpops at 6:08 PM on November 5, 2004


To be blunt, they put their thingy where poop comes out.

Yep, and straight people (even married ones) never, never do that. Nope. No sir.
posted by JoanArkham at 6:11 PM on November 5, 2004


Holy shit: I think Sonserae is being serious. My sarcasm detector was totally going off at her first comment.

We should note that by her standard (safest sexual practices), God's chosen people are clearly the lesbians.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:11 PM on November 5, 2004


Is there anything in the Bible about Christians acting towards others now just as the Romans acted towards Christians then? Were they really supposed to be the role model for you guys?

Will I be fed to the lions soons, or is legislation forbidding us equal rights enough for you guys? Where does this go?

(and sonserae, there is not one disease on Earth affecting gay people that does not also affect straight people, AIDS included.)
posted by amberglow at 6:12 PM on November 5, 2004


Metafilter: they put their thingy where poop comes out.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:13 PM on November 5, 2004


Sonserae, you said it with your quote, "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Sounds like blaming to me.

And what's "natural" or not is debatable.
posted by doublehelix at 6:13 PM on November 5, 2004


This was a nice essay, digaman, thanks.

To be blunt, they put their thingy where poop comes out

Their "thingy"? Does your god dislike you saying "penis"?
posted by cmonkey at 6:14 PM on November 5, 2004


It is the letter TO THE ROMANS not BY the Romans.
Paul was preaching to the Romans to change their evil ways...it was the Romans who were killing the Christians.
AIDS started by someone having sex with a monkey....and it spread from there. If you don't believe me, do your homework. It's obvious that most people on this thread haven't done much reading.
posted by Sonserae at 6:14 PM on November 5, 2004


The fact is, there are diseases that only have been spread and incubated from either promiscuity or homosexuality or both

Actually, teh AIDS can be spread (and is spread) from blood transfusions, contaminated hypodermic needles, and (gasp!) regular vanilla sex.

But thanks for playing!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:15 PM on November 5, 2004


AIDS started by someone having sex with a monkey

Wow. Just... wow.

And here I thought it was created by the CIA to kills the blacks.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:16 PM on November 5, 2004


no, AIDS was started by buggering mosquitos...or something
posted by docpops at 6:18 PM on November 5, 2004


AIDS started by someone having sex with a monkey

father forgive her, for she knows not that she is dumb as a bag of hammers.
posted by glenwood at 6:20 PM on November 5, 2004


Oh come on! If AIDS is spread by mosquitos, half the country would have it.
posted by Sonserae at 6:20 PM on November 5, 2004


just the half that has anal sex with mosquitos. should you be concerned?
posted by docpops at 6:22 PM on November 5, 2004


glenwood....I challenge you to read about the history of AIDS. They can trace it's spread from a monkey in Africa. They said it spread from the monkey to humans because of unnatural relations with the monkey. My IQ is 140 thank you very much. I'm out of here....don't respond to me anymore...there's no use being on this thread anymore. Someday we will all know the truth.
posted by Sonserae at 6:23 PM on November 5, 2004


I interpreted aaronshaf's comment as "Let's agree to disagree." To me that's a sorely needed olive branch from the christian right.

Sonserae on the other hand... yikes. Let me ask you this: If Jesus wants gays dead, what is your responsibility as a soldier of God? And if the answer is what I fear, dear jeebus how many of you are out there?
posted by PrinceValium at 6:24 PM on November 5, 2004


Skipping past the derail, and various comments here that seem to me silly, I want to thank Matt for posting this, and send my heartiest felicitations to Steve and Keith. Best wishes for a long and joyous life together.

And this: "the happiness and soul-tempering challenge of matrimony" -- that comes from someone who truly groks what marriage is all about, the solace and the struggle. Again, thanks, guys, for sharing your joy. This is the sweetest and truest thing I've read all week.
posted by Kat Allison at 6:25 PM on November 5, 2004


it came from chimpanzees, which are apes not monkeys, first off; second, it was as likely to have been from eating chimp meat as it was from fucking them; and lots of straight people give each other sexually transmitted diseases all the time; nice girls get cervical cancer from it; in ye olden times, businessmen frequently brought brain-eating syphilis back from trips to their sweet, church-going wives; and if your IQ is 140, i'm a promiscious ape
posted by jengod at 6:29 PM on November 5, 2004


jesus christ - unnatural relations with a monkey? is that even possible? there are myriad examples of viral migration from animals to human hosts. Witness multiple influenza strains, HTLV in felines. To insinuate that AIDS was a by-product of monkey-sex greek-style would be laughable if it weren't coming on in such a sage manner. There are actually some pretty fascinating pathologic cases dating back decades that are reminiscient of HIV that were never diagnosed as such.

Regarding gay marriage, though, wouldn't it be a more effective containment policy to get them married, domesticated, and stuck behind a computer surfing porn after the family was in bed like the rest of us?
posted by docpops at 6:31 PM on November 5, 2004


To be blunt, they put their thingy
where poop comes out.


to be blunt, urine comes out of the guy thingy that we put in the girl thingy and then from the same thing as the pee comes the baby-making stuff! ewwwwwwww! and then the baby has to come out of that gross girl thingy and... just ewwwwwwwww!! EWWWWWWW! *vomits all over self*

The world wants to "normalize" something that is abhorred by God and is unnatural.

yeah, yeah. god told you this himself, not a book written by a bunch of silly humans. amazing that christians want me to worship their god when he is clearly a foaming-at-the-mouth bigot.
posted by bargle at 6:32 PM on November 5, 2004


Yeah! And if malaria were spread by mosquitos, half the country would have it, too!
posted by kenko at 6:32 PM on November 5, 2004


Sonserae, have you ever seen that research that indicates that most incompetent people actually have no idea that they're incompetent? Something to think about...
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:32 PM on November 5, 2004


what Kat said.
posted by docpops at 6:32 PM on November 5, 2004


What is with the recent "preaching" from aaron and now sonseria? I miss the election-filter...

I know, I know...I should take it to MeTa.
posted by Richat at 6:34 PM on November 5, 2004


"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:26,27


Dear friends: upon what context do you base your certainty that a) the actions alluded to above involve sexual acts and b) that these acts involve anal-gential or oral-genital sexual contact?

When I read them, they are clearly constructed in such a manner as to leave the subject of approbation up to the reader, and as such, pretty damn convenenient for the development of religious arguments against your flavor-of-the-moment pervert.

Men committed indecent acts with other men

This clearly, unquestionably describes the beheadings in Iraq. It also describes the slaughter about to be unleashed in Falluja. I'm of a mind to argue it describes the Diebold product development process, and strongly suspect it also refers to the US Congress.

Bring it.
posted by mwhybark at 6:37 PM on November 5, 2004


glenwood....I challenge you to read about the history of AIDS. They can trace it's spread from a monkey in Africa.

yep, reading, reading, reading. nope, no ape-fucking. every single thing i've ever read says that the origins of ape to human transmission probably lie in either consumption of the meat or vaccine experimentation.

My IQ is 140 thank you very much. I'm out of here....don't respond to me anymore...there's no use being on this thread anymore.

yes get back to curing cancer and developing alternate forms of infinite energy, you sagacious son of a bitch.
posted by glenwood at 6:41 PM on November 5, 2004


To return the the start of this discussion for just a moment...

Thanks Matt, and thanks Steve. I will admit that I wondered whether the great marriage binge of this year may have been too soon. Yet it gave me such joy to see all those happy couples. Thanks for reminding me that love, and the joy of love (which may be what God is) are the most important things in life.

Like tippiedog, I know most of my gay friends through the Methodist church in which my wife is active (I'm an occasional visiting agnostic). They are all middle-aged, or older, long-standing couples who help make up the backbone of that church community. Normal, church-basement types.

Honestly, the only time these folks ever give me the heebies is when they get a little too God-happy and evangelical for me. I'm sorry if I seem close-minded, but open displays of piety are too much for this fuddy-duddy.
posted by mmahaffie at 6:42 PM on November 5, 2004


Don't bother, Sonserae's shown his mature intelligent side and taken his ball and gone home.
posted by Jimbob at 6:42 PM on November 5, 2004


He's a she, dude.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:44 PM on November 5, 2004


AIDS started by someone having sex with a monkey


Seriously, sonserae, I really, REALLY want to know where you got that information. No kidding. I'm not trying to pile on here, I'm just trying to understand where such amazingly incorrect information originates.

I doubt I'll ever get an answer to that question, but while I wait...thanks for posting, Matt.
posted by 40 Watt at 6:54 PM on November 5, 2004


Great article, very well-written.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:54 PM on November 5, 2004


aaronshaf or sonserae, if either of you comes back (or maybe konolia if she wanders in), here's my questions, with no harsh words to cloud things:

1) Do you personally obey every behavioral rule listed in the Bible? (For discussion purposes, either the version of the Bible you keep at home or used in your Church.) If not, why is it okay for you to pick and choose, not counting instances where human frailty came into play? Also, I have to say mwhybark raises a very reasonable point about the ambiguity of the passage both of you cited as source of the Biblical rule against homosexuality, so perhaps you could also use this example to explain how you remove the ambiguity and arrive at such certainty.

2) Do you believe that because a behavioral rule is spelled out in the Bible that it should be the law of the land in the US? Because, honestly, if you say yes then that seems to violate the whole separation of Church and State we have. And if the answer is no, then why shouldn't homosexuals, for instance, have the right to a government recognized marriage?

To me, these are the basic questions that ought to be answered in straight, simple words whenever anyone uses a piece of religious literature to justify keeping, creating or changing any law in the US of A. Otherwise the discussion just goes around in circles as it has here every time this type of topic comes up.
posted by billsaysthis at 6:57 PM on November 5, 2004


Sonserae is apparently female, according to her profile. I thought I recognized the user name, though - didn't think she was one of those long time lurkers who shows up to say something insane and then disappears again. I feel like I've seen perfectly normal comments from this person. But this completely blows me away and if she ever comments on anything again, there's no way I'll be able to take it seriously. People are fucked up.

Lovely story, of course. Was there a version of it written when san fran was performing gay marriages for those few days? I think I read another piece that shared some of those details...
posted by mdn at 6:59 PM on November 5, 2004


How could HIV have crossed species? [source]

It has been known for a long time that certain viruses can pass from animals to humans, and this process is referred to as zoonosis.

The researchers concluded that HIV could have crossed over from chimpanzees as a result of a human killing a chimp and eating it for food.

Some other rather controversial theories have contended that HIV was transferred iatrogenically i.e. via medical experiments. One particularly well publicised theory is that polio vaccines played a role in the transfer.

The journalist Edward Hooper has suggested that HIV could be traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat as batches of the Chat vaccine may have been grown in chimp kidney cells in the Congo, the Wistar Institute and Belgium. That could have resulted in the contamination of the vaccine with chimp SIV, the simian version of HIV-1. This vaccine was then given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s.

However, in February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of this polio vaccination program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced3 that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee. A second analysis4 confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat.
posted by mosch at 7:00 PM on November 5, 2004


MeTa
posted by Richat at 7:00 PM on November 5, 2004


He's a she, dude.

I wonder what the bible says about sex changes.
posted by lasm at 7:02 PM on November 5, 2004


Great article. Thanks Steve and Matt!
posted by dobbs at 7:08 PM on November 5, 2004


It's obvious that most people on this thread haven't done much reading.

Ahahahahahaha...oh, wait, you're serious? Please tell me you were just trolling the ultimate troll.

Personally, I love how evangelical Christians forget that Jesus practiced (and preached) tolerance and love over everything else. Moving on...

Thanks, Matt, for posting digaman's essay. It's always wonderful to read a love story (at least for the haplessly romantic among us). Patience truly is a virtue, and kudos to everyone who has it in abundance.
posted by somethingotherthan at 7:09 PM on November 5, 2004


They can trace it's spread from a monkey in Africa. They said it spread from the monkey to humans because of unnatural relations with the monkey. My IQ is 140 thank you very much.

So...much...wrong...with...this...

Regarding the transmission of HIV from chimpanzees to humans: there are two competing theories, reviewed excellently by Hahn et al. ("AIDS as a Zoonosis: Scientific and Public Health Implication." Science. 287(5453):607-614 (2000).) The first and dominant theory is that humans came into contact with simian blood in the "bush meat" market; specifically, in the process of slaughtering chimpanzees. The other theory suggests that HIV was introduced into the human population during polio vaccine testing in the fifties: the vaccines were prepared, in part, from chimpanzee kidneys.

No reputable research has suggested that AIDS entered the human population as a result of "unnatural relations with a monkey", as the idea of a human having sexual relations (and, particularly, receptive anal sex) with a wild chimpanzee is manifestly absurd.

It's obvious that most people on this thread haven't done much reading.

Fuck you, you ignoramus.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:10 PM on November 5, 2004


Put those family values to good use.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:17 PM on November 5, 2004


Also, thanks Matt. That was really sweet.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:18 PM on November 5, 2004


I won't even comment, then, on the shitstorm where I work caused by a (very nice and rational) lesbian couple and a rabid fundy loony worker and also a rabid fundy looner worker supervisor over perfectly tasteful pictures of the couple at a shared desk.

I am SO glad I stopped being a supervisor...

(Best part is that lawyers and civil rights people have been contacted. Keeping standby popcorn in my desk...)
posted by Samizdata at 7:25 PM on November 5, 2004


I'm out of here....
posted by Sonserae at 2:23 AM GMT on November 6


I wish.


That's a way of avoiding the rebuttal of your inanities.

The mosy moving wedding I went to was the first Quaker gay wedding in England. I doubt Steve & John have more or less oral sex (y'know, putting pee-pee's where maybe Cheeto's normally go) than my brother & his wife. Plus, if I asked my bro' if his wife took it up the gary glitter, he'd tell me where to shove it.

Oh, wait..
posted by dash_slot- at 7:26 PM on November 5, 2004 [2 favorites]


I think MetaFilter just humped the shark!
posted by ericost at 7:30 PM on November 5, 2004 [1 favorite]


Someday we will all know the truth. ...when the aliens come down and bring the chosen few up to their magical spacecraft before the giant asteroid hits the planet. Am I getting warmer?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:40 PM on November 5, 2004


I challenge you to read about the history of AIDS. They can trace it's spread from a monkey in Africa. They said it spread from the monkey to humans because of unnatural relations with the monkey.

"Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do (or say, apparently)."
posted by psmealey at 7:51 PM on November 5, 2004


digaman, I'm deeply sorry that you've had to read such hatred in a thread which should have been all about our appreciation for the lovely piece which you wrote about your wedding. Mazel tov and all the best to you and Keith.
posted by jokeefe at 8:01 PM on November 5, 2004


WORD TO JOKEEFE's MOMMA
posted by glenwood at 8:02 PM on November 5, 2004


Thanks for posting this Matt. It's lovely. And congratulations, digaman, I hope you and Keith live happily ever after.

The bigotry and mindless intolerance and sheer meddling in other people's business this topic brings out in people makes my blood boil. Why do any of you care about who makes a legal contract with whom? What on Earth does it have to do with you? The fact that some Christians can hijack and pervert their own faith for their own nefarious purposes and act so completely in opposition to the teachings of their God (who talked a heck of a lot more, and more clearly, about love and acceptance than he ever did about teh gay) is hypocrisy in the extreme, and simply illustrates yet again that the problem isn't religion, but the intolerant xenophobes who use it as a justification for their evil. They don't have to approve of it, they can hate all they want (after all, that's what Jesus would do, isn't it?), but discrimination based on something as unimportant as the gender of who you love is wrong, and unjustifiable, and should not be acceptable to civilized people. And I'm not even touching the tinfoil-hat-brigade's ideas about HIV and "thingies", a 140 IQ doesn't seem to help much with ignorance. Sorry for the rant.
posted by biscotti at 8:14 PM on November 5, 2004


Honesty, I love to see someone *try* to have sex with a wild monkey...I mean, you should see what happens to me when I try to give one of my cats a pill, and they're domesticated animals! Add opposable thumbs into the mix and we're talking stitches at the very least. And trying to have sex with a something in the ape family? Let's hope that they would be able to find enough of you to send home to your mother.

Sonserae may well have an IQ of 140 but it's likely that her cognitive acumen has been tempered with Kuru or something in the Schizophrenia Spectrum.
posted by echolalia67 at 8:23 PM on November 5, 2004


Here's a thought: imagine a large-scale boycott of marriage (on the legal/state level) by straight couples. Let's in fact protect marriage, by not indulging ourselves in a crippled version of it... It seems to me like Steve here is really married, in the spirit of the thing, without the damn paperwork. Tax issues aside, power of attorney papers can be drafted in order to help achieve some parity for other marriage rights. This just occurred to me right now, so, please help out with constructive criticism.
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 8:26 PM on November 5, 2004


Here's a thought: imagine a large-scale boycott of marriage (on the legal/state level) by straight couples.

This was my policy until recently. I've never attended a wedding because it was illegal for gays to marry. I wonder if whites would "ban" or "boycott" marriage if it were illegal for non-whites to marry. I believe they would. I wonder why they don't for non-straights.
posted by dobbs at 8:32 PM on November 5, 2004


Well, perhaps, with a bit of organizing/thought, we could get the word out. Anyone interested in discussing this, email me (in my profile, i believe).
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 8:39 PM on November 5, 2004


congrats digaman, just don't pull out the photos. ;)
posted by jmgorman at 8:45 PM on November 5, 2004


I meant to bore us with. Not related to the work incident above. I'm going home now. Sorry.
posted by jmgorman at 8:47 PM on November 5, 2004


I thought I recognized the user name, though - didn't think she was one of those long time lurkers who shows up to say something insane and then disappears again.


Sadly, you were wrong

BTW, I'm not slagging her for hatin' on Michael Moore, just for pulling wild claims out of her "where poop comes out" place, without citing any creditable source.
posted by echolalia67 at 8:48 PM on November 5, 2004


In terms of my idea above, I just purchased reallyprotectmarriage.org
Anyone interested in jumping on board? Still a lot of conceptual work to do...
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 8:58 PM on November 5, 2004


I interpreted aaronshaf's comment as "Let's agree to disagree." To me that's a sorely needed olive branch from the christian right.

I doubt it. "Agree to disagree" would mean he's not going to marry a man, but you can if you want. The fundie vector is designed to spread much more efficiently than that.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:16 PM on November 5, 2004


aaronshaf is quite right: there is a clash of world views. The question is though, whose world views get to be privileged by the State? It isn't clear to me why Christians (or more accurately, certain Christian sects) should get state power to enforce their view over others - they can't even agree amongst themselves! And if I understand "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" correctly, even Christians acknowledge that their doctrine is for enforcement in a spiritual rather than a temporal way.

And a belated three cheers for Steve and Keith! (mentally hums "for they are jolly good fellows" in wedding reception mode).
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:39 PM on November 5, 2004


Did they put their thingys in the monkeys where the poop comes out?

Sorry, but this thread started out beautiful and then got me laughing so hard I couldn't stop. One of the things I love about MF. Where the hell do these people come from?
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 9:50 PM on November 5, 2004


digaman, I'm deeply sorry that you've had to read such hatred in a thread which should have been all about our appreciation for the lovely piece which you wrote about your wedding. Mazel tov and all the best to you and Keith.

And from me, the same.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:27 PM on November 5, 2004


Can we take up a collection to commission Jeff Stryker to write us a gay homosexual country song entitled "Put My Thingie Where the Poop Comes Out?"

put my thingie where the poop comes out,
when I hit your spot it's gonna make you shout...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:45 PM on November 5, 2004


Belated congratulations, Digaman!
Another illustration of "gay marriage run amok", in case you missed the column last month (with apologies to Judith Martin for the copy & paste):

Dear Miss Manners:

On only a few days' notice, I was married in February to a wonderful woman. Having not had time to properly invite friends and family to our nuptials, and since we already had been living together for 14 years, we didn't expect to receive gifts.

Nevertheless, we did receive many wonderful cards and calls of congratulations, and a few relatives did send us thoughtful gifts. Of course we promptly wrote them thank-you notes and telephoned them to show our sincere appreciation. Unfortunately, a decision by the California Supreme Court voided our marriage, along with the marriages of approximately 4,000 other same-gender couples.

What is the proper etiquette with respect to keeping or returning these special gifts now that the court has forced us to untie the knot?

Gentle Reader:

Wedding presents may be properly accepted during the couple's engagement, and need only be returned if they no longer wish to be married. You have, after all, met Miss Manners's basic and non-negotiable requirement: You wrote thank-you letters.
posted by obloquy at 10:45 PM on November 5, 2004


That was lovely. Now there's a married couple that will never have a fight over the toilet seat being left up.
posted by Devils Slide at 10:50 PM on November 5, 2004


Oh, and Sonserae, you are such a gormless twit. I doubt someone with a 140 IQ would not only work on Gigli, but also put it on their resume.
posted by Devils Slide at 11:00 PM on November 5, 2004


To be blunt, they put their thingy where poop comes out. The world wants to "normalize" something that is abhorred by God and is unnatural.

Ya know, there may be no such thing as a stupid question, but this is proof that there certainly are stupid statements. Are you four years old?!? "...they put their thingy where poop comes out"?!? This is almost too ridiculous for me to waste my time on, but that's never stopped me before . . .

First, a considerable number of heterosexuals enjoy "putting their thingies where poop comes out," as do a number of primate species -- but you, being an acknowledged authority on monkey-sex, probably already knew that. So much for the "natural law" argument you would no doubt have trotted out had you not skulked away once your ass-whooping commenced.

Second, homosexual behavior 2000 years ago was considered a direct rebellion against God for one of two reasons: it failed to produce offspring, or it was done in a context of ritual prostitution in the service of pagan gods or idols. As there was no knowledge of neurochemistry, hormones, or even the most basic psychological principles, it could not possibly have occurred to any gospel or epistle author then that same-sex relationships or behavior could be anything *but* rebellion against God (or punishment from God for engaging in idol worship/temple prostitution). We now, of course, know that is not the case, just as we now know that the stars are not holes poked in the dome over the earth allowing the glory of heaven to bleed through at night, and just as we now know that brain anomalies and neurotransmitter dysfunction causes seizures, not possession by demons.

There's more, but, since you said you wouldn't be back to read or respond, I would only be 1) preaching to the choir, so to speak, and 2) further mocking the logical, scientific, and theological absurdity of what you've already claimed.

In [platonic and heterosexual] love,

Father Bill, OSFL
posted by wdpeck at 11:02 PM on November 5, 2004


Hey digaman! Congrats! I'll play some Jerry in your honor tonight
posted by crunchburger at 11:04 PM on November 5, 2004


Thanks, folks! Keith and I went out to dinner to celebrate ten years of knowing one another tonight, and when I came back, I got excited that there were so many comments here. My gratitude to everyone who said things about the essay, and thanks again to Matt for the FPP.

As far as the "hatred" in this thread goes, it's just boilerplate, while I appreciate the good intentions of anyone who wants to save my soul, surely God is more imaginative than to choose as the special vessels of His good news those who act like Amway salesmen descending on a party. The author of the story of David and Jonathan knew a thing or two about human nature.
posted by digaman at 11:06 PM on November 5, 2004


Honesty, I love to see someone *try* to have sex with a wild monkey...I mean, you should see what happens to me when I try to give one of my cats a pill, and they're domesticated animals!

You didn't hear it from me but it helps if you drug them before you, uh, put your thingy where their poop comes out.
posted by euphorb at 11:15 PM on November 5, 2004


Ooooooooh, tenth anniversary (married or not)!

Multiple congrats on that one!

So many couples have a hard time sticking with it even that long.

In my mind, about the only thing that does denigrate marriage is when a couple just jumps in, figuring that an easy divorce is available if it gets too tedious....

Maybe, I'm rather old fashioned in some ways, but you need to be sure as possible before marriage, and to be prepared to work at it, to boot. Of course, that's maybe just me.

That's about my only beef with marriages of any kind.

Ceremony sounded wonderful. Most importantly, I hope it was what you two found meaningful and important.
posted by Samizdata at 12:15 AM on November 6, 2004


digiman: What a cute couple and wonderful wedding tale! I wish you much love throughout your lives together.

As to "sex with a monkey" thing, the first time I ran across it was in an interview David Duke. My Google-Fu is off, so I'm not finding anything substantial to support my memory of this.
posted by Orb at 12:28 AM on November 6, 2004


Congrats digaman. That was a beautiful essay. I must say that I have always been completely puzzled by the fear and anger so people have about this issue... I don't even really get the hysteria from the hard core religious right. "Thou shalt not kill" is right there in the Big 10, for example, yet a war on flimsy pretexts is perfectly okay. For many of these same people, capital punishment is okay. So I don't at all buy the "it should be outlawed because God doesn't like it" argument. These people obviously feel personally threatened and terrified by the idea of gay sex, and more so by the idea of gay love. It's odd... almost as if they believe that granting others the right to do it means they will be forced to do it themselves. I guess I'll never understand.

Regarding the monkey sex, I believe there have been some field tests that indicate if you get the monkey liquored up first, then give it something sparkly afterwards, your chances for success are greatly increased. However, "Psychology Today" has reported that sometimes a banana is just a banana, so remember, "no" means "no", even if it may sound like "Nghayyyyh", or "OOk-oook!!"

Let's try to be sensitive here, people!

posted by taz at 1:20 AM on November 6, 2004


... taking the words of one of my heros out of context ...

I just don't understand it
What makes our love a sin
How can it make that difference
If you and I are wearing that bloody, bloody ring
posted by seanyboy at 1:37 AM on November 6, 2004


Personally, I love how evangelical Christians forget that Jesus practiced (and preached) tolerance and love over everything else.

Oh really?

How about this:

Matthew 10:34-"Do not think that I cam e to bring peace onthe earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "

And this:

Matthew 7:13-14 " Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruchtion, and many are those who enter by it. for the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it."

and again:

Luke 12:4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more than they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into He; yes, I tell you , fear Him!
posted by konolia at 4:30 AM on November 6, 2004


*cast into Hell*
posted by konolia at 4:30 AM on November 6, 2004


It's ok to hate. One verse out of a thousand or so some dead guy on a stick says so!
posted by substrate at 4:47 AM on November 6, 2004


Don't miss my point, please. A lot of people talk about Jesus being tolerant, etc. but apparently they miss the fact He has another side to Himself.

It is one thing to disagree with what is stated in the Bible, another to mischaracterise what is contained therein.
posted by konolia at 5:13 AM on November 6, 2004


Yeah, konolia, I get it.

The Prince of Peace was talking poetically, analogously, creatively...but we better take him literally in this case 'cos that's what the Pastor says.

Sometimes, a sword really isnt a sword.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:35 AM on November 6, 2004


Yes, and most fundamentalist Christians spend a great deal of time doing that mischaracterization. They're a hi-lighter cult. That verse wasn't a message to his flock to go on a hating and killing spree. It was part of a warning, that if you blaspheme, if you reject God he'll kill you and deny you entry to heaven.
posted by substrate at 5:38 AM on November 6, 2004


taz said: Regarding the monkey sex, I believe there have been some field tests . . .

Go, taaa-az! Go, taaa-az! Go, taaa-az! Go, taaa-az!

*extends hands out as if holding onto waist-high bar*
*rotates hands in this position clockwise while simultaneously rotating hips counter-clockwise*
*wonders why people do this*

posted by mmahaffie at 5:43 AM on November 6, 2004



digiman: my belated congratulations. I hope you have many more years of happy union ahead.
It seems, then, that the "sword" that Jesus came to bring is symbolic of the division that will occur within families as a result of his mission. - David Rensberger is Professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. He has written extensively about the gospel and letters of John and on Christian spirituality.

We can interpret Jesus's sayings in almost whichever way we think, with supporting evidence and respectable scholars critiques. Noone alive has the exclusive inside info on what he meant, konolia. Corrupting his message to imply he would be a warrior is beneath most christian's integrity.

It's typical that you have failed again to see the opportunity to love, but promote division.

*wonders why people do this*
posted by dash_slot- at 6:09 AM on November 6, 2004


Congrats digaman and partner. I hope yours works far better mine did! ;)

I did see where you posted this in a thread recently. I also recall much of the same ignorance there. I wish no one ever had to feel what you must get frequently, that being the bigotry, be it blatant or implied. I don't understand what drives a person to what seems a feeling of superiority over another to the degree they'd rally to put a stop to the behaviors of what they don't agree with or understand. Where the fuck is the compassion? To you so-called Christians I beg you start behaving like Christ already. Geez...

Congrats again dig. Peace.
posted by LouReedsSon at 6:53 AM on November 6, 2004


by the way digaman, congrats, and all that nice stuff...I fear I have forgotten to say so in all my indignation.

echolalia67 made me laugh, loudly, sitting here. Thanks for that. I kinda needed it. Cheers.
posted by Richat at 7:06 AM on November 6, 2004


Has anoyone else noticed the obsession that conservative Chistians have with anal sex when talking about this issue? It seems like that when they look at homosexuality, all they see is buggery, when I'm willing to bet that there are quite a bit more heterosexual couples engaging in anal sex on a regular basis than homosexual couples.

Which highlights a basic difference of how these groups look at the issue. My relationships with men are as much about the fluttery feeling of joy I get touching his hand while eating out, or while flopping on the couch with a movie and a bowl of popcorn.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:12 AM on November 6, 2004


I'd just like to thank the gay marriage lobby for losing the democrats the election , honestly , i've never heard of a more stupid issue to get upset about in my life , i suggest we all sit down and have a read of the road to wigan pier.
How the needs of working class people have been hijacked by special interest groups is a tragedy.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:43 AM on November 6, 2004


You know what? The gay marriage lobby didn't put those amendments on the ballot...the Republicans did, so they could assure a base turnout of voters. So while you're blaming us for losing the election, please don't forget to include Rove et. al, including the dinkus in Ohio who forced the ballot issue -- "a thrice-married Cincinnati man who describes himself as a former pornography addict redeemed by Jesus, Burress has spent much of the last decade fighting gay rights. He was involved in getting Cincinnati to pass a 1994 amendment to its city charter, making it the only metropolis in the country to ban laws protecting gays and lesbians. He's also been active in trying to get Ohio hotels to stop offering pay-per-view porn."
posted by ltracey at 7:59 AM on November 6, 2004


Here's a thought: imagine a large-scale boycott of marriage (on the legal/state level) by straight couples.

We came close to this...honestly. My husband-to-be is a strict libertarian and he doesn't like the idea of the government sticking its nose in our private life. So we talked about just buying rings and calling each other husband and wife.

Bottom line-- I don't have medical insurance at the moment. So on our fifth anniversary Dave and I will legally join together in a civil ceremony. (And let me add: Thank Jeebus that marriage between an older woman/younger man or atheist/agnostic or Californian/North Carolinian is not outlawed...yet.

This piece of paper doesn't detract from our love for each other-- but it doesn't add anything either.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:23 AM on November 6, 2004


ltracey, these people will only be happy when they've made the external world a perfect reflection of the Hell on Earth that is their psychic reality.

They are clearly tormented, haunted by "impure" desires, implacable lusts, uncontrollable fantasies by which they are disgusted; and so they project both the fantasies and the disgust onto everything and everyone else.

And now, in their fear, they stand a very real chance of giving this sickness the force of law, as they have in Iran and Afghanistan and too many other places.

I'm not much given to fear, myself, but I know how this story ends, and it's not pretty. I think we all do, at some level, and the important part for all of us now is to face up to the reality of what's unfolding before us while there is still time to affect our own life chances.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:33 AM on November 6, 2004


sgt.serenity -- that's just what Karl Rove wants you to think. Thinking that gay people were the decisive factor in this election when the numbers don't support it will hand Bush and company the final victory over working people. Hitler was similarly effective at convincing working people that "special-interest groups" like the Jews were the source of their ills, and we know where that road went.

And yes, I read Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier last summer. Good book.
posted by digaman at 8:48 AM on November 6, 2004


Wow, konolia, do you really think Jesus would ever kick someone's ass? Seriously, I always pegged the guy as a pacifist. Like a Ghandi type.

Was I totally wrong? Did he go around defying "thou shall not kill" every once in a while?
posted by mathowie at 8:55 AM on November 6, 2004


Christians who kill... ahh we're about out of ideas on this planet aren't we? That's why I love guys like George Bush, or this guy Pat Robertson, this televangelist from the states, these are christians for stronger nuclear armament. Oh what a great deal of faith. 'Cos I know if Jesus were here, he'd probably have an uzi on him. Don't you think he would? "The prince of peace is back... but he's pissed off!" *gun shots* [...] "I'm back, I didn't tell you what kinda mood I'd be coming back in DID I FUCKERS!? "

/hicks
posted by longbaugh at 8:59 AM on November 6, 2004


I'd just like to thank the gay marriage lobby for losing the democrats the election , honestly , i've never heard of a more stupid issue to get upset about in my life , i suggest we all sit down and have a read of the road to wigan pier.
How the needs of working class people have been hijacked by special interest groups is a tragedy.


Yeah. Screw the civil rights of people who aren't me!

Actually, I agree with your last statement if special interest groups = religious right.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 9:01 AM on November 6, 2004


Hitler was similarly effective at convincing working people that "special-interest groups" like the Jews were the source of their ills, and we know where that road went.

Exactly. We always wonder why anyone was surprised at what was found in the camps upon their liberation, when, after all, Hitler had laid his intentions out for all to see as far back as the early 20's. Explicitly, in print.

And here we have Aaronshaf and Sonserae and konolia talking about swords and punishment and retribution and destruction. And we know, as of last Tuesday, that they represent a great many people who are now dominant in the life of our nation.

We'll have nobody to blame but ourselves if we don't learn the lesson history is trying to teach us.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:07 AM on November 6, 2004


"[O]ur nation" may not, of course, be yours, more's the joy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:08 AM on November 6, 2004


here we have Aaronshaf and Sonserae and konolia talking about swords and punishment and retribution and destruction

Yes, here we do, as well as Sonserae weighing in on "poop" and "thingies." And what had I written about? Geting married.

Imagine if a MeFier posted a link about a straight wedding ceremony and people immediately started up with chatter about "pussy" and "weiners" and posting paragraphs from the Koran. The fact that these posters do not even care about what's being talked about beyond the blink-tagged word "gay" is what makes being gay surreal sometimes. You're just living your humble, boring life, as Matt put it, and then the agenda-meisters start marching around you with megaphones.
posted by digaman at 9:26 AM on November 6, 2004


To be blunt, they put their thingy where poop comes out.

are you kidding me? that's unreal! no wonder so many people get divorced nowadays.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:34 AM on November 6, 2004


So Konolia does show up and, of course, completely ignores the point of my previous comment; guess I'm just not lucky enough to draw her wrath. Still, she makes my point for me by apparently stating that Christians are free to pick and choose whatever part of the Bible suits their needs and interests in any given situation. Mark me down as totally shocked.
posted by billsaysthis at 9:43 AM on November 6, 2004


You're just living your humble, boring life, as Matt put it, and then the agenda-meisters start marching around you with megaphones.

Yeah, digaman, this is why I don't think I'm being metaphoric when I call what Aaronshaf, Sonserae, et al. are living "mental illness." It's classically obsessional behavior, the idee fixe, and it's clinically diagnostic of being Not Entirely Well.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:54 AM on November 6, 2004


How the needs of working class people have been hijacked by special interest groups is a tragedy.

So, sgt. as far as that line goes, sp. int. = gay, it seems. Howa bout aiming your fire on the special interests that hijacked the party of fiscal responsibility and small gov't?

The glaring irrationality in your comment is that the needs of the working class are at odds with gay people. When you were last in a gay place (bar/club/sauna...whatever), how were you able to tell the working class gays from the aristocratic ones? What makes you think we working class gays do not want equality and justice for all?

I remember when we donated cash to the Miners Welfare Fund during the '84/'85 Strike, they didn't see our struggle as separate from theirs. That's because it ain't.

You're allowing the Republicans to frame the debate and divide the opposition. Karl Rove continues to chuckle.
posted by dash_slot- at 10:06 AM on November 6, 2004


Heartfelt congratulations Digaman. . . .it is hard to ignore all the shameful bigotry that is swirling around, even it it deinies that it is any such thing.

I just hope that it does not detract from such a joyous occasion for you and your partner.

And I have a feeling that Jesus would be first in the reception line with kisses for you both.
posted by Danf at 10:13 AM on November 6, 2004


You're allowing the Republicans to frame the debate and divide the opposition.

It's worse than that. These slyly worded anti-gay measures that passed in 11 states also have the unhappy consequence of legitimizing bigotry and hate speech, which is often followed by violence. I'm not going to bring up the "n" word or mention a cite examples in a certain European country in the early part of the 20th century, but this sort of thing has happened before, and it doesn't lead anywhere, that I pray any of us would want to go.
posted by psmealey at 10:15 AM on November 6, 2004


Yes, here we do, as well as Sonserae weighing in on "poop" and "thingies." And what had I written about? Geting married.

Yes, which feeds into what KirkJobSluder mentioned earlier. I'm not sure what this implies. That the anti-gay-marriage folks can't come up with anything more logical as an argument than their childish interest in, and dislike for, the (completely irrelevant) details of some people's sex lives (as pointed out by others, hardly exclusive to gay couples, not applicable to all gay couples and not at all applicable to lesbians, who don't have "thingies")? That the anti-gay-marriage folks think that the sum total of homosexual relationships is anal sex (or that what people do with their "thingies" is the only relevant part of a relationship)? I assume that most of the "anti" people think of their own, and other heterosexual, relationships as consisting of more than just what happens in the bedroom, why would they assume homosexual relationships are any different? I still haven't heard a single logical argument against gay marriage, and the refusal of those on the "anti" side to offer one, even when asked directly (as has happened over and over again), implies very strongly that there isn't one.

Again, nobody is asking konolia et al to approve of it, join in with it, bless it, or otherwise have anything whatsoever to do with it. The only thing most of us care about is that all people be afforded the same rights, and you'd better have a more logical and practical and compelling argument for denying people those rights in a supposed democracy than just "my god says so" (especially when others who ostensibly believe in the same god disagree completely that this is what he/she/it says) or vague infantilisms about "thingies" and "poop".

And I agree with adamgreenfield to an extent: I think prejudice is a mental illness.
posted by biscotti at 10:22 AM on November 6, 2004


A lot of people talk about Jesus being tolerant, etc. but apparently they miss the fact He has another side to Himself.

It is one thing to disagree with what is stated in the Bible, another to mischaracterise what is contained therein.


whoa, slow down with the "mischaracterise" thing.
actually, it's the Protestant fundys -- you know, the Old Testament fans -- who aren't totally innocent in this game. because, try to spin as hard as you can, but consider what's in the Gospels. Jesus' itinerancy for example: Jesus traveled with the marginalized and the outcast of Jewish society - something that greatly irked the fundys of the time. He touched -- and healed -- the unclean, something that greatly irked the, ahem, fundys of the time.
who's unclean for today's society's para-Mosaic standards, konnie? I'd say the HIV positive. isn't AIDS today's "lepra", so to speak, if we follow koiné?


quiz test, konnie: what's the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels?
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: The feeding of the 5,000

His doctrine of open commensality was a spit in the face of his time's social and political structure. and again, that went against the grain of the more strict Temple Jews.
yes, Mark's Jesus is definitely angrier than Luke's calm monk of a preacher, less gentle than Matthew's (let us not get into the Fourth Gospel's Christology cause we'd derail the thread). the most violent act commited by Jesus in the whole four canonical gospels is

15 Jesus tied some pieces of cord together to make a whip. Then he drove out all the people who were buying and selling in the temple. And he drove out the sheep and the cows. He threw down the tables of the money changers and their money.


and the cord and the whip are only present in John, the latest of the Four and the less historical

even in your neck of the woods, konolia, you "conservative" guys seem to be more enamored of the whole Ten Commandments thing -- but that's Moses, not Jesus. Jesus' thing is open commensality and forgiveness and repentance of sins and the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God -- the Son of Man on a cloud and all that stuff. it is the Sermon of the Mount, you know, and "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her". that's Jesus, and you cannot twist his message using some deuteropauline deus-ex-machina.

actually, when speaking of the fundys of his time, Jesus said stuff like "the blind leading the blind,” “whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

in the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas

102) And Jesus said: Woe to them, the Pharisees! For they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats, nor does he let the cattle eat.


do not sleep in the manger, and do not listen to false tv prophets. go and sin no more, connie
;)
posted by matteo at 10:26 AM on November 6, 2004


Congrats, digaman.

I'd like to put aaronshaf, sonserae and their ilk under sodium pentathol, take away their Bible and ask them how they could honestly ever deny this sentiment, coming from anyone, of any sexual preference:
"Our country was founded on the principle that certain truths and liberties are self-evident. If there's anything in life that's self-evident, it's love, particularly on a wedding day. When Keith and I said our vows, we weren't thinking of overturning laws and changing society. We were thinking of our families, our friends, and most of all, our love for one another -- a rare and precious thing between any two people."
I think prejudice is a mental illness.

As are all forms of hypereligiousity or hyperpartisanship, I'd wager.
posted by dhoyt at 10:29 AM on November 6, 2004


The Gay-Marriage Myth: Terrorism, Not Values, Drove Bush's Re-Election
posted by digaman at 10:30 AM on November 6, 2004


I think Diane McWhorter has good points, tho, digaman, in her "Morality is the new "race." It's a brand extension of the tried-and-true Southern Strategy.

The social theorist Daniel Bell has pointed out that Americans are an ideologically apathetic tribe; the "political issues" that connect with the electorate tend to be related to vice (preferably sex), from obscene books to Monica Lewinsky. Race and abortion, the perennial instruments of division, have a strong sexual subtext—abortion being an outcome of what red-staters might deem fornication; racism a response to the (perceived) black sexual predators. But the most vivid lessons about the twin mobilization of ideals and bigotry can be seen in the most cynical addition to the Southern strategy—the crusade against gay marriage.
posted by amberglow at 10:46 AM on November 6, 2004


Wow, konolia, do you really think Jesus would ever kick someone's ass? Seriously, I always pegged the guy as a pacifist. Like a Ghandi type.


Well, yes, I do. Revelation 19:11 says, in referring to Him:

"And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war."

There is a reason He is called BOTH the Lion and the Lamb.
posted by konolia at 11:13 AM on November 6, 2004


Matteo, much of what you say is true-and yet not germaine to the discussion on this thread. Go read Revelation and see what the Resurrected Jesus is like.

He IS kind to sinners. But He still tells them to go and sin no more.
posted by konolia at 11:15 AM on November 6, 2004


My relationships with men are as much about the fluttery feeling of joy I get touching his hand while eating out

That sounds a heck of a lot more pleasant than having my hair pulled.

/surprised no one said it yet.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:21 AM on November 6, 2004


"My personality would be described as a combination of Elaine from Seinfeld, and Sandra Bullock. I love the challenge of trying to make a shy, inhibited person step outside of the box and do something crazy and fun. "

For what it's worth, that's from Sonserae's web page. Funny.
posted by jon_kill at 11:22 AM on November 6, 2004


Connie - the Jesus of Revelations is not here yet. Whilst the apocalypse is yet to come do you think maybe we should all concentrate on the Lamb part?
posted by longbaugh at 11:23 AM on November 6, 2004



"And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war."


If this really was what Jesus was all about I wouldn't even raise Christianity above the respect level of a violence-inclined gang of thugs. Thankfully Jesus would be horrified at what was emphasized above.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:25 AM on November 6, 2004


He IS kind to sinners. But He still tells them to go and sin no more.

He told people, but he didn't try to change the laws of the country and empire? Hmmm...interesting.
posted by amberglow at 11:27 AM on November 6, 2004


He IS kind to sinners. But He still tells them to go and sin no more.

And he said Not.One.Word about homosexuals.

He didn't approve of divorce though, did he, konolia?

Go ahead and ignore this comment, as you do most of mine, but I'd love for you to try to address that one: Jesus thought that divorce was a serious matter, but gays not so much. How does that go down in your church?

posted by dash_slot- at 11:31 AM on November 6, 2004


jon_kill, thank you for that.
posted by digaman at 11:43 AM on November 6, 2004


Bible, my Bible, oh baby baby baby, you can be my baaaybayyyy toonite, im gonna strip off your leather cover, tickle your ribbon so red, im gonna whisper the naughtiest passage from Ecclesiastes right in your ear (and maybe throw in a little tongue honey, yeah, you know how we do)

oh baby baby baby, my sweet beautiful baby, Bible, ever since i met you, i dont ever want nobody else.

honey, ive found a reason to keep living, and you know that reason, its you -- now that i really understand why they call you holy, loving you is all i wanna do.

RESIST THE WORLDVIEW BITCHES
posted by Satapher at 11:48 AM on November 6, 2004


is it possible to have all my posts deleted? im feeling sick
posted by Satapher at 11:56 AM on November 6, 2004


Do you really think Jesus would ever kick someone's ass? Seriously, I always pegged the guy as a pacifist. Like a Ghandi type.

Well, yes, I do. Revelation 19:11 says, in referring to Him...


There have been countless volumes written over the centuries St. John's Revelation really means. It remains one of the most poorly understood books of the new testament. It is hotly contested by greater minds than my own or anyone else's here whether it was written to make sense of a particularly dark period in early Christian history, or it is a prophesy of an apocalyptic future, or means something altogether different. This the subject of much debate, and something we're not going to solve with the a few sentences tossed off (so to speak) in the Blue.

Besides, you don't have to go to Revelations to find examples of Jesus's non-pacifist behavior. He was pretty confrontational when it came to throwing the money changers out of the temple, and did not hide his bitter contempt for the pharisees and Jewish high priests of his day. But, it seems the target of his wrath was not judging the sinful (e.g.: Mary Magdalene), it was about exposing the idolatry of putting one's own interests or arrogance in subservience to worshipping God.
posted by psmealey at 11:59 AM on November 6, 2004


jesus was a happy man, and now hes dead. rinse repeat.
posted by Satapher at 12:02 PM on November 6, 2004


Wow. I could have said that better. I meant the idolatry of putting one's own interests before the Lord. Not in subservience to. Jeez louise... I need to take a writer's workshop or something.
posted by psmealey at 12:03 PM on November 6, 2004


matteo, awesome, thanks.

Konolia, surely Revelation is the most misunderstood and abused book of the New Testament. I'd take it as a hallucintory political allegory, rather than a reflection of the True Christ; for that, I'll stick to the Gospels. Any argument which relies on citations from the Book of Revelation loses any credibility, in my eyes.
posted by jokeefe at 12:04 PM on November 6, 2004


Holy shit. Satapher is off her meds.
posted by papercake at 12:11 PM on November 6, 2004


And... congrats digaman. I hope someday that yours won't be a story that won't need to be told, only because it's so commonplace. Peace.
posted by papercake at 12:13 PM on November 6, 2004


People, please! All this yelling is taking away my horny.
posted by naxosaxur at 12:15 PM on November 6, 2004


Hello, I'm back. Seems that most of you fell right into my little experiment. Although I started out quoting scriptures. I ended up coming up with some innane theory....Why you say? Because....My experiment was proven right. Throw something out there and see how the "tolerant" act. At no time did I personally attack anyone or anything. I talked about the acts themselves. Those who talked about their tolerance for everyone and everything called me every name in the book....from "f--- you" to son of a b-----" (I am a woman, by the way). Personal attack after personal attack came to me from the "tolerant".
My point is.....The "tolerant" are ONLY tolerant of people who agree with the same things they agree with. Jesus hated no one and either do I. He loved the sinner and hated the sin. I do too. I wish no ill -will on anyone...including homosexuals....I do not agree with homosexuality and do not believe it is right....but at no time have I ever said or done anything to homosexuals as I received on this thread. Look at yourselves really well oh tolerant ones. Thank you for being involved in my experiment....and I am smarter than you think....and that's no monkey business!!! HAHA!
posted by Sonserae at 12:40 PM on November 6, 2004


See Sonserae save face. Save face, Sonserae, save face.
posted by Satapher at 12:42 PM on November 6, 2004


If that was an experiment, what was your control sample?
posted by normy at 12:52 PM on November 6, 2004


*looks around, scratches self, goes back to bed*
posted by Kwantsar at 12:53 PM on November 6, 2004


LOL SONSERAE PWN3D METARFILTER LOL H4X!!!!111
posted by cmonkey at 12:56 PM on November 6, 2004


Yes, I am anti divorce too. I was not old enough at the time to fight it when divorce laws were liberalized.


The truth is, I would vote against gay marriage if it were on the ballot, but I am not up in Congress lobbying that way. I am more about reminding people that homosexual sex (among other things) is sin, and that people should realize that they are in desperate need of repenting and reconciling with God their Creator before He comes back and cleans house. If I was "tolerant" I would be contributing to the deception that such sins were really "ok" and that God didn't really mean it when He said some things were evil in HIs sight. Of course, people who hate are also in the category of people who desperately need to repent. Hate means to wish illl on someone; quite the contrary, I am warning of the wrath to come and wishing someone would listen before it is too late. But neither God nor I can force any of you to change your minds. But one day every single one of us will be called to account for our lives, the lives God gave us in order to serve and worship Him and not to live for ourselves.
posted by konolia at 1:00 PM on November 6, 2004


I'm waiting for Sonserae to say something along the lines of, "and besides! gays still have the right to marry, just not to each other!"

and when did anyone claim to be "tolerant" anyways?anyways, not that it matters, because you lied.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:07 PM on November 6, 2004


Do you really think Jesus would ever kick someone's ass? Seriously, I always pegged the guy as a pacifist. Like a Ghandi type.

Well, yes, I do. Revelation 19:11 says, in referring to Him: "And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war."

Oye. I can't resist mentioning to konolia that it's important to "differentiate between physical war against human enemies and spiritual warfare, which in the Christian faith is waged against spiritual enemies (Satan and his demons) and waged by prayer, worship and such." *

And Sonserae, girlfriend, you are not helping yourself now.
posted by taz at 1:07 PM on November 6, 2004


konolia: But neither God nor I can force any of you to change your minds.

Your god could really help the situation by giving even the slightest demonstration that it actually exists in reality. The fact that it doesn't is quite telling. Thus are the limits of being imaginary.
posted by jsonic at 1:11 PM on November 6, 2004


My experiment was proven right. Throw something out there and see how the "tolerant" act.

Quoth the Homer: "I'm prejudiced against all racists."
posted by Space Coyote at 1:12 PM on November 6, 2004


Honestly, by the standard we're holding aaronshaf etc. up to, isn't all religion a form of mental illness? If you, based on a feeling in your heart, decide there's a guy up in the sky who loves you etc. is it only mentally deficient if that results in morally objectionable beliefs, rather than productive ones?

In other words, if you have some esoteric religion that believes "in the day of the reckoning, the one with orange skin will curse the land," you're all fine, but if its brown skin, and you use that as an excuse for racism, you're crazy? Is irrational superstition (excuse me, "faith") totally healthy and well-adjusted until it has socially negative effects such as bigotry?
posted by abcde at 1:15 PM on November 6, 2004


Sonserae: Oh, please. Do take your superior airs and your attempts to provoke elsewhere. If you dress like an idiot, and act like an idiot, don't be surprised if people think you are an idiot. I've dealt with people using the 'experiment' defense before (an another MB, I might add) and it's utterly lame. Either have the courage of your convictions, or make your argument in a straightforward way.
posted by jokeefe at 1:18 PM on November 6, 2004


Jsonic:

"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet."

Relevant passage, Matthew 12:38-42. The context is that the Pharisees just asked Jesus to prove to them He was who He said He was.
posted by konolia at 1:19 PM on November 6, 2004


Honestly, by the standard we're holding aaronshaf etc. up to, isn't all religion a form of mental illness?

not really, because believing in big invisible dudes is socially acceptable. in fact, I've found that many people like me less and/or treat me differently upon learning that I'm an atheist. I've even certain traits of my character attributed to the fact that I'm not in touch with a big invisible dude.

I guess on that note, I'm the one with the mental illness? I don't believe in big invisible dudes...what's wrong with me? I need a v-chip and some chick tracts pronto!
posted by mcsweetie at 1:26 PM on November 6, 2004


dress like an idiot

MEOW! HISS! HISS!
posted by quonsar at 1:30 PM on November 6, 2004


god does not speak a language. it would make him terribly fallible.
posted by Satapher at 1:35 PM on November 6, 2004


no prob, digaman, assuming you're serious. I can't tell what's what in this place anymore.
posted by jon_kill at 1:48 PM on November 6, 2004


konolia:
You don't find it suspicious that a book that makes superstitious claims also maligns those who seek even the slightest verification as 'evil and adulterous'. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I suppose.
posted by jsonic at 1:51 PM on November 6, 2004


Well, yes, I do think it comes down to a difference in world views, and differences in interpretation of the Bible within world views. There are a few things I would like to note.

First of all, Paul dramatically redefines marriage and sexuality in a way that was fundamentally incompatible with previous Judaic teaching. In pre-Chistian Judaism, sexual activity is defined as strongly good for the preservation of the people of Moses and Abraham. The sin of Onan had nothing to do with masturbation, instead, it was about Onan's refusal to be a surrogate for his brother's family line, (which is primarily important because we are talking about the claimed line of David, and therefore, the claimed line of Jesus.) In fact, it was not until the Enlightemnent that the interpretation of Onan as sinful because of masturbation became dominant.

With Paul there is a seismic shift in that in the same letters where Paul condems homosexuality, Paul condemns all forms of sexuality. Where before, sex within marriage was an expectation (which is a big reason why the continued viginity of Mary is wacked), Paul says that sex within marriage is only slightly less grevious than sex without. The early orthodox church maintained this tradition by conferring sainthood only on married couples that had taken a vow of chastity. So focusing on who sticks what into what strikes me as a pretty bad interpretation of how sexuality is described in the New Testament.

Now of course, I'm not a Chistian so this is pretty much academic. What is not academic to me is the First Amendment to the constitution which states plain and clear: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free practice..."

We can quibble all we like about biblical interpretation, but I'm inclined to think that no law means no law. The bottom line is that some congregations recognize gay unions. Some congregations choose to call it marriage. Without a constitutional amendment that changes the first amendment from no law to something else, people are just going to have to deal with different opinions regarding existing gay marriages.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:57 PM on November 6, 2004


I was being, like, metaphorical, q.

I meant 'dressing' as in how you express yourself.

How's the fish?
posted by jokeefe at 1:58 PM on November 6, 2004


konnie, first of all it is quite unusual that, against four (or five, if we include the sayings in Thomas) Gospels you end up running to Revelation, the only -- I repeat, only -- prophetic book in the entire New Testament, a book that has historically been a quarter of an inch of being cut off off the New Testament because of the very, very unclear writing and the massive potential for abuse.

academically, the historical-critical approach in the analysis of the book seem to be the mainstream one -- I'll also ingore, for your sake, the painful fact that in the entire Christian tradition only fundamentalist Protestants still seem to take seriously what amounts to an interesting example of Jewish Apocalyptic literature -- if you will, an interesting revenge fantasy of an extremely pissed-off oppressed Jew -- after all, if Romans had annihilated my Temple without God moving a finger, I'd be mightily pissed off, too

invoking Revelation, konnie, when you're losing an argument with people who quote the actual Gospels, seems to be a little of desperate measure. after all, Revelation's writer (late 90's CE, do we at least agree on that?) seems strangely -- and blissfully -- unaware of sayings traditions and events plotted out in the Gospel narratives. this is strange especially if -- as I am afraid -- you take the approach (taken by a VERY small minority in Academia) of "Gospels-as-eyewitness accounts" (debunked out of chronology and other reasons by a majority of researchers -- many of them actual priests whose books have official nihil obstat like Raymond E. Brown). if the (let's say for the sake of the argument) historical, living Jesus' words don't agree with you you end up quoting Revelation? a vision that seems to ignore all traditions about the actual Jesus and is only concerned about what Jesus would possibly do sometime in the future? (also remember that time is circular in Revelation, one can hardly be sure of anything there)

that's desperate measures.

konnie, suppose we're discussing Bush. I quote Bush's website and, to try to prove me wrong, you quote a dream. a dream that somebody who has proven to know zero about Bush has had about what Bush will do in the future.

that'd be pretty lame huh?

I'll be happy to discuss with you Matthew 12:38, too, but then we'd really derail the thread
posted by matteo at 2:01 PM on November 6, 2004


Re Satapher: "The rules of grammar are mere human statutes, which is when he speaks out of the possessed the Devil himself speaks bad Latin." (my man Georg Lichtenberg)
posted by kenko at 2:04 PM on November 6, 2004


I know two fine men -- better men than I can ever hope to be, and certainly better Christians than I am -- who've shared a life together here in South Carolina for over a decade and fervently wish that one day I could be at their wedding, too. I grieve for a nation whose politicians (as opposed to statesmen) seem to think this sort of public statement of devotion is somehow destructive to "family values" when in fact they only affirm them.

And...if you can't have "bridesmaids" you can certainly have "attendants," can't you?
posted by alumshubby at 2:11 PM on November 6, 2004


"The "tolerant" are ONLY tolerant of people who agree with the same things they agree with."

Haha... I don't think you don't get it.

I would like to think most of us are tolerant of other tolerant people. So, do you want homosexuals to have the exact same rights as us or not?
posted by Keyser Soze at 2:18 PM on November 6, 2004


[semi on-topic]
Wrestling with God and Men by Rabbi Steve Greenberg is a must read for anyone interested in homosexuality in religion. Specifically has to do with Judaism. He is the first orthodox gay rabbi featured in the film Trembling Before G-D (disclosure was a production assistant on the film). The book is really well written and really examines the texts involved.
posted by terrortubby at 2:33 PM on November 6, 2004


That should be openly gay.
posted by terrortubby at 2:34 PM on November 6, 2004


Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal
(from the annals of cute email forwards)
posted by rafter at 2:40 PM on November 6, 2004


That movie was great terrortubby - good job assisting.

It's so strange to me that people taunt each other with jeers of god's gonna get you.
posted by goneill at 2:42 PM on November 6, 2004


(except for the lack of bridesmaids)

Well, see...there's the problem. You can't alienate the people who make chartreuse gowns for all occasions. That's a powerful lobby...the seamstresses.

Digaman, congrats and thanks.

It's obvious that most people on this thread haven't done much reading.

Mmmm, you know what I'm reading? Leviticus.

So, how many unblemished critters have you sacrificed, flayed and bloodied in the temple? None? Wow, your god must be really annoyed...but let's move on, shall we? How are your eating habits? Staying away from the pork and the shellfish? Never touched a packet of bacon?

Oooh, if you're a girl, you know that you're unclean for a week after giving birth to a boy...and two weeks for a girl. (After all, your god doesn't much care for girls.) Oh, that menstrual thing? UNCLEAN! You filthy, bad, bad girl with the sins of Eve dripping from between your thighs. And don't forget, everything you touch, everywhere you sit and everything you wear is also unclean. You wicked, wicked female.

Speaking of clothes...I hope you're not wearing any blends...as that's forbidden you know. So are tattoos and pierced ears.

Been putting all the local adulterers to death, have you? Also slated for death; people who swear at their parents, people who sleep around, gay folks, swingers, furries, preacher's daughters who have premarital sex, and anyone who happened to walk in on a family member in the shower.

And I certainly hope you and your partner were virgins when you married. Else you're damned. Widows and other non-virgin types are profane and to be avoided, doncha know.

I hope your eyesight is perfect...you know it's against god's code to approach the alter with a defect in sight.

Keeping Passover, are ya? Ooooh, and slaves! The bible says you can have as many as you want, as long as they come from neighboring nations. Look out Canada!

Oh, yeah...there was also this little thing about not judging other people, (25:17 Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God.) because that was god's job...but since you feel comfortable picking and choosing which bits of the bible to follow, I'm sure you can just ignore that bit.
posted by dejah420 at 2:51 PM on November 6, 2004


jon_kill, I was serious. It was nice to see Sonserae's human side.

And Sonserae, how does these sound to you?

"I wish no ill-will on anyone...including blacks....I do not agree with blackness and do not believe it is right."

"I wish no ill-will on anyone...including left-handed people....I do not agree with left-handedness and do not believe it is right."

"I wish no ill-will on anyone...including white folks....I do not agree with Caucasianess and do not believe it is right."
posted by digaman at 3:03 PM on November 6, 2004


(Following up on what dejah said, a letter to Dr. Laura.)
posted by rafter at 3:05 PM on November 6, 2004


Hey, digiman, I grew up lefthanded back in the days when a lot of educators thought it was bad for you and they tried to force you to write with your right hand. Sound familiar?
posted by wendell at 3:21 PM on November 6, 2004


It sure does.
posted by digaman at 3:23 PM on November 6, 2004


So far all most of you have been able to prove is a misunderstanding of Scripture.

If Matt wants to set up a page and let me hold court there we can have a Bible class and take it all one red heifer at a time. But I cannot take the totality of what I have learned from over 20 years of being a Christian plus the stuff I learned in Bible college and distill it down to fit this thread, particularly since I have to leave in 15 minutes to go to a prayer meeting.

The Bible is a very intricate book and even those weird parts have a purpose and a meaning that fits into the whole. Like a very artistic fancy puzzle that uses words and symbols instead of pieces. The main teachings are so clear a child could grasp it, but there is so much more...it's incredible.

Yep, even Leviticus.
posted by konolia at 3:35 PM on November 6, 2004


To *you*. In *your interpretation*. According to what *you were taught*.

If you appended those phrases to everything you said, we wouldn't have a problem.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:37 PM on November 6, 2004


Wow, Konolia just managed to stretch out "I HAVE A 140 IQ AND I DOUBT ANY OF YOU HAVE DONE MUCH READING" into a whole paragraph.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:42 PM on November 6, 2004


I'm really getting sick of the word 'unnatural', especially in this context. If the human body is capable of a certain action, then the action is natural. "Unnatural" should be limited to a description of imaginary actions which cannot be duplicated in the real world. For example, most of the miracles in the Bible would be 'unnatural' because they cannot be duplicated. For me to make a slam dunk on a regulation hoop would be deeply unnatural. No matter how hard I try, its just not going to happen.

For those of you who believe in a creator, why not marvel in the fact that humans are nearly infinitely creative when it comes to sexual pleasure. I would think that would be a strength of your design and not something to be feared.

I don't blame you if a particular sexual act fills you with fear or disgust or amusement. I personally can't stand the idea of water sports, infantalism, or furries. But why elevate your disgust to the level of celestial and government approval? Since it doesn't hurt me personally to have grown men who want to dress in diapers, I couldn't imagine a law against it. I couldn't imagine a creator sending someone to hell for that.
posted by pandaharma at 3:45 PM on November 6, 2004


People almost exclusively use the bible (and other religious works) to justify their own prejudices and beliefs. You can argue with them all the live long day, but you are not going to get anywhere. The beauty of using a millenium old, 750,00+ word, often nebulous, spiritual document to justify your world view is that you can get it to justify anything that you want, then discard reason and accountability on the grounds of "faith." Oh, and you can also write off anyone who disagrees with your interpretation, since they're obviously not as spiritually blessed as you are.

Just saying.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 3:47 PM on November 6, 2004


Whoops -- or your opponents "misunderstand Scripture."

Tomato, tomahto.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 3:50 PM on November 6, 2004


At no time did I personally attack anyone or anything.

I always wondered if "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" was STDs like AIDS...

Wait, aren't you heavily implying that AIDS was a curse from God for deviant homosexuals? I've talked with people who lived through the peak of the American AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. (It was slightly before my time.) Many people had to watch friends, family, and other loved ones slowly waste away from a horrible disease that no one understood and the government didn't seem to care about. Many people saw this happen not once, but again and again. Can you imagine what that would be like? Can you imagine the horror, the frustration, the fear that people, straight and gay, experienced?

And now can you still say, "You people deserved that -- and worse -- but nothing personal?"
posted by jess at 3:52 PM on November 6, 2004


Oh, and congrats, digaman. :)
posted by jess at 3:54 PM on November 6, 2004


I cannot take the totality of what I have learned from over 20 years of being a Christian plus the stuff I learned in Bible college and distill it down to fit this thread . . .

Gosh, I'm so glad you went to "Bible college" so that you can explain it to us sometime.

See, because I'm just an ordinary guy who went to "regular college," I have to resort to "reading books," "applying critical reasoning," and "traveling and interacting with other cultures" to help me understand these kind of difficult, big-picture concepts. I can't wait for you to get back from that prayer meeting!
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 4:02 PM on November 6, 2004


jesus just told me to show you my pee pee.

*drops pants, fish flops about on floor*
posted by quonsar at 4:11 PM on November 6, 2004


and take it all one red heifer at a time

it's more one red herring at a time, konnie. please take the time you need to respond after your prayer meeting. this thread's going to stay open for 30 days.

but really, that end-of-days-through-bovine-birth thing is just... zany. it's only a handful of the most extreme Orthodox Jews and one fundy Texas rancher who still buy that thing... Numbers? is that the best you can do?

geopolitically, you're also playing with fire there.

anyway, for the less bovinely-inclined here's a little explanation of the red heifer situation:

Portent in a Pasture?
Heifer's appearance in Israel stirs hopes, apocalyptic fears
by Etan Bronner, Globe staff
Boston Globe, Sunday, April 6, 1997
Kfar Hasidim, Israel—She stares out at the world through dewy eyes, stumbling on awkward legs, dipping into her trough with abandon, oblivious to the soaring hopes and apocalyptic fears that have spread with the news of her birth.
Watched over by an armed guard in a skullcap and visited by rabbis and other seekers of meaning, this rust-colored six-month-old heifer is hailed as a sign of the coming of the Messiah, and decried as a walking atom bomb.
Of a variety believed extinct for centuries, the red heifer is seen by some as the missing link needed for religious Jews to rebuild their ancient Temple in Jerusalem. Sacrificing the animal in its third year and using its ashes in a purification rite will allow Jews to return 2000 years later to the Temple site, a spot holy to both Jews and Muslims.
With tensions already high over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to build a Jewish neighborhood in the section of Jerusalem Palestinians consider theirs, many fear that the calf's arrival could create an explosive situation.
"The cow represents a risk of massive religious war," said Avraham Poraz, member of Parliament from the leftist Meretz Party. "If fanatics get a hold of it and try to take over the Temple Mount, God knows what will happen. It only takes a few crazies to endanger all our lives."
In terms of historic gravity, some draw a loose analogy with Dolly, the cloned Scottish sheep. But if Dolly stands on a frontier of science, the calf of Kfar Hasidim harks back to the most ancient tribal ritual.
Born to a black-and-white mother and a brown father on a northern Israeli farm run by a religious high school for troubled and orphaned students, the calf was brought to the attention of Rabbi Shmaria Shore shortly after its birth.
Shore, a native of Providence, said he had his doubts and, after checking with ancient texts, invited a number of rabbis from Jerusalem to come to give their views. They did so several weeks ago and quickly spread the word something truly miraculous seems to have occurred.
To understand the significance of the heifer requires knowledge of long-abandoned practices in the extinct Temple as well as a grasp of the place the Temple holds in religious Jews' collective unconscious.
For strictly orthodox Jews, the Temple stands for the Jewish people's direct link to God, its place as His chosen people. Built by King Solomon about 950 B.C. and destroyed and rebuilt and expanded over succeeding centuries until its final destruction by Romans in 70 A.D., the Temple was the center of Jewish life where daily animal sacrifices were overseen by priestly classes of Levites and Cohens.
...
This has caused concern not only because few Jews wish to return to the animal sacrifices and priestly classes, but because the site of the Temple has been occupied by the third-holiest shrine in Islam, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
...

posted by matteo at 4:13 PM on November 6, 2004


I don't really care about having Bible study here (not that this should stop anyone), that's not something I'm interested in, nor do I feel it's relevant to this discussion since America is (supposed to be) a democracy, not a theocracy. What I'd like is for konolia (or anyone else for that matter) to please give me a logical argument against gay marriage. I don't care what you feel personally, that's entirely your business, what I want to know is how it affects you at all and why it should therefore be illegal.
posted by biscotti at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2004


Look everyone, sensero is not going to learn anything by this thread. She is closed minded to any differentiating opinion, and its obvious her entire post life here is one little experiment. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. (Did I mention she has an IQ of 140? You saw that right? 140?)
posted by Keyser Soze at 5:35 PM on November 6, 2004


"
jesus just told me to show you my pee pee.

*drops pants, fish flops about on floor*"

Troutfishing
posted by Keyser Soze at 5:37 PM on November 6, 2004


Red Heifer: Um, if it was supposed to be sacrificed in the 3rd year, that would have been 2k, yes? Does anyone know if that actually happened? Isn't that about the time that Sharon and crowd wandered onto Muslim holy ground and the Intifada started up again?

I need follow up here Matteo. Darn it man, you're a journalist...get me the scoop. ;)


See, because I'm just an ordinary guy who went to "regular college," I have to resort to "reading books," "applying critical reasoning," and "traveling and interacting with other cultures" to help me understand these kind of difficult, big-picture concepts. _sirmissalot_

Yeah, me too. Silly of me, I guess to spend all those years studying philosophy, ethics and theology when I could have just had an evangelical tell me the "truth". Think of all the money I would have saved. Silly me and my empirical self.

Troutfishing

Wouldn't it be TrouserFishing? A distant relative of the TrouserSnaking rituals of the aboriginal fraternity sects?
posted by dejah420 at 6:25 PM on November 6, 2004


Congrats digaman.

Thanks Matt.

Can I say "I told you so" about these damned fundys? :)

Naah!! Wouldn't be prudent.
posted by nofundy at 6:58 PM on November 6, 2004


I thought the Ten Commandments were of utmost importance to Christians-- they want them engraved everywhere for goodness sakes.

Last time I checked, there wasn't anything about homosexual behavior. There is stuff about not coveting (a thought crime apparently,) keeping the Sabbath holy, honoring your mother and father, and not committing adultery. So where is the demand for constitutional amendments to outlaw adultery? Where is the outrage that some people are not honoring their parents (whatever that means)? I thought God laid it all pretty clearly-- He doesn't like killing, swearing, or stealing. He could have easily slipped in something about how homosexuality is abhorrent, but He didn't. Why do you think that is?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:05 PM on November 6, 2004


I don't care what you feel personally, that's entirely your business, what I want to know is how it affects you at all and why it should therefore be illegal.

I think it's one of those "nobody stopped the bad kids from misbehaving so the whole class gets detention" things.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:55 PM on November 6, 2004


.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:26 PM on November 6, 2004


Like a very artistic fancy puzzle that uses words and symbols instead of pieces.

Yeah, because of course it wouldn't serve God's purpose to be unambiguous and straightforward...
posted by rushmc at 9:17 PM on November 6, 2004


May you and Steve have a long happy lifetime together, digaman! Congratulations and best wishes.
posted by lia at 10:04 PM on November 6, 2004


Thanks so much, lia.
posted by digaman at 1:10 AM on November 7, 2004


He could have easily slipped in something about how homosexuality is abhorrent, but He didn't. Why do you think that is?

Makes me wonder what's in the Bibles some of these other folks are reading . . .

"XI. Thou shalt not put thy thingy where poop comes out, for it is icky in my sight; nor shalt man lay with a monkey as with a woman, for it is just mighty improbable."
posted by wdpeck at 1:23 AM on November 7, 2004


BTW, digiman, may God continue to bless and pour out love upon you and Steve in your life together!
posted by wdpeck at 1:25 AM on November 7, 2004


Say, after y'all slaughter that there heifer, ya'll mind if'n I grab a haunch?

Seein' as ya'll are out of monkeys? They ain't no good for eatin' after ya'll committed abominations wif 'em...
posted by Samizdata at 1:35 AM on November 7, 2004


But neither God nor I can force any of you to change your minds.

Wait, God doesn't have the power to change your mind? I thought he was all-powerful?

Maybe he has the power, but chooses not to use it.

Maybe there's a lesson in there for you, too.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:23 AM on November 7, 2004


You know, a very wise man once said:

"You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
It's part of nature too"
posted by JoanArkham at 6:15 AM on November 7, 2004


digaman, loved your story, and you guys look radiatingly happy in the shot. Heres to (I'm toasting yas with a cup of joe here) your ten years past and many many many years ahead. Heartfelt congrats to you both! for they are jolly good fellas..for they are jolly good fellas...HmmHmm
posted by dabitch at 6:26 AM on November 7, 2004


PS: that "marching around you with megaphones" comment had me laughing out loud. Touche!
posted by dabitch at 6:28 AM on November 7, 2004


But I cannot take the totality of what I have learned from over 20 years of being a Christian plus the stuff I learned in Bible college and distill it down to fit this thread, particularly since I have to leave in 15 minutes to go to a prayer meeting.

if I had invested that much of my life into something, I too would probably cling tenaciously to it like stimpy to toastman's buttocks regardless of that thing's defensibility.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:25 AM on November 7, 2004


The scariest thing, IMO, is how well Paul managed to subvert Christianity. It is enough to make one consider the possibility of their being a Satan after all.

In the context of the whole Jewish/Christian religion, we have God sending down his own Son to lead the people on the path of righteousness. Satan must necessarily get to work destroying God's plan, for if it succeeds, people will all become Christ-like in their behaviour and worldview.

So what does Satan do? He plants a mole in Christ's entourage. Christ, being either naive as a human or confident as a god, takes this mole as a disciple, perhaps figuring to convert him to the good side.

Unfortunately, He fails. The mole remains evil, and goes on to overthrow Christ's new ministry as it tries to get established during the formative years. It comes down to a fight between God-inspired, but still human, good disciples, and the renegade bad disciple. The bad disciple -- Paul, if you haven't figured it out by now -- wins: his church structure and his writings become the foundation of the new church.

When you compare Paul's writings with Jesus' actions and teachings, they're in stark contrast to one another. Christ was all about love, charity, compassion, and looking inside oneself. Paul is all about repression, condemnation, and an outward focus on converting others.

Christ converted people by instructing them to look inward and improve themselves, the inevitable result of which must necessarily be to live a Christ-like life, the focus of which is not life-after-death, but to live a good life now.

Paul converted people by instructing them to preach damnation, subservience to the church, and to convert as many people as possible. The inevitable result of which is growth of the church, but not necessarily a Christ-like life (as one can always repent at a later date in order to be forgiven), and a focus of life-after-death, not the now.

As Satanistic plans go, it is brilliant. It subverts the life and teachings of Christ most subtlely, and utterly destroys His work.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 AM on November 7, 2004


Also:

Christ did not try to prevent people
from choosing their path in life;
he did not try
to change civil laws;
he did not push his religious beliefs on others.

posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 AM on November 7, 2004


...aka “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:18 AM on November 7, 2004


Bible College = Sunday School

To call it college is laughable...
posted by BobFrapples at 11:25 AM on November 7, 2004


Im sure all the chaps in the saunas and bathhouses will be able to put forward a wonderful case for gay marriage.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:02 PM on November 7, 2004


They might start by mentioning that, if you're really so concerned about promiscuity, banning marriage doesn't seem like a very promising approach.

Sgt. Serenity, you really need to consult your higher power on this issue, because it's your lower power who's doing the talking on this.
posted by digaman at 1:06 PM on November 7, 2004


Im sure all the chaps in the saunas and bathhouses will be able to put forward a wonderful case for gay marriage.

I'm sure it's just as good as all the married straight guys I saw last week drinking shots from between some girl's tits on Bourbon Street.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:17 PM on November 7, 2004


Well, now, Bob, there really are degree-issuing theological seminaries and institutions of that sort. Y'know, with standards. (I couldn't hold a candle to yr garden-variety Jesuit in the logic department, to be sure.)

But you're right, I somehow doubt konolia's alma mater is of that ilk.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:52 PM on November 7, 2004


If Matt wants to set up a page and let me hold court there we can have a Bible class and take it all one red heifer at a time.

Because, of course, konolia's the only Christian on Metafilter, or the only one whose opinion matters.

Hmph. I'm a Christian, but I don't think I'm a bigot.
posted by Vidiot at 4:09 PM on November 7, 2004


I've met you and I'll vouch for that. In fact, hey, surprise, I have enormous respect for people who actually do try to live the Gospels, which would be a reasonable percentage of the professed Christians I've ever met. It's the konolias and aaronshafs who give them a bad name.

I seriously don't think konolia's Bible College teaches "moral theology, a rigorous philosophical pursuit that hardly exists outside the Catholic Church and its elite universities." I can tell from the things she says and the way she says them both.

(The first and almost certainly the last time I'll ever quote The Register approvingly, but it was a nice turn of phrase and it resonated so well with my previous comment.)
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:16 PM on November 7, 2004


Thanks -- and yeah, I get really tired of self-professed Christians who believe that a.) what they believe happens to be the One True Path; that b.) anyone who disagrees with them about anything is wrong and/or a hopeless sinner and/or not a good Christian; that c.) can't acknowledge that people who interpret the Bible differently than they do can still be moral people; d.) attempt to use their religious beliefs to justify their smug superiority; and e.) that attempt to use the Bible more as a battering ram of threats, force, and hate, rather than a message of redemption, forgiveness, and love.


(Oh yes, and I'd agree that the people described above are a minority of Christians. But they're the ones making the most noise lately.)
posted by Vidiot at 4:32 PM on November 7, 2004


Vidiot - I've just seen your last post. The thing is, with people of faith, they have to think that they've found One True Path, as you quite accurately describe it...otherwise, they'd believe something else.

Then that would be the One True Path...hence the evolution of religion. Mel Gibson still thinks we have to have Mass in a dead language...oh, I'm sure we can all find examples, they abound.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:52 AM on November 15, 2004


« Older Saturn's enigmatic moon Titan holds on to its myst...  |  EVIL/LIVE... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments