PeterDavid.net

The term is "civil unions," not civil marriage, which is something most married people should aspire to have.

While having most of the same legal ramafications of actual marriage, unions are different. I believe that Dean has said that while he is proud of singing civil unions, he is still opposed to gay marriage in principle.

Marriage is still a social and religious institution as much as a legal one, so that could explain the uneasiness that the 70% of Americans (including myself) feel towards gay marriage.

I myself have nothing against gay people in general or in particular. I have gone to school with several out gay people, and have counted some as very close friends. My religious beliefs, however, prevent me from fully accepting such a lifestyle as "correct." At the risk of being flamed (I swear that is not a pun), I believe that the Bible pretty clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. That being said, Jesus teaches us to love, forgive, and show compassion, so I do not think gays should be marginalized or mistreated. they are due their equal rights as human beings.

This raises an interesting question: What is true democracy?

If 70% of the nation feels that gay marriage is wrong, should our elected officials bow to popular opinion? Or should the government preserve the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, enforcing social change from above. Which is the trully democratic thing to do?

Peace. Happy Chanukah (I completely botched that, sorry) and a Merry Belated Christmas to Kathleen and Caroline.

And a Happy Kwanza to any African Americans lurking or posting.

Excuse me, I'd like to take objection to that "70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages" number.

Here's a recent email to me following up on just such an online poll:

Dear Glenn,

Participation in America's Poll on Homosexual Marriage at http://www.marriagepoll.com continues at a steady pace. As of noon Saturday, December 28, the results were as follows:

I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions: total votes: 201914

I favor legalization of homosexual marriage total votes: 378691

I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name: 52238

If you have not already voted, click here to do so. Be sure to forward the poll on to your family and friends.

Only votes that have a valid email address associated with them will be counted. We will be purging those with invalid email addresses, which may cause poll results to change somewhat.

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman

American Family Association

That's 68% in favor of gay marriage. And this is the AFA polling, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism in Mississippi...

Yes, the Bible does say homosexuality is an abomination, and even prescribes the death penalty for it.

This is why I don't live my life according to the Bible.

The Bible says lots of things. It endorses slavery, prescribes the death penalty for a rebellious child, for anyone who works on the Sabbath, for anyone who wears clothing made from two different fabrics, says that a women is unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl as she is after giving birth to a male, and so forth.

I don't pay any attention to those passages any more than to the one prescribing the death penalty for gays.

Peter, I just finished Tong Lashing. Good read. Hope there's more tales in store for Apropos, and that the first three get made into films.

Happy Holidays to all. :-)

What's so bad about Dean being "un-electable?" Look who's the Prez right now and tell me that not being elected is any barrier to the presidency! =)

Matt

PS...I won't let it go, EVER.

Excuse me, I'd like to take objection to that "70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages" number.

I think you mean "take exception," and you can do so all you want, but I'm quoting the study widely reported in various news media including AOL.

PAD

This is to me a very simple issue that needs to be fixed. Homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has under the Declaration of Human rights or what ever you Americans call it. Religious views on what is right and wrong should have nothing to do with laws that should passed. Every human being has every human right to be equal. If your views are harming another individuals lifestyle or well being than I think you need to truly reflected on if those views are constructive for the betterment of your community. Do you truly think that having a homosexual marriage is something wrong and harmful to the well being of others. I would like to ask anyone speaking on the subject to give some reasons why a homosexual marriage shouldn’t be legal.

First of all I am in favor of gay marriages. I am also in favor of legalizing everything that people do anyway that doesnt cause harm to anyone but themselves like legalized marijuana and making not wearing a seatbelt legal again. but i digress. but my question is this, being a legally ordained minister i understand how marriages happen in this country, but if someone gets married in another country does that transfer over to here? is it only if its a marriage that is legal here like opposite sex marriage? or if its only done in a way that our government tolerates? so someone married in a mass ceremony might not be considered married here. (i dont know if mass marriages happen in this country) what about if a sultan with 20 wives comes here. are they all considered his wives here or just the first one?

thanks in advance to anyone who can answer these, because i have long wondered about this. on another note, happy holidays to all and i hope you get better soon peter because i miss your "last thought for the night" posts.

Are you talking about that poll that was done by the family-based orginization and was going to be sent to the Senate? That thing was hijacked so much and so badly it's worthless.

The psuedo embracing of homosexuality has a ring of blackface to it, doesn't it? Not only does it have the "I can be entertained by them, but I won't let them have the same rights as my superior self" comparison, but there's also the fact that most people that portray homosexuals aren't homosexuals. I can think of very few out (as opposed to forcibly outed) gay actors, actually. >.> The only ones that come to mind off the top of my head are Sir Ian McKellen, and Ellen Degeneres.

And it bothers me so much because I don't think all this "Gay TV" is actually representative of your average gay person. I can't bring myself to believe that a love for Cher, a lisp, and a penchant for fashion really makes you a homosexual. I'd rather define a homosexual as a person sexually attracted to their own gender, and not a Bette Midler fan.

I can't say I'm sold on that study. I wonder how many of the respondents would change their answer if the poll question were to specify the manner in which gay marriage would be implemented. If the decision comes down to a single justice or a group of justices, then I'm opposed to gay marriage (if that's what they decide.) If the issue is dealt with through the proper legislative channels, then I'm for gay marriage. Overall, I'm for it, but I would prefer if the judicial activists are left without a say in the matter.

However, I do think that Peter may be overestimating the importance of the issue in the 2004 election. It's just one issue out of many, and there very well may be people who aren't terribly thrilled with the prospect of gay marriage who vote for Dean, anyway.

Or to put it another way, I seriously doubt Bush will coast to reelection with 70% of the vote based on this one issue.

Voters will vote for candidates that they have qualms about. Even

if I were a liberal and inclined to vote for Dean, I'd still have to overlook some downright crazy positions of his (like the assertion that we should essentially give U.N. veto power over how our military is used, even though they don't seem to place much value on military force as a way to back up their resolutions.) If I vote for Bush, I'll have to do the same thing (any number of idiotic religious-right stances of his come to mind.)

As for "embracing homosexuality" (which revolves around intercourse between same-sex partners), I see no reason why heterosexuals should do that. Mere tolerance is fine enough. I mean, I can't stand the taste of corn, but I don't have a problem with those who do like it simply because they like it. I tolerate it. But I see no point in embracing those who eat corn and building myself up to the point where I can eat corn without retching and choking. That's just silly.

Of course, South Park nailed it just right---just because one thinks that a certain group of individuals is interesting doesn't mean that their interest will extend to those individuals' sexual habits.) But I don't see a problem in embracing the gay lifestyle (in a cultural sense) while not being too keen on the homosexual sex act itself. Or to put it another way, I think Peter overextended himself with that one sentence.

Well, that and the 'minstrel show' remark. Are the cast members of "Queer Eye for the Stright Guy" really straight actors pretending to be gay? I doubt it. Maybe the "Will and Grace" actors are, but isn't the whole point of acting to pretend that you're someone else? If Peter means 'minstrel show' in the sense that they're casting gay culture in an embarrassing light, well, it's certainly loads more flattering than the impression given off by, say, actual, real-life participants in a gay rights parade, obsessed as they are with flaunting their sexuality in public above and beyond what most people would find appropriate for either gays or strights. Which is to say, I think gays are getting the better end of the deal when it comes to representation on TV.

-Dave O'Connell

Marriage in the US isn't just religious, its become more of a legal status now, pertaining to the joining of two people together in the eyes of the state. Those that hold onto this religious banter that marriage is only between a man and a woman are denying basic legal rights to a section of the populace. They are insisting that the veiws of a few religions be forced upon those who have no belief as they do. Denying homosexual marriage is a civil rights violation based in a violation of the laws seperateing church and state. Am i to these people not married as i was married by a judge and not a preist? Do those married(handfasted) in a wiccan ceremony qualify as married or should we name these situations something different... If this whole "civil unions" bullshit goes through, all marriages in the eyes of the government should be renamed then to "civil unions".

Well, frankly, I'm convinced that the legal status of marriage should be removed from American law altogether. If people want the decision to be religious in nature, let it be religious in nature and remove all legal benefit from marriage; that way conservatives can have what they want -- whatever the hell it's supposed to be -- and gays can have what they want -- they can get married by their own preachers or ministers or what have you and it will be the church's responsibility to say who can and can't get married.

As for the benefits that come along with marriage, such as tax and insurance benefits, visitation and inheritance claims, and so on: why should this be an issue solely for married people?

For the last two years I've been a student, and my sister, whom I live with, has been supporting me. Why, if she's willing to put forth the money required, can she not cover me under her insurance, for instance? I've been uninsured this whole time because I can't find work, and she can't cover me because she's not my mother or wife. There are a number of benefits of marriage that don't make any sense as specifically being exclusive for married people. I think "marriage" as a legal concept should be replaced with "household." Everyone living under one roof, putting a portion of their financial dependance on another person, should be considered a single unit, capable of deciding better than the government what is right for that household to run smoothly. Siblings, unmarried couples of any combination of genders, communes; there are so many social combinations people can form as a single unit, so what makes married people special? That they have sex? That they underwent a religious ceremony (which should have no bearing on legal status)?

Marriage is a red herring. Don't get me wrong, I hope one day to meet the gorilla my dreams and get married and have 2.5 children (I analytically endorse polygamy/polyandry, but I don't really want it for myself), but I fail to see how that has anything to do with who gets all my stuff if I forget to write a will.

My suspicion is that the Democratic position here is actually pretty safe. Opposition to gay marriage is much broader than it is deep, in all likelihood; the people who care enough about it for it to affect their vote will vote for Bush regardless of what's going on.

The Dems have staked out the kind of compromise position that is too wimpy to become a wedge issue. Since they've all gone on record saying they oppose marriage (all of the ones who have a shot anyway), "civil unions" is going to make for a very difficult rallying cry.

I still think this is going to come down to the economy and Iraq, barring some other major event from changing things, such as Castro dying or a North Korean nuke scare. I don't think the gay marriage issue will be able to stay in the headlines without any actual events to keep it there.

Luigi, your concerns re: the old testament laws are pretty much moot, since the new covenant of Jesus points out the unattainability of the law. I respect you a great deal, so I thought I'd let you know that (though obviously not in enough detail to make much difference).

I would place myself in the camp of both Ben Hunt and nekoukan (though I don't believe we have an equal rights issue. The law currently states you can marry any willing, single, of-age member of the opposite sex. It doesn't say you have to love them. Gay people have the right to marry the opposite sex, they just don't want to).

Nekoukan is right in that marriage as a legal status is downright silly. I can live carnally with two or more women with no problem, but the government tosses me in jail if I marry them? Silly.

This just goes to show that polls are only that: a small sample of the population.

Hell, it's an insignificant sampling at that.

I read an article that said the number was 55% in favor of banning gay marriage, not 70%.

But then, whether it's 55% or 70%, what do you think the %-age was 50 years ago? 25 years ago?

I bet it was more than it is today.

Let's be frank: the majority of those opposing gay marriage are the Bible-thumpers.

And as was commented in an earlier post, I don't see people following all of those other things the Bible says to do. Makes me wonder if it's a load of homophobia or extreme hypocracy.

When i got married, I was married twice.

Once when I signed those documents (a civil union) and twice when the priest did his ol mumbo jumbo magic.

As long as the churches are not forced to do anything then let it be people, let it be.

That marriagepoll.com thing is all kins of out of whack. I watched someone take screenshots every hour one day. There were times when 1000 votes would mysteriously disappear from those in favor of gay marriage. And beyond the unscientific-ness (there I go making up words) of an online poll like that to begin with, that particular one is more of a measure of who's spreading the word faster, as both sides have sent out loads of emails and flooded message boards and blogs with "go vote for X! Make sure the others don't win!"

The more Dems open their mouth the more W. will be re-elected. Dean is nothing but a Al Gore wannabe who is just about the most hated Dem in his party right now. I just sitback and laugh at them...

http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/847.html

See above link for a letter from the Rutland, VT newspaper on this topic, making a very fine (liberal) point.

This may not be "the issue" that decides the election, but it is a valid one. Civil rights and human rights may be, and should be, defining issues in the 21st century worldwide. Without that foundation how can our civilization continue to stand?

--Todd Morton

Just make it legal. Gays have families as well as straights so why shouldn't they be allowed to marry??? Doesn't make sense to me. God & the Church has taken a backseat in America right now anyway so what's the big deal???

Craig J. Ries said (Re:banning gay marriage):

"But then, whether it's 55% or 70%, what do you think the %-age was 50 years ago? 25 years ago?

I bet it was more than it is today."

I disagree. 50 years ago there weren't any gay people. In the 50s,

this country was perfect. That's why we need to make laws to force this country back to the 50s. (And yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Rob said:

"Luigi, your concerns re: the old testament laws are pretty much moot, since the new covenant of Jesus points out the unattainability of the law."

This may be, but a LOT of people live their lives in accordance with the Old Testament and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. This is why they call themselves fundalmentalists, although the 'mental' part of that word is seldom true.

50 years ago there weren't any gay people.

Only because no one dared come out of the closet 50 years ago.

Rock Hudson didn't dare come out of the closet for fear he would never work again.

Gays have been around since the dawn of time. Nothing new here just that today it's more out in the open.

Eek. And very, very realistic.

I'm just glad that Peter brought up the issue, because we've seen fairly reasonable arguments both supporting and opposing.

And for the fellow who wants to legalize things that only hurt yourself - will you make sure the legislation includes what if while doing this thing for yourself you end up hurting others, having an extreme penalty? I.E. the driver on a subtance in an accident, or the passanger who flies out of a car and hits another person?

Luigi - thanks for the biblical examples, I was going to paraphrase about women not really supposed to be indepdent or working ever in anything not about the household support, but your examples were among the good ones.

My maternal grandmother, for example, gave her entire paycheck to her father until she got married in the 1930s (first as a fashion buyer, then model, then elementary school teacher - which is what she had gone to school for and was waiting for an appointment while she did the fashion jobs).

Rob - umn doesn't your quote prove that Jesus invented reform Judiasm as much than anything else?

Household guy: yes-- option three! Good futurism leading to the practical on your side. Now, if you can only get more people to pick up that.

You're still going to have people wanting a "legal marriage" not for the civil benefits but the social regonition; but good job on trying to split a complex issue into smaller parts!

Gay marriage (or legal civil unions) becoming legal IS going to happen. Maybe not this year, or next year, but it will happen. Just look at the major businesses that have started to accept same-sex partners in their health plan and benefits coverage (Disney for example).

TV shows like "Queer Eye" and "Boy Meets Boy" may be doing more harm than good however. People that don't like or agree with the gay lifestyle don't want it thrown in their faces. Stereotypes rarely win arguements. Except to show that it's OK to laugh at gays, and that's not really acceptance is it?

Anyone here remember when Maggie Sawyer was introduced in the Superman Comic? Strong, tough leader of the Metropolis SCU, and a lesbian. They even showed her partner several times. Then, when the cartoon came out, Maggie was there, as well as her partner (I'm blanking on the name now). When Maggie was hurt by an attack by Darksied, her partner was even there in the hospital holding her hand. All this in a cartoon, right under the eyes of the censors, and not an "in-your-face" attitude.

It's going to take time for the majority of Americans to accept the gay lifestyle. It's also going to help if TV programs start showing gays in a positive, non stereotypical light. Not all gay men are flaming crossdressers, nor are all lesbians flannel wearing, boot wearing, short haired and butch.

Finally Matt...the recounts all show Gore lost. That's including all the recounts by the major papers and TV networks. Seriously man, let it go before you hurt yourself. There are plenty of other windmills you can tilt at. : )

"I'm quoting the study widely reported in various news media including AOL." When you do that, it always helps your argument to actually cite the poll in question. Otherwise, it just reduces it to a "he said/she said" opinion piece.

An AP poll (conducted by ICR of Media, PA) found the split to be 35% in favor of gay marriage and 51% against. The website also mentions a national poll conducted in 1998 by the Human Rights Campaign, which found that nearly 50% opposed gay marriage, and just over 40% were in favor. Here's that
URL:

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=7662

The Pew Research Center for the People & the press conducted a poll, on which MSNBC reported on November 18:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995040.asp?0cb=-216193181

That one found with 32% favoring gay marriage and 59% opposing it.

Via a simple Google search, those seem to be the professional polls being talked about the most.

I fully support gay marriage. I think the two hallmarks of gay equality will be the ability to get married (with all the legal benefits therein) and protection based on job discrimination due to sexual orientation.

That said, I think PAD nailed it on the head in his first posting. To use a slightly more recent example, thinking straight America supports gay rights because they enjoy TV shows with gay characters is like thinking people enjoying black musicians in whites-only clubs in the early 20th century was a step towards desegregation. Sure, they didn't have the same rights as everyone else -- but they're entertaining and we love to watch them perform! (Yes, that was sarcasm.) The test of gay rights is in the law. Watching Jack prance around on WILL AND GRACE is entertaining; knowing gay people can marry is progress. (And unless either of them are coming out of the closet, Britney kissing Madonna is pretty much pure titillation.)

As for the arguments about separating religion from marriage, I agree -- but that doesn't matter. There are plenty of secular marriages (civil ceremonies, commonlaw marriage, quickie weddings), and plenty of marriage issues that are legally fine but have religious opposition. (States recognize divorce, but the Roman Catholic church doesn't.) And that's fair: Churches can and do make their own rules, and it's up to people to accept those rules, reject those rules and leave the church, or reject those rules and stay in the church anyway. Unfortunately, opponents of gay marriage oppose ALL forms of gay marriage (wanna bet that if Bush gets that constitutional amendment against gay marriage, he'll forget about allowing civil ceremonies) and they want a legal ban that would cover everyone, regardless of religious belief.

Many religious people have no problem citing the parts of the Bible that support them (yes, there are Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality) while ignoring the parts they don't like (there are Old Testament passages allowing you to kill your kids). And Bush has made no secret of his religious beliefs affecting his policy. (Then again, wasn't it Clinton who signed something -- the Defense of Marriage act or the like? -- that gave the legal basis for marriage only being between men and women?)

My advice is not to be lulled into complacency by fictional gay characters, but to speak out for gay rights -- legal rights.

And once again, SOUTH PARK nailed it on the head with their metrosexuality. All they lacked was calling the school beating a hate crime.

Elayne wrote:

An AP poll (conducted by ICR of Media, PA) found the split to be 35% in favor of gay marriage and 51% against.

Holy cow -- ICR in Media?? I used to work for them! I remember interviewing kids (who had parental permission to talk to us) about what kind of bubble gum they prefererred, and cold-calling households across the country. To avoid taking the hang-ups personally, I used to use a fake name when I called -- usually something out of a comic book (Victor Sage comes to mind, and maybe Jack Ryder). The worst job was calling up people (again, who said they'd be willing to talk) to find out what laxatives they'd been using. And why.

Ugh.

Anyway, that's my digression for the day.

Rob

I have no problem with gay marriage, if they want to join in the stupidity, let 'em.

My problem is with this whole "Queer Eye" thing and it's sissification of men.

I got no problem with fops and sissies, I'm not saying I'm at all bothered by them.

But to act as if every man should want to preen like that bothers me. The whole show seems to be saying "If you're NOT a "Metrosexual" you're a useless slob.".

Screw that. I find preening males funny, almost as funny as preening females. Sorry, I don't care how much makeup you put on, if you're ugly, you're still ugly and covered with crud. So what be the point?

Maybe it's because no amount of makup or proper dress could hide my flaws, but I can't understand why anyone would feel the need to do so. Your flaws are who you are. They're what make you unique.

Unless you want to be like everyone else.

Then you scare me.

"Be yourself, gawdammit." - Uncle Willy

Rachel,

Dunno, I'm not familiar with reformed Judaism. The OT said "do things or be doomed". The NT says "you can't follow the law, so follow Me, I'll take the price of your lawlessness on Myself. All you have to do is love Me and love others." Follow God, not rules. The motivation is different, as is the result.

While I disagree with gay marriage, I do recognize it's going to be legal soon. I'd prefer the "household" solution, though. No one's morals are impacted; I could support such a law. I mean, people are people and they're going to do what they're going to do. My belief system says homosexuality is not a good thing, which means I shouldn't engage. I can't SUPPORT something outside that. At the same time, it's not my place to stop someone else from doing something not immediately harmful. So, to me the solution is the "household" idea. Everyone wins.

I'm not in favor of gay marriage, since marriage implies something that homosexuals cannot achieve, a family creating and spiritual unit intertwined by some religion. I think it's a problem that many of our laws use the same terms as Judeo-Christian religions, but that's probably more pervasive than just marriage.

However, I am 100% in favor of civil unions or whatever property-and-rights creating union the lawmakers decide to create. There is no reason why a gay couple can't have probate rights, medical rights, etc., the same as heterosexual couples. However, any such union would have to apply to unmarried couples of any stripe, including boyfriend/girlfriend, roommates, etc. It cannot just apply to homosexuals.

I read it somewhere once, and it crystalized the thought in my mind: "I'll be happy not to descriminate against them, but I'll be damned if I'm going to descriminate FOR them."

*coughs*

Well, let's have this coming straight from the mouth of a lesbian, ne? *laughs*

Quite frankly, I would LOVE to be able to marry my other half within the next couple of years because, hey, we're going to be living together anyway and we would feel entitled to the same rights that committed hetero couples gain no matter WHAT it's called, even if it's simply referred to as a "civil union." The wording doesn't bother me, but the rights do.

Also, I'm a bit wary of the American media anyway because for the most part it is so effing biased... It's difficult to get a *cough* "fair and balanced" view of anything. Par example, all they report are the atrocities the Palestinians commit against the Israelites, but NEVER what the Israelites commit against the Palestinians and yet as I studied the situation last year in my Judaism class, I found that the Palestinians were just as oppressed by the Israelites. Some of those articles were even WRITTEN by people with Hebrew names. And then I tried to search for the same stories off of CNN.com and the like, but no... They only had stories about the Palestinian strikes against Israelites.

Quite frankly, I lost a LOT of confidence in the American media. It seems to report what the government wants you to hear by card stacking. And to me, statistics mean crap...it's all based on the group of people they polled and really has little representation of the actual beliefs of the majority of America.

As for the gay-based shows...I never watch them. They simply reinforce stereotypes that aren't always true like SOMEHOW gay men have this wonderful culinary, design, and fashion sense when, in actuality, a good lot of them don't. Plus, it's all about the guys, have you noticed that? When will a good lesbian show come out? *laughs* Ahh well.

I'll spend my time watching anime, "Family Guy," "Futurama," and "Star Trek" just to be happy and ignore the idiocy of most popular television...although two of those shows are fairly idiotic. Oh well. *pets Stewie and Fry* Cartoons are better anyway...>.>

The whole idea of 'legal' marriages is flawed, and probably should be scrapped in favor of a 'household' system instead.

Originally the idea of giving married couples tax and financial breaks is because they're sharing resources. Instead it's become a political battleground of who's going to be 'approved' officially by the government.

That bothers me, because eventually things like non-profit status for churches will be in the same exact boat. How long will it be before the government starts deciding that Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism aren't widespread enough to enjoy non-profit status? Just like the government is endorsing heterosexual marriages only, they could end up endorsing Christianity only as well.

And I don't want to hear the old mantra, 'We live in a Christian society and follow its values'. That's not true. The U.S. constitution was specifically written to squelch the power of people who like using that as an excuse.

I wrote something about this very same subject in an extended critique of Queer Eye for a magazine recently. I reprinted it on my Web site: http://theblacksaint.com/2003/12.html#000385

Queer Eye and Will & Grace change nothing. America has laughed at gays since the beginning of the century. "Embracing" stereotypes is not the same as recognizing the actual lifestyle (not that you *see* that lifestyle much on Eye or even Will & Grace).

If 70% percent of America is against gay marriage do you think it might be because they have been bludgeoned with these shows that have made them take a stronger stance then they actually believe.

There are the same tax breaks for gay couples and even legal unions, the one thing they do not have is the word marriage. that's what all this fighting is about...a word. It is this self-riteous behavior that the democrats will lose again in 2004.

I have always agreed completley with liberals when it came to social issues and was only a conservative fiscally. But lately it has come to my attention that liberals will not stop until they have opened up the brain of every "evil republican" (because the liberals believe it's free speech only if you agree with them)and carved out all the chunks that are conservative.

Jesus christ guys! Self- riteousness is for religious nuts but you liberals have taken the cake. You guys just scare me now.

As I see it, there are two gay marriage issues.

The religious marriage aspect, and the state marriage aspect.

It is the right of any religious organization to not marry anyone for whatever reasons they see fit. As a non-practicing Catholic, I'd disagree with them if they refused a gay couple, but I was taught at a young age that the Bible was a guide that can't always be taken literally, and you should follow your conscience, so I'm certainly not typical of Catholicism as a whole.

On the secular side, I can't see even a single rational arguement against gay marriage. Maybe I'm biased, as my brother is gay, but if two people want to share their lives together and have a family, then why should they be denied the basic rights that any other couple in America have access to?

Jam said:

"Sorry, I don't care how much makeup you put on, if you're ugly, you're still ugly and covered with crud."

Too true. That's why I don't wear makeup.

**As I see it, there are two gay marriage issues.

The religious marriage aspect, and the state marriage aspect.

**

That can be said for the majority of political arguments period. Until we, as Americans, decide to separate ourselves from the Puritanical background and our Rebellious background (and yes, we have both) it always will be there.

I have nothing to say about gay civil unions. Or media pushing forth a gay lifestyle.

I am not homosexual. And really, i don't care. I think it's a non-issue, along with hundreds of other non-issues will obscure this election to the point of aneurysms.

And there's not enough deoderant in the world for me to start arguing this.

Travis

You know, I've heard the arguments that marriage is a sacred moral and legal institution defined by a commitment of love and affection between a man and a woman. I don't doubt that it can be a profound and sacred union. But I don't think defining it as "1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage" benefits the world.

If two people, ANY two people, can find a lasting love, a profound and deep love and affection for one another in this lonely world of ours, then God bless them. I'm a Christian who has read his Bible, and I know the Bible speaks against homosexuality. But I also know that there is a context; I know that the Bible is a puzzle that takes a lifetime to figure out, and none of us probably ever get it right. There are prohibitions in the Bible that simply do not compute in modern society. We're more enlightened. Christians are no longer the oppressed minority seeking self-preservation through condemnation of homosexuality. We're the majority religion in this country.

The Bible has a context. It was compiled and codified as part of a different culture. There are non-canonical books that weren't deemed fit to be included. There's a larger picture at work, and that's why I shudder when people start talking about what God thinks. God is a being of incredible and profound sentience and resonance and wisdom. Let God be God.

So, from my perspective, it comes down to a simple test: which reaction would God favor more from his children? Conflict, or reconciliation? Hatred, or love? Acceptance, or rejection? Unity or division?

As I weigh the issues, I can't believe that the Judeo-Christian God, a God of love and a Father to His children, would think that denying people the right to share a profound sense of love and commitment is a good thing, and that refusing to recognize it in our laws is a good thing.

I think the debate really centers on how people perceive homosexuality. Some see it as a "sinful behavior" that can be changed. To these people, it's a "sexual practice." I don't believe that. It seems clear to me that it's an identity characteristic, much like ethnicity or gender or religion. To deny equal protection and rights under the law because of one's identity...can anyone say that is a good thing?

So you know, as a Christian, I honestly don't understand why homosexuality is this big quandry. I have to believe in a God who loves all his children, and who would delight in their finding some deep and profound love here on Earth, for whatever amount of time we're given here.

*shrugs* I just don't understand.

Luigi, by dismissing the Old Testament outright you minimize the impact and effects of the New Testament and Christ's work.

Sounds like I'm in agreement with quite a few people here (including my fellow Lynch). If one faith or another believes that gay marriage is against their tenets, that particular church (temple, mosque, sacred grove, etc.) shouldn't be forced to marry two people of the same sex.

However, making that sentiment the law of the land is completely screwed up. It's pretty much akin to all the arguments against mixed-race marriage a few decades ago, and it's hard to see anyone coming out and saying THAT's going to destroy the country.

I've no problem if my gay friends in committed relationships want to get all the same legal protections my wife and I do -- it's hard to see much of a reason why they shouldn't.

And is this going to be an issue in the 2004 election? Much as I'd like to say no, there's no doubt in my mind a'tall that Karl Rove is going to use this as a wedge in as hard and as long a way as possible (and let's not get into the implications of THAT phrasing, shall we?).

TWL

SER wrote "Queer Eye and Will & Grace change nothing. America has laughed at gays since the beginning of the century. "Embracing" stereotypes is not the same as recognizing the actual lifestyle (not that you *see* that lifestyle much on Eye or even Will & Grace)."

While I'm not a fan of WILL & GRACE (too shrill), something they do right is present both sides of the gay image. The character of Will is the gay man who could very easily pass for straight. The character of Jack is the "stereotypical" gay man -- high voice, casual sex, flamboyant and bitchy. Both of these exist in the gay world, but neither is "right" or correct. At least by having both, the show creates a balanced view of what it can mean to be gay. (A couple of years ago, I read an article in THE NEW YORK TIMES complaining that the gay men in movies were indistinguishable from straight men -- meaning we've gone from complaining that gay men are portrayed too stereotypically to complaining that they're portrayed too non-stereotypically. Sigh.)

*LONDO SAID: I'm not in favor of gay marriage, since marriage implies something that homosexuals cannot achieve, a family creating and spiritual unit intertwined by some religion.*

Londo, maybe you're not aware, but there are some religions, even some sects of Christianity, that have no problem with homosexuality and will perform gay ceremony. That being said, I think we can achieve marriage, even under the definition you posted.

Jeff

On gay marriage, I agree that what needs to be done is to separate religious marriage from state recognized unions. I like the idea of removing marriage from tax and insurance laws and simply going with "household" as a standard. That way, committed couples can have legal rights and religions can continue to recognize only those unions that meet it's definition. Divorce would be a thorny issue though. Perhaps instead of issuing marriage licenses, states could just issue "civil union certificates" that give some form shared or community property rights should the union be dissolved later by death or divorce.

What I find laughable are so-called "defense of marriage" acts that so many states have forced through their legislatures. As an 11-year-and-counting veteran of a heterosexual marriage, I can say unequivocally that the existance of gay couples has yet to have any effect on my marriage. Funny how the heterosexual divorce rate hasn't plummetted since these "defense of marriage" acts have been passed, isn't it?

Regarding Will and Grace: Gee, it's such a daring show what with Jack prancing around every week portraying every gay stereotype known to man. Billy Crystal was funnier at it back in the 70's. W&G is just a show about four really boring, really shallow people, two of which happen to be gay. I'll pass.

From the Blue Jackal:

When will a good lesbian show come out?

Well, there was Ellen. Oh wait, you said a good lesbian show.

Never mind.

One of the first arguments that tends to come forth in this issue is "it must be man and woman for the sake of the children".

What is the divorce rate in this country again?

Heck, a kid having a pair of same-sex parents may be the best thing ever to happen to him/her.

And I must say, Michael Craven's post is the best thing I've read on the subject in a long time.

I wish more were in line with his mode of thought. It would do this country (and the world) a whole lot of good.

I would LOVE to see a proposed "Defense of Marriage" Constitutional amendment that would outlaw divorce just to see what kind of rationale the religious right would create to oppose it...

We fade up to a young man surrounded by what looks to be clouds. A harp is playing in the background. The young man walks up to a gate like structure. What looks too be ST. Peter stands behind a podium in front of the gates. The young man speaks...

"Where Am I?"

"Welcome stranger, to the Pearly Gates."

"I'm in Heaven!"

"No, you're at the Pearly Gates. Pay attention. Name?"

"Larry Smith"

"Is that with an E?"

"No, but the K is silent."

"Cause of death?"

"Corned beef."

Saint Peter looks at him and shrugs.

"Yeah, those fatty foods."

"Oh, I work in a butcher shop and a side of frozen beef fell over on my head."

"Smith without an e you said?"

"Yes."

"Here you,are! MMMMM....."

"What?"

"Well, according to the Celestial registry, you've been a good man. You may enter the Kingdom of Heaven and live for eternity by His side."

"Thank you, thank you!"

"Enter and join your fellow Presbyterians."

(Shocked)"I...I...I'm Catholic, not Presbyterian."

"Oh. Then go to Hell."

"Wait a minute! You just said I could go to Heaven!"

"The Kingdom of Heaven is for those that follow the one, true path."

"Presbyterians?"

"Presbyterians."

"But what...what about Catholics, Kaneites and all the others that lived faithfully by the rules of their religions?"

"They blew it. NEXT!"

"Wait! Wait! I attended mass, I took communuon. I went to confession again and again!"

"Waste of time. You just should have stayed at home and watched football."

"And to think the Jews thought they were God's chosen ones."

"Oh, that was years ago. No, the Lords kind of....finicky."

"Finicky?"

"Well, it was the Jews for a few thousand years. Then God got into muslims becasue he liked the hats. When they started slicing off hands, God went with Zen. Then it was the Aztecs for awhile...."

"Well, what about us Catholics?"

"Oh, he never liked them."

"You know, God seems awfully indecisive."

"Yeah. He's like Ross Perot, only with more money."

"So anyone who's not Presbyterian goes to Hell?"

"No, no. Baptists go to Purgatory."

"God likes Baptists?"

"No, God likes getting their hopes up. Then, just when they figure their in, BAM! Off to the neither regions. And he's never really forgiven the Mormons for the Osmonds."

"But,but WHY Presbyterians?"

"Because they're nice."

"Nice?"

"Nice. Look, God's old. He doesn't want trouble."

"Well, Catholics are nice too."

"Have you ever heard of a Presbyterian Holy war?"

"Well....no."

"Because Presbyterians don't go for them. They don''t condem this or that from their firey pulpits."

"Wait....isn't their some defense leauge that's Presbyterian? Like the Oster Defense Leauge?"

"I don't think so."

"I think there is. I think there is."

"I'm not sure, I'll have to check. We might have to go back to the Aztecs. Why don't you wait in Purgatory until I find out, o.k?"

"Wait with the baptists? No, I'll take Limbo."

"Suit yourself. )(Opens door and calypso music is playing. Smith starts walking through.)

"Get back to me soon about this o.k? I'm really depending on Heavenly salvation!"

"Aren't we all? (St. Peter turns and walks back to the podium. NEXT! Name?"

A figure steps foward and we see that it is a small Jewish Rabbi

"Saul Rebinowitz."

"Religion?"

"Uhhhh....Presbyterian."

"You may enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

"Shalom!"

"What did you say?"

"Um...Nothing."

"The whole idea of 'legal' marriages is flawed, and probably should be scrapped in favor of a 'household' system instead."

Define "household". What about a couple who are legally and religiously married, but their careers have them living on different continents? Are they a 'household'? Yet no one can deny they're married.

There are two separate concepts that often color the views of many on the topic of gay marriage (not referring to the posters here, but to the general public).

The first is the 'ick' factor involving homosexuality.

There isn't much the law can do to mollify those feelings or beliefs some carry about homosexuality and homosexual acts, one way or another.

Those feelings and beliefs, though, should not serve as a barrier to unions (there are certainly the same 'ick' reactions some may have to some actions performed between some married heterosexuals).

The crux is compartmentalizing those feelings and beliefs that apply to the behavior within the union differently than such feelings and beliefs that apply to the actual contract of union - - the contract in and of itself implies nothing one way or another about condoning or rejecting any actions that result as a consequence of the union being recognized in law.

The second is the terminology and baggage that accompanies the term 'marriage' - the actual contract between the two persons.

As it has (in general terms) evolved from ceremonies rooted in religious as well as cultural and social acceptance of the union, perhaps, at least in the short term, it should not be stretched to cover all instances.

Allow me to digress for a moment: I favor gay marriage. Allowing gay mariage does not and will not force nor require any religion to perform such ceremonies.

Perhaps all that is required (for now) is a new coinage - for example, 'pairage' - which should be defined so as to include all the rights, qualifications, privileges and responsibilities accompanying marriage in civil and secular law, and also specifically defined to have the same weight, recognition, status and merit as the marriage contract in law, to cover the secularly recognized union of same-sex couples.

If nothing else, it will open up a whole new market for the greeting card industry, catering industry, and so on.

There was an interesting piece on NPR's All Things Considered just a few days ago about this topic and two very recent polls (IIRC, one showed a slight majority in favor of gay marriage, the other clocked in at just under 50% in favor). The discussion included an analysis of the different questions and methodology of the polls. Audio file link on this page:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1565949

As for online polls - they are strictly for entertainement value and hold no statistical validity whatsoever.

The final nail in Dean's "unelectability" coffin is probably this: http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/deanside122603_2003.shtml

That "final nail" Jim mentions only counts as a nail if people happen to think Dean's off base in his assessment.

It reads as pretty rational from where I sit -- but given the state of the body politic these days, you're right that "rational" probably does mean "unelectable."

Sigh.

TWL

Starwolf wrote:

Define "household". What about a couple who are legally and religiously married, but their careers have them living on different continents? Are they a 'household'? Yet no one can deny they're married.

You're right --defining "household" would surely be a thorny issue, and however it shook out, someone's toes would likely be stepped on.

Still, I think that there's a case to be made that many couples whose lives have taken them to different continents for extended and continuous periods of time might *not* be married, no matter what they wear on their fingers and what papers are in a courthouse on one of those continents. There are undoubtedly plenty of people who are married on paper, but not in their behavior -- even if they live in the same town. When you start to define it, it gets sticky for everybody.

Rob

Sadly, Tim, Jim may be right. Sentiments like this --

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

while certainly rational, and, as far as our legal system is concerned, unquestionably right, won't sit will with much of the electorate, I fear.

Rob

Having worked in the retail industry for almost 20(!) years now, I personally have found that just like any other division or 'sub'-culture of the human race you care to specify, whether 'politically correct' or not, there are a couple of different branches to homosexuality.

1. The "You Wouldn't Know It Unless You Were Told Otherwise" Type

2. The Obvious Type, and

3. The "Chip The Size Of Manhattan On Their Shoulder" type.

Group 1 are amongst some of the politest/nicest people I have ever met, while Group 3 are just the opposite. That group acts like if you even look at them crooked, they will start raising discrimanation charges against you, and unfortunately I have had to deal with a few Group 3 types before, especially department managers.

Now Group 2 is the middle of the road gang. While you would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to know, they act like it's no big deal, and are only in a foul mood when they are only in a foul mood for the reason(s) that anyone else would be: bad day, stress, etc.

Now personally, I am in no position officially, politically, or otherwise to pass judgement. I'll leave that to the true higher power above all of us, regardless of what your beliefs are.

However while the thought of two guys together does upset my stomach and is a lifestyle that I have no interest in ever pursuing, I will be honest and admit that to me (probably because I'm still single), the thought of two women together is another matter entirely.

I'm not in favor of gay marriage, since marriage implies something that homosexuals cannot achieve, a family creating and spiritual unit intertwined by some religion.

I'm missing what part of that they cannot achieve. There are churches that are willing and eager to intertwine same sex couples. The joining of two creates a family, and an expanded family can include children that are the biological offspring of just one member of the family. It's not as if stepchildren are a new invention.

Me, I've long been with those who say that we should eliminate "marriage" as a legal term and replace it with a contractual union which would allow for a vast array of mutual care agreements.

I still dont see what the big deal is? If they (gays) want to marry, let em and let it be legal. I just dont understand the fuss.

Plenty of gay couples already have children & families. So, to say they cant have families because they are gay is supid reasoning. Thats the arguement isn't it? They dont get the same rights that a man and a woman do when they marry. In this day and age you might as well accept it and move on.

my 2 cents

So, if a guy has a low sperm count and a woman is barren, they should never be able to get married either?

This whole 'family' thing is extremely odd. What's next, if you choose to adopt instead of have your own kids you're not a 'family'.

Some people have a pretty strict definition of family. I've got family I'm not blood related to. I love them like my blood relatives. Probably even more, because they choose to consider me family and vice versa.

Random responses to prior postings:

The excellent UK crime drama "Cracker" had a right-wing cop nattering about why he liked homosexuals -- two guys having sex with each other meant more women around for straight men. Lesbians he didn't like, though -- less for guys.

I'm not recomending that attitude, though I would recommend"Cracker" --the Brit version with Robbie Coltrane, that is.

My own empirically-derived stereotypes of gays -- specifically, the consistent trends among the people I've known and known to be gay -- are that male homosexuals are indeed polite, mannered and kind, as Lee H, Jr. has observed, and that lesbians, though just as nice, can be ditzy at a level that would stagger Burns and/or Allen.

I once had a HS teacher who I found out afterwards was gay. After a moment's thought, I concluded that for all the things I'd wanted from him -- advice, stories, humor -- his dating habits were totally irrelevant.

Dean reminds me too much of Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter -- intellectuals in a political climate where "Know-Nothings" are still a de facto political party. I'm still hoping for Clark. who seems to be the only guy who can blunt Bush's only issue.

There are the same tax breaks for gay couples and even legal unions, the one thing they do not have is the word marriage.

That is not true at all. A total lie. While one -- count them, one -- state has legal unions, and one state has something that's almost legal unions, under no conditions do gays yet have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple -- particularly in the area of Federal taxation.

Kirk

Jam:

A married couple who could not have children, for whatever reason, was usually considered an unfortunate circumstance. It wasn't a desired situation.

I agree with both sides on this issue (boy, should I enter politics!): Marriage was originally about uniting families for the purpose of procreation (and of course assorted financial issues). Love was a pleasant side effect. Given what marriage was about a century ago, "gay" marriage would make no sense.

However, in the past century, mostly during the boom generation, marriage became about love and "soul mates" (the divorce rate went up because expectations changed regarding the relationship, but that's another discussion). In other words, it turned inward -- having children was something that might occur or might not but it wasn't the sole reason the couple got hitched. Single men and women didn't "settle down" because it was the "right thing to do." They did it because they were in love.

So, once marriage became essentially about love, it made sense for gays to want to join in. They are in love, after all. And they can't understand why heterosexuals are objecting and suddenly talking about tradition! To make an analogy to comic books, it's like Peter David turning in a script for "Superman" and being told, "Uh, sorry, Peter, this isn't what we do. No, you need to have Lois Lane trying to expose Superman's identity for 22 pages. Oh, and toss in some red kryptonite wackines!" Peter would obviously be confused by just a convenient regression to something that just doesn't exist anymore.

In other words, gay marriage won't destroy the foundation of "marriage." Heterosexuals have already done that (I'm especially amused when I see couples who divorce because they "aren't in love anymore" or because the spouse "changed" -- for better or worse, apparently, was not part of their vows).

One can argue that gays are actually saving marriage. Heterosexuals were too cool to be in the room with it. No one was marrying remember? The feminists said it was oppressive. The men said it was a crock. Everyone just lived together (like the "enlightened" ending of Four Weddings and a Funeral).

Now, gays, who are stereotypically speaking at the forefront of trends, are fighting for inclusion in something that most "hip" people considered hopelessly stodgy and lame (the "weddings" page of newspapers!).

When Melissa Etheridge got "married" recently, her "wife" took her name. She "Mrs. Etheridge" now! Try to find a straight woman who will do that these days!

The times have changed, kids.

Marriage is still a social and religious institution as much as a legal one, so that could explain the uneasiness that the 70% of Americans (including myself) feel towards gay marriage.

Personally, I don't think religon should even be a factor when determing the law especially something like marriage. So many people object to gay marriage from a simply religous stand point... yet they don't seem to object when Atheisists get married.

America is suposed to about freedom, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's supposed to about equal protection for everyone no matter who or what you are. Sure, it's never actually been that way... but it's something worth striving for. It's something I used to have faith in... until the first time I could vote.

I think it was Dick Santorum who made all those "slippery slope" comments about gay marriage being the gateway for allowing marriage to include incest(!), polygamy(!!) and bestiality(!!!). I read the AP interview in which he said that and it got me to thinking, though likely not in the way he'd have hoped.

See, it occurs to me that he has something of a point -- the logic involved in legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to a line of reasoning that concludes with legalizing polygamy, at the very least. After all, the major issue with gay marriage is whether the government should have a say in who any of us are permitted to love. If the barrier of gender is broken, why would the barrier of numbers be any harder? This makes perfect sense to me, and at this point my reasoning leads away from Santorum's clear intent: so what?

I've been convinced that communal marriage should be an available option for years. Not just one-man-two-plus-women or vice versa, either; any combination of the two available genders and even those who don't fit neatly into one or the other. Unless of course, they're some kind of stinkin' hermo. ;)

As for incest or bestiality, I think we can call off the alert. Unlike homosexuality and, to a lesser extent, polyandry, there just isn't a large body of lobbyists working in the interest of those who prefer to have sex with blood relations and farm animals. Its just not that powerful a movement. It's those sex-with-knotholes people you gotta watch out for. It won't be long before Congress approves a law legalizing marriage between humans and inanimate objects, such as fences with holes in them and rubber sex toys. I'm going to get married to the pirated copy of Debbie Does Dallas I stole from my dad when I was thirteen.

Oh, and SER -- Ed the Sock made a similar comment about gays improving the institution of Marriage.

http://www.edthesock.com/editorials/editorial46.shtml (you can listen to the original recording from MuchMusic by clicking the link in the upper right-hand corner)

Mind you, I'm American, and I don't think Ed the Sock is funny, but his EDitorials (yeah, I know) have struck me as particularly poignant and even relevant, despite the fact that Ed is *shudder* Canadian.

About having children being a part of being a family and marriage... my husband and I don't want children, but we still consider ourselves to be a family. I think that marriage is about joining people who want to spend their lives together, under whatever religious or legal banner they choose. I like the idea thrown out about households working together getting benefits, rather than limiting it to one man and one woman, too.

Okay, I'm at the bottom of a very messed-up thread, so nobody's going to read this. So...Mr. David, are you so sure Dean and all the other Democrats are unelectable?

Isn't it concievable that Dean - who has not been the pink-tutu-wearing kind of Democrat that occupies Congress - could turn this issue back? Call Bush and his right-wingers out-and-out Klansmen? This isn't the same as "gays in the military," which is a more argumentative position.

Do you seriously think that, to beat Bush, a Democrat has to be absolutely, positively, in line with what Bush believes in? If that's the case, why hold an election? (Well, if Bush's buddies at Diebold who are building the voting machines have their way, Bush will be unanimously elected anyway, but...)

I'm not certain I agree with you, Mr. David. I don't know if I would have had the courage to come out this last year if I hadn't seen a lot more tolerance around.

Not that this marriage argument doesn't have both sides digging in their heels in an extrordinary way.

Didn't I see another poll the other day saying that more americans approve of gays in the military than ever? But then, that's not this year's hot topic.

I'd like to get married someday. In a church. I could care less about civil ceremonies - like I give a flying fig about what drive-thru Elvis pronounces. Will I ever get married in a church? Maybe not. Do I think things will change? Yeah, I do. Someday. When talking about this being a "Christian nation" many forget that there are many Christian religions, and they all differ on many important points. I am a Catholic. My church is against homosexuality as an act (although not against gay people - at least in theory). But Catholicism is from a contextualist doctorine, not a literalist doctorine, meaning that the bible is not our only means of looking at a subject. Catholicism is also an evolutionary church, meaning it changes over time. (slowly, yes, but it changes.) Also, it should be remembered that the church is the PEOPLE, not the leadership. Things do change. Will they change during our lifetimes? Who knows. Will they change in a good way? Just have faith, I suppose.

I don't see Queer Eye as promoting stereotypes. Look at Ted. Isn't he "straight" enough for you? Carson's the only really flamboyant one, Sure, there's the guy always going on about hairstyles, but he's a hairdresser for gosh sakes! Thom and Jai aren't too fey either for my money. And who's being laughed at, again? Wasn't it the straight guys?

I'm just a regular blue-collar kind of guy, but I don't find the stereotype of being witty, and smart and well dressed and well groomed to be that devestating a stereotype. Next thing you know, they'll be saying we have big shlongs (It's true! I saw it online!)

Or is the hurtful stereotype in that gay people act fey, and "fabulous"? Some do, some don't. Am I supposed to believe that the guys that do are perpetuating a stereotype, or might I just think that they're just being themselves, and to hell with what other people think?

Also, if the media keeps telling everybody that they're more tolerant toward gay people nowadays, maybe they'll start acting that way. (worth a shot)

By the way, Mr. David. I thought Pink Kryptonite was one of the funniest ever additions to the Superman mythos.

Randall Kirby

That "final nail" Jim mentions only counts as a nail if people happen to think Dean's off base in his assessment.

It reads as pretty rational from where I sit -- but given the state of the body politic these days, you're right that "rational" probably does mean "unelectable."

he's saying it doesn't matter to him where bin Laden is tried. Mark steyn had a comment on that:

There was a revealing moment on MSNBC the other night. Chris Matthews asked Dr. Dean whether Osama bin Laden should be tried in an American court or at The Hague. "I don't think it makes a lot of difference," said the governor airily. Mr. Matthews pressed once more. "It doesn't make a lot of difference to me," he said again. Some of us think what's left of Osama is already hard enough to scrape off the cave floor and put in a matchbox, never mind fly to the Netherlands. But, just for the sake of argument, his bloodiest crime was committed on American soil; American courts, unlike the international ones, would have the option of the death penalty. But Gov. Dean couldn't have been less interested. So how about Saddam? The Hague "suits me fine," he said, the very model of ennui. Saddam? Osama? Whatever, dude.

So what does get the Dean juices going? A few days later, the governor was on CNN and Judy Woodruff asked him about his admission that he'd left the Episcopal Church and become a Congregationalist because "I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church over the bike path." I hasten to add that, in contrast to current Anglican controversies over gay marriage in British Columbia and gay bishops in New Hampshire, this does not appear to have been a gay bike path: its orientation was not an issue; it would seem to be a rare example of a non-gay controversy in the Anglican Communion. But nevertheless it provoked Howard into "a big fight." "I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group," he told Judy Woodruff. Fighting, fighting, fighting.

And that's our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he's Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he's languid and laconic and blasé. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he'll hunt you down wherever you are.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004441

Luigi Novi wrote:

The Bible says lots of things. It endorses slavery, prescribes the death penalty for a rebellious child, for anyone who works on the Sabbath, for anyone who wears clothing made from two different fabrics, says that a women is unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl as she is after giving birth to a male, and so forth.

Alright, Luigi, stop exactly where you are.

Until now, whenever I read most of your messages here, I thought you were excellent. Now, you go so far as to write slander against the bible, whether Jewish or Christian, without even confirming your facts, in order to back up this argument in favor of homosexual culture? Have you no dignity? No shame?

Now I may be a secularist myself, and also from a family of bedrock Democrats, but aside from the fact that I live in Israel today, and have a few friends who are Hasidic, I have taken the time to read the bible, and it most definately does not endorse or in any ways advocate slavery, nor does it in any ways say that a woman is unclean after giving birth to a girl or advocate the death penalty for "rebellious children". Why, in fact, it says that women spiritually, if anything, have more patriotism than men do!

Your message is also contemptuous of the very race who, if it hadn't been for them, we might never have seen comics like Superman and Spider-Man even today. Do you know that Jack Kirby for one, was very honorable of the bible, as told in the Forward once, and if he knew how you were writing slander against even him, he could be spinning in his grave.

I don't suppose you'd care to apologize for your foolish act of cowardice and explain why you said it at all? I can't believe you're so much in favor of such ideologies that you'd take to committing a potential act of racism, not unlike a certain newspaper reporter I once knew who later got fired from his newspaper for embarrassing the editorial staff.

Until now, whenever I read most of your messages here, I thought you were excellent. Now, you go so far as to write slander against the bible, whether Jewish or Christian, without even confirming your facts, in order to back up this argument in favor of homosexual culture? Have you no dignity? No shame?

I don't think he was sladering anything. He was just saying that the Bible says to do a lot of things, but for some reason, it seems okay to pick and choose which laws and which prohibitions people should follow. Why have some things, such as homosexuality, survived, while others, such as killing your child if he or she is rebellious, been passed over as archaic and unecessary? The reason is politics, for the most part.

Regardless of what each religion believes, I don't think it should play any part in the politics of the USofA. We have freedom of religion in this country and freedom of NOT having religion as well. The concept of gay marraige isn't so much an affront or a challenge to any specific religion, but an attempt to get legal protections that would benefit a couple and any children they may have.

Children do not a family make. There are many heterosexual couples that cannot have children or choose not to have children. This doesn't make them any less married. There are many homosexual couples that do have children. Right now, there are studies going on to determine if there is a way for homosexual couples to have biological children of their own. What if this happens? Can we still say no to gay marraige?

This country was NOT founded on Christian principles by any means. In fact, the majority of our signers of the constitution were not strictly Christian by any means. Our legal system has protections in place to protect the minority - the majority doesn't need to be coddled, especially in this situation.

Just my thoughts.

-Rachel

Taking this a little personally, Avi?

I think organized religion is the bane of our existance. I think the Bible is nothing more than one of the greatest pieces of fiction every written.

Am I insulting you and your religion directly? Well, if you think so, perhaps you have other issues to deal with.

Luigi's comments were spot on:

Regardless of specific examples, most of the religious folks that go on about how homosexuals are bad are nothing more than taking their own little interpretation of the Bible (or whatever variation you follow) and using it to discriminate. To be hypocrites.

As I said, if you take such issue with these comments, including saying it's racism!? Man. Yes, you've got other issues to deal with.

Jim Burdo quotes Mark Steyn:

And that's our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he's Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he's languid and laconic and blasé. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he'll hunt you down wherever you are.

... and that's about as clear an example of media warpage as I've ever seen.

Does Dean anywhere act "languid and laconic and blasé" about the destruction of the WTC? Does his saying he "had a big fight with the Episcopal Church" even remotely mean he'll "hunt you down wherever you are?

Of course not -- but apparently, if you're interested in shilling for the neoconservatives, Dean's actual positions aren't sufficiently useful.

The lengthy quote you provided displays precisely two opinions from Dean. The first one is that he believes the Hague is a perfectly reasonable place to try bin Laden when and if he's eventually captured and brought to trial.

I agree with that. The International Criminal Court exists for a reason, and Osama's a pretty damn good example of that reason.

(This assumes, of course, that the current administration has much of an interest in capturing Osama in the first place ... but that's another issue entirely.)

The other paragraph has Dean giving a specific example about why he chose to switch churches. Nothing about policy, nothing about what is or isn't good for the country ... simply his personal choice.

Contrast, please, with our current president telling an audience that God has directly instructed him to "strike at Saddam." Compare, if you would, with Gen. William Boykin in full military regalia saying that he knew he'd win some particular battle "because I knew I was worshiping God and he was worshiping an idol."

Those are examples of someone using religion so as to say "my faith is the one true correct one, and if you say otherwise we're going to strike you down."

Dean's example says, "if what is best for the public good is conflicting with a church policy, I'll have to question whether that church is the right place for me to be worshiping."

I know which of those two positions scares me -- and it ain't Dean's.

Now, if you'd like to give me examples of things Dean said that actually don't make sense or do conflict with past positions, I'm happy to listen. So far, however, you're perfectly happy to take realistic assessments and pound them into swords for use by Bush's reelection campaign. I'm not a big fan of the Big Lie technique.

TWL

I think organized religion is the bane of our existance. I think the Bible is nothing more than one of the greatest pieces of fiction every written.>>

Perhaps (I certainly thought that way in college -- The Antichrist was one of my favorite books), but much like Santa Claus, who I recently discovered wasn't real, religion makes life a bit bearable for many people. The organized aspect of it simply provides a sense of community.

The "bane of our existence" is hate and pettiness, which is in all of us, regardless of our faith. Sure, the problems in the Middle East can be traced to religion but you remove religion and they'd just find another reason to hate each other, a secular one, either money or because their skin color is different. Religion is often used ot justify horrible things but that's a corruption of it.

At its best, religion makes man a little more humble, which is not so bad a thing.

Now I may be a secularist myself, and also from a family of bedrock Democrats, but aside from the fact that I live in Israel today, and have a few friends who are Hasidic, I have taken the time to read the bible, and it most definately does not endorse or in any ways advocate slavery, nor does it in any ways say that a woman is unclean after giving birth to a girl or advocate the death penalty for "rebellious children". Why, in fact, it says that women spiritually, if anything, have more patriotism than men do!

Just a thought, There are more then one version of the Bible out there, the version you've read may have "edited" out all the things you mention but there are other versions of the Bible out there, still being used by some faiths today, that include all of those things, (and more nasty stuff) in the old testiment.

However, in the past century, mostly during the boom generation, marriage became about love and "soul mates" (the divorce rate went up because expectations changed regarding the relationship, but that's another discussion). In other words, it turned inward -- having children was something that might occur or might not but it wasn't the sole reason the couple got hitched. Single men and women didn't "settle down" because it was the "right thing to do." They did it because they were in love.

I have often said that the concept of "soul Mates" did more to destroy marriage as an institution then anything else. Most people don't realize that the idea of marriage for love is realitivly new one in human development, and the idea of waiting for that one special person who fufills all your needs bla is even more recent. marriage is supposed to include compromise, any relationship does actually but marriage, by it's very nature, ups the level of compromise to the maxium level. Most people today don't want to compromise because if they found thier soul mate, the person they were destined to be with, they wouldn't have to. The thing is when ever I mention this to anyone, particularly women, I'm told I'm unromantic. Go figure.

**50 years ago there weren't any gay people.

Only because no one dared come out of the closet 50 years ago.

**

Back in the early 60's an American reporter asked Beatle Geeorge Harrison about the Homosexual "Problem" in Britan. Harrison's responce: "They have Homosexuals in America too, they just wear thier hair shorter".

I think "marriage" as a legal concept should be replaced with "household." Everyone living under one roof, putting a portion of their financial dependance on another person, should be considered a single unit, capable of deciding better than the government what is right for that household to run smoothly. Siblings, unmarried couples of any combination of genders, communes; there are so many social combinations people can form as a single unit, so what makes married people special? That they have sex? That they underwent a religious ceremony (which should have no bearing on legal status)?

And While we're at it, lets change the laws so that pets can be declared a dependant on taxes. :-)

I have taken the time to read the bible, and it most definately does not endorse or in any ways advocate slavery

Well, you may want to take a closer look at Leviticus 25:44-46, which tells you that you will have slaves (note the "shalt" in the King James translation; that's not a suggestion, that's a commandment), what kind of people you may buy, that they will be yours forever, and that you can leave 'em to your kids as an inheritance. And then there's Exodus 21:20-21, where it says that it's okay to beat your slaves severely so long as they can get up after a couple days, because they're your property.

And While we're at it, lets change the laws so that pets can be declared a dependant on taxes. :-)

Oh, sign me up on that one straightaway. :-) [Okay, not seriously, but I think it'd wipe out my and Lisa's tax burden more or less completely...]

TWL

Religion is often used ot justify horrible things but that's a corruption of it.

And I don't have a problem with religion in general. It's religion in the organized form that exists today that I have a problem with.

At its best, religion makes man a little more humble, which is not so bad a thing.

And yet, I don't think it has. In fact, I think it has, throughout history, done the opposite.

I don't see Osama bin Laden being humbled by having a hand in murdering thousands of people in the name of God.

What I see is millions of people around the world, regardless of religion, being humbled by the fact that such wanton death and destruction would be done in the name of God.

Umm, I'm fairly sure Avi was having you on, just as the "no gays in the 50's" was having you on. Lighten up.

"Religion" can be an ugly thing, but a real relationship with God is a magnificent thing. Trouble always comes when we make God small and ourselves big. "Organized Religion" is wonderful when it helps someone know God. It can be an ugly thing when its precepts insulated adherants FROM God.

I don't see Osama bin Laden being humbled by having a hand in murdering thousands of people in the name of God.>>

bin Laden and his goons are a remarkably small percentage. That's like making a judgment about blacks based on the Nation of Islam or whites because of the Klan.

I'm still convinced that "Girl Meets Girl" would be a huge ratings success!

Avi,

I have not had any sleep the past 36 hours, so if this seems rude, it is NOT my intention.

As a gay man that for the past almost 20 years has had to listen to religious zealots tell him that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible and having grown up in a strict religious family, I had to develop a "Know Thy(Thine?) Enemy" approach.

"Menstrual cycle:Lev.15:19-24

"Slaves":Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

Rebellious children:Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which advises parents to take "a stubborn and rebellious son" before city elders to be stoned to death if he will not change his ways.

When confronted with these passages, most of the people on my case will say,"That was for another time. It's outdated now." Yet, they won't let the homosexuality one go.

Peace,

Larry

I'm still convinced that "Girl Meets Girl" would be a huge ratings success!

I believe Howard Stern has been trying to pitch that for the past 10 years. :-) And yes it would be a ratings smash but only if, you know, the girls were HOT

Slaves":Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

Which is just wonderful for anyone who ever wanted to own thier own Canadian. :-)

When confronted with these passages, most of the people on my case will say,"That was for another time. It's outdated now." Yet, they won't let the homosexuality one go.

It has always amazed me how often people selectivly practice thier chosen faith. In college I briefly dated a gal who was a devout Roman Catholic, not a problem since I was raised as a Roman Catholic. She was into Church every Sunday, Confession, lent, the whole nine yards. Had no problem using birth control or engaging in premarital sex though, (both of which forbiden by her faith). All the other tennents of her faith she followed religously, (pun intended), but when it came to those two it became "pick and choose". Not that I minded at the time of course. :-)

You know, I should just point out the obvious mistake with saying that "Gays don't have the same rights to marry in the United States" . It is untrue. Obviously they do. AND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE they have to marry someone of the opposite gender. The difference is that they don't particularly want to.

Many states also have what is known as a "common-law marriage". After 7 years of co-habitation,(some states are more/less) the couple is basically regarded as married as far as rights and taxes goes.

Gay people don't have that. Wish we did.(sniffle)

About having children being a part of being a family and marriage... my husband and I don't want children, but we still consider ourselves to be a family. I think that marriage is about joining people who want to spend their lives together, under whatever religious or legal banner they choose.

The problem is this is a mordern interpration. For most of human history the only purpose of marriage was to procreate, or more specifically, to create the next generation of males to carry on the family name and trade. (Female children were far less valuable and desired then male children were, this is still true in some middle eastern countries BTW). Until the past couple of centuries marriages were more often then not arranged by the parents of the couple, (with money exchanged for the bride, who was of course the farthers property until she became the husbands property). The concept of marrying for love is a really new one in human development, (there are still large parts of the world where marrying for love is the exception not the norm). Although we don't realize it most of the rules and traditions we celebrate around a wedding are the same as they were in the pre-love, marry for duty, times, for example: Dad still gives away the bride he just doesn't ask for payment for her. My point in all this is that the concept of what a marriage is really needs to be redefined for the modern world. The houshold idea is not a bad one, but does have some big flaws, (would college roomates be considered a household?

How about boarders? Is that guy you rent a room to considered part of your household? Can you declare him on your taxes? Cover him under your insurance? What about family members who live in your house but pay you rent? If your roomate moves out can you sue them for "divorce" and get alimony/palimony and/or child support from them like you might a former spouse?)

Well, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The family unit (mom, dad, and the kids) is very important. I also happen to believe that kids need both mom and dad around. There are certain things that either sex brings to the table. I do believe that kids are better off with the mom and dad model, but I'm not about to stop two people of the same sex who want to raise a kid. For one, it's hardly the norm and given the number of homosexuals in the world, it's not something that could possibly upset the applecart all that much. At the end of the day, it's people loving each other -- hardly a bad thing.

I do take issues with gays being blamed for destroying marriage when heterosexuals did that generations ago by making it about them almost exclusively and incorporating romance novel concepts into it.

The other day, this woman I work with was inviting people over to celebrate her "divorce." She's all of 25. I asked, "You were married?" "Separated," she replied with a shrug -- she's been living with another man for the entirety of the time I've known her. "It was disaster. We really rushed into it."

I was flummoxed: How does one *rush* into marriage? This wasn't done in Vegas. There was a ceremony and all. I could almost understand getting drunk and winding up pregnant over "rushing" into a $30,000 wedding and a four-month marriage.

If idiots like this are marrying, I'm not about to stop Siegried and Roy.

Well, since someone brought him up, Rick Santorum was absolutely right, although I distinctly remember dozens of people on this board dismissing his comments:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031202-114522-8005r.htm

Rob: Luigi, your concerns re: the old testament laws are pretty much moot, since the new covenant of Jesus points out the unattainability of the law. I respect you a great deal, so I thought I'd let you know that (though obviously not in enough detail to make much difference).

Luigi Novi: Thank you very much for the compliment, Rob, but I didn’t say anything about the Old Testament. I said The Bible says many things that I find bogus, and which I do not follow.

Jeff: Finally Matt...the recounts all show Gore lost. That's including all the recounts by the major papers and TV networks.

Luigi Novi: But there have been charges that many people were kept out of the voting booths, and thus were not able to vote, as well as that many people found the butterfly ballots so confusing, that some ended up inadvertently casting ballots for Buchanan.

Blue Jackal: I'll spend my time watching anime, "Family Guy," "Futurama," and "Star Trek" just to be happy and ignore the idiocy of most popular television

Luigi Novi: Ah, another Family Guy fan. Did you hear FG might be coming back due to sales of its DVD’s?

The Blue Spider: Luigi, by dismissing the Old Testament outright you minimize the impact and effects of the New Testament and Christ's work.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t dismiss the Old Testament. I dismissed all the dubious moral directives found in the Bible as a WHOLE as a way to live one’s life. The Bible is certainly valuable as a historical artifact, a work of literature, a source of myth, and even a source of some morality, insofar as things like “turn the other cheek” and the Golden Rule are concerned. But when the same book commands me to hate my parents in order to follow Jesus, teaches me that a woman’s touch defiles me, depicts God tormenting a morally upright man simply because Satan dared him to do so, or prescribes death for homosexuals, that book shows itself to be too inconsistent and outdated for me to pattern my entire life around it.

Avi Green: Alright, Luigi, stop exactly where you are. Until now, whenever I read most of your messages here, I thought you were excellent. Now, you go so far as to write slander against the bible…

Luigi Novi: You can’t “slander’ an inanimate object, Avi. It’s the Bible. It is filled with dubious morality, bogus science, immense violence, and hatred towards women. All I did was state this, and point out a few examples. That isn’t slander. It’s a statement of fact.

Avi Green: without even confirming your facts…

Luigi Novi: And where did you establish this? Because you don’t share my viewpoint means that I didn’t base my statements on documented things that can be referenced? Sorry, but I’m not buying it. The passages I mentioned (as well as numerous others) can be found in the Bible. You want a list with the attributed books and verses?

Avi Green: …in order to back up this argument in favor of homosexual culture?

Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about the homosexual “culture.” In fact, I find things like Queer Eye to be utterly distasteful, because it perpetuates a stereotype (it’s kinda like black people who don’t mind calling themselves niggers), or things like the transvestite Santa Claus in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade, because it’s just plain inappropriate.

What I said is that just because the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination doesn’t mean that I’m going to treat it as such, and that I don’t regard the Bible as a model of morality for me to follow.

Avi Green: I have taken the time to read the bible, and it most definately does not endorse or in any ways advocate slavery…

Luigi Novi: Then you must have somehow missed 1 Peter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5-6, Proverbs 29:19, Leviticus 25:44-46, various verses in Chapter 21 of Exodus including 2-10, 20-21, and 26-32, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9-10, Deuteronomy 20:13-14, Luke 19:27, Luke 12:41-48, Joel 3:8, Matthew 8, Matthew 10:24-25, John 13:16, etc.

Avi Green: …nor does it in any ways say that a woman is unclean after giving birth to a girl…

Luigi Novi: Leviticus 12:1-5.

Avi Green: or advocate the death penalty for "rebellious children".

Luigi Novi: Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9.

Avi Green: Why, in fact, it says that women spiritually, if anything, have more patriotism than men do!

Luigi Novi: Really? I didn’t know that. Which passage?

Avi Green: Your message is also contemptuous of the very race who, if it hadn't been for them, we might never have seen comics like Superman and Spider-Man even today.

Luigi Novi: Bullshit. The idea that criticism of the Bible amounts to contempt for Jews is a ridiculous non sequitur. You could just as well say that criticism of Peter’s 12-year run of Incredible Hulk amounts to “contempt of that race” since he’s Jewish, when it’s really just as stupid a statement.

Avi Green: Do you know that Jack Kirby for one, was very honorable of the bible, as told in the Forward once, and if he knew how you were writing slander against even him, he could be spinning in his grave.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t write slander about Jack Kirby, and it’s an incredibly specious bit of reasoning to say that I did (which in itself is quite slanderous). Who cares if Jack Kirby honored the Bible? He didn’t write it, nor does pointing out passages in it that I find questionable have anything to do with Jews in general, or Jack Kirby in particular, simply because he believed in it.

Avi Green: I don't suppose you'd care to apologize…

Luigi Novi: Why would I apologize for pointing out something that is a matter of documented fact, and for expressing my personal feelings of morality pertaining to it?

Avi Green: …for your foolish act of cowardice…

Luigi Novi: So because you disagree with my opinion, or have a different interpretation of the passages in question equates with cowardice on my part?

Sorry, I don’t think so. Pointing out that the Bible contains passages of gratuitous violence and outdated misogynist philosophy has nothing to do with either courage or cowardice. At best, you could explain why my citations of those passages are incorrect, or subject to interpretation, or opine that you yourself have chosen to use the Bible as a model of morality. But that doesn’t have anything to do with bravery or cowardice.

Moreover, to capriciously and indiscriminately throw around pejorative words like “foolish” and “cowardice,” as well as accusations of anti-Semitism, not because their definitions reasonably fit the statements you are responding to, but simply for their vitriol content, is to engage in slander yourself, and in so doing, hypocrisy as well.

Avi Green: …and explain why you said it at all?

Luigi Novi: I think I’ve been quite clear on what I said and why I said it, Avi. You, on the other hand, have failed to refute any of the things I said with anything other than non sequiturs and insults.

Tim Lynch: Contrast, please, with our current president telling an audience that God has directly instructed him to "strike at Saddam." Compare, if you would, with Gen. William Boykin in full military regalia saying that he knew he'd win some particular battle "because I knew I was worshiping God and he was worshiping an idol."

Luigi Novi: You mean to tell me that Boykin is trying to impress Kelly Clarkson and Ruben Studdard? :-)

SER: The "bane of our existence" is hate and pettiness, which is in all of us, regardless of our faith…At its best, religion makes man a little more humble, which is not so bad a thing…Religion is often used ot justify horrible things but that's a corruption of it.

Luigi Novi: I think Carl Sagan made a pretty good case in The Demon-Haunted World in showing how religion has largely stood in the way of progress, and did so with a dispassionate analysis, and not by having to be hateful or petty.

EClark1849: You know, I should just point out the obvious mistake with saying that "Gays don't have the same rights to marry in the United States" . It is untrue. Obviously they do. AND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE they have to marry someone of the opposite gender. The difference is that they don't particularly want to.

Luigi Novi: Whether this rationale holds up depends on what you define as the right to marry. You define it as the right to marry a person of the opposite sex only. Obviously, other people, including gays, do not define it as such. Some people like myself define it as the right to marry the person you’re in love with. Every consenting adult should have the right to marry the person they’re in love with. Heterosexuals have this right. Homosexuals do not.

Avi Green: Now, you go so far as to write slander against the bible…

Luigi Novi: You can’t “slander’ an inanimate object, Avi. It’s the Bible. It is filled with dubious morality, bogus science, immense violence, and hatred towards women. All I did was state this, and point out a few examples. That isn’t slander. It’s a statement of fact.

The grammatical purist in me feels constrained to point out that one doesn't write slander, one speaks slander. If it's written, it's libel.

So this would be an accusation of Bible libel. Or perhaps simply Libible.

PAD

Kyle wrote:

Well, since someone brought him up, Rick Santorum was absolutely right, although I distinctly remember dozens of people on this board dismissing his comments:

This news story and Green's legal action don't prove Santorum (can you *say* Santorum in polite company?) "right." They just show that someone's trying to expand (and pervert) the intention of the original ruling. Just because Green and his lawyers can't see the difference, doesn't mean that a sensible judge won't deny his appeal.

Rob

"Libible"? Wasn't that a song by Ritchie Valens?

I thought "libible" was a part of a woman's naughty bits.

Since I came up with the "household" concept, I'll answer some questions asked:

"would college roomates be considered a household?"

Well, you're not automatically married if you live together, so no. If roommates wanted to become a household, they'd have to go and sign some papers naming them as such. No JOP necessary, just something to document their status.

"How about boarders? Is that guy you rent a room to considered part of your household?"

Same thing. No reason for them not to be, if all involved parties wish to be considered a household.

"Can you declare him on your taxes?"

Yes, if he's a part of your household and qualifies as a dependant (if you're charging him rent, this is unlikely).

"Cover him under your insurance?"

Frankly, I'm not convinced that even the limitations of a household should prevent a person from being covered under another's insurance. What reason is there for denying coverage to somebody for whom another is willing to pay? If I wanted to cover my little old lady neighbor because she doesn't have any family and her job doesn't grant her insurance, why should her not being my wife, or in my version, part of my household, prevent it? If she's got a pre-existing medical condition, there are provisions already in place to deal with that, so they would still apply. It would be harder for her to be insured, but if I'm willing to bear the burden, why am I not allowed to?

"What about family members who live in your house but pay you rent?"

Sure. It's not like asking your kid to "earn his keep" through chores isn't a form of rent. It's just more negotiable. There's no reason that any human that lives under your roof shouldn't be able to join your household and be covered under the benefits.

"If your roomate moves out can you sue them for "divorce" and get alimony/palimony and/or child support from them like you might a former spouse?"

That's a tricky one. My gut says no, but dependance and standards of living are real issues. I guess I'd say it's more like ending a job than getting a divorce. If you quit for no reason, no p/alimony. If you get thrown on your ass after demonstrable breach of household contract on another member's part, yes (and since marriage is just a contract, so too should be a household agreement).

Perhaps there should be different levels of household, such as a household for those with financial dependance on one another and another for familial/emotional dependance. If the relationship is firmly established at the beginning, then there should be no significant problem when it ends.

Someone asked about pets: No.

A married couple living on separate continents: Living under one roof isn't necessarily all that makes a family, and since I've already said a person should be able to cover a neighbor, sure. If one is supporting the other, certainly -- if not, there's no reason for them not to be, though they probably don't need to be.

Incidentally, it has come to my attention that this "household" idea I've come up with may be a genuinely unique thought I've had -- rather than the blindingly obvious compromise I thought it was when it first occurred to me. I'm going to write my congressmen/women, and I think I'm urging everyone here who's agreed with me to do the same. It has some flaws, to be sure, but judging by that it hasn't offended anybody's sensibilities and the fairly inflammatory nature of this place, I may have actually come up with an honest-to-your-deity-here solution.

My name is Michael Albright, I live in Woodridge, IL. Make sure you mention me.

I have just e-mailed Illinois's two senators the following:

I proposed an idea I had on a weblog I frequent to see what kind of reaction it would get, and even though this weblog has a farily even mix of conservative and liberal viewpoints (and frequently devolves into civilian bipartisan bickering), it was recieved quite well and didn't seem to offend anyone's moral beliefs; in fact, some conservatives said that they would support such a law even though they personally disapprove of homosexuality on a moral basis. The address of the weblog is: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000695.html#comments . The blog belongs to Peter David, a rather popular science fiction/fantasy novelist.

My idea is this: The first step is that marriage be scrapped as a legal status (this part I've heard before), so the decision of whether gays can be married can be left exclusively to the churches, since a major aspect of this issue seems to be the semantic distinction of "marriage" as opposed to a "civil union." This leaves some gaps in existing law, I know, but instead of heavily re-working them, I've come up with the second part (this part I've not heard before) -- replacing "marriage" as a legal concept with a much broader one. I've been calling it a "household." Every couple currently married in this country would be automatically considered a household, for instance. Gays could get married in a church of their own choice, but for legal status would have to register as a household. Further, any group of people who choose to live together for any reason could become a household -- regardless of the moral implications of their relationship, be they a commune or a large group of roommates who have just decided to throw their financial dependance in with one another. This way tax and insurance benefits, as well as other legal benefits of marriage I am not especially well-versed in, could all be conferred on the group.

The idea formed this way: I just recently graduated from a two-year technical school, and for the entire time I attended, I lived with my sister. I've had a great deal of difficulty finding work for the last two years, and she has by and large supported me as I undertook my schooling. Unfortunately, since we are brother and sister rather than husband and wife or parent and child, she could not cover me under her insurance, in spite of the fact that I was quite distinctly her dependant, which means that on her salary, which wasn't really enough to support two people (we did have some help), would have been stretched even tht much further in the event that I had needed some form of medical attention.

In any case, in spite of the fact that I should very soon find myself among the employed (and insured) again, thus fixing my problem, this seems an idea that could both help many people in similar situations to mine and likewise solve the issue of gay marriage.

I haven't worked out all the details, since I have only a layman's familiarity with matters of marriage law, so this is not a fully fleshed-out plan; merely an idea I have percieved to be a good one. It has its flaws (some of which are discussed in the blog entry linked above; I ask that you read it as you think about this), but with a legislative hand, I think the idea could work quite well.

You know, I've seen it commented recently on the Psiphi.org boards (which are mostly for Star Trek novel discussion) that the contract idea might not be a bad way to go.

Where two people sign a document "we're married for X time". At the end, you either resign a new contract or go your separate ways.

Seems like an iffy way to go, but with the divorce rate in this country... why not?

Either way, I'm not sure a contract version of marriage would solve the proble, nor a "household" version.

Abolishing marriage as a term won't either.

The best solution, imo, is to enforce the separation of church and state.

**"Cover him under your insurance?"

Frankly, I'm not convinced that even the limitations of a household should prevent a person from being covered under another's insurance. What reason is there for denying coverage to somebody for whom another is willing to pay? If I wanted to cover my little old lady neighbor because she doesn't have any family and her job doesn't grant her insurance, why should her not being my wife, or in my version, part of my household, prevent it? If she's got a pre-existing medical condition, there are provisions already in place to deal with that, so they would still apply. It would be harder for her to be insured, but if I'm willing to bear the burden, why am I not allowed to?**

Part of the problem your answer doesn't address is that most people are not the sole payers of thier insurance. For most people the bulk of thier insurance is paid for by thier employers. I pay about $200 a month for insurance, I would pay more if I had a wife and kids but it would still be fairly reasonable. but if I was unemployed and wanted to keep the same insurance it would cost me something like $2000 a month, with prices going up significantly for the rest of the family if I had one. (Keep in mind, being a single guy I took the most expensive plan my employer offers, a standard HMO would be cheaper but the bulk of it would still be paid by my employer). So while it's nice to say "as long as I want to pay for it anyone should be covered under my plan" the reality of it is that it doesn't really work that way. One of the complaints that gay people have is they are not able to have thier partners covered under thier employer's insurance plan simply because they are not able to get married.

The other day, this woman I work with was inviting people over to celebrate her "divorce." She's all of 25. I asked, "You were married?" "Separated," she replied with a shrug -- she's been living with another man for the entirety of the time I've known her. "It was disaster. We really rushed into it."

I was flummoxed: How does one *rush* into marriage? This wasn't done in Vegas. There was a ceremony and all. I could almost understand getting drunk and winding up pregnant over "rushing" into a $30,000 wedding and a four-month marriage.

Maybe they've only known each other less than a year before getting married, or their engagement was less than six months to a year, which some people consider 'rushing' into marriage. Or she and her ex-husband were following the cultural injunction that being 'in love' with each other meant that they didn't have to do any hard work to keep the relationship going, that everything would fall in place with no effort on their part, and when that was proved to be wrong they decided that the problem was that they 'rushed into things' rather than their lack of a relationship work ethic. At the very least it sounds like whoever married this couple didn't insist on them attending any pre-marriage counseling sessions as a condition of their marrying. (Interestingly, this is one area where some organized religions are actually ahead of secular society in trying to drive down the divorce rate. Better to find out that you don't agree on things like finances or having children before spending all that money on a ceremony and then finding out you have some major differences to iron out.) At any rate, it sounds like this gal and her ex-hubby needs to do some growing up/maturing before venturing down the bridal path again.

If idiots like this are marrying, I'm not about to stop Siegried and Roy.

Posted by SER

Assuming, of course, either of those two really wants to marry the other (based on some of the stuff I've read about them on the web it sounds like any romantic relationship they had going on ended some time ago. Of course that doesn't mean that they haven't started up a 'friends with benefits' type relationship since then either. . . . . I'm not part of their circle so I have no clue what their current relationship status actually is.) And at a guess, I think they have long since talked to their lawyers about who does what and gets what if one of them is incapacitated or dies, given how much their net worth is (52 million US, I think. Somewhere in that range).

Which may be a lesson for all of the gay people who are wanting their own unions recognized by the law: look into things like giving your partner power of attorney over you in case you are incapacitated, and make out your will so your significant other gets your estate rather than having all your property go to probate and then to relatives who may not approve of what you are and who you chose to live your life with. These things may not be the same thing as a marriage license but it will provide legal proof of who you want making decisions about your future and who you want your property to go to, and will make it harder for your SO to be shut out of any important decisionmaking by any and all disapproving relatives. Just a thought.

Chris

As far as the picking and choosing of Biblical passages goes, my reasoning is this:

The Levitical laws were a product of their times. Jesus came to free humanity from the law, and Paul says that we are no longer defined by the laws of Moses. So right there, we no longer have to keep Kosher, kill our disobedient children, etc. However, Paul does condemn homosexuality as sinful. This carries more weight with me than Leviticus does. If, as some believe, Paul was himself a homosexual (some believe this was the "thorn in the flesh" which God gave to strengthen him), this is especially important.

Inccidently, Paul also clarifies the slavery issue. Although he tells slaves to obey their masters in Ephesians, he also wrote the letter of Philemon. The letter is to a slave owner (Philemon) regarding the fate of an escaped slave (Onisimus, sp?). Onisimus joined Paul and became a Christian. Paul was sending Onisimus back to Philemon, but he stated that Philemon was not to treat Onisimus as a slave, but as a brohter in Christ. If slave owners had actually treated their slaves as brothers, loving and caring for them as Christ loved the church, the institution of slavery would have been quite different, if it existed at all.

Luigi is just as free to hold his beliefs as I am to hold mine. I hope he might change his mind someday, but he seems to have put a considerable amount of thought into his arguement.

Ben Hunt

(blink)

(blink)

You're defending slavery? "Enlightened" slavery is still slavery. You can't treat someone you "own" as a brother.

(stares in disbelief)

Gee, I've sure known a lot of big brothers who treated their little brothers like someone they owned...

No, I am not defending slavery. I meant that if slave owners had thought of their slaves as people, the institutions of slavery probably would have ceased to exist. I don't think Paul was in favor of slavery, either. He was saying that Christians had to treat fellow Christians with love, respect, and dignity, whatever their social status.

Lest you think my hypocrisy is showing, I think Jesus and Paul would have us show love and compassion to all people, regardless of sexual orientation. You can show love adn compassion to someone without approving of what they do. I would show love to a gay person as a child of God and a human being, but I would have to say that their lifestyle was sinful.

Sigh. Now I'm not only a homophobe, but pro-slavery. Jeez.

P.S. My grandparents are Presbyterians, and they are far less open minded than I am. Oh, well, off to Purgatory with the other Baptists.

Ben Hunt: Luigi is just as free to hold his beliefs as I am to hold mine. I hope he might change his mind someday, but he seems to have put a considerable amount of thought into his arguement.

Luigi Novi: Thank you, Ben. And have a safe and Happy New Year. But out of curiosity, which belief are you referring to that you hope I change?

\\As far as the picking and choosing of Biblical passages goes, my reasoning is this:

The Levitical laws were a product of their times. Jesus came to free humanity from the law, and Paul says that we are no longer defined by the laws of Moses. So right there, we no longer have to keep Kosher, kill our disobedient children, etc. However, Paul does condemn homosexuality as sinful. This carries more weight with me than Leviticus does. If, as some believe, Paul was himself a homosexual (some believe this was the "thorn in the flesh" which God gave to strengthen him), this is especially important.\\

Let me get this straigh, Leviticus was a product of it's time, and therefor doesn't necessarily apply anymore, but Paul's writing somehow aren't? and therefor carry weight? Why is that? Really, Not being argumentive but this just strikes me as yet another example of the "pick and choose" method of religion that so many practice.

Okay, Ben, I see where my confusion came from. You wrote:

If slave owners had actually treated their slaves as brothers, loving and caring for them as Christ loved the church, the institution of slavery would have been quite different, if it existed at all.

But I'd maintain that it's impossible to treat someone as a slave and a brother at the same time. I can't see it changing slavery (as you allow as one possibility) but completely abolishing it.

It was your allowance of the possibility that it might just change it drastically that astonished me.

Anyway, Happy New Year.

Rob

"Part of the problem your answer doesn't address is that most people are not the sole payers of thier insurance. For most people the bulk of thier insurance is paid for by thier employers."

A good point, and one I hadn't considered. However, covering those who are financially dependant on one -- my sister's employer arbitrarily decides they won't pay for my insurance because I'm not married to her (and I won't go that far for insurance), in spite of the fact that I am demonstrably a dependant here.

Of course, if the Canadian model of health insurance ever finds its way here, it will be a moot point, but the short version of this is: Somebody who knows what they're talking about should come up with the specifics. I'm just the idea man.

Rob wrote:

This news story and Green's legal action don't prove Santorum (can you *say* Santorum in polite company?) "right." They just show that someone's trying to expand (and pervert) the intention of the original ruling. Just because Green and his lawyers can't see the difference, doesn't mean that a sensible judge won't deny his appeal.

Ummm...Santorum said that people would try to expand and pervert the ruling if it passed. And by golly, that's just what is happening. Yes, Santorum was right.

Jeff: "...the recounts all show Gore lost. That's including all the recounts by the major papers and TV networks."

Sorry to digress, but this assertion is not correct. The recounts did not all show that Gore lost. Quite the opposite, the result of the recount conducted by a media consortium was that Bush would have won if there had been a limited recount but that if there had been a full statewide recount Gore would have won.

However, it is easy to understand why so many people (such as Jeff) are under the misimpression that Bush would have won any recount, because that is the way the media spun the story in the headlines.

When the story of the recounts came out, many papers headlined the account as Bush won -- emphasizing that Bush would have won under certain standards and downplaying that Gore would have won under others.

USA Today, for example, headlined their story "Newspaper's Recount Showed Bush Prevailed". The text of the story revealed that Bush would only have prevailed under certain limited circumstances (such as limiting the recount to the counties Gore had requested a recount of) and that Gore would have prevailed under other circumstances (such as a recount of all the Florida counties). But many people look mainly at the headlines and lead paragraphs and skim or skip the rest of the story. In this case, doing so meant missing a key fact -- that Gore would have prevailed under the conditions the Republicans had (during the post-election wrangling) declared to be the most reasonable standards for a recount.

I would recommend to anyone who is still in doubt about this matter to look up the original newspaper stories and read them for yourselves. (I have.) I don't think they are still available free on-line, but ones such as USA Today are readily available on microfilm at many libraries.

At the time the story of the recount was being reported, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting -- a group concerned about media bias against liberals) complained strongly about the way the story was being spun, and sent out several "action alerts", several of which are still available to read on-line:

http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-recount.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-florida-update.html

Here is the text of an AP correction printed in response to one of FAIR's criticisms:

Friday, September 6, 2002, 11:18 AM ET

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - In an Aug. 25 story on former Secretary of State Katherine Harris' upcoming book, The Associated Press reported that some inspections by news organizations of uncounted Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential race showed George W. Bush winning more votes than Al Gore.

The story should also have noted that some scenarios showed Gore coming out ahead. For example, a vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations found Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but that Gore would have finished ahead by the barest of margins had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

And, for those unable or unwilling to read the FAIR articles, here is a link to an article at Spinsanity that covers the same ground:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010417.html

On April 4, The Miami Herald with parent company Knight-Ridder and USA Today published the results of a review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties. Among their findings were that hundreds of ballots were arbitrarily discarded, discernible votes were not counted by machines, and overvotes with a clear intent were ignored. Ironically, the study also found that under the counting standards advocated by Gore and the Florida Supreme Court, George W. Bush would have won, but under the standards Republicans pushed for, Gore would have been the winner...

Before people misread what I am saying, let me try to be clear.

I am not disputing that there are some ways of counting (or re-counting) the votes by which Gore does indeed emerge as the loser.

But it is simply not true to say that the recounts all showed Gore losing. The exhaustive media recount done following the election showed that, under certain reasonable standards (such as a full state-wide recount) Gore won.

The idea formed this way: I just recently graduated from a two-year technical school, and for the entire time I attended, I lived with my sister. I've had a great deal of difficulty finding work for the last two years, and she has by and large supported me as I undertook my schooling. Unfortunately, since we are brother and sister rather than husband and wife or parent and child, she could not cover me under her insurance, in spite of the fact that I was quite distinctly her dependant, which means that on her salary, which wasn't really enough to support two people (we did have some help), would have been stretched even tht much further in the event that I had needed some form of medical attention.

Once the senators stop laughing, they will probably will send you a politely worded letter stating that:

Firstly, insurance benefits such as you mention are regulated by employers and insurance companies, not governmental regulations. If you want insurance bad enough, it is available to you, just at a fair price for an unemployed sponge and if you were smart enough than you could probably check into your university's medical programs and find out that you probably have an infirmary that you can utilize for medical needs and that the university probably offers insurance for students, just like most universities in the United States.

Secondly, that the tax benefits that you are asking for are available if your sister can prove that you are the sponge that you claim to be. She can claim you as a dependent and receive many tax breaks. But marriage benefits are entirely different than dependent benefits and you are talking about two separate issues.

They will politely write this while thinking this sponge should just find a job that has benefits while going to college, like so many others, instead of sitting on his lazy butt.

Thanks, Ken, for your confrontational thoughts.

I admit the insurance issue was misinformed (though matters of law are relavent with regards to insurance; they are simply not the only factor), but the idea has survived an exposure to a notoriously bipartisan forum with positive responses from both the left and right. That's an appealing idea in this time of bipartisan bickering on every level from layman to expert.

Secondly, if you're suggesting my inability to find work has something to do with a lack of effort, perhaps you should ask before asserting the notion as the truth. I've been working; freelance when it comes my way, part-time when it's available, which for the last three years, it has not been, for the most part. I don't think senators are going to assume that in a period of high unemployment and few available jobs that a single unemployed person (and a student at that, mind you -- if I were a professional student, "sponge" might be an appropriate slur, but I'll thank you to perhaps let the thought occur to you that a student might actually be learning something, and that a student at a technical school might be learning how better to attain a specific kind of job, which I have been) automatically qualifies as a "sponge."

You are correct about the tax issues; they are a non-issue for me, though I was under the mistaken impression it was relevant. I didn't know it as I wrote the letter, but I did explain that I was a layman and did not necessarily have a working knowledge of how these things work. As for the insurance issue, "fair" is a debatable term, and considering how much health insurance costs for an individual paying all of it out of pocket, it's mighty optimistic of you to think that a largely unemployed student can afford it.

Perhaps you're right about the senators, too: Perhaps they're as big of asses as you, and will snidely pen a letter to one of their constituents who has presented an idea to them in earnest. I certainly hope not, though. Maybe you could set an example for them and try to make your intelligent, relevant points in a discussion without being an ass, and perhaps they might follow suit.

will snidely pen a letter to one of their constituents

Exactly why I said that they will send you a politely worded letter.

Way to go, Luigi! Never let being wrong stop you! First let's have some linguistic purity. Obviously, NO ONE has a RIGHT to marry since marriage is by definition a UNION between two or more people. So it's a "right" you can't exercise unless someone agrees to do it with you. That makes it more of a privilege.

Next, I didn't "define" what a "Right to Marry" means. I merely pointed out that they have the same "rights" everyone else does regarding marriage. That statement is and remains true. Next, there are restrictions on who can marry who which have nothing to do with either race or gender. Such as age, number, species, and relationship. My guess is that you have no problems with restricting those particular "rights", even though three of them were legal at one point in history.

Luigi is wrong about the bible, since it accepted slavery, but without being enthusiastic about it, and while setting limits on it. (Nat Gertler is mistaken to use the King James translation. Sorry, Nat. Try the Jewish publication society version.) Luigi is wrong by far about it simply being in favor of killing disobedient children. It does, if anything, say that punishment should be given to children who've committed wrongdoing, but does not say that they should simply be put to death, and certainly not regardless of what the offense was that they committed. What's this about wearing two different fabrics? The linen and wool combination is forbidden in Deuteronomy 22:11, and in Leviticus 19:19, but in neither place does it specify any punishment. Further, Leviticus 19:18 says just one verse before, quote, "Love your fellow as yourself". This is much different in spirit from what Luigi claims about the bible.

As for the death penalty, in 2nd Temple times, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish lawmaking body, put severe restrictions on the death penalty, making it practially impossible in practice. And Luigi seems to have gotten information from inaccurate sources hostile to the bible.

Luigi, if you're going to lead such an argument, you should bear in mind that considering all the antisemitism that's been going on even today, what with the rise in antisemitism in the middle east and in Europe, to lead an argument against what you feel is unjust in the wrong way can be very dangerous.

And I want to point out that, while there is a lot of unjust anti-Americanism going on in the past few years, even appearing sadly enough, in the pages of some American made comics, it should be noted that the United States is one of the worst offenders in political correctness, with only so many media, government, and community sources going out of their way to suppress what they personally perceive as "hate speech", and I once knew a very PC advocating teacher from western Pennsylvania who was like that, and even went so far as to lie to me about supposedly knowing Moslems or what the culture/religion is like, in order to counter what he felt was a supposedly unjust critique of such things. Right, and then did he ever stand up in defense of the Sudanese blacks, like I want to? Nope. He even, I discovered, lied to me regarding his having read J. Michael Strazcynski's run on Spider-Man, or any run on Spider-Man, just to fortify a very PC argument regarding the separation of Peter and MJ. Buffoon that he was. Sheesh.

EClark1849: You know, I should just point out the obvious mistake with saying that "Gays don't have the same rights to marry in the United States" . It is untrue. Obviously they do. AND JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE they have to marry someone of the opposite gender. The difference is that they don't particularly want to.

Yes, linguistically, you're correct. Gay people have just as much of a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. But as noted, that rationale defines marriage as "1 Man + 1 Woman" and doesn't factor other issues in, like, say, love, or commitment, or legal benefits.

By that logic, denying the privilege of inter-racial marriage wouldn't be denying any person the privilege of marriage. People could still marry one another, as long as they belong to the same ethnicity. Can we really say we're comfortable with denying the "privilege" to marry based on identity? Of course, you could counter by saying, "Well, marriage is defined by gender, but not by race," but as I said before, marriage shouldn't be about a formula. And call me a romantic, but I think if you lose love from the equation (not sex, but LOVE), you've lost the most human reason for marriage. So, while there's something to be said for linguistic purity, I find the human element lost. It's technically a correct sentiment, but it doesn't seem very compassionate.

As for the Bible, I still think that it's contradictory. The Old Testament and the New Testament obviously say sometimes contradictory things. Both, however, are a product of a particular period and a particular culture, and while I'm a Christian, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I've got all the answers and that the Bible can stand as the sum total of God. Yes, homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments. Does that matter to me? No. I just have to believe that God doesn't like it when we use His name as a weapon. He is, as Jesus taught us, a God of Love, of compassion, a Father to His children. Is there anything that one's child could do that would make that parent stop loving that child? I hope not. Even the mothers of serial killers love and weep for their children, and they may not approve of the conduct, but they forgive, or at least, they should. And murder is a far cry from love.

Like I said, call me a romantic, but it all comes down to whether we are willing to recognize love between persons of the opposite sex, and use that recognition as a basis for legal privileges. I'm willing to do that, if only because I think my Father, my God of Love, would want me to. It's as simple as that.

I mean no offense to anyone else on this forum, and hope that I haven't come across as aggressive. Spirited debate can be a good thing, but let's not forget that rarely does such debate result in a person saying, "Hey...you're right and I'm wrong. D'oh! My bad!"

:-)

Luigi, if you're going to lead such an argument, you should bear in mind that considering all the antisemitism that's been going on even today, what with the rise in antisemitism in the middle east and in Europe, to lead an argument against what you feel is unjust in the wrong way can be very dangerous.

You need to get off your religious high horse as well.

At times, I think it's people that make comments like yours that are perpetuating the problems in the world.

Somebody says "Well, the Old Testament says this."

And you fire back about how they're spitting on all Jews?

To hell with that.

One more thing, Avi, while I'm on the rant.

Your whole "you better watch what you say" makes you sound like the drivel coming out of the Bush Administration post-9/11, where everybody is labeled a traitor and it's suddenly wrong to speak out against the gov't.

Ken - Well, if their blatant contempt for me is as thinly-veiled as yours, it will be an interesting attempt at politeness.

You know, Craig, I don't have any bodyguards to protect me, something that Bush, whom I don't vote for, does, and so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support? Nor do I influence any newspapers or magazines, unlike Bush, who can.

It should be noted that even you are writing on a forum that doesn't belong to you, and so, I hope you are aware that you're not only attempting to insult me, but also Peter David, the owner of this blog, which leads me to wonder if you're really at all a fan of PAD's. If not, then I suggest you make a grand exit, and make sure that the door doesn't hit you in the ass on the way out.

And pardon me, but as it so happens, I am not religious, and do not wear a kippa, and for someone who says that I sound like the Bush administration, it's interesting to note that you sound very much like a Repugnican yourself. In fact, you may have more in common with Bush's middle eastern policies than you suspect. As a matter of fact, the US president, who calls for establishing an Arab state west of the Jordan river, that would likely threaten Israel, shouldn't be called a "special friend" of Israel. Which you for one certainly aren't.

If anything though, you've just unmasked yourself as an Israel-basher, which, if you ask me, was a mistake.

I insist again, that people should be truthful, and not inciteful, bearing in mind the consequences to human beings about what they say.

"... I don't have any bodyguards to protect me... so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support? ..."

"... I hope you are aware that you're not only attempting to insult me, but also Peter David..."

"...you sound very much like a Repugnican yourself..."

"... you've just unmasked yourself as an Israel-basher..."

The preceding excerpts were originally Posted by Avi Green on 01/01/2004.

I don't understand why this was posted today rather than exactly 4 months from now.

Posted then, it might be funny. Posted today, there's too much danger of unwary readers thinking the post was intended seriously.

so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support?

Well, now this has certainly overstepped the bounds of polite conversation.

So, while I have a few choice things to say about you (not your religion, I'd have for you to not be able to separate the two), I won't.

If anything though, you've just unmasked yourself as an Israel-basher, which, if you ask me, was a mistake.

Well, what are you going to do? Call for airstrikes to kill me and other innocent people?

The Israeli military is no more innocent in the struggle than the terrorists.

Oh, yes, I support terrorism. But I'm a Republican.

If anything, the former would say I'm a traitorous Democrat, while the latter is pure ignorance on your part.

I follow my own path, not the whims of a pair of useless political parties that worry more about their own agendas than the good of America and the world.

I will have no say in which Democratic candidate is on the final ballot next fall; nor would I for the Republicans, if Bush wasn't the incumbant, for I'm registered independant.

It's time you separate fact from fiction, and realize that just because somebody speaks out against your religion, or your country, or your gov't, or whatever, they're not somebody that's racist, or antiseminist, or whatever other garbage you manage to come up with.

ooops

Did I write "exactly 4 months from now"? Obviously I meant "exactly 3 months from now."

uh, er... Oh, I know! That was my attempt at humor, pretending I didn't know how to count. Yeah, that's the ticket...

**

I mean no offense to anyone else on this forum, and hope that I haven't come across as aggressive. Spirited debate can be a good thing, but let's not forget that rarely does such debate result in a person saying, "Hey...you're right and I'm wrong. D'oh! My bad!"**

Don't worry, Michael. I could say something obvious like the sun is hot and rather than agreeing with me, someone here will debate me.

I have to kinda disagree with your take on marriage though. Most people disagree with homosexual marriage (aside from the obvious religious context) based on gender. Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for beastiality, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.

I bring that up not to bash gays and lesbians but because I want to remind you that the reason why government has a vested interest in controlling marriage is reproduction. Today we think of marriage as a union of love, but up until as little as 90 years ago, marriage was more a matter of reproduction than love. If you think I'm joking you can look it up. Most states, and most countries, still have laws on the books that allow marriages between children as young as the age of 12 - 14 years old. Remember "The Color Purple"?

I can just see the adverts now: "With George W. Bush in charge, our armed forces captured Saddam Hussein. If Howard Dean were in charge, our soldiers would have been too busy marrying each other to get anything done."

Hey, Joe Lieberman could be the spokesperson!!!

Any you Avi sound like an Arab basher. Feeling unhappy because not enough ragheads were killed today? Maybe you should grab a gun and go help out

Yeah, Im American. Maybe youd like to send some planes to bomb my house like you did the Liberty

EClark says...

Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for beastiality, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.

Group 1: Men married to post-menopausal women.

Group 2: Heterosexual couples where one or the other member has been sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation).

Group 3: Heterosexual couples where one or both members have been injured in such a way as to make reproduction impossible.

If reproduction is the only problem, why are those three pairings okay and same-sex marriage not?

TWL

Kyle wrote:

Ummm...Santorum said that people would try to expand and pervert the ruling if it passed. And by golly, that's just what is happening. Yes, Santorum was right.

It is mentioned that it would be open to attampts in the story, but the story quotes Santorum as saying:

"You would have the right to bigamy; you have the right to polygamy; you have the right to incest; you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, predicted in April.

implying that the sodomy ruling already provided (or set the legal groundwork for) these rights.

Rob

(Nat Gertler is mistaken to use the King James translation. Sorry, Nat. Try the Jewish publication society version.)

The King James is the Bible for far more people than the Jewish publication society version is. Nope, no mistake there.

EClark: Way to go, Luigi! Never let being wrong stop you!

Luigi Novi: And never let merely someone disagreeing with you and pointing out how different people view certain things stop you from saying that they’re “wrong.”

EClark: Next, I didn't "define" what a "Right to Marry" means.

Luigi Novi: By asserting that marriage is and can only be between a man and woman, you have done so.

EClark: I merely pointed out that they have the same "rights" everyone else does regarding marriage.

Luigi Novi: And I pointed out that they don’t, because they don’t have the right to marry the person they fall in love with, which is what a more inclusive definition would be.

Avi Green: You know, Craig, I don't have any bodyguards to protect me, something that Bush, whom I don't vote for, does, and so, do I have any protection against Arab terrorists, whom I suspect you support?

Luigi Novi: Can you explain where it is indicated that Craig supports Arab terrorists?

Avi Green: Luigi is wrong about the bible, since it accepted slavery, but without being enthusiastic about it, and while setting limits on it.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about whether the Bible was “enthusiastic” about it or “set limits,” so your argument is utterly without foundation.

My statements about the Bible were and are factually correct. I stated that it encourages slavery, and it does. I stated that many passages prove this, and I pointed the out.

Since I did not say anything about “enthusiasm” or “limits” (as if that means anything to a slave), your statement that I was “wrong” because it is not enthusiastic and sets limits is a meaningless Straw Man argument.

Avi Green: Luigi is wrong by far about it simply being in favor of killing disobedient children. It does, if anything, say that punishment should be given to children who've committed wrongdoing, but does not say that they should simply be put to death

Luigi Novi: As I already told you, Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 indeed state that. Are you illiterate, or something?

Avi Green: As for the death penalty, in 2nd Temple times, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish lawmaking body, put severe restrictions on the death penalty, making it practially impossible in practice. And Luigi seems to have gotten information from inaccurate sources hostile to the bible.

Luigi Novi: Bible Gateway, actually, a website at http://bible.gospelcom.net/, which provides all requested verses from 17 different versions of the Bible, which corroborate my statements. You can even listen to audio versions of the passages with some nice background music, which hardly makes that site seem “hostile” to the Bible.

Avi Green: Luigi, if you're going to lead such an argument, you should bear in mind that considering all the antisemitism that's been going on even today...

Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about anti-Semitism, nor did I ever mention anti-Semitism. Again, what does any of what we’re talking about have to do with anti-Semitism? We’re not talking about Jews or anti-semitism, or Peter David, or Jack Kirby, or comic books, and saying that I do not regard the Bible as a moral guide because it contains too many inconsistencies, violence and misogyny doesn’t pertain to any of that. You are just making a Straw Man argument.

Stick to the relevant subject.

Craig J. Ries to Avi Green: Somebody says "Well, the Old Testament says this." And you fire back about how they're spitting on all Jews?

Luigi Novi: Not even. I never mentioned the Old Testament. I said “The Bible.”

Avi Green: It should be noted that even you are writing on a forum that doesn't belong to you, and so, I hope you are aware that you're not only attempting to insult me, but also Peter David, the owner of this blog, which leads me to wonder if you're really at all a fan of PAD's.

Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? How is an argumentative statement (or even an insult) directed at you an insult toward Peter David? Why are you trying to portray an attack against you as an attack against someone else? Where do you get off accusing Craig of supporting Arab terrorists, and then pretending that somehow a remark toward you is also an insult meant for Peter? Can you explain this?

Novi, if you want an explanation, it's this: even if PAD agrees with your views, that does not mean that he approves of posters insulting one another, and certainly not on grounds of race or religion.

And you might also want to bear in mind that whatever his thought on homosexuals or religion are, he happens to be very pro-Israel, and Mr. Ries for one has blown it by stating his "opinions" on a site where the viewpoint is quite the opposite. And sadly, so do you. And if you're going to be so degrading in your own way, Repub, than I suggest you hit the trail as well. Democrats of my standing don't align themselves with people of your standing.

that does not mean that he approves of posters insulting one another, and certainly not on grounds of race or religion.

Indeed. You are the one insulting other posters, and PAD has said nothing to either of us.

Democrats of my standing don't align themselves with people of your standing.

You have accused me of being a liar, anti-semanist, and supporting terrorism. And, the biggest insult of all, a Republican.

If I were truly a Democrat, I wouldn't want to be associated with you either.

Your standing? You're just crawling through the filth that is of your own devising.

I have stated that I dislike the way Israel is handling the situation with the Palestinians, and so I am anti-Israel.

Heck, I haven't even stated what I would do with the situation, which I'm sure would have people up in arms of a couple religions.

I have stated that I dislike the way the war in Iraq has been handled. So, by the same logic, I must be anti-American.

Now I know how the Republicans can come up with the obviously bull@#$^ logic by which some Americans are calling other Americans traitors.

Are you sure you're in the right political party, Avi?

Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for beastiality, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.

Group 1: Men married to post-menopausal women.

Group 2: Heterosexual couples where one or the other member has been sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation).

Group 3: Heterosexual couples where one or both members have been injured in such a way as to make reproduction impossible.

If reproduction is the only problem, why are those three pairings okay and same-sex marriage not?

Tim,

I'm pretty sure you realize that I was speaking historically about marriage. People DID marry for love, too, you know. But the HISTORY of marriage was that it was mainly a way to unite families and even kingdoms, or to produce labor to help work the land. Most of the inheirtance laws which are some of the benefits gays say they want was brought about specifically for this reason.

As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can't say the same for gay unions. Hell, there are even MYTHS about half-human and half-animals, can't think of one for gays.

And if you're going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage, then under what pretense do you stop ANYONE from marrying, including bigamy, incest and age.

**EClark: Next, I didn't "define" what a "Right to Marry" means.

Luigi Novi: By asserting that marriage is and can only be between a man and woman, you have done so.**

All I did was state the situation as it currently stands in this country, since that is what I thought the topic was about. If you're talking about extrapolating flights of fantasy or every conceivable instance into the mix... well, I have this life to get back to, so I don't have a lot of time.

And if you're going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage,

While I wouldn't make "love" a requirement of marriage, since many people still marriage for reasons other than love (which is something I couldn't do nor do I understand), I can't see these other reasonings coming up with a same-sex couple.

And for that alone, that love is the primary reason for marriage in a same-sex relationship, they should be allowed to be married. :)

As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can't say the same for gay unions. Hell, there are even MYTHS about half-human and half-animals, can't think of one for gays.

Two points, 1) using myths to back up an argument is problemtic at best.

2) There is precident in myths and even in popular culture for "gay" concecption, various tales of the Amazons for instance, (including comics own Wonder Woman) have women producing children with no men around.

EClark:

Same sex relationships simply cannot reproduce solely WITHIN the union. Except for beastiality, as far as we know, the ONLY other group that can be said about is gays and lesbians.

I bring up three counterexamples, then ask:

If reproduction is the only problem, why are those three pairings okay and same-sex marriage not?

EClark responds:

I'm pretty sure you realize that I was speaking historically about marriage.

Actually I didn't -- but I think it's a non-issue. The only reason to turn to history here is to use it as an example in one way or the other -- and in this case you're clearly using it to argue "gay couples can't reproduce, so historically they shouldn't marry."

My point is that there are several groups which put the lie to that statement. My question above -- why are these three groups okay to marry and gays not?

As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can't say the same for gay unions.

Ah. So those three groups "don't count" because there are loopholes.

Okay, then. Parthenogenesis occurs in nature -- females of some species give birth to other females with no male involvement whatsoever. Since there's historical precedent there (and precedent that goes back further than humanity itself), shouldn't that mean that at the very least we should allow lesbian couples to marry, since there's a chance offspring could occur?

And if you're going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage

... which I'd point out I never did. You made that leap.

then under what pretense do you stop ANYONE from marrying, including bigamy, incest and age.

I've answered this before, over in the 12/31 "An Amendment Now?" thread. I suggest you look there. (But points for not bringing up bestiality, since that's the other place this argument tends to go.)

TWL

I agree with Tim on these, so I'll answer them, too.

"As for the three examples you gave, though RARE, it is not unheard of for a miracle birth to occur in ANY of those situations. Can't say the same for gay unions. Hell, there are even MYTHS about half-human and half-animals, can't think of one for gays."

I hate the miracle-birth argument. The American Family Association has it on its old FAQ about why gay marriage is wrong. It says, in essence, that even though children are in no way relavent to a given marriage, it's ok as long as it's theoretically possible, simply due to the proper equipment, that a child could be born, either due to spousal error (if the partners simply chose not to have children) or some incredible miracle (if either of the couple is infertile). Nevermind that it's absurd to endorse marriage simply on the premise that the couple might have a child they don't want; what about the other methods that are available to those infertile couples? They are also available to gays (in theory, anyway); adoption, surrogate motherhood, and artificial insemination in the case of lesbians. There's also the "sculpting a daughter from clay" method Darren mentioned, but it's not as reliable as some others.

"And if you're going to make LOVE the only pre-requisite for marriage, then under what pretense do you stop ANYONE from marrying, including bigamy, incest and age."

Frankly, I don't. I believe polyamory should be an available option in the US. It's more practical than monogamy, to say the least. Any combination of men and women who decide they want to live and love together can move into a house together; why can't they get married? Or at least have some form of government recognition and conferrence of rights.

As for age, I wouldn't deign to tell someone they're too old to get married, or too young if they're not a minor (I might advise against it, but I wouldn't try to stop them).

Incest is kind of thorny, but some people don't harbor the societal taboo against it. I'm not one of them, but I wouldn't hold it against someone. If you're not related to either person (in which case you'd likely be related to both of them, natch), it's like watching incest pornography. It's really easy to say these people humping like bunnies are blood relatives, but are they? Can you really be sure? Or perhaps they're just saying it for shock value. Also, since incest legally includes adoptees, who am I to tell a guy it's just bad luck that mom and dad adopted his soul mate? Of course, a pair of siblings who wanted to get married bad enough could get around the law (one changes his or her name, for example) and as long as they keep their heads down -- which any such couples likely have been, since I've never seen an incest pride parade -- nobody will ever be the wiser. Of course, it kind of precludes family gatherings (except on the extremely off chance the rest of the family's into it), and grandma's stuffing is a pretty big sacrifice.

Incest is kind of thorny, but some people don't harbor the societal taboo against it.

Incest is more than just a "social taboo". There are potentially serious ramifications involved for the offspring of such a couple.

Polygamy is another issue entirely, and not one I particularly want to touch upon.

While such relationships are possible, they are not often healthy for all those involved.

I mean, how often is it that you hear about one of these polygamists (who's wives all know about each other, not the type leading a "double life") being arrested that *isn't* married to a minor?

Incest is more than just a "social taboo". There are potentially serious ramifications involved for the offspring of such a couple.

Suddenly, I see a rallying cry. "Only homosexual incest!"

I mean, how often is it that you hear about one of these polygamists (who's wives all know about each other, not the type leading a "double life") being arrested that *isn't* married to a minor?

Which has more to do with the specific cultures in which polygamy is currently endorsed than with the theoretical nature of polygamy (and it may be abetted by the fact that polygamists are operating outside of the legal concept of marriage anyway.) That focus may be increased by how (at least by my casual observation) most of those being arrested are being charged with welfare fraud, so you're dealing with someone who is going beyond the bounds of just polygamy. It's not apt to reflect the various folks living in complex arrangements that they may view as marriage but do not use to seek legal reinforcement or remuneration.

Avi Green: Novi, if you want an explanation, it's this: even if PAD agrees with your views, that does not mean that he approves of posters insulting one another, and certainly not on grounds of race or religion.

Luigi Novi: And yet you yourself have done it repeatedly, insulting others here and on the board above merely because they don’t share your religious beliefs. I, on the other hand, haven’t insulted you, and if I did, Peter is more than able to admonish me himself. He doesn’t need a self-appointed hall monitor to do so for him.

Avi Green: And you might also want to bear in mind that whatever his thought on homosexuals or religion are, he happens to be very pro-Israel, and Mr. Ries for one has blown it by stating his "opinions" on a site where the viewpoint is quite the opposite.

Luigi Novi: First of all, I didn’t say anything about Israel, nor did Craig. The first person to bring it up was the Blue Spider, and out of the three of us, you. I have never referred to or even used the word up until now, and Craig never did until you accused him of being an “Israel-basher” for absolutely no reason, yet another example of how incoherent and disorganized your reasoning and discussion abilities are.

Second, even if someone does disagree with Israel’s policies or criticizes them for something (much as they would their own country), that does not make them an “Israel-basher,” or an “anti-Semite.” There is a difference between sincerely disagreeing with actions you believe are wrong (whether it is an American criticizing the U.S. government or the Israel government), and attacking them on purely racial grounds. One does not necessarily have to be a racist or anti-Semite for criticizing Israel.

Third, the topic of this thread between you and I began when I stated how I will not condemn homosexuality simply because of Biblical condemnations of it, since I do not regard the Bible as consistent, moral, or honorable. You tried to make believe that this was a comment about the Old Testament, Jews, you, your god, Peter David, Jack Kirby, Siegel and Schuster, and so forth, and the reasoning for this on your part was so threadbare that even people who may agree with you on the subject of homosexuality would not lower themselves by chiming in to make believe that your paralogia on this was at all solid. Now you’re trying to make this about Israel, when I never mentioned Israel, or stated any view on it.

Lastly, the idea that stating an opinion on Israel (or any subject) on Peter’s site that is different from Peter’s opinion is somehow an “insult” to him is preposterous. Peter started this site because he wanted to interact with people who don’t share his opinions on various subjects. The idea that he only wants to people who agree with him on this subject to post here, or that he wants YOU to speak for him in this regard, is a load of bunk. Peter wants people to disagree with him. He does not want use his name simply when it is you who are disagreeing with someone.

Avi Green: And sadly, so do you. And if you're going to be so degrading in your own way, Repub, than I suggest you hit the trail as well. Democrats of my standing don't align themselves with people of your standing.

Luigi Novi: Referring to people as “Republicans” and “degrading,” simply because they don’t share your views, and because they point out your shoddy reasoning skills is far more degrading to your position than to mine, especially since I voted for Clinton and Gore in the last three elections.

You keep telling people to stop posting here, and it’s meaningless. This isn’t your site, and simply because you’ve set yourself as Peter’s best friend and personal bouncer at the front door doesn’t mean that people will honor this delusion of yours, or that Peter will either. He decides who posts here.

Not you.

EClark: Next, I didn't "define" what a "Right to Marry" means.

Luigi Novi: By asserting that marriage is and can only be between a man and woman, you have done so.

EClark: All I did was state the situation as it currently stands in this country, since that is what I thought the topic was about.

Luigi Novi: You opined that homosexuals have the same rights regarding marriage as heterosexuals. I disagree. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they’re attracted to and fall in love with. Homosexuals do not. What one believes marriage is and should be defined as determines whether you think homosexuals are denied marriage rights. People who agree with the law believe marriage is and should only be defined as a heterosexual union, and tend to think that therefore, homosexuals are not denied rights. People who do not agree with the law think it is and should be defined as a union between consenting adults who fall in love/are attracted to one another. All I did was to state this.

"Incest is more than just a "social taboo". There are potentially serious ramifications involved for the offspring of such a couple."

Well, since I'm making the argument that marriage and parenthood needn't go hand-in-hand, I'm assuming that an incestuous couple has no plans to reproduce with one another, because to do so would make them unforgivably ignorant or careless, and I will argue a case for neither. It's easy to get pregnant without meaning to, but if you're not careless, it's even easier not to -- after all, a woman can only get pregnant for three or four days a month. That being the case, incest is reduced to a social taboo, in which case, I stand by what I said.

"Polygamy is another issue entirely, and not one I particularly want to touch upon.

While such relationships are possible, they are not often healthy for all those involved."

Save for a person who is analytically polygamous but emotionally monogamous and the unintentional resentment sharing a lover can cause in that sense, I fail to see any way in which it wouldn't be healthy for a small group of people who all love one another pitching in and living together. Then again, there are plenty of unhealthy monogamous relationships out there as well, so I'm not certain that polygamy would be the unhealthy factor.

"I mean, how often is it that you hear about one of these polygamists (who's wives all know about each other, not the type leading a "double life") being arrested that *isn't* married to a minor?"

Well, since it's illegal for a person to be married to more than one person, at present, and bigamy is not a crime of passion anywhere but Vegas, such a person is not taking matters of law into consideration at that point, anyway. I know a married couple both of whom have another significant other, both are friends with the other S.O., and endorse the secondary relationship. They've expressed an interest in living in one big happy family with several adults, all romantically involved with one another, all raising everyone's children together. Of all the people I know, they are most likely to know what they want from life, and I would willingly join that family if I was invited -- I'd just rather spend some more time in a monogamous relationship first, though.

There are plenty of non-pedophiles pushing for legalized polygamy, though, and there's no reason, sociological or otherwise, that such a thing should be considered criminal.

I notice that people seem to always fall into the trap of defending gay marriage by defending the inevitable slippery slope of "polyamory" and "incest." If you start equating homosexual unions with what most Americans, including most gays, consider "icky," you can pretty much declare the whole argument over.

"Support gay marriage... and a Flowers in the Attic world where brothers and sisters marry and children are raised in a home with multiple 'moms' and 'dads.'"

Yeah, that'll sell.

Interracial (or even interfaith for that matter) unions might have seemed shocking but get past the cosmetic difference and the essential family unit remains the same. Gay unions, also, require that the basic family unit change greatly (two moms or two dads) but aside from that big leap, it's still not that far removed from a normal family unit (still two parents and a kid).

Incest is pretty much flat-out destructive. We expect that mom doesn't look at Junior in that way, nor does dad look at his daughter in that way. Siblings "dating" is less potentially abusive than the violation of the paternal bond but it still destroys the sanctity of the brother/sister or brother/brother relationship. For instance. I've dated women. However, when I see the relationship that siblings have that I will never have (I'm an only child), I can't help feeling envious. It's not something that I would exchange for a sexual relationship.

But this is ultimately a dead-end argument and it's distressing when people fall into it. The last thing I'd want is to see a Democratic candidate defending incest while Pres. Bush represses a giggle. It would make the whole Dukakis "what would you do if your wife were raped and killed" question look like a cakewalk.

Here's an article for those interested:

What marriage is for...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp

Mr. Ries: Despite whatever you say, aside from openly admitting that you support terrorism and the PLO, and discriminating against Israel, it is clear that you're just a Repug, and I find it dubious that you're married.

Mr. Novi: This may not be my site, but it isn't yours either, and respect for someone else's property is something that both sides need to respect.

It should also be noted that you continue to lie regarding Exodus, since the killing you speak of there was in retaliation for a murder committed by some crummy bad apples. I suggest you stop trying to distort the facts.

And if PAD himself is reading, then, I hope I'm not embarrassing you or anything, but I hope you understand that you're not doing yourself a favor by allowing bunglers like these to clutter your weblog, and that to let an argument like this degenerate into needless slop can run the risk of alienating many visitors to the site. As even these individuals, and me too, should be aware.

"... nor does dad look at his daughter in that way."

On a sidenote, Robert Heinlein theorized that all men look at their daughters that way, from very early in life. The good ones don't act on it directly, of course, but this is an explanation of why daughters tend to be closer to their fathers than sons.

I'm unsure about the theory, mind you, but it's a perspective that suggests incestuous thought isn't as alien as some of us might think; it's just something we reject for one reason or another.

Mr. Ries: Despite whatever you say, aside from openly admitting that you support terrorism and the PLO, and discriminating against Israel, it is clear that you're just a Repug, and I find it dubious that you're married.

You're a @#$^'ing moron. I'll be blunt - you're lucky you're not in arm's reach right now, because I'm not sure I could say I could stop myself from physically hurting you.

The only admittance I'm making is that, and that PAD or Glenn needs to do something about you.

I wonder if you're worth talking to a lawyer about at this point, since I'm starting to feel threatened by your accusations.

Just to play devil's advocate...

What's the big deal about beastiality? I mean, I can KILL a cow...

On a sidenote, Robert Heinlein theorized that all men look at their daughters that way, from very early in life. The good ones don't act on it directly, of course, but this is an explanation of why daughters tend to be closer to their fathers than sons.

Heinlein was just rephrasing Freud. There was a Law and Order episode the dealt with a sexual abuse of a young girl by her farther. One of the lawyers asked the other how any man could do that to thier own daugher and the lawyer answered with a story about being on the beach and seeing a really attractive young woman from afar, thinking the normal heterosexual male thoughts about her and then being horrified and ashamed when he got closer and noticed that the girl he had lustful thoughts about was his own daughter, The difference between him and someone who commits incest is that he felt shame, horror and revulsion at the thought of it, someone who molest thier own child never experiences that. I agree with the sentiments in that speech, incest happens all the time in the animal kindom, the only reason it doesn't happen as often for humans is because we have brains and morality that tells us that behavior is wrong. It is one thing to think your son or daugher is attrative, it is an entirly different thing to take that thought to the next level.

Avi Green: Mr. Novi: This may not be my site, but it isn't yours either…

Luigi Novi: I never acted as if it was. You, on the other hand, have. It was you who presumed to speak on Peter’s behalf, telling people to leave the site, and that their opinions were an insult not merely to you, but to Peter as well, even though Peter never stated such a thing, and certainly never delegated this task to you.

Avi Green: ..,and respect for someone else's property is something that both sides need to respect.

Luigi Novi: And you have not demonstrated that I have shown any lack of respect to Peter or his site. All you’ve stated is that I do not share his opinions on certain things, and that because I do not honor the Bible because of problems I have with much of its content, declared that this is an “insult” to him and his God, when from all appearances, Peter’s thoughts on these things (if his various statements on free speech, separation of church and state, and what many have done in the name of God are any indication) are probably closer to mine anyway.

Avi Green: It should also be noted that you continue to lie regarding Exodus, since the killing you speak of there was in retaliation for a murder committed by some crummy bad apples.

Luigi Novi: No it, it was for rebellious children.

Nothing is mentioned about a murder in the New American Bible in my house, which one of the inside introductory pages says was “Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of all the ancient sources by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America,” wherein Exodus 21:17 states: “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.” All other versions I’ve come across say the same thing (that the killing is for a child who “curses” his parents, not for a child who commits murder), including:

New International Version

“Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”

New American Standard Bible

“He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”

The Message

"If someone curses father or mother, the penalty is death.”

Amplified Bible

“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”

New Living Translation

“Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death.”

King James Version

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”

New Life

“Whoever curses his father or his mother will be put to death.”

English Standard Version

“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.”

Contemporary English Version

“Death is the punishment for cursing your father or mother.”

New King James Version

“And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”

21st Century King James Version

“And he that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”

American Standard Version

“And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”

Young's Literal Translation

“And he who is reviling his father or his mother is certainly put to death.”

Darby Translation

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall certainly be put to death.”

New International Version

“Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”

You can confirm each of these passages at http://bible.gospelcom.net/. You, on the other hand Avi, have not cited one passage from any version that supports your assertion, so who’s lying now?

Avi Green: And if PAD himself is reading, then, I hope I'm not embarrassing you or anything, but I hope you understand that you're not doing yourself a favor by allowing bunglers like these to clutter your weblog, and that to let an argument like this degenerate into needless slop can run the risk of alienating many visitors to the site.

Luigi Novi: Anyone who thinks that criticism of Israel’s policies is tantamount to “supporting terrorism and the PLO” and “discrimination against Israel,” who insults people as “buffoons” for not sharing their religious beliefs, who declares that anyone not sharing Peter David’s positions is insulting him, who compliments people for posts criticizing the very behavior he then continues to engages in, who takes it upon himself to tell others that they should not post here, as if he has the authority to do so, and who then hypocritically accuses them of behavior contrary to the rules of Peter’s site, while writing a blank check for himself to do just that, does far more himself to alienate visitors than anything I say when accurately citing Bible passages.

Marriage is recognized by the government in order to keep a stable and organized society. Look at what the "FREE LOVE" of the 60's has gotten us: over the top abortion rates, single teenage moms at an increasing rate because "you should do what you like". Now we are expected to buy into gay's just being who they are just like every one else. Well they are just like everyone else. They have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they are happy living with some one of the same sex you can't argue against it. But there is no reason the government should have to sanction it. Homosexual unions do not strengthen the country as a whole and deservie no special benifit as a result.

Amos wrote:

Homosexual unions do not strengthen the country as a whole and deservie no special benifit as a result.

Why don't you think they strengthen the country as a whole? I think any loving, committed relationship makes for stronger communities, and as a result, the country. And therefore, the government should endorse gay marriage to the extent it endorses straight marriage.

Rob

You guys are the 74854 best, thanks so much for the help.

fbgfdhgfhxg