…because I’m pìššëd øff.
So I’m watching this “TV Guide Best of 2003” show for no particular dámņ good reason, and they’re talking about how shows like “Queer Eye,” “Boy Meets Boy,” “Will and Grace,” etc., have caused America to understand and embrace the gay lifestyle. What a spectacular load of crap, as evidenced by the poll which indicated that 70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages.
Americans laughing at the Fab Five no more translates to an actual acceptance of homosexuality in this country than a hundred years ago when audiences laughing at Minstrel shows translated to a belief that blacks and whites should be able to drink at the same water fountain. “South Park” absolutely nailed it in the episode where all the men in town “embraced” the gay lifestyle but were simultaneously horrified by the notion of actual homosexuality, and that was before the poll came out.
If anyone thinks that the ratings of gay-oriented TV shows provides anything remotely approaching acceptance, just wait until the 2004 Prez race heats up. When that poll hit, the GOP must have been peeing themselves with excitement since Dean’s Vermont supports civil marriages. The Clinton administration being sandbagged in its first six months by the gays in the military issue will be, I suspect, just a warm up for this go-around. The GOP would be crazy not to take advantage of it. 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.”
This may well be the final nail in the Dean’s Un-electable coffin.
PAD
• 
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 Ðìçk Santorum who made all those “slippery slope” comments about gay marriage being the gateway for allowing marriage to include incest(!), polygamy(!!) and bëšŧìálìŧÿ(!!!). 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 bëšŧìálìŧÿ, 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 hëll 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 blas
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 blas
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 ņìggërš), 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: Bûllšhìŧ. 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 ášš 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