Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
“There is no way on Earth that you can make this work and also have products be less expensive. You reduce prices and you’re reducing the revenue that our current sales taxes take in;”
The twits in power here made the mistake of ramming a federal-level retail sales tax on just about everything. They claimed it “replaced an existing, hidden ‘manufacturer’s sales tax'”
This was an outright lie on many levels. First, it taxed many things for which there HADN’T been a manufacturer’s tax (stamps, haircuts, taxi rides etc, etc) and so brought in more money as people were being nailed more often than before.
Too, while it was true that the ‘hidden’ tax was at a higher level, it was on the MANUFACTURER’S price, whereas the new tax was on the RETAIL one – which is often quite a bit higher (I worked retail, so I have some idea about markups) and thus nets higher taxes for that item.
There ARE ‘rebates’ for it, too. I’ve never heard of anyone, however empoverished who actually qualified for it, however.
Bad, bad idea. All it accomplished was drive a significant portion of the economy to the underground to escape that new tax.
Let’s see … I’m having a horse race and someone wants to enter a zebra. I tell them “no”, because a horse race is for horses. Then the government comes along and forces me to redefine “horse race” to include zebras. How, exactly is this NOT forcing me to rethink what I’m doing and change the way I’m doing them?
And while people are not animals, obviously, the principle is exactly the same. Someone didn’t like the fact that they didn’t fit the established criteria for an institution (in this case “marriage” instead of “horse race”) and so they forced the world to change for them.
Minor quibble. Horses and zebra’s are kinda like different species, right. Kinda like humans and monkeys? So then your analogy would imply gays are a different species? That’s pretty radical.
Your argument works, but only for people who want to marry a monkey.
Could a gay horse enter the race, though?
Kidding aside, the issue of gay marriage is not or should not be so much an issue of gays demanding the right to marry, but to gays demanding the right to the same benefits from marriage. I don’t know the ins and outs of the American system, but don’t married couples have certain tax benefits? Marriage has certain advantages that everyone should in principle be allowed to enjoy. Denying people the opportunity to enjoy those benefits based on sexual preference is discriminatory and plain wrong. Now whether you call gay-marriage “marriage” or give it another name, the underlying principle of a legal union is a right for everyone.
I guess Shakespeare wasn’t just talking roses…
IF I could step out of my current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING teaching job, just like someone who feels this war is just could step out of their current job and DIRECTLY into a PAYING military job (most with a signing bonus), I just might do it. However, I can
“I didn’t say that defenders of the traditional definition of marriage shouldn’t provide a defense for their position. (Silence or weak arguments are certainly a poor reaction.) I said that they don’t bear the burden of persuasion. The status quo will remain the same until society is persuaded to change it.”
That’s kind of the point. The status quo IS being changed, and it’s being changed in favor of exclusion and bigotry.
Eleven states did not have laws on the books specfically banning same sex marriage. Therefore you’d THINK the status quo would indicate the acceptance of marriage being simply a bond between two loving people. But no. In a naked display of bias, they AMENDED the law specifically to exclude other people. It is as arbitrary as laws preventing interracial or interfaith marriages. But since bias against gays is “okay,” the right to marriage was specifically withheld from a portion of Americans who THOUGHT they were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except now it turns now, not so much.
There is no reason, none, to exclude gays from marriage. And I have yet to see anyone take me up on my challenge that they either will not marry or will divorce if people of the same sex have the same right to marry each other that was one excluded to people of different skin color or religion.
PAD
There is a difference between teachers & soldiers that is being overlooked. If someone who supports education but doesn’t become a teacher, another person isn’t forced to become a teacher in their place. However, someone who supports the war & is able to serve doesn’t, someone else has to. Look at how many soldiers are continuing to be shot at because of stop-loss orders or are told that they have to continue to serve even though they’ve done the 8 years they contracted for.
Then there are the threats the troops are receiving to re-enlist. Some have been told that if they don’t they’ll be sent to combat while others have been told that if they don’t their service could be extended to 2031.
And when we invade Iran and/or Syria, where are the troops going to come from? Will supporters of these wars enlist to support the wars, or will the government have to resort to a draft? (Yes, I know the government says there will be no draft. Like they’ve never lied before or changed their minds.)
Tim,
Seriously, check out the Fair Tax. It is not just for the limited government I’m in favor of. At current spending levels, there is more than enough revenue generated to fund all the current programs and more, including the ailing Social Security. And that’s at current spending levels. We all know that the minute people get a 35% raise they rush out and spend most if not all of it. Spending would go up. Products are sold at the same price after the tax, so why in the world would people run to other countries to buy if they aren’t already?
Probably I’m not explaining it well, but it deserves a good look.
Eleven states did not have laws on the books specfically banning same sex marriage.
Assuming you mean the eleven states that adopted marriage amendments in November, that’s incorrect. As best I can tell, at least ten of those states already had statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (Oregon seems to be the exception).
Massachusetts had a statute specifically banning same-sex marriage that the Mass Supreme Court threw out. But it left the door open for a state constitutional amendment, which the court couldn’t touch. It wasn’t until after that decision that states really began enacting amendments, and Mass is pursuing one itself.
Furthermore, one interesting feature of the Mass decision is that the court didn’t really care that the statute existed. In Part II of the majority decision, the court took the position that even if the “opposite-sex” statute didn’t exist, the intent of the Massachusetts legislature in passing its original marriage laws (which I’m guessing was decades ago) was to recognize only male-female marriages. They said that the undefined word “marriage” means opposite-sex marriage. The fact that there was a statute addressing the point was superfluous.
And if even the Massachusetts Supreme Court thinks that the word “marriage” in a state code automatically implies the participation of both a man and woman, then I’d be surprised if any other state would disagree.
It occurred to me a little late that at least some of those amendments probably have an effect on the potentiality of civil unions. I don’t know enough details about all eleven amendments to say.
But since none of those states had anything resembling a civil union statute on the books, an amendment wouldn’t change much other than making a potential future civil union law more difficult to pass.
Plus, for the record, I didn’t vote for Georgia’s amendment. And I HATE the federal marriage amendment proposal.
“Assuming you mean the eleven states that adopted marriage amendments in November, that’s incorrect. As best I can tell, at least ten of those states already had statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (Oregon seems to be the exception).”
You can’t be serious. Then what the hëll was the point, except to provide a wedge issue that could be used to make liberals look bad? If the amendment was rejected, then…what? The statute stays on the books and so it would have remained against the law? Or would the statute then have been changed?
It sounds to me like nothing but a politically motivated exercise in cruelty. And those are the bášŧárdš that you would side with? How can you not feel nauseated or, at the very least, ashamed of yourself?
PAD
Jess Willey: Sorry, this is America, 2005 AD. Atheist is a dirty word with this presidential dynasty.
Luigi Novi: Even more so was the previous Bush, who openly stated that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots.
I don’t think the apple falls far from the tree. Maybe I should seek asylum in Canada for religous persecution.
“It sounds to me like nothing but a politically motivated exercise in cruelty. And those are the bášŧárdš that you would side with? How can you not feel nauseated or, at the very least, ashamed of yourself?”
Because their FAITH (and not their minds) tell them to support hate-filled predjudice…
–It occurred to me a little late that at least some of those amendments probably have an effect on the potentiality of civil unions. I don’t know enough details about all eleven amendments to say.– Loren
My word! such an understatement.
The ammendments specifically forbid granting any “marriage-like” benefits to anyone not legally married. Those states in which the ammendments have taken effect (usually on Jan 1, 2005) have been learning that other kinds of partnerships, including “one-man one-woman” partnerships are losing benefits. Utah began the process of fine-tuning their ammendment to restore some of these benefits to senior citizen couples who had lost them in the ammendment.
Conservatives in the legislature squashed the attempt. They didn’t even try to hide the fact that it was too bad, grandma, but they did not want even the slightest possibility that homosexuals would ride on the coattails of their compassion.
Yes, they admitted that they were kicking their old people to the curb because their hatred for the GLBT was greater than their love of family.
Peter David: You can’t be serious. Then what the hëll was the point, except to provide a wedge issue that could be used to make liberals look bad?
They were enacted as preemptive measures to avoid their state courts doing the same thing that the Massachusetts Supreme Court did. A court could change a statute, but not an amendment.
There’s a possibility Massachusetts still may enact an amendment, in order to reverse the court’s decision. If it hadn’t been for the court’s 180 day deadline for compliance, they might have done so without ever following through on the court’s demands. Those other states didn’t want to be caught in the same position.
Personally, I think the amendments were overkill, since it’s fairly unlikely that their courts would imitate Mass’s.
How can you not feel nauseated or, at the very least, ashamed of yourself?
Why should I? I said I didn’t vote for it. I see no reason to be ashamed of myself for something I didn’t do.
Now the Federal Marriage Amendment, that was pure political pandering, and a ploy for votes. It never stood a ghost of a chance of passing, and just coincidentally was only a big issue during the campaign season.
Bush, for instance, was pretty much silent on the FMA until the Democratic primaries got underway. Then he was very vocally for it. But once the election was over, most of the buzz about it seemed to disappear. If it ever actually reaches a floor vote, it’ll die a swift death and be done with.
Man, I go away for a week, and miss out on all this good stuff.
My solution to marriage is even simpler: get rid of civil unions, and all the legal trappings that go with it. If marraige goes back to only being a religious concept, then the whole hue and cry for the “defense” of marriage goes away. It goes back to a matter of the church only, where it’s actually LEGAL to discriminate against people. If folks don’t jump through the right hoops to join your little religious club, then no one gets to make you give them the benefits of membership, such as marraige.
My wife and I were just talking about this, so in a way, I feel like I was in the conversation even though I was away. We were saying how if Bush somehow managed to get the Defense of Marraige thing passed, it would open the door for additional regulation of marraige. Like banning divorce. Which would be the next logical step. And we figured that the next thing to happen would be an increase in spousal abuse cases.
I seem uncharacteristic for a Christian, perhaps because of being raised in California, but here are my thoughts on…
Gay Marriage: While marriage (or troth) once was a religious institution, it now is a state institution. Because there are various rights which marriage grants individuals, it’s discrimenatory to deny people the ability to marry one another. We don’t live in a Christian nation; make Christian marriage as exclusive as you want, but don’t expect the rest of the country to live by your standards. God gave everyone free choice for a reason and it wasn’t so someone else could take it away. Two men or two women who marry each other are not infringing on anyone else’s rights, so there’s no legal reason it shouln’t be allowed.
Divorce: Divorce is a state of the heart which can happen before two people make it legal. If two people are living together but divorced in their hearts, they might as well get divorced legally. As someone who has lived in a home where parental figures cohabitated, but were not married in their heart, it’s a painful thing to watch, and not necessarily better for the child than two separate people who are much more stable. I believe love is a choice and marriage will go through a myriad of phases which two people can endure if neither is abusive and both want to work at it, but if they’ve already determined not going to work at it, why subject the family to all the pain.
Abortion: I do agree that a pregnancy will change a woman, whether she aborts or not (because two women in my family have had abortions which had long-term psychological/emotional effects). However, never having been in the position to have to make that choice myself, how could I judge either of them for doing so. Most people who judge have NOT had to face that decision because of gender or economic factors. And speaking of judging, if you’re a Christian, you’re specifically told not to. Get the plank out of your own eye before whining about the sawdust in someone else’s, and what not.
Being a Christian: Don’t assume that every Christian is some right-wing nut. Even some of those who are right-wing aren’t really nuts. As someone who respects the rights of others and evaluates people as individuals, I think it’s only fair others do the same for me. My faith saved my life, so when people who haven’t even made an attempt to understand it tear it down, it frustrates me. I’ve studied the faiths and beliefs of other cultures and have been everywhere on the spectrum from Atheist to Agnostic to Christian myself, so I can feel I’ve made an informed decision with my life. However, I find most of the people (but not all) who disparage a given religion (be it Islam, Christianity, etc.) know very little about it. I do also understand, however, that the actions of many Christians (or other religious people) makes it hard to see beyond the stupidity of some individuals. JMHO. Ja matta ne.
It’s a relatively recent creation, with virtually no grounding in political or social practice prior to 60 years ago, and the burden is still on the person who wants to change that 60-year old institution.
Umm, the “burden”, by your definition, is on Congress and the President, all of whom make more than the $90k maximum that is taxed for Social Security.
So, it’s more like the “burden” is upon the elderly and poor to PREVENT Social Security from being changed in a way that will affect them.
Don’t assume that every Christian is some right-wing nut.
Aww, but it’s so much fun! 🙂
There is no reason, none, to exclude gays from marriage. And I have yet to see anyone take me up on my challenge that they either will not marry or will divorce if people of the same sex have the same right to marry each other that was one excluded to people of different skin color or religion.
PAD
Yes, there is. Because allowing gay marriage right now is a political loser to those who would grant it. Any politician who would support gay marriage would be slammed by the Religious Right. That’s the sad thing. Even though I come from a religously conservative background, my feeling is that it’s becoming more and more a fact of life, so why fight it?
Look, I know that Scripture states or implies that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore as an extension of that, Gay marriage is a sin as well. But This is not one of those debates that will go away. As Peter mentioned, interracial marriage was banned due to bias, as is the reason for gay marriage to be banned. But if two people who are in love and happy together should want to be together, then there is no reason why they should be married.
As to your challenge PAD, Don’t hold your breath. Nobody is going to want to take the extreme step of divorcing their straight spouse, just because gay marriage will become legal.
That would be a reason to ban divorce… Wouldn’t it? 🙂
–As to your challenge PAD, Don’t hold your breath. Nobody is going to want to take the extreme step of divorcing their straight spouse, just because gay marriage will become legal. — Charles F. Waldo
But that is exactly PAD’s point. It is the bigots who want to “save” marriage who claim that allowing GLBTs to marry will “destroy” marriage. PAD’s point is that the only way something can destroy marriage is to cause it to be so devalued that people will prefer not to be associated with it.
Thus his challenge: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship.
“While marriage (or troth) once was a religious institution, it now is a state institution.”
Actually, until the 14th Century, marriage in Europe was strictly a state matter. Priests of the Church were specifically forbidden from getting involved. The change began in France, where some romantic (and Romantic) couples decided they wanted to have their pledge validated by their God. (Remember that doctrine of the time in the Church was that people could not address God directly – they had to go through such intermediaries as the village priest and the saints.) Now, of course, it’s “the way it’s always been…”
” And speaking of judging, if you’re a Christian, you’re specifically told not to. “
Amen, brother! Preach that thing!!
And as regards the idea that churches should be abolished, and people should worship at home:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in Heaven. … When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your innner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
– Matthew 6:1, and 6:5-6
Peter David (regarding the gay marriage referendums in the recent election): “Then what the hëll was the point?”
You can’t be that dumb, Peter. The point was to get all the anti-gay bigots to the polls, where they would also vote for Shrub!
// You’re are right, though, in saying that by and of itself, gay marriage won’t cause the downfall of marriage any more that allowing dogs to marry or multiple spouses. //
You know Bill Maher had a good point, when women got the right to vote no one argued that if we gave them that right it would lead to hamsters voting, when Black people got civil rights no one thought “my god this will lead to civil rights for goldfish”, so how come when “gay marriage” comes up people feel the need to bring up things like dogs marrying, or people being allowed to marry dogs and act like that’s a serious consideration.
You know, PAD talks big but I don’t see him running out and marrying a gay man!
Wait… I have just been informed that PAD is a raging heterosexual and according to the news I just recieved I have know that for at least three years. He may also be jewish, we’re still looking into that. All we’re sure of at this time is that he is not a french communist from mars.
I have been asked by the editor of hedgehoggames.com to apologize to the communists and martians reading this blog. I apologize.
If even one person thinks this post is serious then the terrorists have already won.
JAC
Johnathon (the other white meat) said:
“And as regards the idea that churches should be abolished, and people should worship at home:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in Heaven. … When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your innner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
– Matthew 6:1, and 6:5-6″
But I don’t believe in your an any other person’s silly god, so your scriptures, written and re-written by power-hungry dirtballs, is meaningless.
Jeff, I didn’t take you post seriously, but the terrorists did already win, too many changes have been rammed down America’s throat as a result of 9/11, the terrorists already won…
So, Blade, if that passage is “meaningless”, does that mean you’re actually in favor of people making huge public displays of their “faith” in order to impress their friends and cow the infidels? Are you really all right with folks shoving their religion in your face?
After all, that’s the sort of thing that passage condemns… (You, er, did actually take the time to read portions of the New Testament before rejecting it as “nonsense”, right? Being an open-minded free-thinker and all? You didn’t just take some self-appointed “authority”‘s word for it – did you?)
I realized religion is bûllšhìŧ myself Johnny Bravo, I used my mind, which puts me one up on the religion crowd right there.
You people don’t follow your own rulebook…
I wonder when the pope will have you guys start driving car-bombs into strip clubs, gay bars, and casinos…
And another thing, is sex and homosexuality are so bad, then why didn’t you “god” put them on the list that’s so important yet so ignored by you people, namely: The Ten Commandments!
Think for yourself and stop letting a piece of fiction and the church think for you.
The StarWolf: Where did I say that? I said “it often becomes MUCH EASIER to take the next step”. Where was this inaccurate?
Luigi Novi: The two things have nothing to do with one another. And as I stated above, the fact that people merely attempt to sue an entity does not mean they
Blade, you’re awfully quick with that “you people” line, I’ve noticed – especially for someone who prides himself on “independent thought”. A moment’s examination, or even reflection on a life’s experiences, will demonstrate that people are, by and large, individuals. Some will choose to sublimate their individuality to some mass identity, but even that must be an individual choice.
For instance, had you paid the least bit of attention to anything I said before I quoted the Gospel According To Matthew, you might have noticed that I am a white man, married to a black woman, and we’re welcoming another white man into our lives (can’t call it “marrying” – people would freak) this spring; or that I have spoken often in favor of eliminating the bigoted restraints against gay marriage; or that only some Christians are Catholic, and in fact I have occasionally made fun of the Papal declaration of Papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals; or – well, this is Peter’s blog, not mine, so I’ll leave off with the list now. Suffice it to say, Christians are not some monolithic, Neolithic bloc, all thinking and feeling exactly the same way about everything. Some of us believe the good Lord gave us out intelligence and free will for a reason.
On the other hand, I also believe that atheism is a religion, as a lack of data is not the same as no data. To conclude that God does not exist takes at least as great a leap of faith as concluding that He does. The only position that can be supported by pure reason is agnosticism (a position I rested in for some time, before experiencing my own epiphany, which I don’t feel the need to share at the moment).
Perhaps you should read the Gospels, at least, before utterly rejecting them – you might have noticed that Jesus had nothing to say about gays, but felt quite strongly on the topics of hypocrisy and forcing other people’s belief structures…
By the way, Blade, the name is Jonathan, with only one H. If you’re going to misread my words and mistake my ideas, you could at least spell my name right…
you could at least spell my name right
As I’ve discovered in the past, asking people to correct simple typos in names and such is pointless.
Bite me john
I’ve put up with over 20 years of religion growing up, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran.
I’ve read more than enough of the ficitious bible. You have to prove god exists, I don’t have to prove he doesn’t. There are no signs that point to existance of an always-existed, fully-formed, (supposedly) “intelligent” being with full control over matter and energy…
Religion is for the weak
Luigi Novi: So how did students/parents pay for it? When my sister and I attended Catholic school, my parents had to pay tuition.
Taxes, like everybody else. At least in Ontario. Here, the Catholic school boards are separate from the public ones, but funded by the government in the same manner.
/// On the other hand, I also believe that atheism is a religion, as a lack of data is not the same as no data. To conclude that God does not exist takes at least as great a leap of faith as concluding that He does. //
I’m sorry, but that is one of the most stupidest things I have ever read. There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a “lack of data” about this, there’s no data. People who believe in God, (any God) do so as a matter of faith. This is fine, as a wise man once said, “whatever gets you though the night is allrigh”, but to say that it requires a leap of faith to not believe in something for which there is not a single shred of proof is absurd. Let’s replace “God” with Santa Claus. There is same amount of proof that Santa exist that there is a God (any God) exist, (which is to say, none at all), would you say it requires a same leap of faith to not believe in Santa as it does to believe in him. No, of course not, that would be silly. Millions of people believe Elvis is alive and well, (and presumably hanging out with Jim Morrison and Andy Kaufman), does it take a leap of faith to believe that the king died. No, of course not. People can believe, or not believe, anything they want to. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is faith. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not “faith”, it rationally responding to the world around you.
>the issue of gay marriage is not or should not be so much an issue of gays demanding the right to marry, but to gays demanding the right to the same benefits from marriage.
The offer was brought up to have exactly that, only to refer to it (in their case) as a “civil union” instead of “marriage”. They would have everything they wanted … except the name. They turned it down.
>>You stated that lifting the gay marriage ban means that the government will being telling you what to think. Not to
>At current spending levels, there is more than enough revenue generated to fund all the current programs and more, including the ailing Social Security.
You’re assuming the level of spending would remain the same after such a huge sales tax was put in place. Look around you. Countries which have adopted such silly sales taxes have seen spending drop like a rock. Canada’s economy went into a tailspin as people went into cross-border shopping in record numbers to avoid it. At least until the difference in currencies became so high as to make it prohibitively expensive. By then there had been a huge number of bankruptcies and unemployment shot up. A bad situation had been made much worse.
Japan also adopted a partial one. And its retail economy promptly took a bad hit.
Sales taxes are bad. They are counter-productive.
>my feeling is that it’s becoming more and more a fact of life, so why fight it?
Death is a fact of life. Does this mean we should stop trying to find cures for diseases or ways to improve the life of elderlies?
Does this mean that people who have strong convictions (rightly or wrongly) should all be asked to give them up just because the existing (or foretold) condition is considered a “fact of life”?
“There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a “lack of data” about this, there’s no data.”
Nonsense. There is eyewitness and anecdotal evidence. (You may be correct about no data, since I tend to think of data as something that can be measured). Certainly one can disregard eyewitness accounts as mistaken or hoaxes–all non-Mormons do. Atheism is a perfectly valid world view, though I have to wonder how secure in their views some folks are who seem to have to bring it up with every conversation. Like those religious people who have to have their doubts assuaged by getting others to join up, those atheists who have made it their life goal to make everyone think their way obviously have little confidence in their positions.
Jonathan (the other one) posted:
I guess it’s time to come out of the walk-in closet – I am involved in a polyamorous relationship. In our case, it’s polyandrous, not polygamous, but that should be just as horrible, right?
It took a lot of guts to come out and say this, and you have my respect for that.
Since multiple marriage isn’t an option, my wife and I will be binding with my cohusband in a handfasting ritual this spring. In our hearts, it will be every bit as solid as a state-approved wedding.
And since nobody else here seems to have the common courtesy to say it, let me be the first to congratulate you. I think that’s fantastic and I wish the three of you the best.
You have my respect — for me, it’s hard enough to make a marriage work with just two parties; I can’t even imagine how complicated it would be adding a third to the mix.
Are any of your regular monogamous relationships breaking apart now, as the result of my revelation? For that matter, is our multiple commitment to each other and our daughter weakened at all by our gay neighbor and his boyfriend?
Nope. Frankly, I don’t see any reason polyamory should be illegal as long as all parties are aware of the situation and happy with it. I don’t see how this affects anyone’s lives any more or less than homosexual marriage, interracial marriage, or plain ol’ everyday vanilla marriage. Whatever works for you is great, and I don’t need the government to say it ain’t. Whatever goes on between two or more consenting adults is the business of those adults alone.
Bill:
>Atheism is a perfectly valid world view, though I have to wonder how secure in their views some folks are who seem to have to bring it up with every conversation. Like those religious people who have to have their doubts assuaged by getting others to join up, those atheists who have made it their life goal to make everyone think their way obviously have little confidence in their positions.
I understand your point, Bill. Certainly there are people out there who have had experiences in their lives that leaves them stung to the point of reacting, moreso than reasoning. Though history and current events certainly show more Christians acting in the behaviors that you describe, than Athiests. It is the Christian right that is currently pushing its values across the nation with its financial power, organized movements and paid lobbyists, not Athiests. Moreso than not, Athiests simply say “back off”.
Fred
” Though history and current events certainly show more Christians acting in the behaviors that you describe, than Athiests.”
Can’t argue the point, Fred, at least not in this country (one can get bogged down in a “Whose side has the worst people” argument but these end up being like poker for history buffs–“I’ll see your Torquemada and raise you a Stalin and two Pol Pots!”) Of course, there are far fewer atheists to be annoying so one should not expect equity.
I have a friend who went to an atheist convention and came back somewhat disappointed–some were every bit as fanatical as the bible thumpers who turned him off to religion in the first place. One panel actually featured two idiots who make it a habit to remove those roadside memorials people put up when loved ones die in an auto wreck. They did this not out of civic concern or anything–they just couldn’t stand the sight of crosses. Crazy atheists and vampires are the two forms of life that apparently can’t stand the sight of a cross.
Of course, crazy atheists should not be confused with the hard-working, industrious American atheist, which provides us with honey and pollinates our flowers.
// There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch. There is not a “lack of data” about this, there’s no data.”
Nonsense. There is eyewitness and anecdotal evidence. //
There are also eyewitness and anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, Elvis being alive, UFO’s, Bigfoot, Superman, Ghosts, possesed toys, talking dogs and Kevin Smith’s next issue of that Spider-Man/Black Cat mini series. None of which would be counted as “data towards proof of existance”.
Anecdotal evidence is instantly discounted because it’s anecdotal, and when dealing with eyewitness accounts one must always consider the source. The only eyewitness accounts we have to Gods appearences on earth are books writen centuries ago that were passed down, originally by word of mouth, (a nortoriously bad way to reliably pass data on as any one who played the telephone game in grammer school can attest to), by people who were, gennerally speaking, more supersitious then mordern men. These books have then been re-writen several times over the centuries by people with adgendas who needed the word of the almighty to support thier own personal power play.
Mordern encouters with the almighty tend to happen only to fringe fanatical elements of society, or con men who have a lot to gain by saying they ecountered the allmighty. (“And the lord came to me last night and said give me all your money”). You never get a reliable account and you never, ever have other witnesses and evidence, (the almighty, like Bigfoot and aliens, are aparently awfully camera shy).
As I said there’s no proof there is a God, which doesn’t necessarly mean there isn’t one but that isn’t the point. The point is that it takes faith to believe in something for which there is no proof. That’s what religion is all about. It doesn’t take faith to not believe in something for which there is no proof.
// (You may be correct about no data, since I tend to think of data as something that can be measured). //
Yup.
Luigi Novi: So how did students/parents pay for it? When my sister and I attended Catholic school, my parents had to pay tuition.
The StarWolf: Taxes, like everybody else. At least in Ontario. Here, the Catholic school boards are separate from the public ones, but funded by the government in the same manner.
Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.
Jonathan: On the other hand, I also believe that atheism is a religion, as a lack of data is not the same as no data.
Luigi Novi: Your belief is wrong.
Atheism is the lack of any religious belief. Not a religious belief in itself.
Moreover, a belief is not a religion. A religion is an organization of people who share the same belief. So even if atheism could be called a
The StarWolf: Same end result. I’m being told that what I think is wrong thinking and that I can no longer act upon it.
Luigi Novi: No.
The government is not making any statement whatsoever about whether what you think is wrong if it allows gay marriage. It is merely saying that it will not legislate a limitation on gays
Oh, I forgot to add this disclaimer in the post directly above: Somehow when composing the post above it, the quote-and-answer passage involving the first quote by StarWolf got fubared, I don’t know how, and only noticed it after I posted it. So I reposted that section right afterwards.
Luigi Novi: Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes are not valid evidence. The ones in the Bible, moreover, cannot be corroborated.
Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence? Then there are many men in jail who must be wondering WTF.
And I never limited it to just those in the Bible. Joseph Smith, for example or the many folks who say they have seen angels. You may certainly discount them and you may well be absolutely correct to do so.
There are also eyewitness and anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, Elvis being alive, UFO’s, Bigfoot, Superman, Ghosts, possesed toys, talking dogs and Kevin Smith’s next issue of that Spider-Man/Black Cat mini series.
Soooo…you’re telling me that eyewitnesses can be attributed to mistakes and hoaxes? Huh. All I said was “Certainly one can disregard eyewitness accounts as mistaken or hoaxes”. Well, great minds think alike and all that…
It was said that “”There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch.” I thought that an overstatement. The evidence may be unsatisfying but that’s not quite the same thing.
Furthermore, if God is as unlikely to exist as “Bigfoot and UFOs” you’d best start praying. I’d say there is at least a 30% chance that Bigfoot exists and the odds are better than 50% that SOME unknown primate remains to be found somewhere in the world. Obviously, this is strictly my opinion but it’s based on many years of following cryptozoology reports.
As for UFOs, they undeniably exist. I assume you meant alien spaceships. That’s impossible to know for sure at this point though I would not want to bet the life of anyone I care about on it not being true. No, I don’t buy every or even most or even more than a tiny fraction of the reports that suggest an extraterrestrial origin…but then,only 1 has to be correct for it to be true, yes?
Anyway, subject for another time, I guess.
// Luigi Novi: Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes are not valid evidence. The ones in the Bible, moreover, cannot be corroborated.
Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence? Then there are many men in jail who must be wondering WTF. //
Any really good defence lawyer will tell you that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and easy to discredit. (scientific studies have actually been done to prove this BTW). Are there people who have been put in jail when the only evidence against them was an eyewitness account, sure. There are also people who ended up in jail because they happened to be the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our legal system is not perfect. Legal history is also full of cases where the accused went free because the defence was good enought to put holes in the eyewitness testomony. In any event it doesn’t matter, because we’re talking scientific proof not legal proof and there’s different standard for both. As a beloved classic movie once showed, a case could be made that Santa Claus legally exist, but that doesn’t mean he does. (Even that same movie doesn’t scientifically prove the old man is Santa, that’s left as a matter of faith).
They turned it down.
Umm, how could gays turn down civil unions where there has yet to be a state to put it to the ballot?
11 states passed Marriage Discrimination… err… Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments this past election.
Not one state, that I recall, put forth an Amendment that would allow marriage for anybody other than a man and a woman.
Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence?
In the face of DNA evidence, I think they are becoming slightly less valid than they used to be.
There have been a few articles in recent years about studies, official and unofficial, done that show how unreliable eyewitnesses can be (simplying trying to identify somebody in a police line up, for example).
Any really good defence lawyer will tell you that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and easy to discredit. (scientific studies have actually been done to prove this BTW). Are there people who have been put in jail when the only evidence against them was an eyewitness account, sure. There are also people who ended up in jail because they happened to be the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our legal system is not perfect. Legal history is also full of cases where the accused went free because the defence was good enought to put holes in the eyewitness testomony. In any event it doesn’t matter, because we’re talking scientific proof not legal proof and there’s different standard for both. As a beloved classic movie once showed, a case could be made that Santa Claus legally exist, but that doesn’t mean he does. (Even that same movie doesn’t scientifically prove the old man is Santa, that’s left as a matter of faith).
Darren, Craig, everyone–I KNOW eyewitnesses are not proof. I know they can be unreliable. I keep saying that the evidence of eyewitnesses is in no way shape or form proof of God.
It IS, however, evidence. That’s all I’m saying. Not trying to convert anyone from the One True Path or anything.
Now if you want me to convince you that Bigfoot is real, hey, I’m there.
Blade, I don’t have to bloody well prove a thing. I believe what I believe. You are free to agree, disagree, or agree in modified fashion (as with my in-laws, who, unlike me, believe in a rather vicious, vengeful, cold-hearted God). That’s the fun part about faith – your refusal to believe doesn’t affect my faith a dámņ bit. Sorry!
Luigi, I didn’t claim (as some do) that everyone who rejects Christianity hasn’t read the Gospels; however, Blade’s reaction to what I said indicated to me that he had not even a passing familiarity with the book in question, and his reactions on other topics indicate a lack of familiarity with the words of Christ, as reported in the Bible (which may or may not be what He actually said). For example, as I had indicated, Jesus didn’t say word one about gays. However, He would have been sorely displeased with my in-laws’ former church – what with its gift shop, and its coffee kiosk that took credit cards, and its ATM in the lobby for those who wanted to pull out their tithe right there, or perhaps add a touch so folks wouldn’t think them cheap…
And Julio, we thank you for you kind words. Honestly, I was expecting that revelation to be the cause of the shitstorm, not a short quote from Matthew! 🙂