THAT was an amazing experience. IGeorge standing at the front of the makeshift chapel, marrying Brad, with Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols on either side as best man and matron of honor respectively.
Kath and I were seated nearby Harlan and Susan Ellison (with whom we were also slated to sit at the reception.) Atmospheric music was supplied by a stunningly attired Asian woman playing a stringed instrument called the Koto. I admit I was biting the inside of my cheek not to laugh when a singer urged the audience to join him in a chorus of “Climb Every Mountain,” which some actually did. But then George and Brad made their own tongue-in-cheek entrance, descending the stairs to “One” from “Chorus Line” (now THAT I would have been willing to sing.) The ceremony was alternately loving, funny, and moving.
The ceremony was followed by a mingling cocktail reception. We chatted with Nichelle for some time (she remembered me from Dragon*con) and for a while she actually had her arm around me! Granted, her ankle had gone weak and mostly she was leaning on me so she wouldn’t fall, but still!
The dinner afterward was amazing, a fusion cuisine combined with memorable performances from, among others, the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus. Among the notables in attendance was legendary Senator Daniel Inouye, and a variety of people–including Harlan–gave toasts celebrating the happy couple.
I still cannot fathom how any reasonable person can object to gays marrying. Even Obama doesn’t support the idea of gay marriage. Last I checked, love was a family value.
PAD
• 
There is an incentive for mates to remain together, but there is no particular reason why it must be one male to one female. A good case could be made that one strong male and several females living together might be the best strategy.
Saying something is natural doesn’t mean it is the only or even the best natural phenomenon. I was just disagreeing when you said monogamy was not natural. It is really quite prevalent in nature. “Monogamy” is a subset of “mating for life strategies found in the natural world.” I don’t claim that it exhausts the latter set. I personally don’t know of any situations like the one you’re describing, but dammit Jim, I’m a lawyer, not a biologist.
On the other hand, David, my wife IS a biologist, and she said just now looking over my shoulder,
“I probably shouldn’t mention that in many of the bird species where monogamy is found, there’s actually a lot of extra-pair mating going on — on both sides.”
That doesn’t necessarily refute your point — I just thought it was an amusing one to bring up.
TWL
Well, congrats to George and Brad. I’m not only happy for them that they can have their relationship officially recognized, but I’m also happy for everyone who gets the chance, man or woman, gay or straight. Here in Michigan, we’ve enshrined bigotry and intolerance into our constitution. It makes me glad to see that kind of thinking refuted by a public recognition of love between two adults.
May they live happily ever after.
Eric
“that the moment you equate gay marriage with actual marriage, you deny it being better.”
WHY does it have to be better? Most gays just want their marriage, like themselves, to be “Equal”
“I probably shouldn’t mention that in many of the bird species where monogamy is found, there’s actually a lot of extra-pair mating going on — on both sides.”
I think I actually said that. 😛 Though I used “adultery” in lieu of “extra-pair mating.” I concede that using a value laden term like that was unduly anthropomorphizing.
I was afraid the phrase, my wife IS a biologist was going to be followed by, “and she says your simplistic liberal arts major’s understanding of the physical and natural sciences is horrendously misinformed.” I like what you actually said much better. My attempt to discuss biology wasn’t immediately and utterly shot down by someone who actually knows what she’s talking about! Woot!
Hey, was the crowd at a gay wedding even moreso impeccably groomed than you’d see at a heterosexual wedding? I would assume so.
Of course we also have elephants who mate and then the females keep the family while sending the males off. This sounds like heaven to me sometimes. A nice little matriarchal society.
Of course we also have elephants who mate and then the females keep the family while sending the males off. This sounds like heaven to me sometimes. A nice little matriarchal society.
Having been to a gay wedding where I was -the- guy in a suit, no, you shouldn’t assume that a gay wedding is a more impeccably groomed crowd. (Having said that, I’ve also been to a straight wedding where I was -the- guy in the suit… and that had many more attendees.)
Sorry for the double post. My dog bumped my arm.
Enhorabuena to the happy couple, and to the americans (every american) who now can enjoy a bit more freedom.
———————
Regarding the religious nature of marriage as an institution; The romans were a very civic people. Like the greeks they had their private mystical beliefs (or not), and kept them private. So civic they modeled a “civic religion” to exemplarice through myths the virtues that make society strong and prosperous. Even more civic than the gree, since they also elevated Rome to Godhood. Not the city as a place but as the sum of every citizen, as the “common good”.
Marriage was both a private matter, held among family, friends and deceased relatives… and a public one, held before society. There were traditions and rituals, but it was basically a union before society, for the better of Rome. And reproduction was desired but not required.
When the christian church replaced the civic cult to Rome as religion of state, the christian god, mystic in nature, replaced society as depositary of the marriage vows. But the ceremony and its meaning is pretty much the same it was in Rome; a promise made before your equals, before society. If it has any religious/spiritual implication to you, fine, but that dimension should be entirely private and doesnt affect society. After all, you can marry in a cathedral but you still need to register your union before a non-religious entity (City Hall in Spain, I think its the same there).
The two thousand years old kidnapping of the term “marriage” by religious institutions has been coming to an end for over a century. Gay marriage is just another battle fought and won.
Marriage was not defined by a government. It is a natural union throughout history in every culture where a man and a woman join together to create a family.
Nope.
Marriage has been utilized for a variety of purposes. To forge alliances between powerful families. To solidify business arrangements. Fathers would arrange marriages with an eye towards guaranteeing that their daughters would be provided for (even “Fiddler” touches on that, when Tevye muses that–married to a butcher–his daughter will never know hunger.) Daughters from wealthy families came with sizable doweries and were thus attractive.
Furthermore the definition that you seize upon precludes seniors marrying or instantly relegates anyone incapable of producing, for any reason, as failing to fulfill the core reason of marriage. Howzabout you go over to Harlan Ellison’s website and tell him that his marriage to Susan his–to use your words–not “healthy or good” because the main purpose of marriage is to have families, and since he had a vasectomy, they don’t qualify.
To prove that gay marriage “undermines” society, you would have to prove that it is somehow going to deter heterosexual marriage. You can’t, because it won’t.
I’m saying that people who are opposed to gay marriage are being unreasonable because any reasonable approach to the question forces one to the inevitable conclusion that the opposing position is untenable. It is steeped in bias, prejudice, and unreasoning fear. The clear proof of this is that sixty years ago, people opposed the marriage of interracial couples with the same stridency and arguments that you and your ilk are using to oppose gay marriage.
Why?
Because they were scared and bigoted.
The names, specifics and genders may change. The fear and bigotry remains.
PAD
First off I wish to add my congrats to the happy couple.
Iowa Jim said “The moment you say homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage, you deny that heterosexual marriage is preferable and best. The result is not to say (b) homosexual marriage is better (something I didn’t say), but to say it is all the same. Which has consequences.”
What consquences are those?
The rise of Polygamy? I’m just really amused by that because Polygamy is something generally desired by religious groups who oppose homosexuality.
But why is heterosexual marriage preferable and best? Is it preferable and best if you’re straight and want to raise a family? Yes it is.
If you’re Homosexual is Heterosexual marriage best for you? I would think on a personal standpoint no.
What I’m always amazed is this push for procreation, as a purpose. I don’t understand how no one caught on that one of the main reasons why there is such a push to go forth and multiply is that that this was written in a time period where at least half of all children didn’t reach adulthood. The easiest way to create more Christians was to give birth to lots and lots of them.
[b]It is a natural union throughout history in every culture where a man and a woman join together to create a family.[/b]
For hundreds of years it was and still is a business transactions people got married for money or titles or politcal advantage or two combine two small business together. What was a dowry but a payment for the groom and his family for buying the daughter?
As for [b]There are some good single parents, but the best environment to raise healthy kids who can flourish is to be in a two parent home (one with both genders).[/b] Do youhave any data to back this up?
I’d be certainly willing to concede that two people are generally better than one. with the caveat that the two parents would be an a committed and loving relationship.
My Grandparents stayed married until my grandfather died. but they weren’t particularly fond of each other for much of it. As a result My uncle has very dim view on marriage and my mother had a couple of abusive relationships including my father.
As for one of each gender do you have any studies that back that up? I can’t imagine we have enough kids with gay parents that can do a comprehensive study on the situation. There are also mitigating factors as well. Who’s to say that having that constantly encountering prejudice in regards to their family unit isn’t the primary factor in any mental health issues.
Is there a study comparing the psychological well being of mixed race and/or mixed religious children vs children who have a homogenous background?
Jim you’re a smart articulate man, but with all due respect you still haven;t given a reasonable argument against gay marriage.
As for Peter implying that a large population of the US is unreasonable.
So?
As Anatole France said “If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing”
First, most importantly, congrats to George and Brad. Manmy happy years, and no sad ones to you both.
Jim, if same sex marriage is enough to bring down a nation or culture, then that nation or culture, IMHO, deserves to be left behind.
I have always felt that marriage is the joining of two people who love, respect and care for each other. Their gender is irrelevant. So long as they are two people capable of making a rational decision, it’s nobody else’s business.
You are welcome to your opinion. That is your right. It is also the natural course of events, again only my opinion, that society will eventually consider your opinion a historical curiosity, much like anti-mycegenation laws.
Obama’s stated view on the topic is probably political necessity rather than what he really believes.
Congratulations George and Brad!
(I’m going to throw my hat into the ring. Please forgive me if I ramble…)
PAD is absolutely correct. It is impossible to fathom that gay marriage is opposed by reasonable people, and yet it is. The whole subject is a touchy one for me because I’m gay.
As far as I am concerned, the legalization of gay marriage in Canada (the Civil Marriage Act, a.k.a. Bill C-38) is one of the best things that ever happened to me, even though it has yet to impact me personally. You see, what it means is that I have one of the same rights as any other Canadian citizen: when the time comes, if the time comes, I will be able to marry the person I love. I was born in December 1983, and Bill C-38 was passed in July 2005. That means that I spent 21 years and seven months of my life without something that an overwhelming majority of the people I know took for granted. Functionally speaking, having this right means very little to me right now. I am single, and I have yet to step far enough out of the closet to even see the Dating Pool. That being said: I am making my way out and when I finally dive into the pool, I can do so with the knowledge that I might be able to find what so many people have: a stable, loving relationship recognized under the law as being no better or worse than any other. I cannot ask *individual people* to accept that (and it pains me deeply that I have friends who probably would not) but as far as the law of the land is concerned, I have the same rights as any.
I felt an incredible sense of liberation when I found out that the Bill had passed. I felt better about myself than I had in a long time. I could take part in my society in ways that I could not before, and nobody could take that away from me.
It’s a feeling I hope that all LGBT people can experience.
Seriously, guys… I wanna know. Were there protesters?
Hey, Evan!
You’re lucky, we still don’t have gay marriage here in Brazil (the law has been constantly blocked by a small but powerful group of congressmen with ties to several Christian churches, what a surprise).
Thank God that most people in Western countries don’t advocate that gays be beaten or jailed any more, but the next best thing for the bigots is to make gays invisible by any means necessary.
Meaning, you can have gáÿ šëx, but you can’t marry, you can’t appear on TV or comics, you can’t mention the word gay when kids are around, you can’t even hold hands with your loved one in public, etc. That is what ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is all about, and it’s not going on only in the US military, but in several other situations.
The umreasonable fear that gay marriage will undermine all marriage pales before the more all-embracing fear that gays will become visible and accepted and fully a part of society. Marriage is a huge part of making a relationship visible. That is what scares them so much.
One more thing, coming out of the closet is a lot easier than it appears, Evan. I’ve been there. Ðámņ, I’m still there, in some ways. But the more I bring things into the open, the easier it becomes.
And one could say things are even harder for me, because I’m not just gay, I have TG tendencies. Last month I went to my first party totally dressed as a woman, and it was a lot more relaxed and natural for me than I ever had imagined.
There are many bigots out there, but there are so many people willing to accept you too. Much more than I first thought.
“Obama’s stated view on the topic is probably political necessity rather than what he really believes.”
You know, I’m getting a little tired of this “when McCain stands against gay marriage, he’s a meany, but when Obama stands against it, he’s a liar”… particularly when viewed as an endorsement of Obama.
If he’s lying about his stance now, presume he will continue to lie about it through his term in office.
And I say that as someone who will be voting for Obama.
If there were protesters, I didn’t see them. But there were several entrances to the place, and it’s not as if I went around looking for them.
PAD
Reverend Snow: “WHY does it have to be better? Most gays just want their marriage, like themselves, to be “Equal””
Because that’s how the fringe right, culture war fear card works. You can’t just be for something or supportive of something that the conservatives dislike. Your support must be a de facto attack on traditional values so that you seem to be a part of the unreasonable fringe or out to destroy America.
It’s a bit like how the fringe left uses the race card at every opportunity even when any clear thinking, sane individual knows that race isn’t an issue in any given event or discussion. They’re their respective sides’ supposed trump cards. They don’t require any thought and the person uses it often no longer feels the need to be logical or reasonable. They’re right, you’re attacking something that they hold dear and the argument is now about some mindless, emotional rhetoric that you can’t win against because it’s based on zero fact.
Fun, isn’t it?
I hope George and Brad have a long, happy marriage that gives them much joy. That would be best and preferably and good and healthy, and fûçk anyone who is insane enough to think differently.
Weve had gay marriage here in Spain for some years now and so far I am not smelling brimstone around here. We had a very virulent backlash from the catholic hyerarchy, but most people, even catholics, supported the law. And by now it has become virtually a no-subject.
Sure, we have our share of sttuborn judges and officials that try to make it difficult (people who wont officiate gay marriages tho their job is to officiate marriages… things like that) but thats about it. Even the conservative party said they wont go against that law when (if) they regain power.
Jerry, the thing I just don’t get is how something that they loudly proclaim to be natural and good and holy and healthy is also apparently so fragile that anything different is a threat to it.
Ðámņ… I would have been looking for protesters.
But then I’m not all that clear-thinking that way.
Hi Peter, I wasn’t going to post anything regarding the Gay marriage issue because the vast majority of your post was simply sharing your personal experience and how much you enjoyed the wedding, however I see that some have read your last comment as an invitation to discuss the issue, and it is in that light they I would offer my thoughts on the matter.
You Said:”I still cannot fathom how any reasonable person can object to gays marrying….Last I checked, love was a family value. “
Here is my attempt to respond: There are really only two views of reality: Choice A. the natural world is all there is and ever will be (thank you Carl Sagan) and so we humans are some unfortuante accident of random molecules that happened to form creatures that either have awareness or the illusion of awareness, and so why not try to enjoy the existance you have while you have it. If someone subscribes to this view I understand why they would not be opposed to gay marriage. Then there is choice B: The only other option is a that there is another layer of reality which is supernatural.People may have differing ideas on what the supernatural holds, but the most common one is that God came first and caused the natural world to come into existance. If God made the reality we see then we could look for clues on how that reality is suppose to function. (This assumes a super intellect not a “force” of some sort, that’s down a different path). What do we find when we look at humans in regards to their sexuality? We find that the genitalia of males appears designed expressedly for the genitalia of females. We find that the only way to reproduce is for males to breed with females. Now, does this answer all the questions, I would say not, but to me it is a clue as to how we are designed. Also, the fact that we even find clues suggests a broader reality.
Last thought regarding Love and family values: True love is dedicated to what is in the best interest of the beloved. That is why people say “Love must be tough” sometimes. If someone is doing something harmful to themselves, then real love will not condone the beloved harming one’s self. It will fight to protect and pursuade the beloved to no longer harm itself.
So, I would say depending on what your presupposition of reality is that will determine what you consider reasonable. Point of view from the other side.
“I would say not, but to me it is a clue as to how we are designed.”
There are MULTITUDES of examples of homosexuality in nature. I know wikipedia is not the HIGNHEST authority in such matters, but it certainly gives you a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
“We find that the genitalia of males appears designed expressedly for the genitalia of females.”
As a biologist, I have to say this quote is ridiculous. If an engineer (for some bizarre reason) was going to design male and female genitalia, they would not look the way they look. Our genitalia have evolved (not been “designed”) and are used for functions beyond simple “sperm delivery.” In addition, there are great examples of animal genitalia (especially insect genitalia) that have evolved for all kinds of alternative functions — many insect pëņìšëš actually HARM and INJURE females in addition to delivering sperm to keep females from remating with other males. In many of those systems, females have evolved countermeasures to prevent injury and allow them to remate with other males, producing a greater variety of offspring.
It’s just weird to me when people who don’t know anything about biology profess to know what things were “designed” for.
Rene,
You don’t have to figure it out and no one likely can because it really makes zero sense. The idea that supporting gay marriage is attacking “traditional” marriage is idiotic and the idea that supporting gay marriage somehow diminishes the value of “traditional” marriage is laughable.
I didn’t read Peter’s post, look at the picture of the happy couple and then look at my wife and start thinking that our marriage is somehow less than what it was a week ago or that it somehow had less meaning for me, her or our families. And if anyone says that the existence of a gay marriage weakens their own marriages strength; they really need to seek marriage counseling now because they’ve got much bigger issues with their marriage than the straw dog argument of gay marriage being a damaging factor to “traditional” marriage.
Even the way that the “fear” for the damage to marriage is voiced is asinine, illogical and very much the expression of the belief that champions of “traditional” marriage are weak willed and weak minded. From Iowa Jim’s above post:
“The moment you say homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage, you deny that heterosexual marriage is preferable and best. The result is not to say (b) homosexual marriage is better (something I didn’t say), but to say it is all the same. Which has consequences.”
Why should Iowa Jim or anyone else care whether or not someone else thinks that gay marriage is less than, equal to or greater than heterosexual marriage? And does Jim’s fear of the effects of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage translate to other subjects as well?
I’m a spiritual person, but I’ve basically abandoned organized religion. Does my differing view of faith and religion challenge and threaten his faith? Does he question the strength of his faith just because I practice another faith?
Does he believe that people expressing their preference for certain political beliefs other than his threaten to damage his own beliefs?
And, if he believes that heterosexual marriage is best; why should he really care if others don’t?
I think that Babylon 5 was a better show than Star Trek ever was. I have friends who love trek and can’t stand B-5. Do you think that I sit around and fret about them liking Trek better than B-5 whenever I’m watching B-5?
Even the phrasing of the argument is asinine. The moment you say -A- is no different than -B-, you deny that -B- is preferable and best. So, everyone has to believe what he believes for him to believe that -B- is preferable and best for him? I wonder if Jim is a country music fan? Let’s just say that he is. Would it threaten his love of country music as his theoretical favorite if he heard me say that rap and country (I’m not really a fan of either) were just the same to me?
There are a lot of things that I personally don’t agree with or care for. There are many things that I feel are right, proper or best for me and my family. I’ve never had the core fundamentals of those things shaken, rattled or challenged simply by someone else expressing or displaying different beliefs. If the pro-heterosexual marriage crowd is so weak willed and shallow in their beliefs of the strength of their own marriages that two gay men getting married threatens the strength of the belief in their marriages; they’ve much bigger problems than Brad and George getting hitched.
David the laywer: “Are you implying that the side with fewer votes should sometimes win a referendum? And that this is one of those times? If so, why so? Why depart from the default rule in a democracy, that the majority policy preference is honored?”
So if a referendum passes to again take the vote away from women, we should just say “Majority rules!” and send them back to the kitchen?
The flaw in your argument is that the majority can not deny civil rights to the minority, no matter how lopsided the vote is.
I’ve had some stuff going on so I haven’t really had time to say anything on this.
Two people that love each other are now married, I’ve heard it was a lovely ceremony, they’re married, that’s the end.
Life’s too short to worry about all the other crap.
Rudy –
The “design” argument of following “clues” found in “nature” would imply several interesting things. For instance:
1) Oral sex between a male an a female is a sin as great as any sort of gáÿ šëx, since it’s another case of the pieces not coming together the way they “should”.
2) Since female and male bodies are “designed” to have sex at puberty, then it should be perfectly okay for an adult male to have sex with a 13-year old female.
3) If the bodies we have are clues of the way we should be living, then is it a sin for a man to never have sex? (Like, in a vow of celibacy). Is he actually commiting a sin because he isn’t using the full capabilities of the body he was “given”? Deriving our behaviour only from the “natural” clues, it would seem that not using what you’re given is as wrong as using it in unusual ways.
4) If the male body is “designed” with the inherent ability of impregnating several females in succession, why limit marriage to only 1 partner?
5) The argument also assumes that “God” would feel angry when people use their bodies in a ways not immediately obvious from their “designs”. But for all that we know, God may feel amused.
Well said, Jerry.
All’s I have to say is, my heartiest congratulations to George and Brad.
“Obama’s stated view on the topic is probably political necessity rather than what he really believes.”
If I recall correctly, he’s simply not entirely comfortable with the idea of gay marriage and outright legalizing it, but few politicians actually are.
“Posted by: Rene at September 18, 2008 12:10 PM
Jerry, the thing I just don’t get is how something that they loudly proclaim to be natural and good and holy and healthy is also apparently so fragile that anything different is a threat to it.”
As a person living in a Catholic country, you should no the answer to that.
———————-
“If God made the reality we see then we could look for clues on how that reality is suppose to function.”
And the best part, the clues always happen to lead to the preconcieved conclusions of the society in question, which throughout history has been mostly male and heterosexual.
——————–
“I think that Babylon 5 was a better show than Star Trek ever was. I have friends who love trek and can’t stand B-5. Do you think that I sit around and fret about them liking Trek better than B-5 whenever I’m watching B-5?”
If liking Star Trek and liking B5 are both legitimate, then some people will like Star Trek and some B5. But if strong social norms are established that make liking Star Trek to be something everybody agrees is bad and shameful, then you can hope that fewer people will even consider liking Star Trek, and those who do will be too embarrased to admit it, and will keep watching B5 for appearance sake. If you consider liking Star trek to be a bad thing, a sin, then this hypothetical situation would be considered good. Conversly, if for most of your life you lived in a world where everyone agreed that Star Trek is bad and shameful, and suddenly people consider it as a valid choice, then it would seem to you as if social boundaries are collapsing. Next thing you’ll no, they’ll like Star Trek Voyager. It’s a slipery slope.
———————–
Posted by: Evan at September 18, 2008 04:50 AM
“I felt an incredible sense of liberation when I found out that the Bill had passed. I felt better about myself than I had in a long time. I could take part in my society in ways that I could not before, and nobody could take that away from me.”
Which is exactly what scares people who consider homosexuality a sin.
“As a person living in a Catholic country, you should no the answer to that.”
I know, Micha. Even considering that Catholics here are very laid back.
But what I was getting is this: if a person has absolute faith that something is supernaturally right and good and natural, then should it matter so much whether societal norms agrees with them? The supernatural is supposed to transcend temporal matters.
In a way, societal norms that are Anti-Christian are a good test for faith. A Christian that remains devoutly Christian in a world of sin must be the best Christian of all. Faith in hard times and all that.
A state that recognizes that Star Trek and Babylon 5 both are valid choices may be the best of all, because then devotees of Star Trek will know that any Trekkie they meet is a true Trekkie, someone that watches the show out of love, not out of social pressures.
The fear of societal boundaries crashing down should be alleviated by the knowledge of the true faithful that “normality” will eventually return, since it’s God’s will.
Except if the gnawing worm of doubt inhabits the faithful’s heart…
You know, I’m getting a little tired of this “when McCain stands against gay marriage, he’s a meany, but when Obama stands against it, he’s a liar”… particularly when viewed as an endorsement of Obama.
Yeah, I fail to see how anyone could see that as an endorsement. If a person has a view based on actual principles you have a chance to change them for real–appeal to those principles, show them how maybe this new view is in keeping with them. Lots of people who had a visceral dislike of gays early on have changed their views as they came to know some as people or just decided that, even if they still don’t “get” homosexuality, any attempt to suppress it is far worse than letting people live their lives.
On the other hand, if a person is anti-gay because of political expediency, well, in the first place what makes you think that will ever change? And in the second place, their word ain’t šhìŧ. They may change their policy when it looks safe to do so but you know it will go right back to where it was, or worse, should the prevailing winds change.
Obama has risked the wrath of some black congregations by pointing out how homophobic elements of the black community are, so I see no evidence of cowardice on this issue. He hasn’t been able to make the leap to total acceptance but he’s not a coward.
: Choice A. the natural world is all there is and ever will be (thank you Carl Sagan) and so we humans are some unfortunate accident of random molecules
What’s so unfortunate about it? Hey, I like my life! I like (most) people!. If–a big if–this is all just some accident it was a very lucky accident indeed.
Then there is choice B: The only other option is a that there is another layer of reality which is supernatural
Why would that be the only other option? Just off the top of my head there has to be “none of the above” or “something we haven’t even imagined yet”. Or those idea one gets when the midnight showing of UP IN SMOKE results in a contact high results in thoughts like “Hey! What if this whole thing is just some computer simulation by an advanced alien race?” (in which case, they should have made reality a little more interesting–it would have killed them to include dragons? Zombies? Venomous ducks?).
But even given your assumptions, there are problems with your conclusions. True, male genitalia is designed to work with females for reproduction. But they re also designed in such a wway as to give pleasure and that pleasure can also be accessed by gay couples. Could that not be considered a clue toward what God intended? I mean, if he wanted sex to be exclusive to straight couples couldn’t He have come up with some design to make it so? Of course he could! He’s God!
I’m not suggesting that because something can be done it should be done or that it reflects God’s will, but that seems to be the implication you’re making.
I’m not one of the folks here who assumes that anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is by definition an evil bigot. I can see where people are afraid of marriage being damaged by changes in how we perceive it. But if marriage has survived the era of easy divorce, which is clearly damaging to the institution, it can scarcely be harmed by gay marriage, where the possible damage is far less obvious to see. Indeed, I would argue that gay marriage will strengthen the institution by opening it up, just as the legality of interracial marriage did. people will live with who they love. You can allow them to marry or you can make shacking up an equally valid option. Which will cause more harm?
As a woman in her 50’s it has taken me a lot of mental energy to overcome the constraints of my upbringing by my 1st generation Italian grandfather. I have to admit for a long time, the gay issue made me uncomfortable. It forced me to do some learning and growing.
What I have come to believe is this – there seems to be so little love and kindness in many peoples’ lives. I applaud people who can love unselfishly and commit to each other. Love knows no boundry lines.
To Brad and George I add my wishes that they share a happy life together.
Posted by: Rene at September 18, 2008 06:01 PM
“But what I was getting is this: if a person has absolute faith that something is supernaturally right and good and natural, then should it matter so much whether societal norms agrees with them? The supernatural is supposed to transcend temporal matters.”
In christianity and judaism sin is considered tempting — it is a danger to be avoided.
“In a way, societal norms that are Anti-Christian are a good test for faith. A Christian that remains devoutly Christian in a world of sin must be the best Christian of all. Faith in hard times and all that.”
This theology is as valid as any. It is typical of groups/sects that are a minority living in a world that does not fit their ideals. Like Amish. also a little of the ideas of Calivinism — predestination, elect etc. But Christianity has been the ruling religion for so long. Also, what you have in a situation when you have a religious minority living in a hostile world is very entrenched cultist thinking — a need to maintain the purity of the small group. Also, people need to feel that hey are actively doing something to protect their relilgion.
“A state that recognizes that Star Trek and Babylon 5 both are valid choices may be the best of all, because then devotees of Star Trek will know that any Trekkie they meet is a true Trekkie, someone that watches the show out of love, not out of social pressures.”
Then if somebody starts loving the wrong show he is thrown out of the house.
But ultimately the live and let live attitude is the best compromise because it enables different people to live together, including gays and evangelicals. So it is the best.
“The fear of societal boundaries crashing down should be alleviated by the knowledge of the true faithful that “normality” will eventually return, since it’s God’s will.”
In Judaism it’s called the days of the Messiah. In Christianity the Second Coming. But, people need to feel that they are actively doing something to protect their relilgion. That’s why there are phases of reform movements and fundemantalist movements and so forth.
The flaw in your argument is that the majority can not deny civil rights to the minority, no matter how lopsided the vote is.
How is that a flaw in my argument?
1)Yes they can, and have historically done so frequently. Blacks were denied, either legally or de facto, many civil rights in many parts of this country into the 1960s. Was the United States not a democratic republic until sometime between the Johnson and the Nixon administrations?
2)What you’re actually intending to say is that the majority ought not deny civil rights to the minority. I agree with you. Protection of political minorities is one of the most common justifications for having a republican system over a purely majoritarian democracy. However, that is an argument that needs to be made and defended. I dare say virtually everyone will agree with you on that one, but its universal appeal doesn’t mean that it isn’t a normative claim.
3)Is marriage a civil right? Is the answer to that question so self-evident that we can’t or shouldn’t have a discussion about it? And if it is a right (which SCOTUS has held) how far does that right extend?
Clearly #3 is the issue that (in my opinion at least) is most at stake. Only extreme fringe groups would advocate denying gays most civil rights. I’ve yet to see ballot measures proposing to strip gays of voting or free speech rights. In contrast, marriage rights are not unfettered even for heterosexuals. I can’t marry someone under 16 (love is a family value but pedophilia isn’t), or my first cousin (neither is incest). There certainly is a normative argument that can be made to distinguish same-sex marriage restrictions from these other restrictions, but the fact that it can be made, and persuasively, doesn’t relieve advocates of the burden of having to actually go ahead and make it. Attaching the word “right” to a policy doesn’t excuse its advocates from having to persuade people that it actually is a right. Laws stay in place until repealed or modified. The burden of persuasion is on those who would modify them.
I’ve been reading the comments here with some interest, and am still in two minds about the issue. I’m pretty liberal in most of my values, but I’ll admit that, like Jerri, it took me some time to see the legitimacy and reasonableness of allowing all people equal rights. I don’t think I’d have no problem with it if it was something my (hypothetical) child approached me with, but I’d probably come around eventually.
What I’m not comfortable with accepting, however, is the increasing prevalence of sex, both hetero- and homosexual, in all aspects of society. I think *sex* is undermining marriage more than gay marriage ever will (And yes, I do recognize the ludicrousness of that statement on its own). The stupidity in the spectrum of increasing teen and pre-teen promiscuity, right through to purity rings, is pretty discouraging. I had a really good sex education in high school (not a euphemism for an orgy…just a comprehensive health class), that I appreciated getting, because I really don’t think an abstinence only education plan works. As a life plan, yeah maybe, but not with a bunch of horny teenagers with a complete lack of information and way too much time on their hands. Sex is natural.
At the same time, I think any sex should be private and personal, and not shared with the world. Love, affection, devotion…sing it. But sex and more graphic PDA…not so much. And ok, I’m a clearly a giant prude, and the world is not really ever going to go back to this…but personally, I feel like some of my (and maybe other’s) uncomfortableness with the “gay culture” as it were, is how much of a role sexual expression seems to play in the stereotype. It’s not about being gay, it’s having something so personal highlighted and become an identity instead of one aspect of many aspects, of a person. Some of my feelings on that is attributable to leftovers from my old mindset…but I still can’t watch movies with any sex scenes with my parents (or totally comfortably even by myself) so I don’t think it’s just that.
I think way too much is made of sex, at the same time as way too little. There’s too much emphasis placed on it as a way to feel good, and movies and tv turn it into some other-worldly, perfect experience that reality soon proves otherwise…but it *is* something special shared between partners, in my mind anyways, and a connection that shouldn’t be easily taken for granted. I don’t mean to moralize, just my opinion.
Anyways, I had more incoherence to post, but I’ll end with a clarification. I don’t see George and Brad (or many many other gay relationships) as falling into that stereotype at all. They seem like a committed, loving couple, and I wish them all the best. 😀
“I still can’t watch movies with any sex scenes with my parents”
Can’t say that I blame you. I wouldn’t be able to watch movies with sex scenes with my parents either. Lucky for me, there aren’t any movies with sex scenes with my parents!
Aww, crap.
Lucky for me, there aren’t any movies with sex scenes with my parents!
As far as you know… [vbeg]
“We find that the genitalia of males appears designed expressedly for the genitalia of females.”
If was true and please forgive any crudeness here. Then why is it that men and women are generally sexually incompatible?
Studies show that when a woman orgasms the spasms help sperm to get closer to the egg. So it would be best for women to orgasm during sex.
Yet many to most women cannot orgasm from penetration alone.
If pëņìšëš and vágìņáš were to be intelligently designed the clitoris would be inside the vágìņá where it could be stimulated by penetration.
Perhaps generally sexually incompatible isn’t the best term for what I’m try to say.
Yes the parts fit together, but often it takes some effort for sex to be pleasing to both partners
Jasonk said “If pëņìšëš and vágìņáš were to be intelligently designed the clitoris would be inside the vágìņá where it could be stimulated by penetration.”
As a woman who has had two children, I assure you that would NOT be an improvement to the basic design! The last thing any woman in labor wants is MORE never endings in the vágìņá! 🙂 Ouch
Oh, man.. it never ceases to amaze me how much I enjoy this blog and the people who post here.
From Homosexual marriages to B5 vs. Star Trek to the sex scenes starring mom and dad to the advantages and disadvantages of the clitoris being relocated in the vágìņá….you gotta love it!
For my palty 2 cents (and note I haven’t read all of the replies above):
I think part of this debate centers around what some people call ‘marriage’.
To many (usually those against the idea of gay marriage), ‘Marriage’ means a ceremony in “A Christian Church” with “A Christian Pastor”, blessed in the eyes of the “One Only God”.
I can’t see how a self respecting gay/lesbian person would want to force an organization who believes them to be outright evil to marry them (and I doubt any have). It would be like an interracial couple asking a White Supremacist church to marry them.
However, marriage is also a institution recognized by the government, with advantages that come with it (and, of course, some penalties ^_^). Therefore, it should be available to any adults who want to engage in it (no ‘official church’ ceremony is needed, just a judge and all other necessary trappings to make it legal).
Congrats to Mr. Takei and his husband on their marriage, by the way (and it shows how much they respect you Mr. David to invite someone who has written mostly ‘non-cannon’ material for the Trek universe).
One final note: I STILL want to see “The Adventures of Capt. Sulu”, dammit! [I don’t care how old he is ^_^].
Congratulations to George and Brad.
Rick