Thank God the New Jersey Legislature Voted Against Gay Marriage!
Cidu Bill on Jan 12th 2010
I’ve been married for almost 31 years and the way I understand it, if this thing had passed, my marriage would have been immediately and irrevocably undermined.
Filed in Bill Bickel, New Jersey, gay marriage | 74 responses so far
src666 Jan 12th 2010 at 09:02 am 1
Well, obviously marriage is more valuable if we keep it exclusive. I mean, you can’t let just _anybody_ join, can you?
Patthews Jan 12th 2010 at 09:56 am 2
I’m still waiting for divorce to become illegal… I’ll hold my breath for that one.
John Small Berries Jan 12th 2010 at 10:15 am 3
This whole thing makes me feel a bit guilty. My wife and I can’t have children, so the government never should have permitted us to marry. After all, the whole purpose of marriage is procreation, or so I have been told over and over again these last few years. Had I known at the time, obviously I would not have chosen to destroy the sanctity of other people’s marriages by wedding a woman with whom I cannot produce children.
I see now that my decision to marry her out of love and a desire to spend the rest of my life with her was a cruelly selfish and antisocial act, and I heartily apologize to everyone whose marriages I have weakened thereby.
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 10:39 am 4
Are we moving from race to same sex married ?? Bill , you sure know how heat thng up in the winter.
Bill hnts at this question: Exactly how will same sex marriage destroy American society ? What nightmare world is envisioned of two people of the same sex are married ? And why hasn’t that nightmare world happened in Massachusetts?
I would love to hear the details rather than vague pronouncements about cultural Armageddon
Mark M Jan 12th 2010 at 11:27 am 5
Hmmm, the “If gay marriage becomes legal my heterosexual marriage won’t be as significant” gag. Sounds a lot like the “It’s cold so obviously global warming isn’t real” gag that frequently gets stomped on here.
Charlene Jan 12th 2010 at 11:45 am 6
It’s more like “if gay marriage becomes legal I’ll have to acknowledge gays and lesbians as human beings worthy of my respect”.
Too many people need someone to look down on, and it’s easier to ascribe all the faults of the world to Those People Over There Who Are Different From Me than it is to take responsibility. How many people still believe that most child molesters are homosexual or that most gays and lesbians are child molesters?
Elyrest Jan 12th 2010 at 12:09 pm 7
I agree with Charlene that giving rights to a minority group means acknowledging them as humans deserving respect. How it would diminish my marriage in any way is rather confusing. As many people have stated, heterosexuals have done quite well all by themselves making a mockery of marriage. There is no slippery slope here. Marriage is a social invention. It can be religious, but it often is not. I would think that society as a whole would appreciate more people getting married because it must make them respectable. And so we go around again to a group of people not deserving respect.
George P Jan 12th 2010 at 12:14 pm 8
If any of these people were really Christians and had really read the Bible they would be campaigning against remarriage after divorce. But they’d have a tough time condemning Bill Clinton as an adulterer while supporting, for example, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, both equally guilty, according to Jesus.
It’s the hypocrisy of this, and of “Pro Life” people who support war and the death penalty, that makes it impossible for me to feel anything but contempt.
Cidu Bill Jan 12th 2010 at 12:21 pm 9
Not really, Mark M: My comment was a topical mockery of the genuine (or supposedly genuine) beliefs of the people opposed to the law. Just for the record, New Jersey already allows civil unions, so it’s not a matter of gay marriage costing the state any money (which could be an argument in some states).
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 12:37 pm 10
I have a theory why people are against same sex marriage .. I call it the ick factor. Straight people find the notion of sex with someone of their own sex icky. No problem there, gay people can feel the same about sex with someone of the opposite sex. Some however find the notion so icky that they don’t even want to have to think about it. Well .. if gay people get married they will have sex (spare me the no sex after marriage jokes
) and they they will have to accept that people of the same sex are having sex
CIDU Bill — I assume you are talking about tax revenues. However, states that allow same sex marriage can benefit from increased business in the wedding industry.
Cidu Bill Jan 12th 2010 at 12:42 pm 11
Nicole, I was only referring to the arguments in some states that gay marriage will cost the states money in benefits and tax advantages for the married couple. Of course the financial upsides are another matter.
A few years ago, a local politician pointed out that if New Jersey became the first state in the region to allow gay marriage, it would mean something like 1.3 gajillion dollars coming into the economy for hotels, catering, etc.
Scott Jan 12th 2010 at 12:46 pm 12
Yeah, Bill, I live in California and during the short time it was legal here it was just sooooo awful.
When I lived in NJ, we lived near two couples. One couple, across the street, was two women who had been together for about 20 years at that point, and no one was more committed. The other, next door, was a woman and her third husband. Now which couple better represents the ideals of marriage again?
Patrick Jan 12th 2010 at 12:57 pm 13
Seems like the solution then, to overcome the ick factor described by Nicole, is for us gay people to have lots and lots of public sex so people get over it.
Blinky The Wonder Wombat Jan 12th 2010 at 01:09 pm 14
My objection to gay marriage is not the union of two people, but the use of the word “marriage.” In my faith, marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman and a promise to God and the community. Any government with a religious practice is a violation of church and state.
If I were king of the world (or at least New Jersey), I would de-couple religious marriages. Civil unions would address all legal issues and be available to all couples. Marraiges would be strictly ceremonies with no legal weight.
Oh, and BTW George P, don’t confuse true “Pro-life” with “anti-abortionists”. The later is a small sub-set of the former.
Blinky The Wonder Wombat Jan 12th 2010 at 01:10 pm 15
er, that should read “Any governemnt INVOLVEMENT with a religious practice is a violation of THE SEPARATION of church and state.”
TonyJazz Jan 12th 2010 at 01:24 pm 16
The comments here have been more sophisticated than elsewhere (pat on the back for the posters here), especially on this subject.
Blinky gave the only ‘no’ comment, and I appreciate his insights. But I have a question: why does he think the word itself is so sacred? Civil marriage is the item under discussion, and I don’t remember other words of common use that should be reserved for religious purposes.
Maybe there should be a list, and I don’t intend to be disrespectful. Are there really a group of words that should be treated as “for religious use only”?
JustWondering Jan 12th 2010 at 01:32 pm 17
I’d like to see marriage between ANYONE declared obsolete in the eyes of the law (religious ceremonies notwithstanding, as Blinky alluded to). Let everyone be responsible for his/her own taxes and insurance.
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 01:33 pm 18
Binky @14 - This is part of the problem, there are two kinds of marriage in this country, religious and secular. The gay marriage issue is not a religious issue but a secular one. The religious don’t see the distinction, they see marriage as always having the meaning that their faith ascribes to it and this is simply not the case, not now nor has it ever been.
I pretty much agree that if we want to redefine marriage as solely a religious institution then the government should not be involved. And I would support civil unions for all. But seeing that the current view is that there is such a thing as secular marriage, then that should be availabe to all.
However, I would like to point out that there are many churches now that will officiate over same sex marriages. How does that jive with your church’s view of marriage and do you object to those marriages based on your belief ?
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 01:36 pm 19
OOPS — make that Blinky
and PS … my question was not meant as an attack, just curious about how you reconcile the fact that your religous beliefs on this topic may differ from other religious beliefs
Winter Wallaby Jan 12th 2010 at 01:41 pm 20
It already has, Nicole. At the risk of getting put into moderation due to having two links in my post, the terrifying evidence of this nightmare world is too small to fit into a single link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-3-2005/mass–hysteria
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
Cidu Bill Jan 12th 2010 at 01:46 pm 21
Nicole, isn’t it quite common for one person’s religious beliefs to differ from other people’s religious beliefs?
Winter Wallaby Jan 12th 2010 at 01:50 pm 22
Re: Ick factor. Male-male sex is icky. However, girl-girl sex is hot. Can’t we get a little more nuanced and allow lesbian marriage, but not male gay marriage?
Paperboy Jan 12th 2010 at 01:52 pm 23
Nicole#10 made an important point. People against same-sex marriage are assumed to be filled with RAGING HATE, when sometimes it’s just the “ick factor”, a small obstacle to overcome in mind changing.
Tim O'Shenko Jan 12th 2010 at 01:56 pm 24
Blinky @14 brings up an interesting point, but let me offer a rebuttal:
First, I’ll tackle the religious end of this: There are quite a few Christians, myself included, who feel that any union between two souls before God is sanctified - whether it be between man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. What’s important is the love and devotion between the participants, not their genders. I understand this may make me a heretic in some circles, but I and those like me have just as much right to practice our faith as anyone else.
Which brings me to my second point: If we can only allow marriage as narrowly defined by one group of Christians, not only would all gay marriages be declared null and void, but also any marriages between Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. etc. Now THAT would be a violation of the separation of church and state, not to mention a blatant display of religious persecution.
Christian Jan 12th 2010 at 01:58 pm 25
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1748#comic
The panel associated with the rollover-dot-thing is actually tangentially related to my other comment on the “Arlo and Janis, 1998″ post.
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 02:35 pm 26
Bill #20 .. that is, of course, my point and why any religious argument against gay marriages must fail. I have said before there is no good secular reason to ban same sex marriages.
PB # 21 I made a important point ??? Really ??? Who knew ? But I would argue that there has already been a significant dent in the ick factor opponents. Right now the country is pretty evenly split on the question of gay marriage, not so a few years ago. The reason that the bans keep passing is that the opponents feel strongly and are able to mobilize the vote. Many of the people who support gay marriage don’t actually have ‘a dog in the fight’ so getting out to vote is simply not that important to them. Still it isn’t like prop 8 passed by a huge margin, it was very close, so close that it took a few days to actually decide the results. It is very possible that if the same vote were taken today there could be a very different outcome.
What I don’t understand is that even the opponents admit that same sex marriages will eventually be recognized by the government, so why do they fight it so vigorously?. If you look at the question based on age the under 25 age group overwhelmingly support same sex marriage. So as the older generations pass and the younger ones become the majority, gay people will be allowed to marry. There is no doubt.
Actually I do know what this is about, this is about scaring followers with the big gay boogy man to keep them in line. Once gays are no longer the boogy man they are now, the same people who oppose gay marriage will find a new boogy man.
Carl Jan 12th 2010 at 02:37 pm 27
Note that Blinky didn’t say he wanted to ban gay marriage. He wants to ban ALL civil marriage, gay, straight or polyamorous.
Mary Ellen Jan 12th 2010 at 02:40 pm 28
Heaven knows, since gay marriage has been legal here in Massachusetts, I have caught such a case of Teh Gay.
George P Jan 12th 2010 at 03:01 pm 29
Blinky, I think you underestimate the number of people who call themselves “Pro Life” but aren’t. Yes, there are many people who actually do consider life sacred, but they don’t go around calling themselves and their organizations “Pro Life”.
People who want to “Defend Marriage” don’t want to do that, either. If they did, they’d want to make it harder to get divorced.
Keera Jan 12th 2010 at 03:28 pm 30
I’m single. Marriage is icky to me if it involves me.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Jan 12th 2010 at 03:59 pm 31
As several others have commented, the problem (as least as I see it) with Blinky’s objections are encapsulated in his use of the phrase “In my faith…” I personally don’t care about his faith, except insofar as it affects me in any way. Attempting to dictate public policy based on his faith obviously does (well, doesn’t affect _me_ directly in this case, but it does in other cases, and affects same sex couples in this case).
I tend to agree with JustWondering above - it isn’t clear to me why the state has any particular stake in personal relationships. There is a _little_ more justification in the state having involvement when there are children, at least to the extent that it tries to ensure people who bring children into the world take proper responsibility for them. (_Encouraging_ bringing children into the world (via tax regulations. etc.) is a different matter - I don’t see that as a valid role for the state, as there certainly seem to be enough people (especially around here) and if anyone out there wants another, they can have one of mine (particularly the younger one)…)
Blinky The Wonder Wombat Jan 12th 2010 at 04:10 pm 32
Nicole, et al.- If a faith wants to validate a straight/gay/polyamorous replationship as a gift and/or obligation to God, then I respect that decision. But as this is a matter of personal faith, the government shouldn’t be telling me what is and isn’t marriage.
To many people and cultures, “marriage” has an important meaning that has nothing to do with the legal aspects of the union. I can’t stop, nor would I want someone else to stop me, from using “marriage” as I define it. Legalizing “gay marriage”, however, puts an official public imperator on the word, with makes me uneasy.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Jan 12th 2010 at 04:22 pm 33
Blinky@30 - your first and second paragraphs seem to conflict. You don’t want government telling you what is and isn’t marriage, but you want the government to tell other people what is and isn’t marriage. That is, your faith based definition is the only one you’re happy with. Sorry - not my concern…
As you said in #14: “In my faith, marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman and a promise to God and the community. Any government with a religious practice is a violation of church and state.” But you want the government to put “an official public imprimatur on” your faith’s interpretation of the word.
I’m perfectly happy with your suggestion that “If I were king of the world (or at least New Jersey), I would de-couple religious marriages. Civil unions would address all legal issues and be available to all couples. Marriages would be strictly ceremonies with no legal weight.” So long as you have no problem with other people using the word “marriage” to mean whatever they want it to mean…
J Jan 12th 2010 at 05:08 pm 34
I think that sometimes it isn’t so much of either an “ick factor” or a matter of “raging hate,” but a matter of simple conviction. Whether this conviction comes from religious beliefs or from elsewhere, it seems reasonable to give its intelligent proponents a hearing.
In an online article, the philosopher William Lane Craig offers arguments for the immorality of homosexual behavior using two different approaches, one Biblical and one secular. Of course, the Biblical approach alone would not (and probably could not) influence much in the way of public policy in the U.S., but some of his other arguments could, and are worth listening to regardless of one’s religious beliefs. He offers his arguments in a logical, largely non-emotive fashion, and obviously has no hatred or personal vendetta against homosexuals. This article can be found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5339. (You may have to go to www.reasonablefaith.org to view the article; this is free and easy, then click on “popular” under “articles, click on “Practical Issues,” and then the link for the article on homosexuality).
I think phrases like “this could undermine all marriages” or “destroy the fabric of society” tend to be meaningless when used by those who oppose homosexuality when theyo converse with those of opposing viewpoints, since these words (quite understandably) evoke a strong visceral response in those of other worldviews who believe that homosexuality is OK.
On a somewhat irrelevant note, it is fascinating to note the sociocultural evolution in Western Culture which has led to the widespread acceptance of homosexuality. In the past, opposition to homosexuality was not limited to religious circles. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, not known for his love of things religious, believed that homosexuality was a mental disorder. In fact, it was in the DSM as a disorder (the diagnostic manual which is the gold standard for all psychiatrists) until the early 1970’s. Of course, this was simultaneous with the emerging gay-rights movement which was sprouting up around that time. Cultural milieu seems to be an important determining factor in determining the overall secular system of morality (Interestingly, divorce, mentioned by a few of the earlier respondents, was beginning its increase around that same time period of the late 1960’s early 1970’s; I am told by those familiar with family therapy that divorce is considered by some to be a normal part of the family life-cycle, rather than an aberration).
TonyJazz Jan 12th 2010 at 06:07 pm 35
Sorry, J, but poor logic is not a good basis for morality. There were times in history when left-handedness was also considered a mental illness.
Of course, gay marriage does little (or nothing) to reduce or increase the number of sexual acts. Nor does the presence of children in or outside of marriage.
To deign an entire subgroup of people as immoral for an intrinsic behavior (which certainly cannot be changed—-why would millions voluntarily choose a behavior despised by so many?) is insane.
What rational behavior change do you expect of someone who is gay?
TonyJazz Jan 12th 2010 at 06:09 pm 36
Also phrases such as phrases like “this could undermine all marriages” or “destroy the fabric of society” are just hysterical…. Their weakness in logic has nothing to do with a lack of understanding by liberals.
It’s sort of the same silly thing when people say ‘marriage has always been about one man & one woman’, though history has volumes of data that indicate many historical marriages involved multiple women.
Spiritcatcher Jan 12th 2010 at 07:08 pm 37
outlawing divorce won’t work … but here’s another suggestion to run religious interference into the wall : if you marry in church and exchange vows, these might void your prenup.
Steven Hunter Jan 12th 2010 at 08:37 pm 38
I’ve always wondered how people who consider themselves Christians can so easily condemn homosexuality as a sin based on biblical passages (most specifically Leviticus 18:22) when they themselves wantonly and openly break any number of other *equally stupid rules*.
Such as:
Women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12)
They can’t wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9)
No cross-dressing what-so-ever! (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10)
Men aren’t allowed to shave? (Leviticus 19:27)
You can’t wear a cotton/poly blend T-shirt! (Leviticus 19:19)
Oh the craziness… Seriously though, you’re all wonderful people
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 08:57 pm 39
Mary Ellen #26 … is that true ???? .. call me
Blinky #30 - I agree that ideally civil unions all around makes the best sense. However that is not the case and there is no serious movement toward that goal. What we have is marriage, so that is what we have to talk about.
The government already tells you what is and isn’t marriage. Right now two people can can legally married in a totally secular ceremony. The government recognizes this as a legal and binding marriage even though many religions would not. Likewise without the proper legal papers, a marriage performed in your church would not be recognized by the courts. Also the courts will recognize marriages that perhaps some religions would not mixed faith, mixed race etc.
Which brings us to this statement:
“puts an official public imperator on the word”
I think you hit the nail on the head why this is so important to both sides of the issue, and why civil unions are not acceptable to many gays. The fact is that it is important to be recognized as a human being and be accorded the rights that our Constitution bestows. Right now straight people can marry who they chose, gays can not. Imagine for a moment if the people of your state voted to deny people of your religion the right to legal marriage. I suspect you would feel discriminated against and less than a full citizen. That is the way I and others feel.
On the other side, the opponents do not want gay marriage legalized for exactly that reason, they do not want the public imperator put on a lifestyle they disapprove of.
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 09:06 pm 40
Here is an interesting article
Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html
From the article “those states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates. In Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, the divorce rate has declined by 21 percent and is the lowest in the country by some margin.”
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 09:13 pm 41
And there is this
God Hates Shrimp
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
I know someone was going to post this sooner or later … might as well be me
David N Jan 12th 2010 at 09:37 pm 42
Well, everyone is also forgetting states with common law marriage laws. Just requires enough time together, not a vow or a church or a personal faith.
J #32 and Blinky #30 - little over 40 years ago, I would have been unable to marry my wife because of arcane and idiotic rules about mixed marriages in many states. These rules, made up out of whole cloth by people who proclaimed themselves full of faith, involved the government stating who and who could not be married. Why were leaders then happy to use government to enforce their own point of view? Were those laws wrong? Did we not learn as a society, and grow beyond our fears?
We will grow beyond our current fears, as well. It is inevitable.
“I always cry at weddings - especially my own.”
Jeff Jan 12th 2010 at 10:04 pm 43
“It’s the hypocrisy of … “Pro Life” people who support … the death penalty, that makes it impossible for me to feel anything but contempt.”
Fetuses don’t generally commit murder.
Mark M Jan 12th 2010 at 10:08 pm 44
Nicole @ 37 - “The government already tells you what is and isn’t marriage.”
Where does the government tell us what marriage is? I thought that was the reason for this whole debate?
And to others - If your only arguments are:
1. Why don’t more Christians get outraged over divorce?
2. Why do you just pick and choose what you follow from the Bible?
then you’re missing the point. I’m no Bible thumper. I can’t even remember the last time I actually read from one. One day as I was growing up, I realized that life itself came the union of a man and woman. That almost makes it seem normal!
S.P. Charles Jan 12th 2010 at 10:29 pm 45
Mark M, the government is telling us what marriage is by defining it as exclusively between a person with male naughty bits and a person with female naughty bits.
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 10:35 pm 46
MarK M #42
I thought that at least in part I had already answered that
“Right now two people can can legally married in a totally secular ceremony. The government recognizes this as a legal and binding marriage even though many religions would not. Likewise without the proper legal papers, a marriage performed in your church would not be recognized by the courts. Also the courts will recognize marriages that perhaps some religions would not mixed faith, mixed race etc.”
The government also determines what rights and privileges go with being married.
In addition of course currently they are limiting me to who I can and can’t marry.
Tim Jan 12th 2010 at 10:55 pm 47
Boy, it’s cold out… must mean that there’s no such thing as global warming…
(Just wanted to change the subject to something more friendly.)
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 11:08 pm 48
Tim — for a minute there I thought the discussion was going to turn to abortion .. what could be friendlier than that
Cidu Bill Jan 12th 2010 at 11:11 pm 49
Tell ya what, Tim, if this freezing weather in Alabama and blizzards in Europe go on for much longer, I might start saying “so much for global warming” myself.
Nicole Jan 12th 2010 at 11:20 pm 50
Mark M #42
“I realized that life itself came the union of a man and woman. That almost makes it seem normal!”
Mark, what you seem to be arguing here is that marriage is for procreation. Clearly that is not the case. There is no requirement to prove that you will have children when you get married. People who cannot or choose to not have children get married every day. So I am not sure what your point is … gay people should not be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate? Then neither should sterile men and women, post menopausal women, women who would die in child birth, paraplegics etc
Marriage has nothing to do with procreation, that comes from sex. People have sex and babies outside of marriage … always have, always will.
CIDU Bill Jan 13th 2010 at 12:18 am 51
I can’t speak for anybody else’s reasons, but my wife and I got married to end a centuries-old war between our fathers’ kingdoms. My father also got three goats and two chickens out of the deal.
Lil Lemon Jan 13th 2010 at 01:27 am 52
S.P. Charles #43:
Naughty bits are my favorite kind of bits.
Nicole Jan 13th 2010 at 02:57 am 53
Mark M #42
I just thought of one other way the government defines what marriage is. The government defines marriage as a secular institution. Priests, rabbis and ministers are all granted the ability to perform legally recognized marriages by the government and they must follow secular laws to make the marriage legal. With out that ability and without the proper legal documents a religious marriage is nothing more than a commitment ceremony in the eyes of the law.
Czhorat Jan 13th 2010 at 08:05 am 54
Another sad, sad day for civil rights. I’ve gotten to the point where I think the only solution is for the Federal government not only to revoke the bigotted-on-its-face DOMA law but to establish the right of two consenting adults to marry as a civil right on the national level. This would end the state-by-state bickering and the patchworks of laws where people’s rights to marry, share benefits, adopt children, and other things vary widely from state to state.
The argument that government should stop ALL civil marriages (what I call the “I’m taking my ball and going home” argument) is one I’ve only seen on internet message boards and, while it always comes from anti-gay-rights activists, seems like it would actually be a backdoor way to legalize gay marriage; there’s nothing to stop the Episcopalian Church, some very liberal reform Jewish rabbi, or even the Society for Ethical Culture to start performing same sex “marriages” on par with more conservative churches.
A Reader Jan 13th 2010 at 11:47 am 55
For a social science based response - find and read this paper:
Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson. “Marriage-a-la-mode: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage.” Paper presented at Emory University, Atlanta, GA (May 14, 2003)
It goes through many of the arguments presented here.
Czhorat Jan 13th 2010 at 12:09 pm 56
to A Reader:
It answers the arguments, but very poorly and in a manner that ignores the history of marriage, confuses assertion with fact, and lacks internal consistancy. For example, a loving relationship is not a good enough reason for a same-sex couple to be married, but it is acceptable for childless heterosexual couples to marry for EXACTLY THE SAME justification.
It also makes statements about what is “best” for children without citing a single statistic or study to back them up.
Czhorat Jan 13th 2010 at 12:29 pm 57
Nicole (#38)
This proves it - gay marriage is ruining the noble institution of divorce!
Winter Wallaby Jan 13th 2010 at 12:54 pm 58
It already has, Nicole: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-7-2008/mass–hysteria
OT: While the country is split about 50-50 on gay marriage, the responses here are overwhelmingly for it. Also, I think the U.S. population is only about 5% atheist, but I’ve noticed in previous discussions that a large percentage of the regular posters are atheists. I’m not really clear on what aspect of not understanding comics seems to attract such a disproportionately high number of liberal atheists.
paperboy Jan 13th 2010 at 02:02 pm 59
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I was wondering about the argument that it’s not a gay-marriage ban per se, (though that’s the affect), but a same-sex marriage ban. That is, gays can get married, just not to the same sex. I know it sounds like a joke, but some legal arguments do. I mean, if two hetero dudes could get hitched, but not two gay guys, that would be a slam-dunk discrimination, but, as it stands now, neither couple could make it legal.
TonyJazz Jan 13th 2010 at 02:09 pm 60
Talk about ‘ick’ factor: we really already have legal same sex marriages in the entire country, as transexuals can marry only based (in most places) on their birth gender—-which means that they end up as married gay men or married lesbians if they marry someone of their target gender….
This is yet one more reason that prevention of same sex/gender marriages make no sense, but this argument is usually avoided as it is hard to grasp (and the previously-mentioned ‘ick’ factor).
Nicole Jan 13th 2010 at 02:20 pm 61
PB #57
I have heard the argument that there is no discrimination, gay men have the same rights as straight men, and gay women have the same rights as straight women.
The problem then becomes one of sexual discrimination. We have decided that women should have the same rights as men and men the same rights as women. If a man can marry a woman why can’t a woman marry a woman? Aren’t you denying women the same rights as men and denying men the same rights as women ?
Lola Jan 13th 2010 at 05:22 pm 62
Winter Wallaby #58 - I think I’ve got it! It’s not that we don’t understand the comics more than other folks, it’s that we want to know WHY we didn’t understand them. Questioning is anathema to faith, so that eliminates a lot of the hyper-religious who, let’s face it, weren’t real big on comedy anyway. After all, you have to read the comics to know that you don’t understand them, right? From there, you’re left with a bunch of people who won’t just stop at comics, but question other things too, like what is moral and what isn’t and what’s our business and what’s not. The output of all that is a distillation of liberal atheists who don’t care what someone else’s gender preference is …. but still like a good laugh.
Now that I thought about it, if I had a church, I’d excommunicate anyone who followed this site.
Anon Jan 13th 2010 at 05:40 pm 63
In all seriousness…
1. Currently, states do not allow close relatives to marry or to be considered married, for legal purposes (e.g. taxes, inheritance, etc.). Specifics differ by state, but presumably it is meant to prevent the genetic problems in the potential children.
2. One of the arguments for same sex marriage is that marriage is not for procreation only, proof being the number of hetero couples that can’t or don’t have children.
Question: If same sex marriage is allowed in a given state, should the state also allow close relatives of the same gender (e.g., two spinster sisters) to marry so that they can enjoy the legal benefits of being married? For that matter, why should states disallow ANY marriages between close relatives? For that matter, why is bigamy a crime t all in this country? People will have sex with whomever they want anyways — whether or not they are married — and allowing marriage between close relatives or multiple adults would allow siblings, a widowed mother and her kids — or any set of people to set up a “marriage corporation” that would allow them to enjoy the same benefits that , today, are only given to married couples.
Seriously, what is the argument against marriage between close relatives or more than one adult, and how is it different than the argument against same sex marriage?
J Jan 13th 2010 at 09:00 pm 64
TonyJazz #35: I was not attempting to make an argument for or against anything by pointing out the sociocultural basis of moral trends, just hoping to get people to critically examine what the basis is for moral judgments in the first place, i.e., “What/whom is the ground for moral truths?” It’s a topic worthy of consideration.
Secondly, if you read the piece by WLC that I noted, he explains in detail that an innate tendency to commit an action (like homosexuality) is not what is wrong, but the action itself is what is wrong.
Moreover, just because someone has an innate tendency to commit a certain action A, it does not logically follow that action A is therefore morally benign (it also does not follow that it is evil, either, for that matter); it would require additional argumentation to prove that A is a morally OK action (or a morally not-OK answer).
Examples such as preventing interracial marriage in the past seem analagous to the gay marriage debate, but they are not totally so. What is at issue in the gay marriage debate is a certain behavior; whereas people cannot help being born a certain color, a person can control their behavior, regardless of tendencies (in fact, do expect persons such as pedophiles to control their behavior, regardless of any inborn tendencies they may have; I am not suggesting that homosexuality is anywhere near as bad as pedophilia, but just offering a partial analogy to point out that the issue is the actual behavior).
With that I’m going to have to end my posts on comicsidontunderstand.com so I can further focus on my studies. Thank you all for some interesting discussions. Take care.
Mark M Jan 13th 2010 at 09:29 pm 65
Exactly Anon @ 63. Maybe it’s the “ick” factor that causes people to be against bigamy and the marriage of close relatives.
Speaking of which, I know the “ick” factor has been mentioned in a number of comments here as to why some are against gay marriage. I really don’t think that’s the case. Otherwise, there would have been a big uproar when most (all?) of the anti-sodomy laws were taken off the books. I’m old enough to remember them, and it didn’t seem to me that anyone cared when those laws were abolished.
Nicole Jan 13th 2010 at 09:38 pm 66
Anon #63
Funny … I had this same discussion with someone else just a little while ago.
As you pointed out the state does not allow close relatives to marry because of the potential harm it could cause any children born out of the union. Assuming that there would be no children out of such a union, while I find it uncomfortable, I have to say that it is not my place to say no. As far as polyamorous unions go … I know a polyamorous triad, two men one woman. The woman is legally married to one of the men, that couple ‘married’ the other man. I see no problem with three .. or more
J#64
I admit that I did not read the WLC article … I did not want to register, so I will address what you have written.
“Secondly, if you read the piece by WLC that I noted, he explains in detail that an innate tendency to commit an action (like homosexuality) is not what is wrong, but the action itself is what is wrong.”
The implication here is that homosexual acts are wrong even if the tendency is innate. Exactly by what standard does WLC judge these acts to be wrong. I see no victim here if it is between two consenting adults. So what makes it wrong … other than the bible says so ?
I am totally insulted that you should even imply that homosexual is in anyway analogous to pedophilia. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults, pedophilia is between one person with power over the other person.
Again who is WLC to judge my behavior with another adult ?
Anon Jan 14th 2010 at 01:17 am 67
Re: J (#64) & Nicole (#66):
A neutral example I like to give of “just because someone has an innate tendency to [do something], it does not logically follow that [that thing] is therefore…benign” is toilet training. The innate tendency is to go immediately, without holding it in, as we see in children who are not yeat trained. Yet to do so would definitely NOT be “benign” and society would never put up with the argument that “it is natural” and “I can’t help it, I was born that way.”
arvy Jan 14th 2010 at 06:24 am 68
Anon et al,
The problem with your analogy is that you are starting from the perspective that it is up to gay marriage advocates to prove that the behavior is benign or morally acceptable, but that is backwards.
If we are going to prevent any two (or three, etc.) People from getting married then we should be able to provide an explanation of why doing so is necessary for the greater good or for the protection of specific individuals - something that no one that I have ever read has ever been able to do in terms of providing a rationale for disallowing same-sex marriage.
arvy Jan 14th 2010 at 06:37 am 69
one other point: “why don’t christians get upset about divorce,” “why do some christians pick and choose from the bible” and “marriage is not just for procreation” are not arguments in favor of gay marriage, they are refutations to arguments against gay marriage. There is a huge difference. The argument for same sex marriage is just one thing. It is something that a great many people want that causes no harm to anyone so there is no rational reason to restrict it.
Nicole Jan 14th 2010 at 08:03 am 70
Anon #67
I think this is a fine analogy. Yes we toilet train people — to wait till an appropriate time … not to ignore those urges forever. You eventually give in to that urge … or at least I do.
I have no problem encouraging gay AND straight people to wait for an appropriate time for marriage and sex … and and to give into those urges at the appropiate time.
Keera Jan 14th 2010 at 10:59 am 71
Well, Lola (#62), all I can say is that you hang out with the wrong religious people if you think all us deists lack curiosity and don’t belong on CIDU.
Lola Jan 14th 2010 at 05:44 pm 72
Ah Keera, you and yours are the exceptions that prove the rule. My best friend for over 20 years is a devout Catholic. She also firmly believes in the Zodiac and has an unseemly regard for Dr. Phil. Her sister is a nun, her son is openly gay and she loves him unconditionally. All of this I find counterintuitive and curiously bemusing. You couldn’t possibly meet a nicer person. She’s blithely confident my belief, or lack thereof, is a temporary stage that will just work itself out. Neither of us tries to proselytise the other. It’s just mutual respect. I guess if all christians were like her ….
Keera Jan 15th 2010 at 01:18 am 73
Lola, if all atheists were like you, a lot of us non-fundamentalists of any stripe would also have an easier time.
Nicole Jan 15th 2010 at 08:36 am 74
Keera # 73 … yeah , there might even be a Christian president someday