Comments on: Thank God the New Jersey Legislature Voted Against Gay Marriage!

By: Nicole

Nicole — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:36:47 +0000

Keera # 73 … yeah , there might even be a Christian president someday

By: Keera

Keera — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:18:25 +0000

Lola, if all atheists were like you, a lot of us non-fundamentalists of any stripe would also have an easier time.

By: Lola

Lola — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:44:31 +0000

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 ….

By: Keera

Keera — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:59:56 +0000

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.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:03:45 +0000

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.

By: arvy

arvy — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:37:12 +0000

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.

By: arvy

arvy — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:24:41 +0000

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.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:17:21 +0000

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.”

By: Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:38:19 +0000

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 ?

By: Mark M

Mark M — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:29:44 +0000

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.