Let them do pairage - I like that word.

More important, the gay pairs don't have kids and they eventually die off as a breed. Same thing for abortion. Let the libs kill their kids and then they will die off without replacements. 2 generations is all it will take and the perverts will be gone.

Then we can get some real people in office like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Maybe they should have a kid and he/she/it could be President.

Your logic remains true to form. "... gay pairs don't have kids and they eventually die off as a breed." If that were true how come there are still gays around? Do you think at least one parent of a gay person had to be gay to produce a gay offspring and if we could just get all those married hetero/homo couples who are having gay children to stop marrying and have gays marry only other gays there would then be no gay people?

No gays producing kids - although they could adopt unwanted kids if they wanted to do so. You know about unwanted kids don't you? Those are the ones that Libs had before they got the memo that said it was ok to to pierce their skull with a spoon while still in the womb and kill them before they were born. Then when they were born they get shipped out to a foster home or somewhere worse.

Have a nice Thanksgiving, baby killer.

...you're a freak.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

what/ why?

Having been left with all the debt, insurance, college expenses and minimal (if any) child support...I agree...why deny anyone that wonderful experience!!! Sometimes, no matter how hard we try, things just don't go as planned. And the separate bathroom (duplex) comment...ha ha ha!!! I can't count how many times I've said that!!! In my dreams, right?!!

First, let me say how sorry I am to hear of your despair.

Now, my opinion on marriage is that all couples should live in duplexes. It would be perfect. Each would have their own bathroom, bedroom (which could still be shared whenever the need arose), kitchen, etc.. The adjoining door could be locked from either side for those times when you just need your own space.

The best part is that the woman would never have to clean up nose hair clippings in her bathroom sink and the man would never have to pull long hair from the drain in his kitchen sink. Plus, just think of the extra closet space!

Where does this guy say that it "leads to" anything? Distinguish the following points:

(a) Once a society broadens the definition of marriage to include gay couples, it will inevitably find itself forced to permit other, unwelcome variations such as polygamy and interspecific unions.

(b) If the definition of marriage is broadened to include gay couples there is no principled reason for denying the same privileges to those with other forms in mind.

I think (b) is true, but I have no idea about (a). Perhaps a society will open the door only to one group and close it to all the rest. But whether this is done is determined by merely descriptive and contingent features of that society. Such a decision will be neither principled nor normative, and you offer no reason for thinking otherwise.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

"...inevitably find itself forced..."?

I could not disagree more. I've attempted to show how these discrimantory tenets (or "principles") of marriage are independent in nature, and the "fall" of one "pillar" does not in any way, shape or form portend the imminent collapse of the entire structure. Are you implying some sort of philosophical "domino theory"?

As I said to Cyclist, marriage definition is predicated upon cultural norms, and I seriously doubt we'll see a cultural norm that embraces, say, bestiality anytime in the foreseeable future!

That language is included in (a), to which I confess skepticism.

My point is similar to one that I make in another context. I think that the objectivity of morality is logically dependent upon the existence of God so that Dostoevsky was right: If God does not exist everything is permitted.

But I do not (necessarily) believe the following:

* Any individual who abandons belief in God will also become immoral.

* People who believe in God are more virtuous than people who do not.

* Any society that becomes secular will inevitably lapse into moral degeneracy.

I think there are virtuous pagans. And it is a strictly empirical and historical matter as to whether secular societies condone orgies in the streets.

What I do believe is that the virtuous atheist lacks the conceptual resources for justifying the objectivity and normativity of the life of virtue. There is nothing here about an "inevitable slide."

(Perhaps, after all, humans are just hardwired to have an aversion to certain sorts of acts and so will generally refrain from them whether they can justify or not.)

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

We're now at a point where a significant minority (gays) wishes to have another legal barrier removed, and public opinion appears to be gravitating slowly into support for their position.

Yep. So when the Muslims (a growing population group) say they cannot practice their four wives policy because of discriminatory laws what do we tell them? The very same debate is taking place in the UK. Next, will come female circumcision.

Where in the heck is the line drawn?

BTW, God job in turning Murchison's piece into a "lightly" veiled attack on the LDS.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

"Where in the heck is the line drawn?"

The line is already in place. Interracial marriage restrictions were ruled unconstitutional. The line was re-drawn. If society determines that line should be re-drawn again, it will be.

The true Muslim does not take another wife unless he can afford her! We don't see many Muslims in the US demanding to have the 'four' wives privilege. It would be nice if Christian men would only take 'the other women' if he could afford her. (Just a thought)

The first wife has to approve also. I'm pretty sure that disqualifies me.

BTW: Real Americans got some good news today; Ann Coulters mouth has been wired shut. Anybody know why?

Her mouth was wired shut not Coulter!

That action spells RELIEF!! (Wow, one has to be careful what one prays for - and I hope (sincerely) that she has a speedy recovery. I hadn't heard about this.

My thinking has always been that my husband is more than welcome to get another wife - but don't expect me to do her laundry. AND, she has to clean the toilets!

My point was that there are two fundamental points to changing the definition of marriage: significant minority, and equally important, public opinion.

I believe that gay people meet the first test (significant minority) and are well on their way to achieving the second test (public opinion).

I don't think the same case can be made for polygamy, be it Muslim or Mormon. Public opinion just isn't there. Without it, the issue is dead in the water.

As a point of reference, when Loving v. Virginia permitted interracial marriage, detractors were quick to predict the end of the world...and this was way back in 1967 or so. Hasn't happened yet!

My point was that there are two fundamental points to changing the definition of marriage: significant minority, and equally important, public opinion.

This takes us to the very heart of things. I wonder why on earth should anyone suppose that the very essence of a thing like marriage is somehow contingent upon such relative criteria as these? For one thing, are these criteria self-validating, so that they apply if and only if they enjoy widespread acceptance? Or do you rather think that their validity is transcendent, so that they would be normative even if few people accepted them?

At any rate, with this you offer an in principle recipe for embracing virtually anything. Unless there are transcendent normative criteria to which we appeal, such definitions become subject to the shifting tides of public opinion. And the latter, unfortunately, is often at the mercy of the cunning and skill of demagogues and sophists.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

You're pushing this to a rather abstract layer, but I believe I understand where you are going with this: At what point do we decide what constructs are to be "cast in stone" and what constructs are we willing to let evolve?

I believe the concept of marriage falls firmly within the latter.

"Marriage", on the whole, has been under the exclusive purvey of the church for a very long time. The law has codified what is essentially a religious tenet insofar as determining the legal aspects of marriage, which I previously covered.

Codifying marriage, though, has an essential flaw: whose interpretation of marriage do we codify? Jewish canon, which does not seem to recognize interfaith marriage? Mormon doctrine, which for most of it's sordid existence called for the death penalty in interracial marriages?

I submit to you that there is no one common ground YET for marriage, that we are just now attempting to codify and standardize the definition at the national level, subject to the vagaries of state law (i.e. women being permitted to marry at age 12 in Alabama...ah, there's that "age of consent" pillar!)

As this appears to be a "work in progress" at the national level, I feel it is only appropriate to take the time to review and judge the merits of gay marriage, and that it is absolutely premature to disqualify discussion on grounds of "tradition" and "status quo". I suspect it will be a spirited national debate!

Volley, serve, back to you!

Well, on the face of it, I suggest that both history and nature present us with a strong presumption against the idea of a definition of marriage that includes people of the same sex. And so I think that the onus of proof is upon the advocates of such.

There have always been homosexuals (though not nearly of the percentage that Kinsey suggested as the result of his skewed* "research.")

Have there been societies that have regarded same sex pairings as equivalent to "marriage"?

If not, one need not go far to find an explanation. Marriage is naturally and historically regarded as the foundation of the family.
It is by wonderful economy that one act of physical union can be both the expression of love and the means by which families are brought into existence. Marriage has always been regarded in this vein.

Set aside for the moment the question of the morality of homosexuality itself. The question before us is why our society should feel obligated now officially to sanction homosexual unions. Gay groups are proclaiming this proposed departure from the norm a "right" of some kind. What is the argument for this?

It is very tempting to turn to social science explanations to account for the very existence of this emerging debate. A group has campaigned long enough and has been vocal enough that the public resistance to the idea has been worn bare. And so the group continues to clamor and push their agenda. Once there is sufficient momentum and insufficient resistance, it begins to seem a legitimate option.

But this, of course, does nothing to establish its actual legitimacy.

*I say that Kinsey's research was "skewed" because of his inherently flawed method. He interviewed people who were willing to talk openly about their sex lives and sexual fantasies. But this, of course, precluded all of those people who are sufficiently reticent, and such reticence often goes hand-in-hand with modesty and a more traditional beliefs and behaviors. Gay groups have quoted Kinsey's "ten percent" for decades. What is really true is this: "Ten percent of all people who agreed to talk with strangers about their most intimate fantasies were either homosexuals or had had homosexual experiences."

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Have there been societies that have regarded same sex pairings as equivalent to "marriage"? Yes

Set aside for the moment the question of the morality of homosexuality itself. The question before us is why our society should feel obligated now officially to sanction homosexual unions.

It wasn't until 1967 that the US Government felt obligated to sanction inter-racial marriages. The question that I ask is why does 'government' have the right to enter a citizen’s bedroom and determine the morality of their personal preferences. I have dealt with 'families' for many decades. True - It is by wonderful economy that one act of physical union can be both the expression of love and the means by which families are brought into existence.
However I have also witnessed the wonderful children that have been nurtured by parents who chose to raise them when no physical union between the parents was responsible for the child’s creation. Sex for some is for creation - for others 'recreation' - and for many both. The attitude towards homosexuality is based on ones cultural and religious beliefs. (And some in the medical profession feel that it is a medical phenomenon) The majority of Americans have strong feelings about this issue, I guess. However, our past history shows when we try to legislate religious/cultural practices - we usually get it wrong - and have to change course down the line. Let the churches do their job - and instill their religious doctrines on those who believe. Our founders had great wisdom in separating church and state.

The question that I ask is why does 'government' have the right to enter a citizen’s bedroom and determine the morality of their personal preferences.

This is to confuse two issues:

(a) Should there be sodomy laws?

(b) Should the states or the federal government redefine marriage to accomodate homosexual unions.

My answer to (a) is no, as I reject the legal moralism that such laws presuppose. But why suppose that answer no to (a) implies in any way that one ought to answer yes to (b)?

One may consistently maintain that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, that there are no good grounds for redefining marriage to accomodate homosexuality, and that, nevertheless, laws should not be written specifically to prohibit consensual adult homosexual relations.

Oh, man. I need a 12-step program. I'm blogging from my car while stopped briefly in W. VA while traveling. Sick, sick, sick.

___________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

My answer to (a) is no, as I reject the legal moralism that such laws presuppose. But why suppose that answer no to (a) implies in any way that one ought to answer yes to (b)

No. We're in total agreement here! Be careful out there - and have a blessed holiday!

Hi, Muddle. Let me answer point (a): I think there should be laws regarding how often a wife should be expected to engage in sodomy. I would like to redifine the term 'aggravated sodomy' as whenever we women are too aggravated to do it!

At least your not blogging while driving. Have a safe trip.

Thanks much for the belly-laugh(I did, actually, laugh out loud) that was great!

"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

Our founders had great wisdom in separating church and state.
Where are these terms found in the Constitution? Are you saying we should seperate the state from the church or the church from the state? Does this mean "church people" cannot be involved in politics?

Our founding fathers had great wisdom in prohibiting the government from creating a national religion. There are times when the tenants of Christians, Muslims and Atheists are in agreement. Are you implying that if a religion, any religion, practices a tenant that also parallels a law, the law has to be eliminated because it is too close to a religious doctrine?

No.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I had to sneak out and and hit the gym while my fat cells weren't looking. It was a real sneak attack.

Well I guess in time if your conditions (significant minority and public opinion) are met than polygamy can really happen. Honestly, I think that was what Mr. Murchison was eluding too. That's my opinion and your mileage my vary. (I still think your LDS remark was not becoming of your normal high standards.)

Anways, Loving was a turning point; for racial marriages. Perhaps the "Supremes" will review Prop 8 when and if it makes its way to Washington.

As far as the popular opinion issue that you acknowledged, didn't California recently do that exercise?

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Yes, cyclist, you are correct, the people have spoken in California. Gay marriage is officially a dead issue there, barring some constitutional challenge.

In one aspect, though, it signals a fundamental change in American politics. Remember some years back when Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local"? Not any longer. Inept campaigning aside, the anti-prop 8 folks ran a quinessential statewide campaign. Unfortunately for them, the Mormon church decided to make this a national referendum on gay marriage, and coerced their members into sending $20 million dollars in advertising money to enact this legislation. That 20 million was the deciding factor in the narrow victory for prop 8.

This was an opening volley in the upcoming culture war. The Mormons, Catholics and fundamentalists appear no longer content to dictate cultural norms to their own respective flocks, now they want to legislate their beliefs via force of law on those who do not share their doctrinal dogma. It's a seismic shift in the body politic, and a very bad one in my opinion.

"There is very little support for polygamy outside the Mormon Church." You make a solid argument, then fire off about a religion that you obviously do not practice. Have we forgotten that there are others in this big old world that have practiced polygamy other than your "slam of the week" towards Mormons? Surely you know of tribes of less civilized locales that continue the practice without government interference even today.

Utah law does prohibit, by the way, so where does the "Quantity" parameter originate?

I'm aware that Utah nominally bans polygamy.

Despite this being against the law, there are approximately 60,000 polygamists in Utah, virtually all of them members of the LDS church or the FLDS church (the fundamentalist offshoot of Mormonism). LINK

I would venture to say that this number dwarfs any competing fringe polygamy sects within the United States by a substantial margin.

If you count all the FLDS folks in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, etc and the actual number would swell far beyond the 60,000, the fact remains they have disassociated themselves from the LDS Church. Ergo, not Mormons, but rather those David Koresh types.

What say you?

Elton John Solves Gay Marriage Controversy

"One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. “We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution"

I think Sir Elton John has a good idea. Personally, I don't feel it is the government's job to define "marriage". As such, I'm against legislation that attempts to do so.

I do feel, however, that civil unions (or "civil partnerships", if you will) should be extended to gay couples and recognized by the state for purposes of inheritance, next of kin benefits, etc.

Would you be willing to compromise on this?

This post is a little off subject, but curiosity is killing me. Are you a teacher? Your posts, while opinions sometimes differ from my own, are usually eloquent and dignified.

I know that you do not usually respond to me; however, I just wanted to extend to you that compliment. I read your posts and admire the style in which they are written.

Hi Dawn, thank you for the kind words.

I'm not a teacher, I lack the temperament for that profession.

Your post was particularly welcome today, I got my third Citizen email this morning from someone praying for me to die soon so that I might know Christ's love.

...are those Fake Christians after you again? It may have been that gay post you made today, cuz Fake Christians hate gay people.

Faux Christians remind me of these guys:

MONKS

I must agree with Main, these people can't possibly be real 'Christians' and epitomize all that is, for me, wrong with traditional organized religion.

There seems to be a compulsory edict that their view of God is the only one and that anyone else is not only wrong, but condemned to hell. I prefer to believe that the Divine spirit, that universal Truth, knows what is in my heart and that I will be judged on this alone. I don't need anyone else to do the judging.

Anyone that would wish you harm, based on what? - a difference in opinion, does not have a pure heart.

BTW = I could never be a teacher either. I always wanted to be a professor, doing field work with grants given by the University and writing research papers - like Indiana Jones. My hope is to one day make my way to Emory and finish up my graduate work. Until then, I'm just an over educated bartender/assist. manager in a local restaurant. Then again, seeing as how my thesis paper dealt with Sumerian seals, I guess field work would be a little dangerous these days (Mesopotamia = Modern day Iraq).

Last January, I lost a dear aunt to cancer. It started in her colon, eventually progressing into her liver, kidneys, and lymphatic system. Her battle ensued for 6 years (5 1/2 years longer than the original prognosis). During that 6 years, her partner stayed by her side: going to oncology visits, radiation, chemo, lawyers (to get her will in order), etc.

We, the family, suffered the turmoil of watching a loved one die a slow painful death. But it was her partner that was with her day and night throughout that 6 years. It was her partner that was her emotional and spiritual nexus.

In the end, and the end came quickly, my aunt left this world with her brother (my dad) holding one hand and her partner holding the other.

I don't think anyone could tell them that what they felt wasn't real. You and I may not be able to understand same sex love - because that is simply not how we were made. But I know that my aunt felt nothing but love for her partner and I know that her spirit remains not just for the family, but for her partner as well.

Gay marriage or civil union or pairing opponents think in terms of how THEY feel and don't dare look within the hearts of those involved in such relationships. Let's bring the Constitution into this for a moment. This is not about religion, this is defining what "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means.

Who are we to tell Dick Cheney's daughter, Alan Keye's daughter, Randall Terry's son, or Newt Gingrich's sister that, though they be deeply and emotionally connected to their partners, we will not permit the government to recognize this connection. WE will not permit a Partner to be a legally recognized "next of kin." In Alan Keye's case, he would be his gay daughter's next of kin, even though he turned his back on her and kicked her out of their home for being openly and actively gay. And his daughter's partner has no legal recourse. Does this make sense? Two consenting adults wanting to bond forever in love does not threaten me or my life on any level. Gay religious folks who live closeted, secret lives to hide their true nature are much more detrimental (read gay Priests and Reverend Ted Haggard). Just my two pennies.

Maybe there ought to be a political party dedicated to stopping all this here type of thing before it ruins one of Newt's marriages.

Folks that fight so hard to keep gay marriage illegal don't fight with equal zeal to make divorce illegal :$ . We ARE trying to protect marriage, right?

Thank you for sharing that beautiful example of unconditional love.

If not us, then who? Utah had to make polygamy illegal to gain entrance into the Union. While it may have been enforced early on, it is now. Get your facts right before you start to call people retards! That is also a derogatory word for people who have special needs children. I prefer being more straight forward and call you an _ssh_le.

Outside of Salt Lake City, I suspect that laws regarding polygamy in Utah are enforced with the same lack of zeal as DUI laws are enforced outside of PTC's Y-knot Lounge.