Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Gribbit's got his panties in a bunch about the obviously sarcastic proposal from a gay rights group in Washington that all marriages that don't produce children within 3 years be annulled. Apparently the concept of irony can't penetrate his delusions. The folks in Washington are not seriously proposing such a thing, of course, they're just trying to make a point: that all the talk from the anti-gay marriage folks about how marriage is important to "protect the children" is a red herring. And they're right, as Gribbit demonstrates perfectly in this post. He begins:
So these people would tell those of us who believe that marriage is a sacrament from GOD that if our marriages don't produce a child within 3 years it wasn't valid? Who are they to legislate over the will of GOD?
Well see Gribbit, here's the thing: your god has no power here. What you think your god tells you has no more bearing on public policy than what the Hindus' god allegedly tells them, or what Huitzlpochtli allegedly told the Aztecs, or what Rael tells his followers. You might have noticed that the US makes lots of laws that "legislate over the will of GOD", like not stoning gays to death and allowing people to eat lobster. This is not a theocracy, it's a republic. But this statement becomes even funnier when you consider that Gribbit claims to be married when he isn't.
He then goes on to make a whole raft of absurd arguments against gay marriage.
My opposition to gay marriage has multiple layers. The first being the procreation argument. But the heart of that is the natural argument that gay lifestyle advocates try to make. They have been on a crusade of sorts to make it seen by the public as natural and normal. If it were, how is it that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child?
I don't think he has any idea what "natural" means. The only thing it can possibly mean is "existing in the natural world", and obviously homosexuality does. It exists in every single species we've observed, in fact, which rather strongly undercuts the various explanations of homosexuality offered by those who oppose it. It has existed in every human society and it always will.
Next, my religious teaching is such that marriage is a sacrament reserved for the raising of children in the faith. So in a sense, supporting gay marriage is against my religion.Along with that are the multiple teachings in the Bible that shows that in the eyes of GOD, homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Of course, it also says that having sex before marriage is a mortal sin, punishable by death just like homosexuality. So why are you not pushing laws to put people in jail for that "sin"? Could it be because you and "Mrs" Gribbit are having sex? Hell, you've violated your own religion many times with your threats of violent behavior. Why should you be allowed to impose your religious views on others, especially when you clearly have no intention of living up to them yourself?
Next, the economic impact to the nation would be such as to put our economy in danger of a recession should employers be forced to extend benefit packages to those who live these lifestyles.On this argument there are a couple of "outs" for employers. The first being closing up shop and moving off shore to avoid these added "mandated" expenses. The second being no longer covering dependents with health benefits. Only covering the employee would eliminate health care coverage for millions of children. Who would cover them?
Putting our economy in danger for fewer than 1% of the population is a reckless social experiment which this nation cannot afford.
This may be the funniest argument of all. If it's only 1%, why on earth would that push our economy in to recession? And if this burden on companies is so serious, why have so many companies offered such benefits on their own? Corporate America is way ahead of society on this issue, with thousands and thousands of corporations offering benefits for gay partners. Why? Because it makes good economic sense. and helps them compete for high quality employees.
Next, gay rights would NOT be equal rights, they would be special rights. We are talking about extending special marriage considerations to fewer than 1% of the general population of the country. As things are, gays are equal in that they are free to marry as all others are - someone of the opposite sex. This is equal. Extending a right to marry someone of the same sex would be a special right that over 99% of the population would have no need of.
LOL. If you give other people the same rights I have, then they would have "specail" rights, not equal rights. And this stupid argument that since everyone is equally free to marry someone of another sex then everyone is "equal" is the same argument that failed in Loving in the context of interracial marriage. The same argument was made then, that people of all races were equally free to marry someone of their own race, so they were equal. It failed then, it fails now.
It is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. People enter these "relationships" knowing that they are not accepted. They enter these "relationships" freely knowing that they can never be considered a legal marriage. Life is wrought with consequences for choices that we make. They make choices to enter these "relationships" therefor they should be forced to live with the consequences of their choices.
And the same is true of interracial marriages prior to 1967. And of course, this completely ignores those children they keep saying must be protected. There are hundreds of thousands of kids in families headed by gay parents. To deny those protections from their parents is to deny them to those children as well. If you're going to make the argument that the range of legal and financial protections that come with marriage are crucial to a stable and secure home for those children, why does that logic suddenly not apply to children being raised by gay parents?
Comments
In Gribbit's world, who's to say that God isn't punishing the infertile for choosing the wrong mate? Maybe this legislation isn't a deconstruction of rational basis review. Maybe it's the will of GOD.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | February 8, 2007 9:56 AM
I never tire of that one. Heterosexual marriage is an equal right, because both heterosexuals and homosexuals can partake of it, even though gays have no need of it. Homosexual marriage is a special right, because even though both heterosexuals and homosexuals can partake of it, straights have no need of it.
Double standard? What double standard?
Posted by: MartinM | February 8, 2007 10:08 AM
I don't think that's true. Obviously homosexual behavior has been documented in many, many species, but in all of them? No.
Unless you mean "it exists in every single species" for which we've actively checked whether it exists. In which case I don't know, that might be true.
Posted by: Skemono | February 8, 2007 10:11 AM
The telling history that will be lost on Gribbit and his ilk is that exactly the same arguments were made, a half century back, in support of miscegenation laws. Marriage between the races was consider unnatural, and against the laws of God. The very same god to whom Gribbit appeals on this issue. Those who defended such laws argued that they didn't violate the 14th amendment's equality guarantees precisely because, all "are equal in that they are free to marry as all others are - someone of the [same race]. This is equal." The key substitution in that sentence, "same race" for "opposite sex," is mine. But the argument is as valid in one case as the other.
Posted by: Russell | February 8, 2007 10:19 AM
The griblet also make the point several times in all caps of course that MARRIAGE IS A SACREMENT OF GOD. Since when in this country do we go to the state for sacrements? We go to the state to ratify economic contracts relating to our households. We have these awful purty buildings called churchs for SACREMENTS OF GOD. Really, what part of "established church" don't these people understand?
Posted by: justawriter | February 8, 2007 10:29 AM
Skemono writes:
Well, there are species where the notion doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. Many worms, for example, are hermaphrodites, with each member having both male and female sex organs. Mating is a 69 affair.
Posted by: Russell | February 8, 2007 10:38 AM
I don't get the "natural" because even if it were true, and it's not, how is that a basis to ban someone from doing something. The only question that should be asked when considering banning something is "does this action hurt other people" and the answer to that in the context of gay marriage is "NO".
Posted by: Matthew | February 8, 2007 11:36 AM
Yes, indeed: MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT OF GOD. So let's get the state out of it altogether. Reserve "marriage" for religion, with no civil benefits of course - only spiritual ones "from God" - and require a civil ceremony (let's call it a "civil union") for anyone who wants the tax/property/inheritance/testimony/whatever benefits that are from the state - straight or gay. No church would have to "marry" people they didn't approve of (gays, divorced folks, non-virgins, interfaith, atheists, heretics, whatever). Problem solve.
Posted by: The Ridger | February 8, 2007 11:36 AM
First he's offended by the obviously tongue-in-cheek proposal that if a marriage doesn't produce children, it isn't valid:
Then he proceeds to harp on how much procreation and marriage are intertwined:
and
and
and
This is cognitive dissonance/dishonesty on a whole new level. "You can't tell me marriage is about children" right along side "You can't marry because marriage is about children". It's pretty bad when your only two brain cells can't even come to an agreement.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 8, 2007 11:38 AM
>> As things are, gays are equal in that they are free to marry as all others are - someone of the opposite sex. This is equal.
This argument hurts me on the inside. According to Gribbit's logic:
If you're a man, you have the right to marry a woman.
If you're a woman, you have the right to marry a man.
Ignoring homosexuals for a moment, as it stands now men and women have different rights, which is clearly wrong. Why not pass a law saying, "You have the right to a number of PHD's equal to the number of Y chromosomes you have?"
(By the way, how do you do the citations in a comment?)
Posted by: Brandon | February 8, 2007 11:43 AM
And, as always, Gribbit the Dipshit lacks the guts to actually discuss his ideas with anyone: "Gribbit's threads have comments closed".
How a trembling coward like this ever expected to scare anyone with his threats to beat people up is beyond me.
Posted by: meatbrain | February 8, 2007 11:46 AM
What is striking to me about this is the vindictiveness on display. If they can't get what they want, they want to stick it to someone too. In this case, the disabled.
So the mask slips, and the hatred that the gay lobby has is fully on display in support of an initiative such as this.
Of course, the proponent considers it absurd. Of course it is absurd. In a country with handicapped access, special parking places for the handicapped, and disability benefits, its ludicrous to think that marriage should be annulled due to a disability.
But what the proponents hope is that when the initiative goes down in flames that they can spin it away from the real reason it failed, and blame the focus on responsible procreation in marriage. Which is one of our most important moors to help children and give their lives value that our society has. But that simply must be thrown under the bus to pamper small and already well-to-do, politically mobilized faction of society.
But what I figure it will really cause people to wonder about is, Is homosexuality a handicap? No, it is not. Then why are homosexuals after handicap benefits? The same-sex couple does not want equality with the companion sexed couple, they want equality with the disabled who form companion sex couplings. So why?
Neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality, it was told to me many years ago, would be one of the most oppressive things one segment of society did to another since abortion as birth control and slavery. The way it throws children into the position of being a commodity, and the handicapped under the bus I have to say they are right.
So you go on Ed, keep being "serisously joking" about this. I've never seen you as the brave sort to make direct arguments anyway. I have to say I don't mind absurdity in the name of comedy, but whats really absurd here is where you are trying to be serious.
Posted by: Counterpoint | February 8, 2007 12:15 PM
Does Gribbet not realize that we gays and lesbians work for employers now and have health insurance for ourselves, at the very least? Does he also not realize that probably the most expensive thing that can kill a small employer's ability to extend health benefits is a premie baby?
I don't know where you are going here, but let's look at people who could be considered disabled - the intersexed, who are neither male nor female, and are barred from marriage by all states and the federal government. Doesn't barring them from marriage entirely violent their rights?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 8, 2007 12:29 PM
I'd like to see someone argue that hetereosexual marriage is a special right and the gay marriage is not. Every one is equally allowed to be gay married (sense?) except hetereosexuals have no need for it. Why should the hetereosexuals be give "Special rights" that gays do not have.
Posted by: Russell Claus | February 8, 2007 12:36 PM
From a long time lurker, first time poster.
Counterpoint, you've totally lost me... How are homosexual couples fighting for the same rights as the disabled? From what I have seen the arguements are for the same benifits and rights that heterosexual couples have. If you could please flesh out your post a little bit more, perhaps provide links to sources, and a coherent arguement, I would appreciate that greatly.
Posted by: Uafbum | February 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Counterpoint, I'm not even sure where to begin. I'm not even sure I can reply to everything in your post that I want to, but here goes.
Counterpoint said:
So apparently to you, a married couple not having children is a disability. Either that, or the only possible reason you can think of for a married couple to not have children is if they aren't capable. Absurdity isn't even close to the word for this.
Right, because only rich people with powerful political connections are gay.
Uh, what? Again, just because a married couple chooses not to have children doesn't make them disabled.
If gay marriage came even close to doing either of those things, you might have a leg to stand on. As it is, these are just ridiculous arguments with no backing whatsoever.
You couldn't have possibly described yourself better.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 8, 2007 12:39 PM
I've read Counterpoint's comment a couple of times; I don't have a clue what he's talking about.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 8, 2007 12:40 PM
Great time to delurk, Uafbum :-)
Is there any chance Counterpoint is actually Gribbit in disguise? Perhaps compare ip addresses...
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 8, 2007 12:46 PM
I know doctorgoo, i missed de-lurking day :P And I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is confused as to what exactly Counterpoint is claiming.
Posted by: uafbum | February 8, 2007 12:52 PM
"Neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality"
"Neutering"? Sounfs familiar. This is the word I see all the time on the "opine editorials".
Posted by: John | February 8, 2007 1:19 PM
Matthew,
Whether something is natural is extremely important. Natural things are good, but unnatural things are bad. Why, the very word "unnatural" is just brimming with negative connotations. You don't want to be unnatural do you?
Nature is good. God made nature, so it must be good. Nature is filled with goodness from God. Ebola virus, earthquakes, volcanoes, mosquitoes, cancer, tapeworms, and African eye worm are all natural, so good. People used to die before they were 30. This kept them from having dental problems. Teeth were meant to last a lifetime, but you were supposed to die younger. If we lived naturally and died young, we would have fewer dental problems. Do you now see how natural is good?
Unnatural things are bad. Living past 30, food not filled with parasites, clean drinking water, life-saving surgery and medicine, and, of course, homosexuality, are all unnatural. Well, okay, homosexuality is found in nature, as is rape, murder, and canibalism, but just being found in nature doesn't make them natural. Wait, that contradicts what I said above. SAVE ME, COGNATIVE DISSONANCE!
Okay, let me try again. Nature is naturally good, except for naturally unnatural things found in nature, which are naturally bad! Telling what is naturally natural and what is unnaturally natural (or naturally unnatural) is easily accomplished. Just ask your nearest fundamentalist!
I hope I have clarified things for you.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | February 8, 2007 1:44 PM
Remember, less than 1% of the population has a PhD, so access to a PhD is a special right that most of the population has no need of. Support the ban on higher learning! Wait, that's negative. Have to make it positive... I know, support the defense of ignorance!
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | February 8, 2007 1:49 PM
Oh! and "companion sex coupling!"
That's another great phrase.
Does someone think this a focus group for new word combinations?
Posted by: SharonB | February 8, 2007 2:07 PM
There was a post -- I think on the SPLC site, but I'm not sure and haven't been able to find it, which compared the anti-gay arguments used today, both in substance and language with those of the Nazis against the Jews. I'm unable to reference it, hope someone else who saw it bookmarked it, but the only reason for bringing it up was Counterpoint's
"small and already well-to-do, politically mobilized faction of society". If someone does supply the link, the reference will be clear -- not that I am stating that any anti-gay people are doing this deliberately, just that the reasoning is the same flawed nonsense.
(Oh, btw, Counterpoint, we all make typos, but it is 'mores' not 'moors.')
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | February 8, 2007 2:12 PM
Jim aka Prup:
one is at:http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html
It is a standing link on the left margin of Americablog
Posted by: SharonB | February 8, 2007 2:19 PM
Yep, it's OnLawn yet again. Time to ban all of those IP addresses.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 8, 2007 2:29 PM
but the only reason for bringing it up was Counterpoint's
"small and already well-to-do, politically mobilized faction of society".
Oh, isn't that one of those typical lies bigots and racists point out? Isn't that factoid based on surveys with out-of-the-closet gays, who tend to be in areas where the cost of living is higher, making gays "seem" richer?
Posted by: gwangung | February 8, 2007 3:54 PM
I think he meant it as mooring a ship, in that the responsible procreation in marriage moors (tethers) children to values and some such nonsense. But then he's a blathering idiot, so who can tell?
Posted by: chris | February 8, 2007 4:27 PM
BTW, marriage is not a sacrament for most Protestants. For most of us there are only two sacraments, baptism and communion. Given all his "religious teaching" you'd think he'd know that. (Unless of course, he's Catholic or Anglican, for whom marriage is a sacrament. But in that case, you'd think he'd know that, for most Christians in the US, it is not a sacrament.)
Just random trivia, but I love it when people who try to use religion as a club are completely ignorant of the theology they supposedly espouse. ("espouse"... heh... nice pun, eh?) :)
Posted by: Alan | February 8, 2007 4:58 PM
"Could it be because you and "Mrs" Gribbit are having sex?"
AAAAAGGH!!! My EYES!!
(I don't know how to do the quote thing, either :)
Posted by: twincats | February 8, 2007 5:38 PM
Wow. This is my second time delurking on scienceblogs today. I rarely ever leave comments.
Anyhow, I've got a question for you, Ed. Don't take this in the wrong way, because it's an honest question.
Why do people use any argument about homosexuality in nature when speaking about homosexuality in humans? Why do you write this:
"It exists in every single species we've observed, in fact, which rather strongly undercuts the various explanations of homosexuality offered by those who oppose it."
when this:
"It has existed in every human society and it always will."
is an entirely adequate, complete, and proper response. Put another way, since we're talking about human behavior and we have numerous examples as to how it is natural, why even bring up animals? It doesn't "read" right to me. It seems...unwise. Unwise and irresponsible may be the words I'm looking for here.
We're not talking about animals. Animals--or their behavior--have no bearing on the discussion. We're talking about people trying to live their lives in society. The observations of biology (And I say this as a Biochem student) are irrelevant when putting together social policy. Today, our society has the choice to follow patterns of nature or to supplant them with anything of our choosing. Rape is common among mammalian species in the natural world, and murder can be common under certain circumstances. Neither is acceptable, and cannot be acceptable, if we are to call ourselves "human" and live up to *all* that that name entails. We are more than a biological species today, and everytime I see someone use the argument that you used--homosexuality is found in nature and may be a natural proceess--I think that you're not properly thinking before you right, or considering the implications of your words.
Personally, I think you've created one of the best arguments for equality in marriage in your debunking of the religious right's (and conservative's) calls to "protect the family" and "protect children," both of which are so dishonest and cruel as to make me actually angry.
That's my two cents, take it or leave it. I wish people would stop using this "argument from nature" entirely.
Posted by: MikeQ | February 8, 2007 5:40 PM
The HTML for making those quotes is <BLOCKQUOTE>whatever text you want quoted</BLOCKQUOTE> Behold:
Posted by: Skemono | February 8, 2007 5:42 PM
Another biological precept you may be unaware of is that individuals tend to be attracted to individuals akin to themselves. It's the basis of sympatric speciation, if you go for that sort of thing, which some (perhaps most) biologists don't. But the tendency to be attracted to those similar to you is well documented in the animal kingdom. In an "argument from nature" this would suggest interracial marriage should be discouraged.
You see where I'm going here don't you, Ed? I hate, hate, hate this argument with the passion of a thousand suns.
People who oppose gay marriage come in three varieties:
1) The stupid, who act on emotions and haven't thought about the issue. They're a sizable chunk of the opposition. Getting them thinking will get them changing their opinions.
2) bigots
3) cowardly bigots who hide behind religion.
I also want, very much, to see marriage extended to include all in this country, and in all countries around the globe. But I will not use any arguments from nature to accomplish that goal, given that there are so many social, rhetorical, philosophical and religious precepts to call on to advance humanity.
Posted by: MikeQ | February 8, 2007 5:47 PM
MikeQ -
The "argument from nature" is a legitimate answer to "teh Gay is un-natural."
Posted by: DuWayne | February 8, 2007 5:51 PM
MikeQ - I know that I've seen the argument from nature used by the anti-gay crowd quite a bit, but you do have a good point, there.
Skemono - Thanks for the tip! >>good-natured snark warning
Posted by: twincats | February 8, 2007 5:54 PM
MikeQ-
I agree with you completely in regards to the naturalistic fallacy; I would never make the argument that because homosexuality exists in nature, therefore it's okay for humans to do (nor did I make that argument here). As you rightly point out, rape is also present in most species we've observed and that hardly makes it acceptable behavior. However, I was replying to an argument that is particularly common among the religious, which is that not only is homosexuality a choice, but that it's one brought on by man's original sin. Thus, the fact that it occurs in species without the capacity for making such choices, and without man's allegedly sinful nature, is a reasonable response. Hope that clears it up.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 8, 2007 6:06 PM
"However, I was replying to an argument that is particularly common among the religious, which is that not only is homosexuality a choice, but that it's one brought on by man's original sin. Thus, the fact that it occurs in species without the capacity for making such choices, and without man's allegedly sinful nature, is a reasonable response. Hope that clears it up."
Well, I figured that you had reasoning behind the argument, since you're probably an expert on arguing for human rights by now, especially for gay men and women in this country. Are there other examples of arguments you employ directly to undercut some form of crazy that your more sane readers might not pick up on? It's almost like an underlying code. Since your argument is designed specifically to combat a piece of tortured logic employed by the religious, then it's no surprise that it completely missed me. I SEE! You're saying that, because animals have nothing to do with original sin and still can be homosexual. I ask you, though, is there another way of getting that point across to the religious without invoking this argument? I can see that in the sense you used it in it is completely justified. Yet if I read the argument as I did you can bet there are others who do the same.
And now, for a non-sequitor. I'd like to change this:
"I hate, hate, hate this argument with the passion of a thousand suns."
to read as this:
"I hate, hate, hate this argument with the passion of a thousand nuns."
Much better. Nuns are awesome. No, they really are. I know quite a few. If Nuns were put in charge of the Catholic Church it would run like a well oiled machine.
*going back to lurking now*
Posted by: MikeQ | February 8, 2007 6:36 PM
Mike-
I'm always open to the possibility that there is a more effective way to state an argument, and it may well be that at least adding a disclaimer pointing out the narrow purpose of my statement in this context would have avoided misconceptions. At any rate, had I meant it in the broad manner you assumed I would agree with your criticism completely. Nothing you said was at all inaccurate.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 8, 2007 6:45 PM
"Gribbit's Gay Marriage Gibberish"
I suggest formally coining the term "gribberish" (and perhaps employing it as a category) to refer to any mindless yammering that champions far-right ideology; radiates one-million-candlepower hypocrisy; and is accompanied by overt or implied threats to physically beat up dissenters, make fun of them on radio stations that don't work, or both. "Gay marriage gribberish" is still balky, but the post title as written is a real mouthful.
Posted by: kemibe | February 8, 2007 10:24 PM
Wow, I've never posted here before either, but have read you for a long time. Here goes:
1) The stupid, who act on emotions and haven't thought about the issue. They're a sizable chunk of the opposition. Getting them thinking will get them changing their opinions.
2) bigots
3) cowardly bigots who hide behind religion.
There are also those you have never met any gay couples, are religious, and only watch mainstream media. Smart people, not stupid at all. Once I convince them that "equal protection under the law" does not mean they have to compromise their religious beliefs, they begin to see my point. A big portion of the population wants to keep religion in their life and keep big gub'mint out, and once you show how legalizing same-sex marriage can accomplish both, you can start to change some minds out there.
Posted by: Eric Hart | February 9, 2007 12:28 AM
Sediment has multiple layers, but that doesn't mean I listen to anything it says.
I like the idea of totally separating the civil and religious aspects of marriage. All you need is a piece of paper signed by an appointed authority, the couple, witnesses etc. that would provide the civil benefits of marriage. If anyone wants a ceremony of some kind after that, let them.
Posted by: James | February 9, 2007 2:57 AM
Well exactly, James. My own wedding was purely civil, so is that not an affront to the religious definition of marriage? Of course it is, because we both hold religion and all its petty, bigotted clap-trap in total contempt and couldn't imagine anything less meaningful than whether or not our marriage is acknowledged by their stupid little sandwich club and their imaginary friend.
Does that mean that there is anything less legitimate about my marriage? That any children we may have are under threat? Does the fact that our marriage was outside the church in any way threaten the religious institution of marriage? I wish it could, but I doubt it.
So what's the difference between our marriage, which the church doesn't recognise and, say, the marriage of our friends James and Chris, which the church doesn't recognise? Well the only differences I can see are that Chris probably gets more help with the DIY than I do, doesn't have to carry all the shopping himself and gets marginally more bum-sex. So really, that's all this ever boils down to.
Posted by: Matthew Young | February 9, 2007 6:22 AM
We're really sorry for Al-Qaeda and Pat Robertson, and I respect your beliefs. But nobody who has ever sat in on a sermon (regardless of your faith) and witnessed a hundred people joining hands and singing songs of peace and love would ever say such hateful things about the entire institution of religion.
Posted by: Brandon | February 9, 2007 2:00 PM
Another biological precept you may be unaware of is that individuals tend to be attracted to individuals akin to themselves. It's the basis of sympatric speciation, if you go for that sort of thing, which some (perhaps most) biologists don't.
(slightly off-topic, but:) There is no such universal precept. If you are thinking about something like sympatric speciation in lake Victoria cichlids, the pattern is not "like mates with like", it's drab females having different preferences for specific *male* colours. Homogamy may often be the reality in other species, but adaptations that ensure outbreeding are also widespread in nature.
Perhaps the best thing to point out is that nature can provide examples to support any view, and is therefore useless as a moral reference. (sort of like the Bible :)
Posted by: windy | February 9, 2007 2:47 PM
"Perhaps the best thing to point out is that nature can provide examples to support any view, and is therefore useless as a moral reference. (sort of like the Bible :)"
This is certainly true as well. Also, Lake Victoria Cichlids = Teh Awesome.
Posted by: MikeQ | February 9, 2007 3:48 PM
I have and I found it creepy. I find most tribal, pack behaviour a little disturbing. I am not saying that there aren't nice religious people nor that religion can't be a positive force for some people, but it something I feel the world can happily do without.
I also find the fact that religious people feel some sort of responsibility to interfere in the lives of others which in no way affect them to be offensive. I also find the assumption that their regressive, hateful and divisive comments on topics such as this one are somehow entitled to some of special privilege because they are religious views to be laughable.
Posted by: Matthew Young | February 10, 2007 10:15 AM
It's embarrassing for me to admit that I've been on the fence for quite some time about gay marriage, but that was mostly out of ignorance--not some misguided religious dictate.
I have always seen it as two separate issues: one ceremonial--the wedding, and one legal--granting your partner certain legal and financial rights in connection with your relationship.
My confusion surrounded the distinction between merely "shacking up" (as my great grandmother would say), and being in a more permanent, committed relationship. I view marriage as serious and committed, and perhaps I have erroneously viewed most gay relationships as something less than that.
OK, I'm wrong about that. It's obvious that all relationships, regardless of gender, fall into multiple categories, and there certainly can be gay relationships that should qualify as marriage. I further agree that it is particularly crucial that families with children must be granted the legal rights necessary to ensure their safety and well-being. I suppose, as well, since my wife and I (recently married at age 50+) cannot have children of our own, that I must also agree that legal marriage should also extend to those who wish to enter into this legal contract, just not specifically in order to provide for children. We all need someone to help take care of us when we're old, and to bury us when we die.
As for the religious, ceremonial aspects of weddings--I could not possibly care less. To each their own. We had a picnic and wrote our own, secular vows. We played Loreena McKennitt in the background.
Heterosexual marriage has an awful success rate in this country. People get married for all the wrong reasons, and my instincts tell me that gays will probably have the same sorts of problems when they have the same privileges. And no, the difficulties of "making it work" do not disqualify you just because you're gay.
For my part, anyone who really wants to get married--enter into that legal contract--should be permitted, regardless of the sex of the partners. My only advice would be: take care, and beware. Oh, and don't sweat the small stuff.
Posted by: John Horst | February 10, 2007 11:12 AM
By interfering in the lives of others, do you mean working in a soup kitchen or bringing goods to poor families? If so, then I apologize for the atrocious crimes my temple has committed. In fact, tell me where you live, and I'll pick you up, take you to my home town, and have you give a speech on how they'd all be better off without a culture, a heritage, something to do on Friday nights, overbearing mothers, the Hora, Yahrzeit, challah, latkes, gefilte fish, a sense of belonging, or the feeling that some benevolent force is up there smiling down on us.
I support gay marriage, think Intelligent Design is a load of crap, support abortion rights and stem cell research, and mourn for the innocent people being killed in Iraq, Lebanon, and all over the world. The majority of my temple feels the same. The bigots and hatemongers make up a small, small minority of the religious population, but they happen to also be the loudest. For the rest of us, religion is a wonderful thing which you have no right to bash like that.
Posted by: Brandon | February 10, 2007 12:59 PM
"Counterpoint" sounds an awful lot like someone who comment at my blog, until I got tired of them monopolizing the discussion. If you want to understand their "logic" this might be a good place to start. They have their own blog as well, but I'm not about to give them a link.
Posted by: Terrance | February 11, 2007 9:30 AM
Terrance -
It's amazing the feats of logic the bigots who produced the gay-answers.com, you link. Whats frightening is that it's really effective for those who don't know any or few, glt's.
I am also impressed by your persevearance, in dealing with the chuckles, the two headed troll. I would have either banned them, or my head would have exploded.
It's also an interesting coincidence, finding you commenting here this morning. I was just thinking last night, that I hadn't visited your blog in a while. . .
Cheers
Posted by: DuWayne | February 11, 2007 9:58 AM
I am not saying that religious people are all bad people, but if you look at suop kitchens and general charitable behaviour then I think you'll find that most religions and denominations participate in this sort of activity as do atheists and agnostics, hence religion is not causing them to happen. They would happen with or without religion, hence religion is not necessary for generous acts.
This applies to any social club, be it musicians or fans of a particular football team. Do you remember that Norman Whiteside goal in the 1985 FA Cup final? I thought not, but I can instantly bond with a random person in a pub on the other side of the world from where it happened just by reminiscing about the event. Funnily enough, I could also get the shite kicked out of my should I bump into, as you put it, " a small, small minority of the [football supporting] population, but they happen to also be the loudest".
So here is another example of a tribal tendency which provides great benefits and has one or two followers who give it a bad name, but I don't see Manchester United fans being asked about their position on gay marriage. Surely religious people are the last people we should be asking about gay marriage as if they think it's evil then they won't be doing it, will they, so it hardly has anything to do with them.
My problem is that people such as yourself seem to think that religion is in some way special, which it isn't. It is just another manifestation of the innate human instinct to form tribal groups, and should not be afforded any more respect than that. Until such time as we are asking the classical musicians union or the society of philatelists what they think of gay marriage then we have no business asking religious groups either.
Do you seriously think that morality and community will evaporate should religion go away? Religion doesn't cause these things, it is just a way of codifying our evolved instincts to develop them anyway.
I don't bash religion because I think it never serves a useful purpose, I bash it because it has a horribly over-inflated opinion of its own value, function, importance and entitlement.
Posted by: Matthew Young | February 13, 2007 12:01 PM