The National Organization for Marriage could be a spoof, they're so silly…but they seem to take themselves very seriously. They have an ad out against gay marriage now that should win a prize for attempted dread.
They try to sound so open to the idea of gays marrying each other, but the real threat is some mysterious plan they have, which is never mentioned, that will force heterosexuals to change their lives. Near the end, some sad-looking woman says, "I will have no choice." No choice for what? Are you cruel homosexuals planning to force Suzie Spinster to marry a lesbian or something?
Give them a few years. Nothing will happen to them, and their ridiculous organization will dry up and blow away.
(via Wonkette)
- Log in to post comments
So excluding the rights of OTHERS to choose whom they marry will remove YOUR right to choose?
WOW! I love how logic works in Bizarro World!
If I'm not mistaken, their message is "they are taking away our right to discriminate"?
NOMNOMNOMNOMOMNOM.
Sorry.
Yup. My gay brother could care less about the personal lives of law-abiding, consenting adults. This is simply fear-mongering, thus its laughably low rating and lack of specifics.
That's as bad as the anti-smoking commercial that has a girl trying to buy a pack of cigarettes from a supermarket only to have the house lights dim and a spot light thrown on her as the cashier--the girl's grandmother--yells through the PA, "PRICE CHECK ON THE BLACK TAR HEROIN!" The Grim Reaper then gives her the price, and the young woman is able to buy her cigarettes.
Sadly I can't find this commercial on Youtube. I'm fairly sure I didn't just imagine it, as it's not much more stupid than the Above the Influence ads, just a whole lot more melodramatic.
I will have no choice...but to read vast, endless threads on Pharyngula about lesbians and bacon.
This is the future.
lol
I think all but the most terrified homophones are going to laugh at that one.
WTF!
At least I can take solace in the inevitability that all of these asses will be treated the same as we treat the racists of yesteryear, open contempt. Friggin' boomers...
Hahaha! They're calling themselves a rainbow coalition. Did they completely miss the irony or are they trying to co-opt the term for the forces of intolerance?
A light-hearted take from Oded Gross, "It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)."
@bmeissner:
Won't somebody think of the homophones?!?
Bacon, and Libertarianism. And headfoots. And Kwok.
I snorted a little at the irony of rainbow coalition as well. Urgh
Well, one was a California doctor who is forced to choose between her faith and her job. Because, uh, of same-sex marriage. See?
...paid for by a rainbow coalition...
OH noes! They are trying to take back the rainbow! Next time, they might claim the pink triangle. At least they do not know enough about the black triangle to try to reclaim that.
I just want to ask one of these people: so, how has same-sex marriage ruined your marriage? Are you really so frightened that once it's allowed your spouse is gonna go run off with someone of the same sex? Or is the legal ban the only thing keeping you from doing it?
These people sound like fans of traditional marriage. You know, only white people can marry. Blacks don't count. No marrying between races. A grown man can marry a 14 year old child. Dowries for everyone!
Give them a few years. Nothing will happen to them, and their ridiculous organization will dry up and blow away.
You know better than that, PZ. Their entire position is founded on empty air, they know it, and they keep making the same tired arguments all the same.
Besides, even if gay marriage was magically legalized across the whole world tomorrow, and we survived decades without divine judgment, rapture, and possibly meteors, these people would just write it off as evidence that their protective prayers were working.
You can't score points against religion, only bypass it altogether.
Oh, so she had to choose between refusing to treat the illness of a patient because of his sexuality or being dismissed? Sounds reasonable to me. I wouldn't want to employ a doctor who would judge a medical situation on the basis of the patient and their sexuality, skin color, background, etc. It's the same issue as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions because of moral objections: the person must be prepared for any potentiality, birth control included.
They should work elsewhere or STFU and treat a sick man.
I don't think it's a spoof. The storm clouds, the conservative attire, the middle agedness of the people... it looks like Weather Channel-watching bornagainery to me.
Really, there's a simple counter-argument to all of this. Make all official marriages "civil unions," and if you want to get "married" then find a church or organization to do it. Legalize such secular "civil unions" for any adult couple, give all of them equal rights.
That way the religious nuts can have their "sacred institutions" any way they want them, and from a legal standpoint everyone will have equal rights.
Granted, this is a logical solution, and religious conservatives tend to avoid logic...
That's as bad as the anti-smoking commercial
Yes, in the sense that something really really bad is "as bad" as something quite ok.
That's fucked up. We come together out of love???
You mean fear, paranoia and ignorance.
I found the "rainbow coalition" line far more insulting than funny. Everyone in NOM deserves nothing but scorn and derision.
@Silly Rabbit:
What does that have to do with anything?
I am glad others caught the 'rainbow coalition' thing too... made me throw up in my mouth a little. I am happily married and there is absolutely NOTHING for me that would change if my gay neighbors got married. These fuckers obviously know that too and this is just fear and intolerance and hatred. #2 got it exactly right.
The auditions for it are even more entertaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54
And their rainbow seems a bit monochromatic to me.
Uh oh, we've got a mighty morphin troll here guys...
/F'in loser.
And what organization in its right mind puts together the acronym 'NOM' in this day and age?
... Anyway, I hear the National Organization for Marriage's North Ottawa Meetup was great fun...
(It was potluck. Someone brought cheeseburgers.)
Do not bother clicking on the troll's name. It goes to a news story about a cannibalistic gay murderer. Because a husband never murdered and ate his wife.
I find it amazing that some people have so little to do or worry about that they have the time to care whether or not homosexuals are permitted civil unions AKA gay marriages.
Shouldn't they be spending the efforts raising money to repair the church roof, or install a new set of pews, or something equally given to their calling?
So what if gay people want to get married, to enjoy similar legal protections as the rest of us in the event of the death of a partner, or visiting rights at hospitals, and such like?
Go on gay folks, get yourself hitched if that's your bag! I struggle to think of any reason why you shouldn't. Even we atheists are allowed to get married without any reference to the big bearded bloke in the sky, so you see it doesn't actually matter if "god hates fags", because er... well... there is no big beardy bloke in the sky anyway.
My 3yo daughter has an imaginary friend called Eee, which is very sweet. I'd be far more inclined to listen to Eee's opinions as described by my daughter than I would be to put up with the dreary nonsense spouted by fully grown adults who, for reasons beyond my ken, listen to an imaginary sky fairy called god.
P.S. and totally OT... here in England there's a comedic show on BBC4 at the moment (Newswipe with Charlie Brooker) featuring a swathe of material from Fox News and the like... it's very funny seeing this rightwingnut Americana being broadcast as humour :-)
I kinda sorta have a post on marriage today over at TPMmuckaker. It features one of the nations most favored pastors...Rich Warren, and since you guys are normally nomadic and curious enough to follow my links, I'll go ahead and give you the punch line as a special bonus to my friends here:
Full Entry:
One Long List of Sexy Lustings
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/timtimes/2009/04/one-lo…
Enjoy.
They're calling themselves a rainbow coalition. Did they completely miss the irony or are they trying to co-opt the term for the forces of intolerance?
You really don't know? Even after "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests"?
Are we sure this isn't Landover? Has anyone actually seen it run?
I Like Bacon!
"Hypothesis rejected due to logical fallacy."
Ah, you were called out on an argument recently by someone who introduced you to the concept of a logical fallacy. So after having perused its wikipedia entry, you've discovered a new way you can make yourself look all smart and junk.
And you linked to a gay cannibal murder as your URL. Aren't you just teh 1337 haxxorz!
Though I think you should have used Jeffrey Dahmer... an actual gay serial killer is a lot more impressive and certainly compensates for the 99.99% of serial killers who are deranged straight white males like yourself.
That is just nucking futs. I generally tell people: "The worst thing about gay marriage is how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Of course, that is also probably the best thing about gay marriage. At least for you."
JC
Oh - and then there's this:
"Paging Bill Dauphine. Please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone on your blog..."
The top three reasons to be against gay marriage:
1. I think what gays and lesbians do in bed is icky!
2. God thinks what gays and lesbians do in bed is icky!
3. If gays and lesbians can get married, then my dog will marry a fire hydrant.
The homophones whine that gay marriage with destroy civilization as we know it. Just like 40 years ago allowing whites and non-whites to get married would do the same.
Don #20:
It's also the French way of doing things (AFAIK), so there is no chance in hell that the conservatives will back it.
#3 -- beat me to it
@ AJ Milne, #30
What about the Ontario Marriage Nuptial Organization Meetup North Ottawa Metro?
So, basically...
"I am a California doctor who must choose between denying people service for arbitrary personal reasons and my job."
"I am part of a New Jersey church group who has been punished by not allowing our dogma to dictate law, because this is apparently a new thing."
"I am a Massachussets parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son not to pick on people who are different."
"They want to change the way I live. I won't be able to be a bigot anymore."
The California doctor was not a California doctor. Part 2 of the gathering storm.
@ZK #32
ZK, where's your faith? Don't you know god'll take care of the roof, pews and children? We gots to get them queers off'n our marriages.
Good find Janine@44, Hilarious.
'Tis Himself @40
"The homophones whine that gay marriage with destroy civilization as we know it. Just like 40 years ago allowing whites and non-whites to get married would do the same."
It did destroy civilisation as some people knew it, didn't it?
Which I happen to think was a good thing.
2 members of the same sex cannot logically "marry". Hypothesis rejected due to logical fallacy.
Yet another person with Spock Syndrome, who speaks of "logic" while failing badly at it. There is no logical necessity for the word "marry" to refer to persons of different genders.
A rainbow coalition... to protect marriage
*Holds up hand for pause* ...
Hahahahahaha! Thank you, fundies! You just made my night.
I have always maintained: If there is a god, it greatly appreciates irony.
Huh, maybe that's how so many xians are able to preach hate as "love".
#45: So you're saying that God'll take care of roofs, pews and children, but he makes us humans deal with the queers? Why, it's almost as if he doesn't care about gay marriage.
"The California doctor was not a California doctor."
Yeah, and I really am a California physician and I have to choose between 1) the tiny momentary schadenfreude of declining to provide care for people who would despise me if they knew that I am queer and 2) the ethical standards of medicine embodied by the hippocratic oath that I took a dozen years ago.
Its sooooo not fair. I can really see where that pseudo-physician is going, you know.
My prediction:
In 50 years when gay marriage is legal in most western societies, Christians will claim that Christianity is the moral basis from whence our gay marriage equaltiy came. Just like they do for anti-slavery, for our value of life etc etc etc...I can just see the talking heads on the future news program...
Well, again what you have here is a vast divide between those who want to see marriage as a 'right' and those who want to see it as a 'privilege.' Both positions are equally problematic, I think.
Me? I've come a long way on this personally. I'm in favor of marriages, monogamy and stable family groups, period, and I've long since come to the conclusion that I can support the former without making an issue of an individual's sexual orientation. Why should I deny gay people the joys and sorrows of marriage? I support the legalization of gay marriage in my state (California) and was sad to see that Proposition 8 passed.
Clearly, the people behind this NOM group and those who campaigned for Prop. 8 see marriage as a right....but a right that should be only extended to those who share their beliefs, which (despite disclaimers about diversity) is largely a matter of following traditional Christianity. So they call it a 'right', but end up treating it like a 'privilege.' And so, Prop. 8 amounts to privileging their beliefs in the public square, and what is especially galling is that these Christians seem incapable of understanding why this is objectionable. But why wouldn't they think that way? It's a benefit that these folk have always enjoyed.
But, while I support gay marriage, does that mean that marriage in and of itself a civil right? I have my doubts that this is the best way to proceed. Ultimately, marriage is a contract between the state and citizens that has a bearing both on real property and custodial rights of minors. Clearly, the state can set the limits about who can enter into such a contract. There is clearly no absolute civil right for any and all parties to be 'married'. Given that, it would be best if either the legislature or the public affirm gay marriage, rather than relying upon the courts to unravel legislation or ballot initiatives.
From my point of view, then, Iowa and Vermont are lucky and not just because they did the sensible thing and affirmed the essential humanity and integrity of gay people to enter into committed relationships. They are lucky because they didn't rely upon judicial review. For better or worse, if Prop. 8 in California is unraveled by the courts, this will lend groups like NOM talking points about how the supposed 'rights' of the majority are being seized. (sigh) If that's the way they want it....
Didn't Jon Stewart already covered the acronyms?
National Organization for Marriage or... NAMBLA
By the way, the auditions are hilarious. Some of the actors made it!
Ha, ha ha... It has come to be. The pieces of the vile plan are coming together. Soon PZ... Soon, you will have gay sex!
UWAHAHAHAHA!
...they are ridiculous.
Of course she won't have a choice, she'll just *have* to marry the family pet. Duh!
Did I not get a memo?
Is there some new humorous definition of "homophone" for which I am unaware?
Hey, good Christians: you do know that Jebus says lying is a sin, right? Yes, even when you think it's in support of a "good cause" like inequality and bigotry.
@ lightningrose:
All I can think of is that "n" is really close to "b" on a qwerty keyboard...but I also hate homophones.
Oh, so she had to choose between refusing to treat the illness of a patient because of his sexuality or being dismissed?
This replicates a fundamental error or misdirection by the anti-gay-marriage folks; let's not do that. Being gay is independent of gay marriage. Eliminating gay marriage doesn't eliminate gays, gay relationships, gay families, gay adoption, the raising of children by gays -- none of that. Even if some doctor was affected by a patient's sexuality, eliminating gay marriage wouldn't have changed that. It's a big fat red herring.
These are the same kind of walking brain-dead who act shocked that gay people (and people who care about them) actually get angry when you take rights away from them.
"Hey, I just disagree about whether you should be treated equally under the law. No need to get upset about it. You're the one who wants to deny me my right to choose whether you can get married."
The small print disclaimer at the bottom of the video reads:
So I went over there to find out more about the unjustly persecuted California doctor, and found only this:
That's it, referenced only to unnamed "religious liberty experts." These folks are badly twisted.
Call me naive, but I thought an organization for marriage would be promoting as many as possible marriages...
Posted by: NickG | April 8, 2009 5:43 PM
The auditions for it are even more entertaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54
That's hysterical!!
My neighbors gay-married (in B.C.) a few years ago, and since then my cat died and I haven't had a date in months.
QED
I just have one question. Where is all the money coming from? It costs good money to run TV ad spots.
@lightning rose
I think it's just because they sound so similar...
Also, this whole furore is so stupid, because gay people have been getting married for YEARS.
All that's new is that now they're getting married to each other.
The "California doctor" thing was a court ruling that said they could not discriminate against lesbian couples in providing fertility-clinic services. Had nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage, as the ruling came down while ss marriage was still outlawed in California.
I love how most of the actors who auditioned looked strung out of their minds.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just thought they really captured the essence of the script.
The California doctor was not a California doctor.
To be fair and honest and all that (unlike with them, it doesn't hurt our interests to do so), the video says all over it that these are actors referring to actual incidents that happened to real people. It's the latter that needs to teased out and debunked if possible, not the fact that they are actors.
LightningRose: You really have to pay attention round here. What with all the talk about homophones, bacon, crackers, kwoks and tumescent necrophiliac milkmen, Pharyngula is rapidly turning into a bit of a clique.
Homophones referred to this thread I believe.
(Proof that although I don't post much here, I do read as many threads as time allows!)
That's it, referenced only to unnamed "religious liberty experts." These folks are badly twisted.
They also lie.
Catholic Charities in Boston was acting as a proxy state agency, facilitating adoptions of children who were wards of the state. The Globe did a report that they had placed some kids over the decades in gay homes and the Bishops had a tizzy fit. The board of Catholic Charities was like, "let's keep doing this." But the Bishops withdrew from providing the service--from acting as a proxy state agency--because the state refused to make an exception for their bigoted ideology. Acting as a state agency? Follow the state's rules.
The New Jersey case is also a lie. The Church group was making a parcel of land available as a public accommodation, including renting out a gazebo for wedding ceremonies. In exchange for making it a public accommodation, they received tax exemptions and abatements on it. Since they were making it available to different-sex couples, they had to make it available to same-sex couples. It was, after all, a public accommodation.
The "religious professionals" was a fertility doctor who was part of a practice that provided services to lesbians. She refused and was sued. State law says that if you provide a service, you can't discriminate in the provision of that service.
poor widdle bigots. Can't even make a case without lying.
National Organization for Marriage:
A. 30% God fearing fire and brimstone believers.
B. 30% Bigots
C. 20% Wingnut conspiracy Michelle Bachman types
D. 5% Self hating closeted gays, likely part of first group
E. 2% People making money from A, B, C, D, and E.
F. 3% Filler.
My marriage has not been effected in anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada
As a perfectly well-integrated English Lesbian (who adores bacon), the *last thing* I'd want to do is marry *any* of those self-hating messed-up sad-sacks! None of them are facing any spiritual or sexual danger from me, or from anyone like me! They're far too dull! So what are they all whimpering about? They're flattering themselves!
They have a wonderful little form letter to send to the Iowan (? - Iowaian? Whatever...) legislators - so I just modified it a little... (They allow you to customize the letter, so I customized it to the opposite of their stance, and going further and requesting a law legalizing marriage for all...)
"The 'California doctor' thing was a court ruling that said they could not discriminate against lesbian couples in providing fertility-clinic services."
It was a little more complex than that, but pretty much: http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/california-supreme-court-benitez-dec…
Though what I don't get is that Loma Linda's hospital has to have access to blood bank services (and they happily transfuse non 7DAs) and orthodox Jewish physicians in CA are required to respect the DNR orders of their patients. No one ever bitches about that despite the fact that this goes against deeply felt religious principles in each case.
Of course the reason no one complains is that it doesn't have to do with anyone freely enjoying sex with the partner of their choice (whether that's gay and lesbian couples or heterosexual couples doing it without worry that they will be parents as a result.)
I'm a Massachusetts resident, and I object to losing my right to insist on institutionalized discrimination against any person or persons who I happen to hate or fear for no rationally-supportable reason. I'm being forced to choose between my fear, and the rights of others to live their lives as they see fit. It's just not fair.
Because of the plinking piano notes in the background, I know that everything they say is true.
Hmmm- it looks like I registered with them too. Fortunately the email address I used is my dummy address for spam and other junk...
The commercial looks like a trailer to the Night Shamble-on bomb 'The Happening' from last year.
I was about to stick a knitting needle in my neck by the end of it. I had no idea 1:02 min could be that long.
Thanks, Jeff. I am shocked to learn that an organization explicitly devoted to discrimination would also lie.
"Call me naive, but I thought an organization for marriage would be promoting as many as possible marriages..."
Paging Roy Zimmerman....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM
She will have no choice but to treat homosexuals as equals.
Goddam illiterate bigots. Liars, too.
"A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage"?
(1) A coalition are coming together? What? No grammarians among the homophobic? Subject-verb agreement is too gay?
(2) "in love"? Hardly!
@ Zeno#82:
They hit you because they love you, don't you get that?
"I worry about you bev"
/obscure?
There is clearly no absolute civil right for any and all parties to be 'married'.
People sometimes get confused by failing to grasp what is relevant -- your observation is not. What is relevant is that there is a civil right not to be discriminated against solely on the basis of sexual preference, particularly in the matter of state-sanctioned marriage -- it's an equal protection issue. You really ought to read the California Supreme Court ruling: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
I like how they say a rainbow coalition of every creed (etc.), when the only people I've heard bitching are Christians and some scattered Jews and "Muslins". Basically, just Abramics.
Translation: All the colors of the rainbow: Scarlet, Crimson, and Rouge.
I've asked them a question on their blog:
"This site is a spoof isn't it? The views it expresses are so bonkers it can only be a set up by the liberal media elite in Washington in order to denigrate the God fearing, country loving, religous bigots of the good ol' US of A. On the other hand..."
It's awaiting moderation...
Couldn't resist this...
Attempted dread?
"Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for 'attempted' chemistry? Do they?"
Never been prouder of youtube commenters ha ha!
You see, I was going to divorce my wife and marry a lesbian but if they are marrying each other then there won't be any available! Oh, the horror!
How long did it take the Dixiecrats to die out anyways?
RE: #83
"It" reference?
The Human Rights Campaign group has a rebuttal and takedown of each case here:
Partly reprinted here:
“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”
The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
The real facts of each case are:
· The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need - gay or straight, Christian or Muslim - regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
· The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
· The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
Yeah, the part I've never understood is, if individuals of the same sex want to get married, what effect at all, ever, does that have on individuals of the opposite sex who want to get married (or are already married).
Por ejemplo: if the concerned individual in question is female, and suddenly gay marriage is allowed universally, then what has happened? Is the woman no longer able to marry a certain percentage of males because they are now marrying other males? Wouldn't she be unlikely to marry that percentage of males anyway because, well, before, during, and after gay marriage they were, you know, gay? Is the fear for that woman that, allowing gay marriage is going to suddenly result in lesbians proposing marriage to her (try not to hurt your arm patting yourself on the back, hypothetical subject of this speculation), and that said woman would somehow be unable to refuse despite not being lesbian herself (or for that matter, that a lesbian would just ask without getting to know someone first, during which getting-to-know period you'd think the sexual preference would come up as a topic and pretty much clear the air about the issue to begin with)?
It's the visibility and the reduced social acceptability of discrimination that's bugging them. Which always leads me to the follow up question: why are the people who are so freaked out over the thought of what consenting adults are doing spending so much time thinking about what consenting adults other than themselves are doing?
Puritanism: the paralyzing fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
No kings,
Robert
"Every creed an colour comes together in love" ... sounds not very much like traditional marriage to me ...
I see they are upset that they might lose the right to discriminate against gays. I made a comment on their site as well. I fully expect it to be deleted. The religous can get nasty when challenged...
If gays can get married, why not let polygamists? A man and a consenting five year old with consenting parents...where does the defining of traditions end?
Punctuation fail. End of opening sentence at #93 should have been a question mark. I even previewed! Lo, it was not enough. Yay, verily.
No kings,
Robert
Jim. The idiot. Do shut up.
Stewart takes down the wingers yet again.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=bara…
From the ad: "My freedom will be taken away."
"...coming together in love to protect marriage."
Yea, they'll lose the freedom to preach a hateful gospel from their sky fairy. And it should be "...coming together in love except for gays and lesbians who should strighten themselves out and repent in order for us bigots to protect our phobias."
DonRocko, the problem with your idea is that marriage is a secualar instutitution as well as a religious one. I'm an atheist and I'd like to get married, and I'm not willing to let the religious take the word away from me.
Steve, it was a perfectly legitimate question.
Yawn, the stupid idiot of a godbot is bbbooorrrrrrrrrriiinnnggg.
Answer my question about where redefining tradition ends. What if a fifty year old man wants to marry a consenting five year old, and her parents also agree? What about consenting polygamists? After all, all you need is consent!
I would not bet against you on that.
Jim Tanger wrote:
Two words: consenting adults. We don't let a straight adult male marry a five-year-old female; marriage is limited to consenting adults*. It would be the same for same-sex couples.
And I'm all for polygamy if that's what the consenting adults involved want.
*I believe you can marry younger if you have parental consent but I think that varies from country to country and state to state.
I just saw that on tv...i was like wtf?!?!?
Jim: a 5 year old child cannot consent to marriage, and neither can parents consent to allowing their child to marry.
And that is not going to change - at least not in civilised countries. But you never know, some religions might allow it.
All I can think of is that "n" is really close to "b" on a qwerty keyboard...but I also hate homophones.
Their, their.
Homosexuality is not natural. It may be observed in nature, but it is not the statistical, reproductive norm. Therefore, we should not promote it as an acceptable lifestyle. I have never met a successful, emotionally stable gay man. Studies show that you need one mother and one father to flourish as a child.
Oooooh, it's a slippery slope all right.
Men will be marrying consenting adult box turtles!
This is so sad. I would hate to be one of those doctors or ministers having their rights taken away by same-sex "marriage" activists. I hope more pro-marriage people will stand up to defend marriage and protect our rights.
Answer my question about where redefining tradition ends.
Your mom's bedroom (by the way, give her my thanks). But on a less ad hominem note, um... how does "FUCK tradition" sound? Just because it was handed down doesn't mean it's right.
A marriage is between people who under the law can legally have a relationship. There is no law against gay people living together, raising kids etc. Gay people have traditional relationships in that they are almost exactly like hetero marriages.
Gay couples want to enter into a contract of marriage as recognized by the state. They have no interest in forcing religions to recognize the union.
All that other crap... children, more than one spouse, animals is a bullshit strawman argument. No one is except perhaps Mormons who want to have more than one underage wife if they can.
It ends where the living generation decides it does. Traditions were made up by people, so people should be able to change them.
A 5 year old does not have the emotional maturity to consent to marriage. 5 year olds are also not allowed to consent to joining the military, nor are they allowed to vote or drive cars.
Oh yes i'm sure you are exposed to gay men all the time. What with you being a raving lunatic and right wing christian hypocritical asshole. Openly gay men abound in your social circle I'm sure.
Which studies
lol, nice arguing there. The very fact that it is observed in nature points to the act being natural.
And I have, what's your point?
No, studies show that two parents are better than one regardless of gender.
Homosexuality is not natural. It may be observed in nature, but it is not the statistical, reproductive norm. Therefore, we should not promote it as an acceptable lifestyle. I have never met a successful, emotionally stable gay man. Studies show that you need one mother and one father to flourish as a child.
blah blah blah blah blah
Jim Tanger wrote:
Er, Jim? You might want to have another look at those two adjacent sentences, and spend a bit of time thinking about the relationship between the word 'natural' and the word 'nature'.
Facilis the Fallacious Fool, what rights? Except in your imagination and bigotry. That is why you are a fool, and we are Pharyngula.
Let me start by saying this post is real, not a POE or troll or anything like that. I have a serious question. Can anyone please explain to me how two homosexuals legally bonding in a civil ceremony personally affects anyone and I mean anyone else? It's a serious question. I want to debate the issue with these people but I literally do not understand their objections. How are they or their institutions being assaulted? Post #60 does parse the video for me but of course doesn't really answer my simplified question. Post #70 points out the fallacies and inaccuracies in those stands. But seriously where is the threat? What horror will occur to these good Christian folk?
Please understand, I would man the ramparts with them if the government were to attempt to force any church to perform religious ceremonies. But we're talking about legal status are we not?
Which rights exactly are being taken from you?
Did anyone also notice that if you turn the "M" upside down you get a "W," as in NOW, the National Orgainization of Women, another group that gives conservative Christards conniption fits?
Assuming, Jim, that you're not a total idiot (big assumption, I know), consider that a five-year-old cannot give consent. The phrase is "consenting adults" for a reason. Your suggestion that the child's parents might agree to it is a red herring. Parents give informed consent on behalf of their minor children for things like medical procedures, but they do not "own" their children or have the right to consent to their sexual abuse. We can quibble about whether the age of consent ought to be 18 or 16, but that's a societal decision. I'm pretty sure that 5 is not in the running, for reasons I hope are obvious even to you.
Wowbagger hit the main point and I also agree that polygamy is okay as long as it involves consenting adults (and not cults with young girls submitting to some wacky patriach). It's about adults.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from youre premises.
You should get out more. I've met several.
And now you're just lying. Doesn't your religion have a commandment against lying?
Are you sure you aren't a poe?
Homosexuality is not natural. It may be observed in nature, but it is not the statistical, reproductive norm.
And I just read in a paper that we should not be defining things as norms, because statistics do not make something proper. It was a paper on how homophobic assholes make even the study of sexual orientation a touchy subject.
Thanks for ruining one of the potentially scientific aspects of psychology, asshole.
I'm not overly familiar with the wording of the Hippocratic Oath, but does it really say that it's alright for doctors to pick and choose patients according to Bronze Age dogma?
I guess the HO isn't actually binding anyway. Sorta like your pledge of allegiance.
@#20,
I would prefer if there was not even civil unions. Focus on getting rid of the reasons government sanctions marriage (MFJ tax laws, SS benefits, etc) and suddenly this is not an issue at all.
The government shouldn't care who you want to be with.
Christians are not having any of their rights being taken away. On the contrary, they are dictating the rights of other citizens on the basis of personal morality. The doctor in question has taken an oath to treat ill patients equally, regardless of their background or sexuality. If she cannot embrace that standard - begone.
This would be the Biblical form of love, as in: "We just LOVE the thought of godless heathens enduring countless centuries of agony in Hell!"
Has anyone else noticed a curious asymmetry in our discourse over marriage equality? When the homophobes wail and gnash their teeth about how they're so terrified that legalized SSM will impinge on their religious right to be bigots, the other side falls all over itself to assure the religiots that extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples won't force any particular religious group to honor those unions? But, those same God-fearing protectors of "family" never go to any effort to defend gays' and lesbians' rights to marry?
Why is it that the religious right to be a reactionary, exclusionary bigot is so much more important than the right of two grown, unrelated, sane, consenting men or women to affirm their relationship with a legal contract?
Yes, I know that's a stupid question. I just thought I'd point it out.
What the fuck. Which rights, exactly?
The right for Christians to discriminate against anyone they wish of course ;)
Well, see, all the men will be gay-marrying - cause it's apparently irresistibly great - so she'll have "no choice" for a husband.
Citations? We've got plenty that say exactly the opposite.
"Homosexuality is not natural ... blah blah blah FART."
It's hard to know even where to start with this one, the stupid goes so deep. I say, ignore it.
Wait...What?...I thought these right wing kooks didn't like choice? Isn't that the whole point? Confused...but then consistency isn't really their strong point is it?
Homosexuality is a lifestyle. Read up on ex-gay ministries. They can be cured. If my child was gay, I'd send them straight to a conversion center.
If you want to get a feel for how backwards this ad is, whenever you hear the words "gay marriage" substitute in "civil right for blacks."
Chilling.
It doesn't. Some bigots think, and have been taught that it's icky/and or that all homosexuals are pedophiles... among other things. Usually the same type of people who deny the existence of The Wee People in the forest, but have no problem believing in invisible people in the sky.
facilis demonstrates yet another facet of his woo-addled cluelessness.
Don't like same-sex marriage? You got one choice - don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple as that.
Hahaha. You are SUCH a fucking idiot. Go away you friggin moron.
Jim,
Do you really think people "choose" to be gay?
And Mormons are glad Tom Hanks apologized, hahaha: http://mouthatroared-renay.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-showed-some-spine-h…
Steve, color is something that they were born with. Homosexuality is a lifestyle based on a bad, abusive childhood with no father figure to man them up.
A consenting 5 year old? Are you really, really stupid?
As to the defining of traditions, they end when they take away the rights of others. Just like we threw away the tradition that didn't let a black man marry a white woman, we throw away traditions that are offensive.
As to polygamy... the answer is that marriage does not involve the number two... it involves the number one. We commit ourselves to one person. But in any case, no matter how you feel about polygamy, the way to prevent legalized polygamy is not to take away the rights of other people.
Jim - you lose.
Ding!
Next troll please.
This guy is like a machine-gun of stoopid.
killfile, ENGAGE!
"If my child was gay, I'd send them straight to a conversion center."
Is conversion center a euphemism for concentration camp?
Can you tell me what that lifestyle is? What does it entail?
No those people are lying to themselves because they are seeking acceptance.
Christianity on the other hand is a lifestyle. They can be cured. Just allow them to think for themselves.
Read up.. on anything that causes you to use reason.
If my kids were christians...
Nevermind.
Homosexuality Christianity is a lifestyle. Read up on ex-gay ministries de-converts. They can be cured. If my child was gay Christian, I'd send them straight to a conversion center teach them how to rid themselves of it by learning critical thinking skills.
Obama to Worship Jesus with Homosexual Child Molesters
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2224468/posts
links to this:
http://www.everyoneislying.com/gay-marriage/obama-to-worship-jesus-with…
I think my head is going to explode.
@Jim#142
That post just screams Internet Tough Guy...
Here, have a subscription, it'll "man you up"
http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/internet-to…
I'd ask you to back that up, but I know you can't.
So instead I'll just call you an idiot.
Because that is what you are. A raving idiot.
Well done Wow.
Why do all of you despise Christians? I bet you would laugh if you read an article about a Christian woman being murdered, or church members being shot down.
And what's so bad about polygamy? If it was good enough for the biblical patriarchs, what's the big problem? ; )
So, by that reasoning, you can be "converted" and catch teh ghey? If that's what you've been taught, and is the way you thing, I can see why it makes you uncomfortable.
And the "curing" thing is bullshit, btw.
Oh that poor doctor, she doesn't want to have to treat teh gheys but she's worried she might be forced to. It's like the time I was fired from my job as a Fireman for not saving that baby from a burning building. I tried to explain how my evil abortionist evolutionist beliefs make me want all babies dead but he'd have none of it. When will the persecution end ????
Hmm.....
"National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542"
This address is ringing a bell to me for some reason...wasn't there some ID event at Princeton a couple years ago (involving Dembski?) where the location, or the headquarters was this same location? I was at Princeton at the time and I remember hearing about it after the fact, and I think I made note of this address being connected to it somehow. but I never took the time to look up where on nassau this was exactly (probably down between 206 and palmer square).
Religion. We despise religion. Get it straight dumbass.
We just think you're a deluded ignorant fool. You're just fun to mock and ridicule.
"lol, nice arguing there. The very fact that it is observed in nature points to the act being natural."
@Kel
You of all people should know that mammals frequently kill the young of their competitors (survival of the fittest) to avoid competition, some animals engage in forcible copulation and have more than one mate.
Do you think infanticide, rape and sexual promiscuity are natural? They are observed in nature so according to your logic I should say the rapist was only being natural.
Trumpeter:
I keep waiting to hear concrete answers to precisely those questions from SSM opponents. A friend of mine told me last year that her septuagenarian father had called her up and asked her, in all earnestness, exactly HOW the same-sex unions in California would affect his decades-long heterosexual marriage in Maryland.
The problem is, I don't think even they have really thought it through. The most straight answer (no pun intended) I've seen was quoted on Pam's House Blend, from a minister who argued that in countries where SSM has already been legal for some time (such as Holland and Denmark), they have lower rates of marriage and higher percentages of children born out of wedlock. So I said, thank goodness! Finally, we get someone who can tell us exactly what is going to happen! (Now, can you see the problems with this prognostication?)
Most of the "defenders of traditional marriage," however, are nowhere near that coherent. I think the most concrete, describable fear that can be teased out of their protests is basically that SSM will lead to homosexuality being so culturally accepted that homophobia will become cultural suicide. Which will really cramp the NOMmers' style.
Aside from that, I suspect that they're deathly afraid that if gays and lesbians are allowed to participate in the cultural institution of marriage with all the same rights as straights, a few decades will show the same-sex couples do it better. And we certainly can't have THAT.
Nope. I don't despise Christians.
I despise Christians who use their faith as a weapon against people who don't subscribe to their irrational beliefs and justify it by claiming a false moral superiority.
Namely people like yourself who are the definition of the arrogance of ignorance.
Jim, we don't give a fig about xians, until they appear at our blog and spout their bullshit like you are doing. You are prime example of why everything the xian's say is a lie. That is because you are lying. We know the truth. You just have faith, but you haven't shown us evidence for you god even though you have been repeatedly asked to do so. Slow down and actually read our responses. You would learn something.
Mark, it's "National Organization for Women." Anyone can join!
(Except you, Jim. No one likes you.)
no no no no no facilis @ 161:
He first made the argument that something was "unnatural" and someone rebutted by showing that it occurs in nature,and is thus natural.
Your rape, infanticide shit is a strawman...
but keep knockin em down bud!
"You of all people should know that mammals frequently kill the young of their competitors (survival of the fittest) to avoid competition, some animals engage in forcible copulation and have more than one mate."
You can't blame us, take that issue up with your intelligent designer.
Choice or not, fucking dudes is hot.
The fundies? Who cares? I'll take living life.
Jim Tanger@137:
Read up on "bisexual" and "closet case". If you need a reference for the latter, start with "Americans" for the "Truth" about Homosexuality. The guy that leads that group, if you can call one guy ranting from his basement a group, is a classic closet case. Hmmm, your real name wouldn't happen to be Peter Labarbera, would it?
I don't despise Christian en masse, but I will say I pity many of them.
Those I do despise are those like you, Jim - you're not happy just living the life you think is a Christian one; you want to force others to believe what you believe and live like that as well.
Wrong. Considering that, most of the time a Christian is killed it's at the hands of another Christian - or, at the very least, an adherent of an equally nonsensical religion - my reaction might go as far as some black humoured comments about the hypocrisy and/or the irony.
If this is true then that means that heterosexuality is just a lifestyle and can be cured. Steve could be sent to a conversion center and come out wanting to have sex with men. (And "come out" was deliberate. ;) )
I completely support traditional Christian marriage. I take as my first example the Old Testament King David. (Remember him? He's the one whose "lineage" was used to legitimize Jesus's claim to being the Messiah foretold by Isaiah. Sort of integral to the whole Christian tradition.) David had wives, concubines, and a hot boyfriend.
Personally I'd tell him he could keep the wives and concubines, but then who am I to argue with tradition. :-)
As for the NOM advert, I made it almost to the end, but then they bragged about how their organization was a rainbow coalition made up of "every creed". I'm afraid some of my UU and MCC friends might disagree with their use of the word "every".
If this is true then that means that heterosexuality is just a lifestyle and can be cured. Steve could be sent to a conversion center and come out wanting to have sex with men.
I've got the fees for Daniel Craig.
Why do all of you despise Christians?
You assume too much.
I only despise the hateful Christians who blindly follow the worst parts of an ancient, long mutated book about a god who's image was shaped by sociological natural selection by wars and conversions in a desert in the fucking Bronze Age, while they ignore the part where the guy (for whom they name their idiology) gives some rather decent messages of tolerance and CHILLING THE FUCK OUT ABOUT THEIR GOD and even some pluralism.
My mother is a Christian. She recognizes the marriage of our gay friends, even though our state doesn't. She, as well as many of my Christian friends, are open to the fact that other people might be right and that the Babble isn't totally infallible. Hell, my brother is a Christian but rejects all but the "and now you're all forgiven" part.
I love them all. I do love some Christians. But I cannot abide bastards like you.
Now please, fuck off.
Guess how else shares that building...
http://www.scepterpublishers.org/
Your Source for books and videos about Opus Dei and the spirituality taught by its founder Josemaría Escrivá.
Hmmm. Who else shares the building?
No, they are not going to laugh at it.
Wherever you go and anti gay marriage people are commenting, you hear the constant refrain that it's being "forced down our throats."
Aside from the Freudian choice of metaphor, this is a clear indication that they DO feel that their rights to discriminate are being taken away.
Somehow two complete strangers miles away being able to do something is "forcing it down our throats." The ONLY way to read that is that they are suggesting that they DO have the right to dictate the behavior of others.
Oh, man...check out the Marriage Talking Points on their page:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Ma…
@MAJeff:
really I figured you'd have better taste. Dude is a butterface.
facilis babbled:
You fucking idiot. Care to explain how, in the case of being raped or being infanticided (for want of a better term), the party acted upon is a consenting adult?
Say it with me: Gay marriage is between consenting adult humans. Rape is not. Infanticide is not. Bestiality is not.
Facilis, if you had stopped to think for even thirty seconds, you would not have posted that tripe. You wonder why we have a bad opinion of you? That is a prime example. What you said had everything to do with pushing your presuppostions and not with any true argument (strawman argument). You need to get rid of your biases. Why not start with homosexuals. They are people and deserve the same respect you want. Then apply the golden rule.
Mr Jim Tanger and Mr Tim Janger:
I know who you really are, and I know this is all an act. Could you please knock it off NOW? We have enough real idiots in the world to deal with without having to fuss over pretend idiots.
I'm just about to ban your IP addresses. Then, not only will the Tanger/Janger players be unable to post here, but your real identities will be blocked as well.
Hey check out their facebook page - instead of getting support, they are getting blasted by pro-gay marriage supporters!
I guess it shows that the facebook crowd is young and liberal (duh!) and that just because a cause can open a facebook page, doesn't mean it is a good PR move to do so.
Jim, nobody here (and I think I can speak for all regular Pharyngulites) hates Christians. But a lot of us dislike having religious beliefs and attitudes thrust upon us. I have a lot of friends who have all kinds of beliefs, but guess what? They don't try to convert me or judge me or change laws to restrict my freedoms. I don't care what they believe, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.
The trouble is that a great deal of people think that what they believe is what everybody should believe; they think their lifestyle should be enshrined in law and never questioned or confronted. They want to dictate what my children learn in school, what food I should or shouldn't eat, who I am allowed to marry, etc. etc. Note I am not just talking about Christianity, but all religions where relevant. Why shouldn't I be allowed to draw a picture of Mohammed if I want to, or eat pork or even desecrate a cracker? They aren't my beliefs; I do not bow to their gods; I do not subscribe to their religions. Religion should not be able to dictate the limits of my freedom. Only the Law of the country I live in can do that. But religion far too often seems to think it can dictate the law.
So this sort of thing has to be confronted and challenged every time it occurs, and sadly that is far too often.
http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm
HRC explains the three "stories" to us mere mortals that didn't understand all the coded speak in that ad. Go to the end of that page for the break down, just makes you more sad when you realize how evil a thought line this has come from.
Its not just about Gay Marriage in that ad, its about them afraid of losing the right to be a bigot (which they won't be.) Then they show up 3 examples of illegal bigotry (yes doctor, don't treat her, she sinned!)
Just goes to show... POES CAN BE HARD TO SPOT!
Facile:
If X is seen in nature, by definition X is natural. It's foolish to dispute the very definition of a word. Natural here distinguishes from artificial, i.e. of human origin, but offers no value judgement.
You seem to be assuming that we too confuse the categorically different division natural/unnatural with moral/immoral. Not so.
Sorry, PZ.
I'll admit, people. I am not a religious man. I simply love impersonating one. I find it very enriching to ask religious questions in an ignorant way and gain enlightened responses on here when I assume my actual role - that of a reasonable atheist. It makes me proud to see challenges and teamwork against stupidity!
Jim Tanger was, of course, a rather entertaining pretense. I do tend to take alternate identities too far, but it does allow me to explore the Christian mind and its absurdities so well. Enriching, as I have said. Highly enriching.
I will cease, per PZ's orders.
This has nothing to do with hating christians. If you practice your religion and don't try to interfere in the rights of others then I have no problem. Believe what you want. But suppose your religion thought that eating shellfish was wrong because it is condemned in the bible. So you demand that laws be passed making the eating of shellfish a crime. I would hate you. Anyone who tried to keep me from my shellfish would be on my enemies list.
By the way, can you explain why it's OK to eat shellfish now but it isn't OK to be gay? I thought both were on the naughty list in your silly book.
I really think a few folks here should give a listen to last nights Fresh Air: Mike and Mel: "Father/Son Amazing Race duo"
Let's just say this - Mel White ghost-wrote for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. He was a pastor in Lynchburg Tennessee - and he is gay.
These self-righteous assholes calling themselves "Christian" really need to go have a listen to that guy and his son. The part I really liked was when he tried everything - even exorcism (!) to be rid of teh gey. Guess what. Exorcism doesn't work.
Oh yeah - he has a son. His own. You really need to give it a listen.
JC
Sorry - here is their facebook page getting lots of pro gay marriage messages:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Organization-for-Marriage/101307…
Was so angry when I saw the add, but this cheers me up to no end.
lame
We don't despise Christians. We despise fundamentalists who try to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us.
You would lose the bet. Just because you laugh whenever someone who isn't a right wing fundamentalist godbot gets hurt or killed doesn't mean that we reciprocate.
Oh FOR FUCK SAKE!
They're everywhere! Some ID fuckwit is writing tomes in a comment on my blog about lookup tables. Then he references the Babble.
Stultissime me circumstant.
*Kicks Jim in the nuts*
i cannot resist: a rainbow coalition is visible after a golden shower.
What's natural and what's ethical / moral are two different things. Surely you can understand the difference between the capacity to act in such a way and the social value of such an action. Sure rape is natural, but that does not mean it should play a part in our society. Rape is both immoral and unethical, but that's very different from arguing that it's not natural.
At least tell me that you did it for teh LULZ Jim.
Please. At least then I might understand.
One thing you gotta give NOM credit for - they've got a really catchy theme song.
PZ: They will continue to exist, as they have for 150 years now. They'll change their name and their front issue -- but they won't die until we finally put a stake in the heart of the Confederacy.
I would bet if you followed the organizational history of NOM, you would find it leads back through anti-busing groups of the 70's, back to the CCC of the '60s, back to the new Klan, back to the old Klan, back to the unregenerates of the Confederacy.
Why do you think these groups always primarily run from the states of the Confederacy and the states settled primarily out of those states? Plus, of course, some migration into the border regions. Why don't you find these groups in strength in New England, for example?
Because we're still fighting the intellectual descendants of the slavers -- the folks who were ultimately pushed out of New England, into the South to turn their dirty bucks, and from their through Missouri into the West.
A commercial for open bigotry, how sweet... lol... an endless parade of douches I hope I never meet ;)
'Jim Tanger' wrote:
Seriously, fuck off. You could get the exact same information from going to actual fundie sites and seeing what determined atheists are saying over there, or waiting around for nitwits like facilis to turn up and say stupid things.
Excellent response to their ad:
It's truly sad that this video was made. Especially because it concerns two loving, consenting adults that have no intention of disrupting your private life with legislation or harm.
I am happy that so many people have so little to really worry about in their lives that they go out of their way to fabricate crises. I'm saddened that so many feel threatened by harmless things that have nothing to do with them, like the marriage of a loving couple.
"My freedom will be taken away" That's either an outright lie, or just boldfaced crazy talk. ... Read More
"I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job." What immoral faith does she have that goes against the doctor's oath of "Do no harm?" Where's the choice? Was she hoping to be allowed to discriminate against people based on their marital status? Or any criteria? Regardless of faith, that goes against what it means to be a doctor. Clearly this woman has issues, and they have nothing to do with two consenting adults declaring their commitment to one another before the county clerk.
So the real questions here are not questions about whether homosexuality is natural, rather if it is permissible in society. To move further, since the moral zeitgeist has made homosexuality permissible - whether they should be afforded the same rights as other consenting adults in the eyes of the government. What matters more - Islam's right to discriminate against women or the government giving women equal status in the eyes of the law?
Oh wonderful frog.
What happened in California?
The woman who runs this atrocious organization was just on Hardball (MSNBC, Chris Matthews is off today so I watched it for awhile). She was rude, loud, moronic, unable to reason, and altogether a perfect poster child for this kind of bigotry.
Aha. But I've yet to find atheists outside of this website that possess the humor and intellect of PZ's army. Regardless, the knowledgeable responses and wit that you all have on here is refreshing. Many forums lack the drive, the occasional thread that concerns something scientifically comedic, etc.
When you play a fundamentalist, it truly is shocking that you could say nearly everything to justify your absurd bullshit.
I will admit that "Jim Tanger" did the Poe extremely well. He was able to stay in character for a good while, until PZ outed him.
That said, I have to agree with Wowbagger, OM:
I can't believe I just wasted part of my night reading a fake.
]:(
"Do you think infanticide, rape and sexual promiscuity are natural?"
Yes, yes, and yes. (Lions, dolphins and bonobos respectively.) Of course, considering we're dealing with homosexuality in HUMANS, this is an obvious red herring.
It's trivial to change the NOM logo to a pair of male or a pair of female symbols.
Just sayin'...
Well, I am working on my creative degree, my friend. I simply should save Tanger for other forums, where my curious fundamentalist would find more suitable company (among like-minded fundamentalists, equally as idiotic and unreasonable as he is). As for this website, I'm content with the knowledge and wit that you all have. I'm glad to read the content here daily.
As for this particular thread, which concerns an issue most dear to me...does anyone have any idea why they're referencing rainbows and implying inclusion when their agenda is set on accomplishing the opposite?
Oh please Matt. Go away for a while.
That was childish and lame.
"Do you think infanticide, rape and sexual promiscuity are natural? They are observed in nature so according to your logic I should say the rapist was only being natural."
Are you asserting that these things are not natural?
If so, what are you proposing as a cause for them?
I'm guessing robots. Evil child-killing horny robots.
Yes, it's still true that nobody likes Jim. What an ass.
My apologies are heartfelt and sincere. No malicious intent was, to be redundant, intended. I acknowledge now that using a character to gain insight into other minds was, quite simply, moronic. However, I suppose we all have practice with debating fundamentalists in the future, as elementary as a task as that may be...
And, at the same time, entertaining. I have unique ways to probe minds, and I am sorry if my methods were poorly executed here I do not intend to do so once more, as Mr. Meyers and Dawkins are both personal idols of mine. Men of uncommon character and insight...
And they're pink, too. Fortunately, we have Yoshimi to defend us from them.
Correction:
Myers*
For some reason, I always hit the "e". Ah, well.
Wait, did Jim Tanger just pull a variant on the "I'm just trying to get people to think," thing? (Other well-known variants being, "It was all a sociological experiment/performance art/you're all my puppets!")
Greta Christina summed up this ploy pretty aptly here: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/03/tryin…
...
RE: No choice? - It's been my experience that many ofthe people screaming about how their rights will be violated are people who are unwilling to fully admit they think homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated at all. (There are plenty of those folks around, sadly. Thanks, Fred Phelps. But there's plenty who want to go the "love the sinner, hate the sin" route and look all high and mighty and forgiving while all the while being not-so-sekritly squicked and just as ready to beat down Teh Ghey as the people they say they are better than.
What I always find ironic is these are the same people who used to scream that we shouldn't tolerate homosexuality because it led to a promiscuous lifestyle. When it became obvious that one of their canards was a fallacy, they had to work to prevent the proof of that fallacy from gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the government.
Colour me pretty damn disgusted with the NOM folks. Digusted but unsurprised.
Check your ego Matt there was nothing unique about that. Grow up.
You can't even spell your idol's name right.
"I have unique ways to probe minds,"
Ahh yes. Trolling on the internet - how unique! You should apply for a patent.
facilis is making the appeal to nature fallacy. He's confusing that because it occurs in nature then it should be permissable. The argument about whether homosexuality is natural or not is really an argument about whether there is choice in it. Given that it occurs throughout nature with no higher thinking required, the idea is that no it's not a choice. When it's not a choice, should that type of behaviour be discouraged and punished by a society? Where does the notion of consent apply to decisions of this nature? What negative effects will this have on society? What positive effects will it have for the individual? Can we have a society where every adult is equal in the eyes of the law discriminate based on sexual preference? Would that mean inequality? What reasons are there for such behaviour?The case against homosexuality so often is an appeal to tradition or an appeal to God. When you take those away, what is does the case against homosexuality have left?
There's nothing unique about trolling. People do it all the time.
Stop Kwokking up the thread with your petty self-congratulations.
Matt at #215:
Don't hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back.
No kings,
Robert
Uniqueness does not have to be found in the execution, but in the manner that you view the results and seek to use them for further advancement. Many "troll" for the sake of it; I find assuming multiple personalities a way to "fit into" other perspectives. Apparently, making amends and expressing my disgust at any prior behavior will only earn the disgust of others here. Understandable, but unfortunate.
Also: I acknowledged the "e" error. If you make a grammatical error, does that mean an Internet user has no grasp of grammar outside of his forums and discussions? No. It means that he's capable of making the occasional error.
You do, of course, have my apologies. Whether or not my behavior could be forgiven on a forum where I feel most comfortable among my fellow skeptics is unknown. Mr. Myers has my deepest apologies, for I truly do admire his work. Truly, I do.
Apparently, making amends and expressing my disgust at any prior behavior will only earn the disgust of others here. Understandable, but unfortunate.
It does when your faux-pology is cloaked in swaddling of self-congratulation for making us, your lab rats, dance to your tune.
How to apologise: Say "I'm sorry. I won't do that again." End of story. No excuses. No attempt to turn us into your students or your dancing bears or your performance art.
Ah, yes. May the thread return to its intended purpose. If I should submit something here again, it will only include relevant content.
Thank you.
What is wrong with polygamy?
If you perceived my comments as little more than self-congratulation, then I suppose that I understand. However, I felt no sense of accomplishment. I apologize, and I will not, I can assure you, use an excellent forum for any form of experimentation after this unfortunate incident. Ah, how the Internet works...and now exactly in the ways that we want.
I felt that it was necessary to respond to you, Pixel. As I said: purely relevant content.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Go away and don't let your unwarranted sense of self importance hit you in the ass on the way out.
If you look at NOMs website under "Get Informed" you'll find their single most effective sentence is this:
“People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”
Amazing that they can't take their own advice!!
Matt, as someone who says stupid shit a lot, I'm going to give you some advice I here often:
Quit while you're behind.
Wowbagger (#216)
You, sir, owe me a new quad shot bamboo latte! My last one is now all over my screen.
Unfortunately, while I recognize the album I couldn't stop giggling at the liner art long enough to actually listen to it. Something about all the Freudian ambience.
Kel (#221): Spoken like a gentleman, sir! And, alas, like as not to be pearls cast before Calvinists. (I can't in all good conscience say 'swine'. Pigs have a bad rep.)
The MadPanda, FCD
Matt, seriously - go quiet for a while. You've attempted to justify what you did, and it hasn't been taken well. If you're okay with it that's fine, but don't keep trying to convince us - we don't want to hear it.
Eliminate one "thanks" for redundancy.
Rev: Please, I have repeatedly said that I did not feel self-importance. Experimenters rarely do. We acknowledge the irrelevance of our existences - considering the universe itself and all of the potential - in comparison to the potential legacy of whatever research we may choose to work with. Of course, this was hardly the correct way for me to examine the fundamentalist mind and how it functions.
I do not want hostility, but these responses all deserve some sort of proper explanation. It is deeply saddening that I cannot submit something without having to receive something that's certainly less than civil. I do deserve all of it, but understand that I only intend to contribute in a positive way from now on.
I'm sure that you have made grave errors. I regret every moment of portraying another character. Now, I feel that I've driven this thread from its intended purpose for far too long. Far, far too long.
This seems like the right place to ask something, hopefully someone knowledgeable can enlighten me.
Homophobes like the ones in the video often talk about how they are "forced" to do various things. One of the prominent claims are that priests are forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples, even if they disagree with it.
Does anyone here know if this is actually true anywhere where gay marriage is legal? I have no idea how things like that work, do priest ever have a legal obligation to marry people?
Scott Hatfield, OM, writes:
Clearly, the state can set the limits about who can enter into such a contract.
Yes - but based on what? It's clearly not based on how humans actually behave, nor is it grounded on how other primates behave (is that "natural law" dare I ask?) If the state is going to set limits, they should not be arbitrary on any axis of race, creed, or religion.
Is it mere coincidence that US laws regarding those contracts aligns perfectly with judeo-christian religious beliefs about proper marriage? I think it's pretty much irrefutable that marriage laws are, in fact, arbitrary based on religion. I find that deeply troubling.
Does anyone here know if this is actually true anywhere where gay marriage is legal? I have no idea how things like that work, do priest ever have a legal obligation to marry people?
Short answer, no. Justices of the Peace, or other public officials who officiate at wedding ceremonies are not allowed to get out of it for religious beliefs. Religious organizations, however, are free to include or exclude anyone they want. Roman Catholic churches being forced to perform same-sex weddings is about as likely as them being forced to perform a Hindu ceremony.
From the Dungeon:
GodbottingMaking an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
InsipidityA great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
SockpuppetryLike morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
StupiditySome people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
TrollingMaking comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.
Matt, you truly escaped with a tiny smack on the wrist. I'd accept PZ's largesse and lie low for a while, like Wowbagger said.
On the plus side, this gives me a glimmer of hope that a certain poster at TFN is a fake....
I don't think I've ever seen anyone attach so much significance to their own acts of trolling.
Most trolls just post something like "hahaha u fagz fell for it LOL" then sit in the corner and masturbate contentedly.
Marcus B. (#235)
AFAIK the answer to your question is 'no, clergy have no legal obligation', since a priest or minister may decline to marry any given couple at any time. In fact, since it's the civil certificate of marriage that's actually important, a ceremony of any sort is really pretty much optional. Two witnesses and the fee are about all it really seems to take.
Someone else's mileage and information may vary.
The MadPanda, FCD
Hey Jim, homo here... I cordially invite you to my father's house so he can personally show you just how able he is to man you up.
Even if you're only pretending.
My favorite part was the concerned parent who didn't want her son to hear that gay marriage is OK. If she thinks gay marriage is bad, wait until Junior hears about all the mega-pervs lurking about in their crew. I sure hope they don't go to the New Life Church.
"I don't think I've ever seen anyone attach so much significance to their own acts of trolling."
On fuckedcompany.com years ago I sometimes half-jokingly referred to my best trolls as "performance art." I didn't claim to be unique though.
I really wish we would quit responding to the entire "choice or nature" argument. Whether homosexuality is a choice is completely irrelevant to the issue. Religion is a choice, at least in the U.S., and it's still a protected class.
A founding principle of our nation is that people should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights or welfare of others. Even if homosexuality is a choice, it's a behavior that the government has no legitimate interest in regulating.
When we participate in the "choice" debate, we give that issue a validity that it simply doesn't have.
WARNING: COMMENTERS IS ABOUT TO OPINE
OPINION
Went to the NOM site. I understand the reasoning. Even agree with it. I have no trouble with the idea of civil unions and those civil unions having the same rights as a marriage. But no, "Same Sex marriage" is a contradiction.
/OPINION
Just spent 20 minutes on their website, reading their arguments and promotional material. I'm an amateur, but even I could see through the logical fallacies: slippery slopes, arguments from popularity, false dichotomies, strawmen, etc, often with the slam-dunk "It's just not right."
Is it right that people who believe that their love is "special" compared with the love between gays, be called bigots? umm....YES!
She looks so sad... I guess she's realising that soon she'll have to strap a few pounds of plastic explosive on and walk into a civil service.
Seriously, the american taliban are starting to scare me. I'm glad I'm in oz, but I'm worried about the rest of you guys.
Aww man I had a whole dissertation on the naturalistic fallacy and now I can't use it! Phooey.
Trumpeter: I went to the NOM site to see how they might answer yr question. (Gasp, gag!)
Here’s what I found:
Plus this little gem:
Preview indicates the second blockquote fails, & I dunno how to fix, so ftr: everything between "...gem:" & this sentence is 100% NOMspeak.
Re: 221
But SSH opponents have come up with a way of moving (or appearing to move) the argument against SSM out of the "god" and "tradition" categories.
The tactic is to use language that essentializes and reifies Marriage as a unitary "thing" that exists outside and beyond the individual people who choose to practice it. The intended metaphor (never stated, but clearly assumed) is of marriage as sort of pool of "stuff" that you get to dip into when you get hitched. listen closely to how they describe marriage and you hear descriptions that seem to draw on this kind of imagery -- they never talk about marriages plural...it's always marriage, singular, with the strong suggestion that everyone who is married actually shares something concrete with all others who are married (and not just one's partner...having a partner is just the entrance fee). In doing so, they are able to imply, without saying so explicitly, that same-sex marriage amounts to a "contamination" or "dilution" of the common pool.
It is this metaphor of marriage that provides the primary frame for the argument of SSM opponents now, and allows it to sound (at least superficially) secular.
"I really wish we would quit responding to the entire "choice or nature" argument. "
I totally agree. Nobody makes a hetero couple prove that they are planning to get married because of a natural, biological urge instead of just "'cause she's a nice roommate and I'll get a tax break.'"
Nobody makes heteros pass that test, gays shouldn't have to pass it either.
re my #250 above
arrgh ... SSM (for same-sex marriage), not SSH.
I think the only appropriate response to this video is endless peals of laughter along with pointing and occasional wiping away of tears.
I mean seriously. You total morons.
Oh! Now I get it!
It's the same as the typical theist "no morality without god" argument.
From the theist point of view:
1) If there is no god, no one's watching me.
2) If no one's watching me, the first thing I'll do is go kill my neighbor
3) I am not killing my neighbor, so god(s) must exist.
So, just applied differently:
1) If the state doesn't ban same-gender marriage, same-gender marriage is legal
2) If same-gender marriage is legal, the first thing I'll do is be compelled to find a member of my own gender to shag. It's just impossible to resist. The temptation for those soft caresses, those disgusting (delicious) kisses, the.... excuse me a moment while I flog myself....
3) Since I'm not doing this, the state must ban same-gender marriage
Jafafa Hots writes:
Nobody makes a hetero couple prove that they are planning to get married because of a natural, biological urge instead of just "'cause she's a nice roommate and I'll get a tax break.'"
Exactly!
Besides, if we had to actually support "normal" hetero marriage by pointing to biology, it'd be all over by the crying. The only aspects of "normal" hetero marriages that are similar to primate behaviors in the wild is adultery and prostitution - though the terms don't quite equate. :D
What's crazy about "normal marriage" is that, not only do none of our primate relatives behave the way we do, even we don't behave the way we say we do!!! "till death do you part?" Uh, no. "Forsaking all others"? Nope, not that, either.
Supporters of "traditional marriage" define it in terms of an ideal that has never existed, then claim that their theoretical notion is under attack because people aren't living up to it. It's just another day chock-full 'o stupid for the creos.
Christians. They are such poor sad victims.
Marcus B @ # 235: Homophobes like the ones in the video often talk about how they are "forced" to do various things. ... Does anyone here know if this is actually true anywhere where gay marriage is legal? ... do priest ever have a legal obligation to marry people?
MAJeff & The MadPanda @ 237 & 240 have answered that, but it's worth adding that there have been court cases in which various facilities providing wedding services have been compelled to provide said services to same-sex couples (just as they could be if denying business on racial grounds), and have milked their struggles for all the martyrdom they could.
I suppose if gay people *do* get married, the Pope won't have a problem with them using condoms, since no pregnancy is being prevented.
At least we have that to look forward to.
Some day there may well be a rainbow coalition against us as well. Some day some physician somewhere will refuse an atheist and then cry that his rights were taken away.
This ad is no better than the fear mongering of beck, hannity, rush, etc. It is just a little calmer on the outside, but on the inside it is saying "be very afraid".
Wow.
I just want to say that I'm a recent Evangelical deconvert. My ex-missionary self and husband have just admitted to one another that we're agnostics, and we've stopped attending church and going to make sure we rear our children without American Christian religion--or any religion.
It's horrible stuff like this--the homophobia and the vehement anti-science agenda--that nudged us toward the door, and everything fell apart from there.
I've always liked gays! Let 'em marry! Why the hell not?
So glad to an ex-Christian!
YAYAY!
Marcus B.- "Does anyone here know if this is actually true anywhere where gay marriage is legal? I have no idea how things like that work, do priest ever have a legal obligation to marry people?"
In the U.S., the answer is a resounding NO. And even though religious leaders are fully aware of this fact (the First Amendment guarantees that churches can discriminate anyway they choose), they still saw fit to lie about this during the push to pass Prop 8 in California.
They figured (and rightly so as it turned out) that the vast majority of voters were ignorant of their own Constitution. Unfortunately.
I have never understood the anti-gay-marriage platform, at least in the sense that I've never seen reasoning by them that convincingly presents an argument other than pure homophobia.
Effing bigots. If racism and sexism are wrong, how is this sort of discrimination possibly okay?
You've never tried to go through the INS/DHS interview to remove the conditional status on your spouse's green card, then. Let me tell you, when they ask, "Why did you get married?" they're particularly unamused by "Because I liked the sex."
Which I always found really, really odd -- the only "acceptable" answer was one that would indicate you were acting in a nonrational way. I wonder if I could have gotten away with claiming it was an arranged marriage?
Deacon Duncan at Evangelical Realism has argued that the main reason same-sex marriage opponents are so desperate to enact bans on SSM, is not actually because they believe SSMs are less healthy or worse for raising kids, or otherwise suboptimal in any real sense...it is because they know damn well in the real world same-sex marriages would differ in no substantive way from oppposite-sex marriages, even though their religious teachings indicate this should be the case. In other words, opposition to SSM is an attempt to prevent thier superstitions from being falsified real-world data. So long as there are no same-sex marriages, there cannot be any real-world evidence that religious superstitions about SSM are wrong.
I think there may be something to this -- opposition to SSM as a tactic to prevent a situation that would likely result in cognitive dissonance. A memetic self-preservation mechanism.
#249, that shit is hilarious. Pretty much proves their fear is that SSM will make it socially impossible to be homophobic. Why don't they just start wailing, "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" while they're at it?
Meanwhile, they can get to work on outlawing single parenthood and criminalizing one-parent families. That'll go just beautifully with their quest to ban divorce. Though I seem to recall someone saying something about a beam in one's own eye and a mote in someone else's...
Obviously not, that would violate the establishment clause. same-sex marriage is about making the government recognize the marriage. Which is all that really matters anyway. The church does not grant you the marriage tax deduction or any of the other privileges and obligations of marriage. And what do priests say to establish the marriage, "By the power granted to me by the state of whatever..." The religious cermemony is just window dressing.
Probably most posters on this blog are ex-xians.
I'm was one up until quite recently. The fundies really opened my eyes. The way over the top hatred, violence, stupidity, and occasional homicides made me take a cold, hard look at what was there. Nothing much worthwhile to be exact.
"But no, "Same Sex marriage" is a contradiction."
You apparently don't know what the majority of the words in that sentence mean.
Marcus, please stop pointing to primate behavior as a model for our own. It's not. Also please quit complaining that our cultural norms are based on Christianity. No shit.
The government doesn't care whether you say "till death" and "forsaking all others" at your wedding. It also doesn't care whether you stay married or fool around. It does expect you to register a domestic partnership so that the benefits and responsibilities of such can be administered. This is just common sense. Since you want these benefits, think of marriage as just signing up for them! But no, somehow you want benefits from the government without signing up for them.
I know, I know, you can't sign up for them because your girlfriend is married. You haven't received much sympathy for that particular situation--have you noticed? Someday, perhaps, plural marriages will be legal. And then you can join her marriage.
You have been flogging this particular dead horse for days. It's old.
...Indeed, why not? I'm all for polygamy!
Consenting adults do whatever the hell they want in their bed!
Oh man I missed the part about the 5 years old.
CONSENTING ADULTS, dirtbag. ADULTS. If the parents consent to that, lock them up!
@#251,
You mean not everyone gets married for tax breaks? Maybe that explains some of the problems I had.
Seriously though, I would say about half of the guys I was stationed with entered their first marriage just so they could get BAH and live off base.
AVSN #245
I don't see anything contradictory about it. Two people, who presumably love each other, want to live together and enjoy the legal rights that Marcus wants to strip from all married people. What difference does it make what the particular genders of these people are?
Just because it irritates godbotherers and bigots is no reason why same-sex marriage isn't marriage and shouldn't be called marriage. If same-sex marriage offends you, that's too bad. Denying people rights offends me and other people who enjoy the civil rights inherent in a free, democratic society.
For the record I am a big supporter of polygamy.
AVSN #245
What's contradictory about it? Just because the name irritates godbotherers and bigots is no reason to deny two people the right to marry each other. I've noticed the only people who dislike the term single-sex marriage are bigots. Thanks for showing your true colors.
"Posted by: Nanu Nanu | April 8, 2009 9:57 PM
"But no, "Same Sex marriage" is a contradiction."
You apparently don't know what the majority of the words in that sentence mean."
Nope understood every word. I have spoken english for about 80% of my life.
"I praise Jesus every Sunday" Obama is a complete failure on this issue.
With Vermont's gay marriage victory, Obama's looking more and more like a President behind the times and pushing against the tide of events. Sad.
Ndt #100:
I think you could call it marriage, just get yourself a certificate from a secular group, I dunno, or a friend that says "marriage." I think the problem is that some religious conservatives have capitalized on the term "marriage" and call it a "traditional institution." My theoretical civil unions would be marriages, just a different name.
The way to solve the problem is to disassociate the religious and civil implications. Perhaps there is a better way.
Ipsey Jones @ # 260: My ex-missionary self and husband have just admitted to one another that we're agnostics, and we've stopped attending church and going to make sure we rear our children without American Christian religion--or any religion.
Congratulations!
(Particularly for keeping yr marriage together while divorcing the church - I suspect it's quite rare for a couple to make that change at a pace similar enough to maintain communication...)
Marcus,
Weren't you supposed to be "offline for a few days"? Sate my curiosity for me.
That's funny - I thought she'd have more choice then - now she can add girls to her list of eligible partners.
Anyone else laughing hysterically about the choice of words at the end of this advertisement.
.... but help is coming ... s RAINBOW coalition ....
Don't there morons even keep up with the associations of gay lesbian issues and the rainbow???
Not to mention that they're all for taking away the choice of others to marry whom they will or love whom they will.
Quick, somebody throw a shoe at them!
Oh look, leaked actor auditions for the ads! Complete with green screen! Golly, it would be terrible if someone mischievous used those for nefarious ends! Boy, we all know how gay-friendly those Hollywood types are, with all their green screen compositing software! Why, someone clever could use these to actually mock the campaign!
301.83 @224: “Apparently, making amends and expressing my disgust at any prior behavior will only earn the disgust of others here. Understandable, but unfortunate.”
Find a therapist with some skill and start the dialectical behavior therapy you obviously need.
hje @148: “Is conversion center a euphemism for concentration camp?”
Yes.
I absolutely want to change the way they live. They live in passive bigotry, and I damn well wanna change that.
I don't like the sound of these "bonversion benters."
He's baaack and the stupid is neck-deep. Let me just say that all the gay people I know, including some relatives, were the products of two-person, heterosexual, married-in-church families.
What if someone told _you_ that people like you could never marry no matter how much in love you were? What if they demanded that you, you personally, change your sexual orientation because it was a choice and you had made the wrong one?
How could having quiet, married neighbours in a harmonious household be any worse for "traditional marriage" than husbands killing their children to spite their wife? Or running around on them? Or marrying, having three children, and then getting the marriage annulled and turning your children into retroactive bastards? Or having high-status men marry twenty women and exiling young men from the community to get rid of the competition? Now those disgrace marriage.
Oh, and fuck you, Matt, for wasting people's time.
"Oh, and fuck you, Matt, for wasting people's time."
Agreed. We have to put up with too much ignorance to be forced to deal with pretentiousness as well.
The slope -- it's so slippery! Oh noes!
I consider those performances as lying for Jesus and one more reason to despise actors.
@Tulse, thanks for the link to the audition videos.
And the last thing we need to do is give in to them. Marriage was a cultural tradition long before some Canaanite tribes started writing down their mythology.
Matt, Jim and Tim, in all your aspects, troll the fuck off. And work up a better apology.
The article reminds me of something I noticed long ago. Most laws are written by conservatives. Laws prohibit things such as interracial marriage, for no damn reason but that some people don't like it, but very few laws require interracial marriage. Sometimes laws prevent anyone from preventing such things, but that's as close as liberals get to making laws about behavior.
Justin asks:
Marcus,
Weren't you supposed to be "offline for a few days"? Sate my curiosity for me.
As if it's any business of yours; I was flying to Chicago via Pittsburgh and was up at 3:00am to drive to the airport. I was about 300 yards behind a tractor trailer that jacknifed and hit a passenger car, and spent 3 hours sitting there freezing my ass off while I missed my flight. Since I was supposed to be doing a talk at 9:00am in Chicago, and that was why I was going, I cancelled the trip. (Shrug)
Now -- why did you ask? Surely you don't really care.
PS - the couple in the passenger car were OK. Airbags rule!
Tis Himself writes:
Two people, who presumably love each other, want to live together and enjoy the legal rights that Marcus wants to strip from all married people
Minor nit: they are not "rights" they are "privileges." They are especially not "rights" if they are being differentially granted by the state.
Nice bit of creotard-style spin control there, BTW. I simply asked for equality - I didn't say anything about stripping people's privileges. Nice try, though!
Goddamn those auditions were bad. (not bad meaning good, but bad meaning bad) It looks like NOM/NOfM/NFM just gave up on letting an actor do the "rainbow coalition" line; unless, of course, that guy at the end of the official video is also an actor. I just wasn't buying the "I'm a California doctor" line from Auditions 13 & 22, BTW.
Tulse posted a link to an audition back at #284, but here's one straight to the Youtube page:
http://www.youtube.com/user/EndMarriageLies
I caught a gay marriage off of a toilet seat. Thanks a lot, you activist judges!
I don't have the U.S. proposal handy, but there's a copy of the Canadian one on my personal blog, from 2005, at which point gay marriage had already been legal in some provinces for a few years. About the 7th WHEREAS, it states that religious organizations can refuse to perform any marriages they disapprove of, as before. It simply provides civil marriages and allows church marriages to include same-sex couples. Click the link on my name if you want to read it. It's nice and clear. And no, society did not fall apart, children like having two parents of whatever sex, and no one has married their dog or house-plant yet.
I don't really believe in slippery-slope arguments. We continuously make distinctions between enough and too much. Why is it we never hear, "If you let your children eat vegetables, next week they'll be chewing down the neighbours' trees!" Anyone?
Well, I for one am very afraid of these people. We have done something great and good in Iowa and I hear these people are going to target us. Tomorrow the Republicans are going to try to use a procedural rule to bring their resolution amending the constitution to a vote on the house.
http://coveringiowapolitics.com/?p=1103
How do we fight these bastards???
"The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage. But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage." - Jesus.
CatBallou writes:
Marcus, please stop pointing to primate behavior as a model for our own. It's not. Also please quit complaining that our cultural norms are based on Christianity. No shit.
That our norms are based on religion, rather than anything rational, appears to elude a lot of people. So forgive me if I ignore your request. It's an important point. Last time I checked we don't live in a theocracy, so laws based on religious values are - questionable, at least.
(the state) It also doesn't care whether you stay married or fool around.
Adultery is illegal in many states and under the US military code of justice. I think they stopped prosecuting for it when they had a constitutional challenge in 2007. Granted, the enforceability of the adultery laws is very questionable but they're still on the books. More significantly, it can dramatically affect the financial outcomes in a divorce proceeding
In other words, you're completely wrong.
I know, I know, you can't sign up for them because your girlfriend is married. You haven't received much sympathy for that particular situation--have you noticed?
Actually, I hadn't mentioned any of that. I was simply pointing out that the laws regarding marriage are utterly tainted with the fecal reek of their religious origins and they have no place in a secular society.
You're the one who just now raised my other objection to marriage being unfair - you're the one who's harping on that point, not me. If you don't like talking about it, why do you persist in bringing it up?
My thinking on this topic has evolved over the last 24 hours (thanks to the stimulating discussion here!). Initially, I was concerned about the inequality of marriage benefits but on further reflection I've concluded that the state's recognition of marriage is unconstitutional if not outright immoral.
Unless someone can establish that marriage as it's embodied in US law is somehow a natural state for mankind and is not simply a stealthed religious doctrine, I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. And I thought this was a blog full of rationalists; what about this isn't obvious?
You have been flogging this particular dead horse for days. It's old.
I've been addressing two completely different issues, and have been responding to other posters who were discussing it with me.
I suggest that if you don't like it, you exercise your right to fuck off to someplace where you'll be happier.
Facile Princeps writes:
Do you think infanticide, rape and sexual promiscuity are natural?
Absolutely. They happen all the time. Does that tell you something?
Or were you asking "are they unpleasant"? Yes, they are unpleasant. They're also natural.
I wonder if the US Army can be sued for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission aka the "equal opportunity employer disclaimer"?
Outside of that, I've never understood why the argument against same sex marriage was dismissed immediately on religious grounds. But then again, creationism still exists...*sigh*
I don't understand the lies in this video. "My freedom will be taken away." What freedom is removed? "I will be forced to choose between my faith and my job." What the hell choice is this she's having to make? Allowing a homosexual to see his significant other without written permission from the other's family? A new jersey church group will be punished because they can't support same sex marriage? 1. Why not? 2. How the hell are they being punished? They are a church group. Their right to discriminate isn't being removed.
I particularly despise the "They are trying to change the way *I* live," despite the fact that it does nothing of the sort.
Rotting Zombie jesus this is why I don't own a gun...
Masochists may follow them on Twitter @nomtweets.
That's what I said about Proposition 8. -_- I thought it would never pass and that eventually it would just go away and never come back. I thought people would never fall for the lie-filled commercials I saw on every local station.
A group called the National Organization for Marriage, which worked to overturn gay marriage in California, is out with a controversial new ad that suggests opponents of same-sex marriage are now being victimized for their beliefs.
...the National Organization for Marriage is spending $1.5 million to air the spot in an effort to turn back the tide of gay marriage, which was yesterday legalized in Vermont. The spots will air in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa.
The group does not back away from the ad's argument that same-sex marriage has a direct, negative impact on non-gay people.
"The biggest argument – and the biggest lie – put forward by those who want to redefine marriage is that it's not going to have any effect on you," NOM executive director Brian Brown told Smith. He added that those who back gay marriage "are saying that it’s right for the law to treat us as evil discriminators."
As evidence, Brown pointed to the fact that Catholic charities in Massachusetts stopped handling adoptions after legislation passed in the state outlawing discrimination against gays and lesbians who want to adopt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entr…
“What’s next for the National Organization for Marriage? Will they hire legendary infomercial pitchman Ron Popeil to hawk their phony agenda?” said Human Rights Campaign Spokesman Brad Luna. “This ad is full of outrageous falsehoods—and they don’t even come out of the mouths of real people.”
http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm
Sure, legalizing same-sex marriages is fine and well for gay couples but what about MY right to discriminate against them? Why isn't anyone thinking about ME?
@Monado [#298],
"If you let your children eat vegetables..."
...next week they'll be acting like crows in a cornfield, devouring every plant in sight, even eating off the ground! And the week after that, they'll be stealing the farmer's tractors and taking them for joyrides, if not fucking the farmer, himself!
Slippery slopes from the morality police -- gotta love 'em!
[Not even that cute little guy from the Burger King commercials will be safe!]
I still don't see how gay marriage is going to negatively impact anyone. I mean, just because gay couples are married now in the eyes of the state doesn't mean they are gonna be acting any different.
Gays are still gay and in relationships without papers from the state. Gays still have weddings. I fail to see any logical way gay marriage will impact "families." There has never been any link between seeing homosexuality and becoming a homosexual. Its not contagious.
I didn't choose to be straight, so I don't think people choose to be gay.
In the states that have allowed gay marriage has anyone heard from anyone living there, or have they all burned in a fiery apocolypse? Are all the children turning gay? I mean whats the fear? Why is there fear? WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF?
Homosexuals are a lot of things, but scary they are not.
"Homosexuals are a lot of things, but scary they are not."
You've never seen me right before Last Call.
@RickR,
Right before Last Call, are you like this, by chance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Like the facebook group says, "Against Gay Marriage? Then Don't Get One and Shut The Fuck Up".
I finally found that Bible verse I was searching for in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It's Paul telling how Christians should judge over heathens:
In another translation where I originally found it the idea comes across more clearly.
Basically: Dear Christians, as rapture is so close (for almost 2000 years now...), please mind your fucking own business. Go after your own gays if that's what makes you happy, but if they don't belong to your church, listen to Paul and stfu.
Marcus:
Unpleasant? Even the third one? :)
Having established that these are actors, one question that comes to mind is where they got these actors. I have my suspicions that at least some of them are Mormons, just like the actors in the Yes on Prop 8 commercials. A few of them have what sounds like a Utah accent to me.
I don't have the ability to follow through on this hypothesis, but I hope that each of these actors is outed, so to speak.
I'm happy to see that the Australian government hasn't added Pharyngula to its list of banned sites (yet)!
"Now -- why did you ask? Surely you don't really care."
No not really, but inconsistencies in statements of intent and actual behaviour catch my attention.
Well, at least they admit they're afraid...
"Right before Last Call, are you like this, by chance?"
Worse, more like this-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qG5V2iBvFs&feature=related
I admittedly did not read all of the comments, so forgive me if this has come up before.
The underlying problem I see here, as in most of the "marriage" discussions in the US, is that there seems to be no separation between the religious idea of marriage and the legal institution. Many other countries have separated this into the religious "marriage" and the secular "civil union" (to use the most common terms). A civil union is something that is a legal contract between two adult persons and has to be witnessed by some form of public official. As far as I know, this can be done in the US as well, but it is not necessary.
The important point is that the religious form of marriage in many countries has NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES whatsoever. Because religionists actually do have a point there: Somebody who wants to get married under the rules of a certain religion can be expected to follow their rules. But that is something a state should not endorse in any way.
So the simplest solution to the whole discussion: Let religious people decide who they want to marry on their own terms, and remove any practical, legal and financial consequences from that ceremony. If you want to get all the advantages a civil union has to offer, you have to go to a courthouse for a completely secular ceremony. If you are gay and want a civil union, you go to the courthouse. If you are gay and want a religious ceremony in addition to that - well, the market forces will soon give rise to some more liberal denominations.
think those people were gay.
did you hear the one babbling about a "rainbow" coalition? GAY!
thinking that they're somehow wronged, and that their children will be all gayified if some kids have same sex parents...closet gay.
damn faggots.
Alas, this isn't a spoof. They were on MSNBC's Hardball as a serious organisation:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/04/hardball-joe-solmonese-vs-maggie.ht…
Marcus:
The parts that are false, for starters. I think your question about the fairness of marriage privileges is a valid question to ask, but you are muddling the discussion with so many fallacies, that you are obscuring your point.
from your previous posts (in random order, sorry):
Perfectly? Do you still stone adulterers?
As other people have pointed out numerous times, marriage predates Judaism and Christianity, and has never been a purely religious institution. *Some* aspects of marriage law are derived from religion but it seems that most Western countries are shedding those at an increasing rate.
Why do you imagine that humans can't have any unique evolved behavioral dispositions that aren't shared with their closest relatives? (Whether we should obey those dispositions is another question) As far as I know, all human societies have practiced some form of marriage. That makes it pretty unlikely that it's simply a stealth religious doctrine, let alone a judeo-christian one.
There are many other pair-bonding primates. Some are even 'better' at monogamy than humans. Were you actually thinking of great apes? They all have very different sexual behaviors. It doesn't make any sense to say that only their shared behaviors are "natural".
Ben asked
Too many mother in laws?
I'm not that Matt, but the "Tim" part was funny for a while. Jim was shit. I'm baffled that they could be the same person.
Have a look at their "7 scientific reasons" against gay marriage: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3480051/k.6A4D/Wh…
I particularly like the way they address their "scientific reasoning" differently to different religious audiences. More scientists should do that, I reckon.
These people make my head hurt.
Demon Owen...? Satan works in mysterious ways.
Nope. But, check this: My father, the Catholic physician, refused to swear the Hippocratic Oath, because it was "pagan". True story. I dunno how common that is.
More people who are forced to chose between their faith and their job:
"I'm a Christian Scientist cardiac surgeon, who believes that true healing comes through prayer."
"I'm a fundamentalist schoolteacher, who believes that girls shouldn't be taught to read."
"I'm a Poseidon-worshiping fisherman, who believes that everything in the ocean is the property of Poseidom."
"I'm an Amish network engineer, who believes that electronics are evil."
"I'm a pagan lumberjack, who believes that trees have souls and can feel pain."
Finally!!!! An organization that can gather people from every creed and color as one group - to be... bigotted against someone else!!! Heh. This is funny stuff. Are you sure this isn't a SNL skit here - it sure seems like it.
I'm surprised to see Matt Nisbet posting here.
And here's a question I'm dying to have these folks answer: What's worse for traditional marriage, "Adam and Steve" or "Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston"?
I only had time to skim the comments, so I don't know if someone already brought this up. One of the big problems is that these people believe the myth that homophobic churches will be forced to give gay marriages, which is simply not the case. No religious leader is legally obliged to provide a marriage that he or she doesn't want to do. I know that many Catholic churches refuse to marry divorced people, and no church is forced to have marriages for other denominations. Allowing gay people to marry simply does not mean that hateful people will be forced to marry them. Gay couples will still have to either go to a tolerant church to get married, or have only a civil marriage. It is not threat at all to the fundies.
I've said this many times before; but here goes:
How can some one else's marriage possibly (even metaphysically) in any way diminish my marriage? I await a rational answer to this question.
I also strongly recommend that you ask your local homophobe: Did you sit down one day in your teens and contemplate men and women and then decide which one you were attracted to??? Of course they never did. They just are the way they are. I also await honest answers from homophobes on this question.
This is about nothing but a whining plea to continue to publicly ignore while privating hating and actually discriminating against gays. What a bunce of lying, hating, weasels.
(I'm W M heterosexual, middle-aged, graying, balding, with wife, kids, house, and steady job.)
I havn't been following this thread much, but that slitch Maggie Gallager has a column about the demise of religious freedom due gay marrages. I can't follow her reasoning- something about their not being legally able to discriminate or something.
That "while" passed quite quickly for me ... about 2 posts on each of, oh, say 3 or 4 threads before it became <sigh> boring. Alas, it went on seemingly forever. And yes, I too was a bit surprised that the two were the same person.
There's a reason it's called homophobia and not just gay-hatred. Most homophobes have unequal marriages with strict gender roles and a lot of misogyny. They justify this by saying that it's necessary. They claim that if someone with a penis cooks dinner too many times, or if someone with a vagina mows the lawn too many times, the sky will fall. If same-sex marriages work out and people don't conform to gender roles within and marriage, and yet the sky doesn't fall, then it really threatens the justification that fundies use for their version of marriage. In a way, other people having successful marriages does threaten their own version of marriage. Their wives might realize that it's not necessary to be treated a certain way, and then they might demand to be treated better.
They are coming together in love, to hate.
Good job, dum dum.
I do not think Jim and Tim were the same person. PZ explicitly used the plural in his little smackdown, and asshole Matt only fauxpologized for the "Jim" posts. I have my suspicions about the identity of "Tim" but to my knowledge the perpetrator has not fessed up. (I'll add that I'm a lot less pissed off at "Tim," an obvious parody from the start, than with the ethically challenged asshole Matt. Oh, had I called him an asshole already?)
Tim and Jim are different people. Both had a history of sensible comments, and then went off the deep end with these incredibly annoying fake creationist/theist personas.
I really detest that stuff. We have swarms of idiots making stupid arguments all the time, and when people pretend in this way it diminishes the effort serious people put into serious debate. Why put time into arguing against a bad idea if you're going to only find out that the proponent was just playing games?
Someday someone is going to do it on one of my cranky days, and I'm going to ban them, and I'm not going to feel at all sorry about it. And almost every day is a cranky day for me.
By Dr Myers, don't you understand. Trophy Wife will be required to perform acts of lewdness with one, maybe two attractive young women, while you will be FORCED to watch, and possibly video...
Excuse me a moment while I go for a lay down...
I'm agreeing with catgirl on this, and re-inforcing her idea a bit.
Most fundamentalists have what philosophers might call an "essentialist" viewpoint. They are the folks who argue that animals cannot evolve, because a fish would have to change into a dog, and they'd have to change their label. Narrow-minded lack of imagination, in other words.
Such folks are genuinely confused by gay marriage. They haven't given much thought to marriage--it's just something they do because everybody else is doing it, and doing it for unspoken reasons that are taken for granted. For most guys, marriage is how one gets sex with a woman. For women, marriage is how one gets children and a man to pay for them. But gay marriage doesn't do either of those things, so it confuses the hell out of folks. It makes them have to think, which hurts like hell.
As a different example, take Bill Clinton. The redneck Republican portion of America hated him because he was a white-trash boy from Arkansas that had *somehow* turned liberal. And if it could happen to him, it could perhaps happen to them. Which was a very scary thought. (And the rich Republicans hated Bill Clinton because he was a white-trash boy from Arkansas.)
Short version: For a lot of people, every thought is a scary thought.
I never had a history of sensible comments!!!
There's no such thing. It's an oxymoron. Children simply do not have the capacity to consent to marriage or sex. This is no different than statutory rape laws, which we already have. Even if a child agrees to have sex with an adult, it's still rape. Are you suggesting that adult men and women have the same mental capacity as a 5 year old when it comes to consent?
Anyway, if you want "traditional" marriage, you should support old men marrying girls. This has happened throughout history and is more traditional than an adult woman choosing who, when, and if to marry.
Seems to me that those closeted self-haters will actually have more choices with gay marriage on the table.
windy @#325 writes:
I think your question about the fairness of marriage privileges is a valid question to ask, but you are muddling the discussion with so many fallacies, that you are obscuring your point.
I'm being sincere and trying to be intellectually honest. So if I'm spouting fallacies, it'd help me if you'd point them out rather than just airily waving at them.
Perfectly? Do you still stone adulterers?
I shouldn't have used the word "perfectly" but - yes, as I pointed out elsewhere there are laws regarding adultery in many states and in the military. It's interesting that they're not being enforced except as where they are relevant in divorce proceedings, because it's felt that they probably wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge. If that's the case, I'd say it shows I'm not the only person who is beginning to suspect that there are problems with the state writing laws protecting marriage.
No, we don't stone adulterers here, we're not Afghanistan under the Taliban. We just make adulterers spend more money if they later decide to get a divorce. You might want to do some research yourself since I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking links. If the state was being blind to the "sin" of adultery it would be something couples could still call out penalty terms for infidelity contractually in a "marriage contract." Why does the state feel it needs to legislate who has sex with whom? Or is this more protecting the "sanctity of marriage"?
As other people have pointed out numerous times, marriage predates Judaism and Christianity, and has never been a purely religious institution.
I didn't say it didn't!!! I simply am pointing out that our marriage laws align with judeo-christian attitudes. The fact that we're having a national debate about same-sex marriage is another good example of exactly what I am talking about.
Absolutely, "marriage" predates the current crop of religions we're dealing with. So, you're arguing that there's some kind of 'natural law' of marriage and that judeo-christian attitudes merely reflect those natural laws. If that were true, then using judeo-christian terminology and concepts for marriage in US law would be reasonable, simply because we need a vocabulary with which to discuss such things. (I.e.: the law would say 'fucking around is illegal' instead of 'adultery' and 'breaking up is haaaaaard to dooooo' instead of 'divorce')
That's why I keep raising the question of whether there is such a natural law and where it might come from. For example, one could make a utilitarian argument based on biology that "marital fidelity decreases the spread of STDs and therefore the state is justified recognizing marriage as a social good." You'll notice (as I have) that nobody has offered anything like that argument - probably because it won't hold up very well.
By saying "marriage predates christianity" it seems that you're leaning toward the 'natural law' argument. Because otherwise you'd be stuck defending why the US laws on "marriage" originate from zoroaster, ba'al, or the FSM's ideas of proper behavior. I also lean toward the 'natural law' argument, which is why I keep thinking about other primate behaviors -- not because I am trying to make an argument like "it's moral for bonobos; it should be moral for us!" -- but because the mating behaviors we see in biology are all, ultimately, practical.
Put another way: we don't need god to tell women that they don't want their husbands to wander - monogamy is a good strategy for a female for reasons that have nothing to do with morality, the common good, or religion. (Though religion might have evolved to concern itself with reproductive behaviors because we're social animals and a lot of our important survival behaviors are learned, not innate)
*Some* aspects of marriage law are derived from religion but it seems that most Western countries are shedding those at an increasing rate.
Yes! It's interesting, isn't it? The laws regarding marriage that are most clearly derived from religion (abrahamic hatred of same-sexuality) are being discarded as
inappropriate in secular societies. Doesn't that make you kind of wonder where we should stop? I'm just thinking a bit farther ahead than you appear to be.
Why do you imagine that humans can't have any unique evolved behavioral dispositions that aren't shared with their closest relatives?
You've completely missed my point; I apologize for not being clear, earlier. I raised the issue of other primates' behaviors as an attempt to question whether we might be able to derive some 'natural laws' of marriage from our close cousins. It turns out that - to put it mildly - that fails.
'Natural laws' are based on benefit to the organism. In fact, monogamous pair-bonding begins to make sense when you invent agriculture and that may be why we don't see other species getting married. But if a law is a natural law, it needn't be enshrined in legislation; it's more useful to socialize people to recognize it's value and there's not much need to enforce it, either. I.e: there's no point making it illegal to put a plastic bag over your head.
Moral laws are based on more complex arguments; rape should not be performed because - basically - you wouldn't enjoy it if I did it to you, therefore you shouldn't do it to me. Note that moral laws like this can and often do contradict natural laws; rape actually has lots of valuable properties in biology - which is why we don't impute a moral dimension when a female chimp is bred without her consent. ("raped ape" indeed!) That's why the naturalistic argument is fallacious - simply because something is natural doesn't make it moral. But: if you're going to deny something that's natural should be accepted, you need a moral argument against it.
Religious laws are based on "godsaysso" - I'd guess because the religious are too lazy to construct a real moral argument based on mutual fairness and too ignorant to base an argument on biological usefulness.
US laws have to be grounded in one of those three things, or else they are redundant, unconstitutional, or immoral. The reasoning goes as follows; looking at those three options:
- If the laws are grounded on mutual fairness, then it's clear that "marriage" ought to be allowed to everyone - but it raises the issues I'm raising; namely that the laws need to be fair to everyone or they are bad laws.
- If the laws are grounded on natural law, then it's clear that "marriage" ought to be allowed to everyone as long as it's not somehow increasing the spread of diseases or reducing the gene pool, or whatever. Individual autonomy should be enough to let individuals do things that are bad for them, if they want to and it doesn't harm others.
- If the laws are grounded on religious teachings, they need to be discarded. Firstly, because we're a secular society. Secondly, because they cannot be moral laws if they are based on religion, because religions contradict eachother about many important points (e.g: number of wives you can have!) and there is no rational way to decide which religion is correct in its teachings.
Sorry if I didn't flesh that argument out earlier; I sort of assumed people would see it without having to be led through it in excruciating detail.
As far as I know, all human societies have practiced some form of marriage.
This fallacy is called the "appeal to tradition" with a hint of "argumentum ad populum" thrown in. I know you know that, since you've said you're concerned with logical fallacies.
That makes it pretty unlikely that it's simply a stealth religious doctrine, let alone a judeo-christian one.
If I said "simply" I misspoke. There's nothing simple about any of this. I'm wrestling with deeply socialized attitudes - it's always counter-intuitive to challenge such things because, well, they're deeply socialized.
As a side-note, it's fascinating to watch the reactions of even atheists and rationalists when dealing with deeply socialized attitudes. We rationalists are just as capable of knee-jerk reactions as the creos, aren't we? It just depends on whose sacred cow is getting kicked. I'm pointing out fundamental unfairness in long-standing practices and I'm getting the same forms of push-back that many atheists get when they poke religion's sacred cows "it doesn't hurt anyone!" "we've always done it that way! "you're trying to take away my special thing!" etc.
There are many other pair-bonding primates.
I think I've already shown how it's going to be hard to argue that marriage is a natural law. Another problem with the natural law argument would be that technology and social practices can change extremely quickly and rapidly outstrip naturalism. We see that with his foolishness pope ratzo, who doesn't understand that the invention of the condom moots some naturalistic arguments against same-sex partnerships, as do social practices like adoption and technologies like in vitro fertilization. Of course, he can fall back on "godsaysso."
Try reading the Bible some time. It is full of polygamy, incest, child marriages, and men purchasing wives from their fathers. Our laws do not align with that.
Speaking of the intersection of natural law and moral law, Oregon just outlawed bukkake:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/house_passes_bill_too_…
Now I have to enlist my sweetie to help me in a campaign of civil disobedience!!
Doctor: Are you gay-married?
Patient A: No, straight.
Doctor: Here's your flu shot.
Doctor: Are you gay-married?
Patient B: Yep, gay.
Doctor: NO FLU SHOT FOR YOU.
Concerned narrator: Wasn't that a nice, wholesome scene? Well, equal marriage advocates have a secret agenda. They also want to put an end to that Doctor's freedom. They are going to make that Doctor choose between her faith and her job.
*ominous music*
Whoa. I really SQUIRM at any combination of stark idiocy and stylish production. This one takes the cake. (Well, to a certain taste space).
Unfortunately, the hysterical crowd will sport radiantly beatific expressions when exposed to this moo moo milk, properly reinforcing their allegiance to a "just cause", however thoughtlessly acquired in the first place and stimulated by the regular massaging from the able and righteous fingers of big bucks...but probably none will ask themselves why their message, which they consider so self-evident, even requires such elaborate campaign.
Maybe they don't trust their argument to speak for itself. Maybe they care as little about its virtues as they care about the rights of gays and lesbians (i.e., PEOPLE who happen to have an orientation different from their own) and the minds of those they are trying to target.
Maybe something else has taken over, and they're focusing on all the cash they can play with...
...and polygamy (it's in the Bible!), and men forced to marry their brother's widow, and waiting to marry until the bride is proved fertile, and concubinage, and mistresses, etc. etc. etc. etc.
catgirl writes:
Try reading the Bible some time. It is full of polygamy, incest, child marriages, and men purchasing wives from their fathers. Our laws do not align with that.
Yes, the bible is full of contradictions. But that's a flimsy debaters' argument. :( I guess that next you're going to tell me that all the fundagelicals want to preserve traditional marriage values because they're not aligned with judeo-christian teachings? You can't have it both ways.
If they're not aligned with judeo-christian values, perhaps you can explain where they come from?
I was only pointing out that you said something completely wrong. You said that our laws align with judeo-christian values, and that is a false statement. I'm not trying to make any implication from your mistake other than that you should be more informed about what you say.
I pointed some of them out in the rest of the post.
It seems that you are missing the point - compare the bolded section in my post to yours. A marriage-style pair bond can be natural to humans (I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'natural law') even if it is not shared with other great apes. What's so hard to understand about that? Is pair bonding unnatural for prairie voles, since it's not shared with their close cousins?
But previously you cited the lack of pair bonding primates in support of your argument. Now you act as if it doesn't matter. So why did you bring it up?
catgirl writes:
I was only pointing out that you said something completely wrong.
Yeah, and you expect that to completely refute my entire argument, even if you were right?
Clearly, it cannot be "completely wrong" that our marriage laws are aligned with judeo-christian values if that's the very reason why so many judeo-christians are trying to defend them. We all know there are loads of inconsistencies in the bible; don't expect me to defend that particular pile of nonsense because it's not my responsibility to do so.
Jim B said (waaaaay up there at #258):
Nope, because the Pope says condoms actually INCREASE the spread of HIV! Then again, he probably thinks gay people deserve HIV, so this one's a toss-up.
No, I never said that I expect that, because I don't expect that.
They claim that their reason is based on their religious beliefs, but they do so in bad faith. There are plenty of other Christians who accept homosexuals and support their right to marry. These people also base their opinion on their judeo-christian religion. Two groups are supporting different views based on the same set of judeo-christian values, both claiming that theirs are the true judeo-christian values. In reality, none of them knows what judeo-christian traditions actually are.
Technically, I didn't make my point based on inconsistencies in the Bible (although there are certainly plenty). The marriage views of polygyny, child brides, and men paying for wives are fairly consistent throughout the Bible. I don't think any of these things was specifically refuted; they just went out of fashion over time.
Marcus, saying that all societies have some form of marriage is not an appeal to tradition. It's support for the proposition that marriage is a solution to specific issues that all societies face, including control of property, inheritance, and responsibility for children.
Primates don't have those issues. They don't acquire property, and their young are quickly assimilated into the group instead of remaining with their parents exclusively.
All societies have rules about theft, murder, and hundreds of other behaviors. That our rules are primarily derived from Judeo-Christian traditions is merely an historical fact. That certainly doesn't make them wrong or irrational, which you seem to be arguing. A rule can be both religiously based and moral, and your contention to the contrary is absurd.
In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia (hardly an authority, I know) suggests that the roots of monogamy in the West are Roman, not Jewish.
When I said that the government has no interest in adultery, I meant that the government will not prosecute adulterers. You contended that it's an important factor in divorce. Perhaps we've been arguing past each other, because it's certainly not a factor in any state in the U.S. except New York. Are you living there or in another country?
If I recall correctly, your original objection was that unmarried couples can't obtain the same benefits that married couples enjoy. That's so absurd on its face--it's like complaining that you can't receive unemployment compensation because you don't want to register for it. That your girlfriend is not in fact eligible to marry you is a different issue entirely.
The clear trend in marriage law is away from issues of morality, and instead toward focusing exclusively on the state interests in disposition of property, responsibility for minor children, and determination of next of kin in cases of medical emergency or intestate death. Some form of relationship registration is not going to go away, so what do you suggest as an alternative?
Going back a bit to a comment from Nothing's sacred #21, replying to a comment comparing the anti-gay ad to ridiculous anti-smoking commercials:
Quite O.K. Sure. Except that in supposedly free countries, loud, worthless, bitch ass whiners like you regularly try to impose incredibly high taxes on things they don't personally like. And then waste millions of those tax dollars on stupid propaganda commercials that usually backfire with the target audience because they are over-the-top on paranoid drama, not to mention so smug and self-righteous that I want to puke.
So as long as you approve of these ignorant nanny state schemes, I think I should get to examine your life, and put a 1000% tax on anything you do that I don't personally like, and then use the money to fund nazi-esque propaganda about how evil you are for not living by my standards.
For the most part, I'm pretty goddamn liberal, but the lifestyle police need to go, or just grow up and learn to live among other humans without punishing them for being different.
@Marcus Ranum #349:
Just want to point out that that Oregon bill prohibits the flinging of semen (or feces, or blood, or other bodily fluids) on someone who does not consent thereto. Seems like a pretty good law to me. Of course, just as in the SSM context, consenting adults should be free to do as they choose among themselves. (But have fun with your civil disobedience! ;) )
windy writes:
It seems that you are missing the point - compare the bolded section in my post to yours. A marriage-style pair bond can be natural to humans (I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'natural law') even if it is not shared with other great apes. What's so hard to understand about that?
Aah, now I see the disconnect.
I raised the question of primate behaviors in the context of searching for a natural law of marriage as opposed to a moral or civil one.
My entire argument doesn't rest on that point.
And, yes, you're correct that there's nothing that would prevent humans from having evolved a natural pair-bonding "marriage." I wasn't trying to defend or attack that position; however someone who wanted to defend US marriage laws based on their natural origin would be hard-pressed to defend them as they are currently constituted, would they not?
But previously you cited the lack of pair bonding primates in support of your argument. Now you act as if it doesn't matter. So why did you bring it up?
I do think it supports my argument! That's why I brought it up!
I'm not saying that it's impossible for humans to have evolved pair-bonding behavior. But for someone to make the case that we had, they'd have to have an theory that correctly explained what was so different about humans that we have a natural tendency to get "married" while other primates don't. In other words, there's got to be something special about us and the theory would have to explain what it was. Earlier, I even hazarded a guess that the invention of agriculture probably had something to do with it. And I further guess it was coopted by religion and turned into bullshit - but that's another issue.
In the bigger picture, to claim that human "marriage" behaviors should be enforced by the state, if they come from nature, is silly; because we'd already have a good idea why "marriage" made sense and was beneficial and we wouldn't need any laws respecting it. That'd be like passing a law saying "buy low, sell high"
And, lastly, if human marriage behaviors are ancient and natural, we ought to question (as the same-sex marriage proponents are doing) whether legal support for these ancient behaviors is still appropriate.
? Is pair bonding unnatural for prairie voles, since it's not shared with their close cousins?
No, but if you were a vole and you were making an argument that pair bonding was special for voles, your argument would almost certainly have to explain what voles did differently from their close cousins that don't pair bond.
I should have said that, but I was jumping around a lot mentally, dealing with a couple threads, and though I was arguing around your objection in advance of it I didn't attempt to forestall it.
You're right that my main line of argument keeps getting muddied up with irrelevant stuff. I wish that, in the last thread, I hadn't used my own situation as an example because it made it too easy for people to simply attack me as self-interested (as if that invalidates my argument?). And, yes, I haven't carefully constructed my argument and presented every piece of it in the correct order, all cleaned up and polished and gleaming. Because this is just a blog discussion that's gotten dragged into some interesting directions, that's why! As I said earlier, my thinking on this topic has evolved even within the last 24 hours.
Grey Rogue writes:
Just want to point out that that Oregon bill prohibits the flinging of semen (or feces, or blood, or other bodily fluids) on someone who does not consent thereto.
Oh, *phew* thank monkey!! I didn't realize!
I'm not sure why that wouldn't already be covered under existing sexual assault laws... Uh, shoot - I'd better check to make sure that there's no loophole in PA's unconsenting bukkake laws; it might not be safe to go to the store! :D
again, some primates don't, some mate for life
Hunter-gatherers have marriage, too. Agriculture might have lead to more polygamy in some environments.
Luckily, PZ explains it in an old post.
There is a long literature showing an association between oxytocin and affiliative behavior. The differences between prairie and montane voles are well-known: montane voles show little pair-bonding behavior and males do not share in raising the young compared to prairie voles, and the montane voles also show reduced levels of oxytocin receptors in areas associated with reinforcement and conditioning. The idea is that release of oxytocin occurs in social conditions, giving the voles with receptors a little natural high that they seek to repeat, while the surlier montane voles get no biochemical reward, and social behavior is not reinforced.
The mechanisms in humans are not as well sorted out yet, but there are clues that it's something similar.
Right.
No, Windy, no! Don't let him lead you down that road! It's not about whether these behaviors are ancient and natural, and therefore should be reconsidered. It's about whether these behaviors serve a purpose, and how that purpose can be served today.
We can see that marriage is evolving and changing legally, from the acceptance of divorce to the recognition of marital rape to the recent decisions about marriage between gay people. Perhaps in the future, we will have poly-marriages. I don't care. But there will still be a need for legal registration, because that serves an important purpose.
(I wish I had revealed this earlier: I used to practice family law, specifically for indigent women. I know that doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm well aware of the history and legal ramifications of marriage.)
I think that polygamy is fine, in theory, but I don't think it would work as well in the modern world where women are not essentially chattel, as it did in earlier times when they were. I think you'd have acrimonious divorces and squabbles over community property like you won't believe.
I also think that another issue should be addressed, when discussing polygamy. It always seems to be assumed that the question is whether a man should be allowed to have multiple wives. Where is a woman's right to have multiple husbands? Fair is fair, equal before the law, sauce for the gander, etc.
Which brings me to the intersection of the two; if a man can have multiple wives, and his multiple wives can each have multiple husbands, who in turn can each have multiple wives, who can have..... I see a need for complex written, legally-binding contracts pre-nuptually (with appropriate riders, perhaps, as spouses are added), implying an exciting new area of specialization for lawyers, and an explosion in the need for divorce lawyers.
Now, they're not really being disingenuous when they say they are assembling out of love. They ARE assembling out of love. You just have to realize that Christian "love" is nothing like what reasonable people regard as "love"--for proof of this, look at their being who they say embodies love: a misogynistic, vain, capricious tyrant who thinks nothing of mass genocide. In order for those things to jive with a being who "is love", Christian "love" HAS to be completely different from what we know and cherish as love.
Cat Ballou writes:
But there will still be a need for legal registration, because that serves an important purpose.
Why? What purpose? It's not important just because you say so.
And if your response is that it's important because it helps delineate the privileged from the unprivileged, then I think you must cede my point.
Windy writes:
The mechanisms in humans are not as well sorted out yet, but there are clues that it's something similar.
That's really cool!!
If it were something like that, then I hardly see how the state should financially reward people based on their oxytocin (or whatever) level.
Honestly, when thinking about natural law arguments (or moral arguments) for why the state should get involved in legislating marriage, I'd expect something more along the lines of "it helps reduce/discourage rape, therefore it benefits everyone because we agree rape is immoral and society benefits as a whole" (that's just a made-up example; I don't think there's any evidence marriage reduces rape) Or "it increases people's oxytocin levels and prolongs their lives" (that's also just a made-up example; and it would be dismissed because it's obviously a valuable behavior and people who want to live longer can choose to - similarly to the individual choice whether or not to smoke or drink to excess) Both moral arguments and natural law arguments are going to result in inequality or paternalism or both, as I argued earlier.
cicely writes:
I think that polygamy is fine, in theory, but I don't think it would work as well in the modern world where women are not essentially chattel, as it did in earlier times when they were. I think you'd have acrimonious divorces and squabbles over community property like you won't believe.
I agree. I see no reason why the state can morally say polygamy needs to be illegal, but heterosexual pair bonding and same-sex pair bonding are legal and get preferential treatment.
If the state were to stay out of marriage laws, then polygamy falls out quite nicely. Polys could go ahead, and incorporate or marry, and could negotiate prenuptials and divorces using arbitration or contracts. That would be eminently fair. In fact, someone could then legally marry their dog, for what it's worth; bestiality is already illegal (because of the moral question of consent) and, if there were no preferential treatment, the only way it'd affect the dog would be to call her "Mrs dog" or whatever. :D
It seems Neil's off his meds.
might have lead
No, windy, not you too!?
If I recall correctly, your original objection was that unmarried couples can't obtain the same benefits that married couples enjoy. That's so absurd on its face--it's like complaining that you can't receive unemployment compensation because you don't want to register for it.
Severe logic fail -- begging the question. That's like saying that secular organizations should have to register as churches in order to get tax exempt status, and using the need to register for some other benefit as an analogy. The obvious unstated assumption is that privileging churches -- and married persons -- is proper, and that its absurd on its face to think otherwise. Quite obviously, Marcus does not share your assumption.
Clearly, it cannot be "completely wrong" that our marriage laws are aligned with judeo-christian values if that's the very reason why so many judeo-christians are trying to defend them.
Would you say that it cannot be completely wrong that our marriage laws reflect God's wishes if that's the very reason that so many godbots are trying to defend them?
Aside from that aspect of your fallacious inference, "aligned with" seems to actually be "has a non-null intersection with", which isn't saying much.
If gays can get married, why not let polygamists?>
The answer, whatever it is, is the same as to the question "If straights can get married, why not let polygamists?"
#372: yeah, living in an anglophone country can screw up your brain like that...
They must a great free speech organization. Their blog has so few comments because they're censoring. Critical comments don't get through.
Hypocrites!
That would be polyandry, not polygamy. But I agree 100% that it should be allowed.
@Neil #360: Fail. Too bad, because you might have some useful points if you could communicate them without spitting.
...that have high social costs.
Polyandry is a type of polygamy. Polygamy refers to having more than one spouse at a time regardless of gender. Polygyny is the term for a man who has multiple wives. Many people get polygamy and polygyny confused, but they are not the same thing.
This already exists and is often referred to as polyamory, although that term does not have a rigid meaning.
Greetings!
We seem to be having an odd argument.
Can we all agree that stable families make for better rasied children (regardless of the gender(s) of the people in the family)? Not in every case, of course - I am speaking generally.
Can we all agree that better raised children tend to create a more peaceful, lawful society?
Can we all agree that the State might have some stake in attempting to create/preserve/improve on a peaceful, lawful society?
Even to the point of giving special recognition and tax incentives to those that publicly register such a pair bond?
Hence, state recognized and sanctioned marrige. Am I utterly off base here?
Here is a slightly better version...
Gathering Storm
While I believe (civil) marriages are a useful shorthand in society for a range of benefits and responsibilities, I don't think the "for the children" argument is a particularly good one in isolation. First the haters will attempt to use it to exclude gays (ignoring the fact that gays can have biological children as well as adopting them). Secondly, because it implies that those without children, either because they're infertile, have had children who are now grown, or just choose not to should not be entitled to all the attendant benefits.
My thoughts align more with marriage as a means of drawing up a lot of contractual agreements into one simple to execute package. Extending that to the GLBT case isn't problematic. On the other hand it's hard to generalize it to the case beyond pair-bonding because of possibility of conflict within the group. If I'm incapacitated and need medical help, my wife makes the decisions; there it's done, decided. But in a poly-marriage, what if the others disagree amongst themselves? Solve those problems with a minimal of fuss and overhead and I wouldn't have a problem with consentual plural marriages (alas, historically they haven't been consentual for the most part if one takes into account power differentials). So I guess, I'm not really against plural marriages illegal per se, just against gumming up what existing works in an attempt to generalize. So let them be not-illegal, but I don't see how you plan on solving the problems that arise. Making pair-marriages infinitely more complex in order to satisfy a tiny minority doesn't seem a useful trade off -- you can have a plural marriage but you can't count on some number of the "benefits" normally associated w/ marriage because there's no way to grant those benefits in a sensible manner.
Marcus,
I would have thought the answer would be obvious. One needs to officially register those connections so that one can easily, with minimal fuss differentiate between claimants in the case of disputes. If I'm rich (ha!) and I died I wouldn't want 5 women coming out of the woodwork all claiming to have been married to me diluting the legitimate claims of my real wife and child. In the case of needing medical choices a hospital doesn't want to be adjudicating conflicting claims they want, nay need a simple easy answer. Again, yes, one could do all that with complex lawyered contracts, etc... Are you a lawyer perhaps ...
Jesus fucking Christ, Marcus! You say: "Why? What purpose? It's not important just because you say so."
I've stated the purpose in almost every post I've made in this thread and the previous one, and you've never refuted it. I'm not going to repeat myself. You've also not responded to my observation that your whining about adultery with regard to divorce is complete bullshit.
Then the absurd "If the state were to stay out of marriage laws..." Where the fuck do you think laws come from??
And "nothing sacred," you don't make any sense at all. It's certainly not begging the question. Marcus is whining about not being treated in a certain way by the state, but he doesn't want to tell the state to treat him that way! That's all marriage is. There are very few conditions to meet, and they're certainly not onerous.
I don't understand how you think you're going to get a tax exemption, or next-of-kin rights, or any other condition of marriage that you seem to want, without giving the state some kind of notice? Why should a hospital take the risk of treating you as next of kin in an emergency if you have absolutely no proof of your status?
CatBallou writes:
I've stated the purpose in almost every post I've made in this thread and the previous one, and you've never refuted it.
Excuse me??? Was it this:
The state, community, tribe, realm, or fiefdom has always had a stake in marriage
I didn't even try to refute that because it's an embarrassing example of appeal to tradition. That same inane argument could be used to rationalize slavery or to continue to deny rights to same-sex couples. I'm sure you don't mean that.
Or is it the circular argument you make when you write:
The church has no power over marriages, the states do. And that's reasonable, because the state is the system we've set up to enforce our rights and responsibilities.
I.e.: the state's justified in enforcing rights differentially because its job is to enforce rights? (By the way, if it's enforced differentially it's not a "right" it's a "privilege") I didn't try to refute such nonsense because it's embarrassing to read someone offering it as if they think it is an argument.
Further, you contradict yourself when you write:
The real question is whether we want to give the state the power to regulate our deeply personal lives. For most people, the answer is No.
If your reasoning for why the state gets granted such power is because "it always has had it" then you appear to be saying that you aren't sure the state should get broad powers unless it's always had them. That's not quite the dumbest thing I've ever heard but it'd go on the short list if you actually expect me to take it seriously.
You continue to step on your own tongue by arguing against the morality of differential treatment based on whether someone finds homosexuality abhorrent:
Whether you personally find homosexuality abhorrent is completely irrelevant. You don't get to impose your moral views on others.
I continue to search for where you repeatedly explain how the state is justified in regulating mating behaviors, in the light of your apparent distrust in the state's ability to do so wisely. At this point, I question your rationality.
You again repeat your "justification" for the state's involvement as:
Marcus, how many times do you need to read this? The state, community, tribe, realm, or fiefdom has always had a stake in marriage.
I think I now understand the disconnect. You're appealing to the fallacy of appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) I didn't realize you expected me to take you seriously. I didn't realize you expected me to refute something so silly. Perhaps I was embarrassed for you.
You write:
I'm an ex-lawyer, and I think you're just babbling.
I like how you fuse appeal to authority and ad-hominem into the same sentence. Is this how you argued when you were a lawyer? Does that have anything to do with how you became an ex-lawyer?
Again and again you appeal to tradition:
Marriage has always been about property rights, responsibilities toward each other and any children, and inheritance. That's pretty much universal. Every culture has some set of rules that parallel what we call marriage.
OK, so I utterly reject your reasoning because all you seem to be doing is presenting the same fallacious argument over and over. And you're snapping at me?
Where the fuck do you think laws come from??
From the consent of the governed, of course.
Although someone like yourself who is making an appeal to tradition might as well be saying that Moses brought them down in his pocket when he hauled down the stone tablets. Effectively, you're saying that "they've always been there; therefore they are just." That line of 'reasoning' justifies slavery, anti same-sex discrimination, and any other immoral law that has ever been on the books. Did you say you were a lawyer? I am starting to doubt it.
If you'd actually read my comments in this thread (you appear to be hung up on the unfortunate personal example I gave in the last thread) you'd notice that I made a 3-way argument laying out the question of whether the state is right, or not, to rule on this topic. Such an argument, whether you accept it or not, goes past the "it's always been that way" position because it explores the root question of whether the law was morally justified in the first place. The reasoning I am employing is the same reasoning, exactly, as political philosophers used to challenge the morality of slavery laws and other immoral laws. Laws that "the state has always been involved in".
You say that marriage has always been about property rights but that's clearly wrong because property rights, responsibilities to eachother and children, and inheritance can all be covered adequately - indeed are covered adequately in other laws. Additionally, the state brings itself into a moral dilemma when it begins to apply those rules regarding property rights, inheritance, children, etc - partially, based on sexual preference. I thought you agreed with that - you can't both complain about how the state used to outlaw same-sex marriage and justify it as moral for the state to do so based on tradition.
I don't understand how you think you're going to get a tax exemption, or next-of-kin rights, or any other condition of marriage that you seem to want, without giving the state some kind of notice?
Now you're engaging in circular reasoning. In order to have the benefits of being married, a person needs to do something equivalent to being married. What if the state completely butts out of marriage entirely? There are already laws regarding gift-giving (what is it, $12,000 person to person without tax?) so - either come up with a special extra tax-free gift you can give to one individual and designate it on your tax return. There, that was easy. Next of kin status could be designated on my drivers' license or any of dozens of other practical ways. The point is that the benefits that you seem to think belong to "marriage" could be impartially and fairly offered to everyone under existing systems and the state could bow out of the dilemma of making "marriage" fair.
You also appear to think that I'm advocating a position based on my own selfish agenda. I wish I hadn't used the example of my particular case; I could have just as easily made a solid moral argument for why the state has no moral right to criminalize bigamy. Or, are you saying they do? Are you saying the state has a moral right to give the benefits of marriage to different sex couples and now same-sex couples but to deny those benefits to a poly relationship? Is your response to that moral question "that's how it's always been done?"
I suggest you go back and actually read my postings in this thread. They're not about "marriage is unfair to singles" - as I said, my thinking on this topic has evolved to "marriage is inherently unfair for the state to recognize." That unfairness stems from the fact that it is not rooted in natural law and is therefore customary/religious in nature ("we've always done it") and that the state cannot fairly enforce a law that is neither rooted on moral reasoning or natural law.
You agree completely with me here:
As a single person, I deeply resent the current situation: my married co-workers get what amounts to thousands of dollars in compensation because the company insures their spouses. It's a holdover from the days when married women were not expected to work at all. Do I think this benefit should be extended to gay partners? Yes. But I also think it should be eliminated completely--it's clearly discrimination based on marital status.
And then tell me that you're refuting me over and over?? I'm impressed by your ability to believe something is both discrimination and justified in the same breath. Perhaps its your ex-legal training coming to the fore.
Then you beg the question:
If you want the same rights as married people, you'd have to register your relationship in some way, whatever you call it. I don't understand why Marcus doesn't get this!
Can be summarized as: "To be married, you need to be married, therefore the state needs to regulate marriage" That's so wrong, it's not even intelligible. You ask why Marcus doesn't get it? Because it's stupid
You've also not responded to my observation that your whining about adultery with regard to divorce is complete bullshit.
I think it'd be doing you a huge kindness if I stop responding to your arguments at all. You're making an ass of yourself.
Are you sure you're not a creationist? Because you've willfully ignored half of what I've said and misinterpreted the other half. And when I call you on your bullshit and ignorance, you flounce off, clutching your pearls.
1. I've repeatedly said that I don't care about poly-marriage.
2. I've already explained why I'm not arguing from tradition, because every time I've mentioned the ubiquity of marriage, I've explained what purpose it serves. The point was not that "everyone does it," the point was that "marriage fills an almost universal community need." Christ, I've said it as plainly as possible, and you still twist it!
3. That you can't tell the difference between discrimination toward a single employee in relation to married employees and discrimination toward an unmarried couple in relation to married couples just demonstrates what happens when someone sets his mind on "rant." They're completely different issues.
4. I've also said that marriage is merely a default set of rights and responsibilities that could be obtained in other ways, and if you don't want the default set, do it some other way. This is the first time you've actually acknowledged that possibility.
But that's no argument for abolishing marriage, which was certainly not your original suggestion. You originally said "why can't I have something like marriage without getting married," and when I try to explain slowly, in small words and using analogies, you still don't get it. First you want the church out of it, and when several people explain that the church IS out of it, you decide you want the state out of it! The fact that you've moved the goalposts repeatedly is merely an indication of your intellectual dishonesty. And nice ad hominem attacks--I think we can all see the foam around your mouth now. I quit practicing law because I got burned out from trying to protect poor women from men who were violent and stupid. Has anyone asked you why you're dating a married woman and then whining about the fact that she's married? No.
"Natural law"? I don't think that means what you think it means. You're way out of your depth trying to drag that in.
And "nothing sacred," you don't make any sense at all.
Wrong.
It's certainly not begging the question.
Wrong.
Hence, state recognized and sanctioned marrige.
Marriage doesn't imply a stable child-rearing family and a stable child-rearing family doesn't imply marriage.
Marcus' arguments seem to be that since can't marry his girlfriend therefore I should give up all legal privileges that my wife and I share.
I'm sorry Marcus and his gf have legal problems. I'm sorry that he can't afford to settle his legal problems. I'm not sorry that legally my wife can make medical decisions for me if I'm in a coma even though that legal privilege is annoying to Marcus.
Marcus' arguments seem to be that since can't marry his girlfriend therefore I should give up all legal privileges that my wife and I share.
Not to someone paying attention and willing to honestly characterize it.
If anyone wants to see the audition films, here they are, on Daily Motion:
here and here
Oops! My links did not show!
My site is also wrong, and I put up the wrong username.
I will just put the URLs here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xugm_actor-auditions-for-antigay-mar…
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xuez_actor-auditions-for-antigay-mar…
I truly do not understand all the comments attacking the people in the ad or the people trying to support of the ad(but failing miserably).
The bottom line here is that the ad is attempting to persuade people about an issue that is about a belief system. So the question I would pose to everyone here trash talking the ad and its supporters is, "How do you attempt to persuade people to your cause surrounding a belief issue?"
All these types of ads(can anyone say segregation, anti-war, abortion, republican vs. democrats, etc) if they were able to solely win an argument based on facts alone, would be that way. But people are not factual by nature, they are emotional. The makers of this ad are not different than any other pro or anti something organization that has ever existed.
The arguments in these posts about the add are the same as the arguments in the ad. To the people making the ad, they believe what they are saying as it feels that it is going to affect them. How many posters on this site want their feelings and opinions respected?
At some level, the statements in the ad are true to the people saying them, just as the statements of posters here are true to the posters.
For people that are posting that want their opinions and feelings heard, it doesn't seem that you are willing to offer the same courtesy to the individuals behind the ad.
If you want to fault them for anything, fault them for using standard media hype based on emotional response rather than attacking their individual views. Because they have a right to their views whether you agree with them or not.
Likewise, you have a right to your views whether anyone else agrees with them or not.
Turn this discussion into a legitimate debate which requires equal representation of both sides in a civil and respectful manner.
Good day to everyone.
There is no requirement that I have to respect the view of someone who desires to limit the rights of others and promotes this through hypocritical deceit.
Relativist fallacy
wait
what?
The very fact we are discussing their "feelings" shows that they were heard. The right to expressing an opinion does not also automatically mean that it is safe from criticism.
See my point above.
Your concern is noted and filed in the proper receptacle.