Something struck me yesterday when I came across the latest Gallup poll on gay marriage. See if the same thing strikes you:
You might see it if you contrast that poll with the latest Pew poll on support for same-sex civil unions:
You see it now?
Note how while in the past six years, there has been a steady progression upward in support for civil unions (from 45-57), support for same-sex has remained comparably constant, not showing the same upward trend, bouncing down to 37 (probably at outlier), then up to 46, drifting down to 40, then easing up.
It’s as if the gay marriage debates haven’t really moved the needle at all.
Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated that the Bay State recognize same-sex marriage with its Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health on November 18, 2003 (approximately a month after the first Pew poll on the chart above — presuming that poll like the latest was conducted in October), support for civil unions climbed while support for gay marriage remained almost constant from Gallup’s first post-Goodridge poll to its most recent.
have gopproud said a word against the vetoes of civil unions bill in nevada and hawaii? are you a theoretical supporter ?lit is possible that same-sex marriage has eliminated the perceived radicalism of civil unions leading moderates to support them.
I am finding more and more of my conservative friends who “just don’t care” about civil unions. That means they would not oppose them. Mostly, people have accepted gay couples as part of the American scene. That does not mean that they are ready to embrace them with open arms.
Gay marriage is another matter entirely. I would say that many people want the matter to just go away and for the gay couples to live their lives quietly.
People generally do not like to be forced to “value” what they don’t necessarily value. I have watched a lot of black people lead with their race and then play the race card when people drift away because they really don’t want to play the race game.
Respect is earned. There are gay couples who would earn respect from the onset in most environments and there are gay couples that would force people to swallow hard many times during a period of intermixing. It really depends on the skills of the couple to interact on a human level rather than a gay level.
Personally, I get darn tired of gays who play the gay court jester. Just as tired as I am of gays who are always on edge looking for the sniff of a slight. I far prefer the friendship with people who are, incidentally, gay.
But it is darned easy to win the title of homophobe.
Great chart Dan. This is where the proposed FMA is doomed. There’s 2 versions floating out there. One just goes against SSM. The other is against civil unions, domestic partnerships, the whole enchilada. Will the GOP pick up the mantra of Linda Lingle and go for the most comprehensive one saying “civil unions are SSM by another name”? There seems to be pressure from so-cons for the GOP to be against civil unions as well. Most of those 30 states that have bans on SSM also ban civil unions. No distinction is made between them.
But the Gallup poll question is properly asked…
“gay couples that would force people to swallow hard many times”
Gee, I haven’t been to a party like that in a long time.
Jim, good points. Had Lingle not vetoed the Hawai’i, bill at the same time I was returning from nearly 7 weeks of constant travel, I would have looked into her decision more.
I would she had signed the bill, but should I get a moment, will go back and review her reasons for the veto. We do need to counteract that pressure from the soc. cons.
Okay, so suppose we have civil unions for gays and marriage for straights, and all the priveleges and benefits are exactly the same. Does that mean we will be requiring that gay people start using different terminology to describe their union and relationship? For example, suppose some dude wants to propose to some dude at a sporting event. Will he be permitted to have the scoreboard operator display “Will you marry me, Jerry?” or will he have to say something like “Will you enter into a civil union with me, Jerry?” I’m being completely serious – if this is really coming down to an issue of terminology, this is something that needs to be considered.
What if in casual conversation, a gay couple explain to a conservative Christian couple that they were married last fall? What should be the ettiquette here? Will the conservatives correct the gays? What other marriage-related words will the Christians own? Grooms and brides? Husbands and wives? Wedding and honeymoon? Will all of these words be reserved for people that have straight marriages, and will gays have to come up with their own versions? Most importantly, will there be some kind of criminal or civic penalty if gays go around using the words to describe their relationship that Christians use to describe theirs?
Obviously, this completely underscores the ridiculousness of the conservative position on gay marriage. The claim being made here by the religious is that they should get special priveleges and get to define special words in a secular society. If they’re eventually worn down and can be convinced that they shouldn’t be getting these special priveleges, they at least want to keep the words! It just all sounds so stupid to me. Do you really want to be the jackass in a group of people that keeps reminding everyone that the gay couple technically isn’t married? Throngs of Christians want to be that person, I guess.
I’m with Rush on this one, MSM keeps coming out with polls, meanwhile, an election that really counts, cuz it’s not just a sampling of society, has CA, most liberal state still being against gay marriage.
Sorry, polls can be manipulated, 7 million more Califronians saying no, speaks more of the truth that any poll.
“Gay marriage is another matter entirely. I would say that many people want the matter to just go away and for the gay couples to live their lives quietly.
Many would. However, I’m out of the closet, I ain’t going back in, and my husband and I are happily married. Time they got over it. The court decision on Prop 8 outlines all the reasons why in a very thorough, reasoned way; every person who has an opinion on this issue should take the time to read it.
[Encouraging people to read this opinion, the whole opinion, would hardly change minds, indeed, it might make people less likely to support gay marriage, given the judge’s condescending attitude toward his critics and his shoddy constitutional scholarship and his ignorance of scientific research on sex differences these past 40 years. –Dan]
Interesting.
There are people who believe society and the law should define marriage to include same-sex couplings, obviously.
There are people who believe that same-sex couples should have the privilege of entering into an officially recognized relationship no matter what it is called.
There are people who oppose society and the law defining marriage to include same-sex unions, while believing that same-sex couples should have the privilege of entering into an officially recognized relationship under a different name.
There are people who oppose society and the law defining marriage to include same-sex unions, while having no opposition to same-sex couples having the privilege of entering into an officially recognized relationship under a different name. (I am one of them.)
There are people who believe that same-sex couples should not have any sort of benefit that is reserved for married couples. (There are enough of them that even swing states like Florida have constitutional provisions that prevent same-sex couples from having benefits reserved for married couples.)
that is between him and the scoreboard operator.
Of course, Jerry could reply “Yes”, “No”, or “Does it look like I have a vagina?”
I think there is another proposed FMA that would effectively reserve the issue to the states.
Maine was more liberal than California, and they repealed a same-sex marriage law by referendum.
“Does that mean we will be requiring that gay people start using different terminology to describe their union and relationship? For example, suppose some dude wants to propose to some dude at a sporting event. Will he be permitted to have the scoreboard operator display “Will you marry me, Jerry?” or will he have to say something like “Will you enter into a civil union with me, Jerry?” I’m being completely serious – if this is really coming down to an issue of terminology, this is something that needs to be considered.”
Only for those who want speech and thought police. Oh wait, I forgot who I’m talking to.
Well, it would be funny if a dude asked his male lover to marry him (in a society where different names are used for same-sex couples and married couples) and his lover replies, “Do I look like I have a vagina?”
Well, that’s precisely my point, but I’m not the person you have to worry about. That would be the group that insists that they own the word ‘marriage,’ and I’d like them to explain the logistics of their demands. If it makes them feel better that gays aren’t getting married but are allowed civil unions, then won’t they just be upset about gay couples running around talking about their husbands and wives and weddings and proposals?
Clearly, the ‘thought police’ side of the gay marriage argument is the religious faction – WELL WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED?
lol
Yes, they will be upset, just as some gays will be upset at the idea that people do not consider their unions to be marriages.
B Daniel Blatt-
I lived two years in Hawaii and am very familiar with the odd political climate in that state. It votes almost entirely Democrat, but tends to be very socially conservative.
When Lingle finally made her decision, she was attacked viciously and relentlessly. Everything was thrown at her, from being a right-wing Christian nut to being a self-hating Lesbian who couldn’t come to terms with her sexuality.
The fact of the matter is, the Hawaii House of Representatives is 88% Democrat and the State Senate is 92%. It only requires a 2/3 majority of both houses to override a veto. After the Lingle decision, the House said it would not attempt an override.
While all my friends were up in arms with Lingle, I kept pointing out that they really should be angry at their beloved, tolerant Democrat legislators that refused to override the veto.
Of course, nobody really cared about this little detail and their nasty attacks continue against Lingle.
I think it’s very telling of the constituents in the state that even a supermajority of supposedly gay-friendly Democrats won’t risk coming out on the side of Civil Unions. I didn’t read her decision, but it seems to me she was siding with the majority of residents in Hawaii.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the reason she cited for the veto is that she thought it was such an important societal issue that it should be put up to a vote of the people.
By the way, the vote to approve the bill in the House of Representitives was 30-21. Obviously it did not have 2/3 support to begin with.
Levi says:
Fool! Call yourself “married.” No one is going to care, let alone lock you up.
I love the part where you say “own the word ‘marriage.’ That is about all ‘marriage’ is to you: a word.
I have long said that society needs to reevaluate if there is any state interest whatsoever in regulating marriage.
Many people such as Levi insist that “gay marriage” absolutely does not open the door to plural marriage? Why? Because once gays have part ownership in the word ‘marriage’ they will lock the door?
Levi in #7 goes to extremes to create a silly argument that he then shoots down. He loves child’s play and pretending he can fly.
Levi, a zillion straight people, more or less, live in partnerships and raise children with no marriage license. They can take the trouble to get a “common-law” marriage piece of paper if they want. They can drop a few dollars on a J.P. and get a marriage certificate. Or, they can enroll their kids in school, buy insurance, pay taxes, etc. and stay independent of marriage.
I have never heard of anyone pitching a fit over the reality of a man and a woman and a house full of bastards. Gays who can not marry and who can not produce children seem to come up with adopted children. They are a step ahead of the hippy commune prototype or common Swedish model of avoiding marriage.
Your tunnel vision is remarkable.
No you’re not because the rest of that comment and the others you’ve posted prove that you have zero interest in being serious.
Chris H, how familiar are you with the “Equality” group in Hawai’i? Did they attempt to lobby the Governor at all on this? Or is their leadership, like such groups in most states (notably California) composed of Democrats with a partisan prejudice against Republicans?
Wonder if they could be effective lobbyists of a Republican Governor if they’re regularly pulling for the Democratic Party and its candidates
In fairness, Lingle represents Hawaii. It is easier to blame a single person than an institution.
They did not lobby the legislature hard enough.
Keep in mind that, as Chris H implies, a lot of liberals, even those who believe that there should be no discrimination against homosexuals in public employment and public housing, are wary of the idea of civil unions.
B Daniel Blatt –
I wasn’t very familiar with Equality Hawaii as HB444 came up after I left the state. What I can tell you is that the Hawaii LGBT community is a lot less organized than we’re used to here on the mainland. For instance, infighting between the two groups that handled the Pride Parade and the Pride Festival ended up in having the two events five weeks apart.
I think it stems from the LGBT community being very young (under 25) or retired (over 65). People in their late 20s to mid 30s, who would normally be more activist, tend to leave the islands for the mainland for better opportunities.
Now from what I recall reading during the aftermath of HB444, there was never a huge drive to lobby the legislature to override the veto. The House announced it would not attempt to undo the veto because it didn’t have the votes. One article I saw seemed to echo my observations when it speculated that some Democrats were worried about possible fall-out in the upcoming elections.
Since the veto of HB444, Lingle continues to be made the culprit. I still see the editorials and Facebook posts of my friends knocking Lingle. When I confront them with the fact that the legislature holds as much blame as the governor, they either ignore it or go back to blaming Lingle.
It will be interesting to watch the upcoming gubernatorial election. There are two big name Democrats running that have opposing views. Neil Abercrombie, the darling of the LGBT community, strongly supports civil unions. Mufi Hanneman, popular former mayor of Honolulu, strongly opposes civil unions. Depending on who wins the Democratic Primary, you could have both a Republican and Democratic candidate that are against civil unions.
Current polling indicates that Abercrombie is ahead of Hanneman by a few points, but there are still 21 percent of Democrat voters undecided. A matchup between either Democrat candidate and Aiona shows Aiona going down by a wide margin.
One more interesting thing to point out – Abercrombie had to give up his US House seat to run. Charles Djou, a Republican who opposes civil unions, won the special election to replace him. However, I think Djou’s victory was really the result of infighting between the two Democrat candidates, which ended up splitting the vote.
BTW, I apologize… I don’t know what happened to the paragraph spacing in the above post.
I’m simply expanding the Christian position on gay marriage to its logical conclusion. If you’re against gay marriage, but for civil unions for gays, then the only issue it seems that you can have is with the vocabulary. Do you honestly think the Christian masses, under a civil union scheme, will have no problem with gays referring to themselves as ‘being married?’
Well, everyone has their own opinions. But I think the important things in a marriage are values like honor, commitment, loyalty, family, and love. You know, that kind of thing.
But hold the phone everybody, heliotrope needs to have his government lift up skirts and look behind zippers to make sure that everyone’s got the appropriate genetalia before we can get into any of that other stuff. Call me crazy, but I think I have a far more positive view of marriage than you do if the number of penises in the equation is more important to you than the human emotions involved.
That’s at least a more consistent approach, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Gay marriage opens the door to plural marriage in the same way that straight marriage opens the door to plural marriage. Which is to say that it doesn’t open the door at all. Changing secular marriage laws so that two persons of any gender can marry is not the same as changing secular marriage laws so that any number of people can be married, or so grade-schoolers can be married, or so brother and sister can be married. They simply don’t have anything to do with one another, unless you assume some sort of common sexual deviance between all of these things, which is certainly the prevailing view of many in the Christian opposition. What else could you mean by ‘homosexuality is a sin’ if not that you think homosexuality is some kind of hideous perversion like incest?
And if gay marriage inevitably leads to plural marriage and child marriages, than won’t gay civil unions lead to plural civil unions and child civil unions?
What does that have to do with anything? I never said that there weren’t straight couples that lived like that, and I am sure that there would be gay couples who chose to live like that even if marriage was an option available to them. In any event, these people likely wouldn’t refer to themselves as being married.
Gay couples that are able to obtain a civil union almost definitely would, however, and I just want to know what Christians would do in these situations. It’s an interesting point. Would you get flustered if Steve proposed to Gary at the baseball stadium with a “Will you marry me?” Would you RSVP to a co-worker’s lesbian wedding if the invitation said “We’re getting married!” Do you really mean to tell me that the only thing that matters to you is that the government doesn’t call it marriage, and everyone else can call it whatever they want? That’s less than believable, to put it generously.
Hawaii is hardly a far-right state.
The fact that opposition to civil unions is significant there is revealing. Elevating opposite-sex couples above all others must really appeal beyond the conservatives and religious.
No and No.
I can not compel or prevent society from choosing to define marriage.
But there is no compelling argument as to why marriage should be defined regardless of the gender of the partners, or why different words for different things are discrimination.
I wonder how many people have changed their minds out of sheer exhaustion? Just wanting people to shut up about it for a change?
You speak as if that isn’t a winning strategy. Gay marriage is something that doesn’t affect in the slightest most of its opponents, so it kind of makes sense that there is some movement here. Why keep up a fight that you aren’t directly invested in?
The state has a clear reason to be involved in regulating marriage. It is part of helping the common law from getting super entangled.
However, when the government decides that moral relativism trumps the Judeo-Christian ethic, then I do not see why plural marriage, child marriage, and arranged marriage is kept off the table. Nor do I see why the government should step in to manage or over-rule honor killings. After all, moral relativism is all relative isn’t it?
Two men and two women can achieve love, sexual attraction, lust and gratification. But so can two men and two women as a foursome which swings between hetero one day and homo the next day and a full scale orgy the third day. What interest does society have in that?
If gay marriage is going to be part of our political and cultural landscape, then there really is very little I can do about it, right?
I have clearly stated my opposition to gay marriage. If I am over ruled, I will just have to adjust to it. I do not respect straights who create families and never marry. But that does not mean I go out of my way to annoy them.
You obviously have no real respect for marriage. You want it as some sort of societal recognition. Typically, you think respect can be legislated by a series of quotas and hate crimes.
Statistically, gays are an anomaly; a very small cohort in the whole of human kind. Your hopes and aspirations are largely no different than society at large. But your lusts are well out of the mainstream in the history of human and animal societies. Some people are drawn to rape, some to set fires, some to molest children, some to couple with animals. They are all differences from the statistical norm.
If you really want to discuss gaydom, try doing it without pretending that sex is not at the core of the issue.
Then tell me that all gay sexual behavior is the essentially the same and falls within a general code of gay moral relativism.
You may stick Mr. Happy wherever you like so long as it is in the privacy of your nest and the receiving end of Mr. Happy is not being victimized. If your lover comes home and finds you and Mr. Happy being unfaithful, I really do not care. You see, no matter what the circumstances, if you are being true to your impulses, you can not create a child that will bear the sins of the father.
I would love to hear your reasoning on why marriage should be recognized by the state at all. And perhaps you can tell me why three shouldn’t marry or why one partner must be human.
And since you are so certain of evolution and reject intelligent design, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the evolutionary speciality of homosexuality.
One more thing I should add.
People have pointed out that the newest generation of adults has no problem with defining marriage without the use of gender classifications.
But that does not necessarily mean that they care what same-sex unions are called, or that it is morally wrong to use different names for same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions.
The main argument against using different words is that it reeks of segregation, separate but equal, that it is immoral. But the newest generation never witnessed segregation or the civil rights movement. Most of them do not have parents who were at least ten years of age during the civil rights movement. Appeals that the same word must be used on this basis would not resonate. They would not fathom the concept that it is somehow wrong to use different names for different things. After all, if they do not consider calling gay people gay or straight people straight to be insulting or demeaning, how would they consider different words for gay unions and straight unions insulting or demeaning?
Off to a good start…
…. and off the rails by the second paragraph. Not sure how you’re arguing that expanding marriage rights to gays constitutes ‘moral relativism,’ unless you’re letting your religious beliefs influence your attitudes toward secular law, which in this country renders all your opinions invalid. If you feel that your religion justifies your belief that gays are amoral sinners, that’s fine and dandy, but you’re not allowed to make laws based on those attitudes.
And the Judeo-Christian ethic is not the foundation of the United States government, it isn’t sitting there waiting to be ‘trumped’ by moral relativism or anything else for that matter. The brilliance underlying the United States is that no religion has any kind of primacy or special favor, mostly because all of these religious dictates are so arbitrary and prone to misinterpretation.
If gay marriage leads to these kinds of orgies, then why doesn’t straight marriage? The number of people getting married is set and that isn’t going to change, and the minor detail of ignoring sexual orientation in handing out marriage licenses will have absolutely no effect on the laws that protect people against polygamy and child marriage. The concept of marriage appeals to people that want to be married because of the committment and companionship involved – if people want to be in open relationships and have foursomes and that kind of thing, what they’re looking for is something entirely different than two people that want to make a committment to one another. Human beings are extremely complex and that’s why the idea of pairing off is such a universal characteristic – trying to maintain loving, committed relationships with more than one person is extremely difficult.
Well, I consider it somewhat annoying that you can parade around as some arbiter of morality that tries to get the government to intervene in other peoples’ lives on behalf of your righteous moral indignation. It just doesn’t make sense why it matters to you wether or not two gay people are married in the eyes of the government the same way that two straight people are married.
Well, I don’t care if you think I have no respect. As I said before, I think my view of marriage is a far more positive one than yours, which seems to be more concerned about religious fealty and sex organs than committment and love. Sorry heliotrope, this isn’t the Dark Ages, and you don’t get to have it your way because God told you so. This is a secular society built on principles of freedom and justice, and if you’re going to give benefits to male/female couples, then it is required that you give benefits to male/male and female/female couples as well.
Completely pathetic. That you’ll toss gays into a category of people that includes pedophiles, arsonists, and rapists to dismiss them all as some random anomalies that can be steamrolled as it pleases your religious convictions demonstrates exactly how much stock to put in your claims of moral superiority – none. You’re assuming an underlying deviance here that is as unfounded as it is un-American.
I don’t know what you want from me, I don’t think that sex is at the core of the issue – I think that most people, gay or straight, desire long-term, committed relationships. It’s good for people, it’s stable for society, and if you’re going to reward that behavior in one group of people, then it is unconstitutional to deny that same reward to another group based on their sexual orientation. I don’t know what sex has to do with it – is this about the inability of two gay people to procreate?
I don’t know what this has to do with anything. Obviously you care at least to some degree, if you’re intent that people who are no different than you except for where they stick Mr. Happy be denied the same rights and priveleges from the government.
It’s fairly obvious that human beings as a species find the idea of one lifelong mate very appealing based on how universal it is among most cultures and throughout history. It would undoubtedly remain a popular practice even without government promotion, but the complexities of industrial society provide a good justification in my mind for the government extending benefits to married couples. Families are a good base unit to build communities and states and countries around. It certainly isn’t hurting anything, either.
Humans are incredibly unique in that once we’re born, our brain still has the better part of three decades to continue to develop. Knowing what causes someone to become a homosexual is as difficult as knowing what causes someone to become an Einstein-level genius or a Hitler-level crazy person. There are simply too many variables to hammer down with any specificity why some people behave this way, and others behave another way. Homosexuality certainly isn’t the only behavior that human beings take part in that is counterproductive to passing on your genes; committing crimes and killing yourself do that as well. Just because human beings do things that lower their chances of reproductive success doesn’t mean that evolution is any less IRONCLAD.
Now, since I could see the smirk on your face through the internet when you typed that, I’d like you to explain how the existence of homosexuals makes even a smidgeon of sense in your religious worldview. God doesn’t want anyone to have homosexual sex, but he creates a bunch of people that want to have homosexual sex? Why? Is he testing them? Why do they get such a confusing and unfair test? Does he expect gay people to figure out how to stop being attracted to their own gender? Isn’t that kind of an asshole move? I don’t expect gay people to stop being attracted to their preferred sex any more than I would expect to be able to stop being attracted to women, so how come God gave me the easy path?
Pffft…. religion is the dumbest thing in the world. Of course, I know the answer, that easy dismissal, that rote catch-all, say it with me now; “GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!” lol…. Jesus = L. Ron Hubbard
Whew! After wading through muck and mire, Levi gets to:
And the same does not apply to plural marriages? Why? Because Levi says so?
And, if you “don’t think that sex is at the core of the issue” why do you end this statement with a reference to “sexual orientation”? (as if attraction to the same sex is different than attraction to a goat or little boys or setting fires.)*
ASTOUNDING ! ! ! !
You do not see that it is fairly obvious that human beings as a species find the idea of one lifelong mate of the opposite sex very appealing based on how universal it is among most cultures and throughout history.
How very convenient for your moral relativistic self.
Here dissolveth the argument.
Levi, you mock God and carry an animus toward those of faith. You are welcome to flail about and make your stack of moral blocks to suit your particular wants and needs. But you can not rule the Judeo-Christian ethic out of existence. Mao and Stalin and others tried and filled the fields of death camps with bodies they crushed but they never killed the faith.
All religion aside, you are still a coward about addressing the point. If marriage is expanded to accept two men or two women (Notice I didn’t say anything about sex) then why shouldn’t it accept plural marriage? And if the plural marriage is a devoted cult that deflowers little girls by the elders, what difference does it make if it is good for the cult and a stable family that does not affect society? After all if you are going to reward one group of people with the right of marriage, then it is unconstitutional, Levi would say, to deny that same reward to another group of people based on their …….
Moral relativism is really easy. That is why it is so seductive. People love to think they really get it. It makes them feel superior. They don’t have to be humble or atone or even change their ways.
(*) Your arguments about homosexuality are all about attraction to the same sex. You try to keep sex apart from homosexuality which is a more than passing strange desperate attempt to cleanse the argument. The Catholic church has had a terrible conflict with some priests being sexual predators on the boys in the parish. Other priests zero in on the boys in the parish to help them grow away from the gangs and the neighborhood and make something of themselves. What is the difference in the “attraction” Levi?
Is homosexuality deviant behavior? If you are trying to make children it is flat out stupid. If you are satisfying mister happy, it is lust. If you are luring others into your way of getting satisfaction it is at least a vice. Is it deviant behavior? The jury is not in on that question. However, if a medical test is created to identify the homosexual in the fetal stage or if gene therapy appears for changing homosexuals into heterosexuals ….. the society at large will answer the question by their actions. I do not believe there would be a rush to have the fetus planted with the homosexual gene. But that is just me.
Though I see absolutely no validity behind your insistence that gay marriage inherently justifies plural marriage, I will address why it is not an ideal family unit. It’s a useless point because changing the number of people getting married is a major overhaul in secular society that would affect far more than the people getting married, while changing the gender requirements is a comparably slight and societally insignificant change.
And that’s really the point; it’s hard to imagine a single part of society that wouldn’t be altered dramatically by plural marriage. You would have to completely throw out modern inheritance law, divorce law, tax law, property law, child custody law, etc. Employers would have to rework their benefit and pay offerings, insurance companies would have to rework their coverage policies, schools and hospitals would have to change their polices, and on and on and on. Would gay marriage necessitate such drastic changes? I can’t think of a single one.
If plural marriage had been a common thread throughout our history and we had founded the United States and written marriage law with plural marriage as the default position, that would be one thing. But it wasn’t, and it’s because plural marriage is not as appealing an idea to human beings as monogamous marriage. Even if plural marriage were to be legalized, I wouldn’t expect anyone to in any great numbers to take part in it. One-on-one relationships are complex enough for most people and entering into a plural marriage is just asking to feel neglected and jealous and alone.
As for the rest of it…
Here dissolveth the argument.
Oh please. It’s the person who invokes God in the first place that is responsible for dissolving the argument. If anything, my ridiculing of your God and your beliefs is an attempt to put the argument back on track. You need to realize that every time you default to God-says-this or God-says-that, you’re abandoning the argument completely.
The phrase “Judeo-Christian” is just a little propagandistic technique used by the religious to try to make people like me feel that I owe something to religion. It’s not going to work. Call it what you’d like, but I’m content referring to “western civilzation’ or ‘Liberalism’ or ‘American values.’ God didn’t do anything to help us along this path and while there have been good Christians and good Jews to move humanity forward over the years, there have been just as many people holding us back, i.e., religious fundamentalists’ opposition to gay marriage.
Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that is not the same as a religious belief that you should be allowed as many wives as you’d like. The government can’t discriminate on the basis of religion, but I could hold that it was my religious belief that I need to be married to Beyonce and Shakira, that doesn’t mean the government has to be abide by my views.
Well, the thing is, no one cares about your stupid interpretation of your imaginary God’s law. If you remove that delusion from the equation, then there is no moral argument against homosexuality. And guess what? Our system of laws is built around removing those kinds of delusions from the equation, so any attempt to invoke moral indignation is useless – again, you’re completely abandoning the argument when you decide to go there.
I don’t understand your characterization of my position. How am I trying to remove sex from homosexuality? That’s basically the defining characteristic – if you’re a homosexual, you prefer to have sex with members of your own gender. My point is that in the eyes of the government and good citizens who respect individual freedom and privacy, who someone chooses to have sex with is completely irrelevant.
The jury is not in on whether or not homosexuality is a morally deviant? We’re just too different; I’m trying to talk about the real world and what we are doing here on this planet, and you’re always striving to imagine what your fantasy of a creator wants you to think and do. Why isn’t the jury in on homosexuality? If that’s so, then couldn’t it be said that the jury isn’t in on murder? Why does God like to keep us so hopelessly in the dark when things get confusing?
Also, lol at ‘luring others into your way of getting satisfaction,’ as if homosexuality is a disease you can catch from a toilet seat.
Levi,
1) You can not find anytime, anywhere where I resorted to religion or a “God says so” statement. One of the characteristics of Jesuit training is not to rely on what the Bible says, but to challenge the concept that God does not exist. You are a floundering, babbling tadpole in your whole world without faith blatherings.
Here you are at #31:
Here you are at #34:
Uh, if sex is not at the core of homosexuality (the issue) how can it also be the defining characteristic – if you’re a homosexual?
2) If how you do sex is what defines homosexuality, then why isn’t your sexual “orientation” not the core issue in claiming a “civil right” protected under the 14th Amendment? It is not the person that is being denied, it is the action of the person that is not covered as a “third” gender.
3.) Take your plural marriage crap and peddle it at the local Mosque. And while you are there, cram homophobia down their throats.
4.) Your determination to ignore Judeo-Christian ethic is desperate beyond anything remotely resembling humor. The humanities are rife with the Judeo-Christian ethic. Spanish, Dutch, French, English, Portuguese, Swedish, Dane, German, Italian, Basque, Swiss, Irish, Scotch, Austrian, Greek, Russian and more earlier settlers were all wrapped up in the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Maybe you are wiser than I about the amalgamated Mongolian ethic the indigenous settlers laid down or what the Gullah tribal influence had on our development. Perhaps you can divorce the Judeo-Christian ethic from English Common Law or the Code Napolean, but I doubt that any prestigious law school in the country could do the same with an assembly of top scholars working on the project.
Levi, faith requires trust, loyalty and commitment. Moral relevancy is subject to change at a moment’s notice. You can not be loyal to a code that is not steeped in tradition and commitment.
When a soldier goes to war, he lays aside his opinion for the integrity of the unit. That means he puts himself in front of people trying to kill him. He does it because of faith. Faith does not save him from death, but it is a far more cohesive force than the chaos of every man for himself cowardliness.
Moral relevancy is nothingness and an open door to statism and rule by the force of the elite.
Had you brushed up against just a little bit of world history, you would know this.