Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Rhyfelwyr]

Boo!

Well, even though Vermont's decision was about as democratic as it can get, apparently the whole thing is a plot by rich hummasexuals to destroy democracy. No, really.

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

The religious right has taken things way too far in this respect. When I see these US Christian families sitting eating dinner together and saying grace it sends a shiver down my spine - they say the left wants to attack the individual! I think they are forgetting that 'family' meant an economic arrangement to their Puritan forefathers. But then, I'm maybe not the best to comment, since people tell me my family's like the one in Malcolm in the Middle.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I'd just like to add that, in my parents' opinions, there was very little outside influence on this legislation. Apparently there were clergy from both sides testifying before the legislature, but really very little action was taken by outside groups and this bill passed with far less conflict than the civil unions legislation.

[PowerWizard]

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with gays. I just find it amusing that gays want marry, despite marriage is between man and woman. I won't go to further explanations why do I think it is, I think it's either self-explanatory or not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

Ok, I was just stating that last post because I have heard the argument that Government can not dictate what marriage is if it is not a civil institution.

[KarlXII]

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

If you recall, racial equality was not supported by a majority for a long, long time.

The same with gay marriage. With time, my friend, with time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

The Knights support the position of the Church which defines marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments. Though the church also opposes civil unions between same-sex couples, this stance seems less adamant.

[Lemur]

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us.

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Also, as long as I'm picking on you, how does one "force the issue" with a "superlative"?

[KarlXII]

[QUOTE=Lemur;2202894] pastor's Greatest HitsQUOTE]

With such hits as:

John, 3:16
He Died for Our Sins
Crumbling the Walls of Jericho (Remix)

[Xiahou]

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it. Religions base their teachings on many things including the bible, scholarly discussion, ect. Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition. Look at the Ten Commandments for starters.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

That's a pretty nice strawman you've built yourself there.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Also, not only is that false to begin with, but there's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

But if marriage is a civil not social institution, then it must treat everyone the same, including same sex marriage. Brown vs Board of Education stated that separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal. Marriage and civil unions are supposedly separate but equal, but under that ruling it is unconstitutional, therefore same sex marriage is legal and the judges are right to rule in its favor.

That is, like you presented, if marriage is to be a civil not a social institution.

[Lemur]

That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it.

See Abraham and Issac and then get back to me about human sacrifice. Anyway, your reducito ad absurdium has shaky legs; even atheists know enough not to engage in abhorrent practices. You don't need the Divine to not be a complete monster. Basic moral principles are a priori.

Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition.

The key word in that sentence is "some."

Also, not only is that false to begin with

Asserting something doesn't make it so. Declaring something to be a "strawman" without deigning to back up the claim is poor manners.

There's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.

And how, exactly, does that contradict my point that "The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus"?

I think humility is extremely important when asking about God and His will. As I said, God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. Take a look at what he had to say to Job and get back to me. Anyone who claims to know His will in picayune detail is delusional. We should all be humble before the Lord, and maybe even attempt to fathom how little we are capable of understanding.

Anyway, to bring this back to the hummasexual mafia and the destruction of America, every pastor I've ever heard denounce teh gayzorz has done so based on three sentences in Leviticus. Catholics have their own hierarchy and special rules which I am not going to make any attempt to summarize.

This is not a country ruled by clergy, thank God, and this is not a nation founded on Catholicism. Or Presbyterianism. Or Baptism or Seventh Day Adventism or Mormonism or Pentecostalism or the Anglican Union or Lutheranism or Methodism. This is a nation of democracy and laws. If you have a case to make against Vermont, please feel free to make it.

-edit-

Some brilliant person just leaked the audition tapes for the latest National Organization for Marriage advert (at least they don't have "family" in their name). Watch them pretend to be victimized. It's more than amusing.

Tape 1, tape 2, and the final advertisement.

[Lord Winter]

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

So by extension, should the Supreme Court not overturn anti sodomy laws?

[ajaxfetish]

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Well, depending on your choice of translation, there's a pretty good argument to be made for condemnation in some of the Pauline epistles as well. Either way, however, there's plenty of room for interpretation and modern application.

Ajax

[Xiahou]

See Abraham and Issac and then get back to me about human sacrifice. Anyway, your reducito ad absurdium has shaky legs; even atheists know enough not to engage in abhorrent practices. You don't need the Divine to not be a complete monster. Basic moral principles are a priori.

Unless my memory is horribly flawed, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaas- so I don't see where "see"ing that will change my view. Where atheists draw their moral direction from is totally irrelevant to my point, which I will re-state: All religions claim to know the will of God to varying degrees. The point of my example was to state that most all organized religions, in general, all maintain that having a basic level of civility towards fellow man is the will of God and I don't think anyone would call that finding hubris. Christianity in general, and Catholicism in specific (again, the viewpoint that I think TSM is coming from) come to an understanding on the will of God from many sources- the bible is certainly one of them, but not the only one. Based on thousands of years of Catholic teaching, I don't think it's overly presumption for a believing Catholic to state that God does not approve of homosexual unions.

Asserting something doesn't make it so. Declaring something to be a "strawman" without deigning to back up the claim is poor manners.

I'm not sure what you want me to back up. You put forward the "Leviticus" argument, which no one here made, and then proceeded to knock it down. You don't get much more strawman than that- I think it was pretty obvious to everyone. As to "poor manners" I think it's making the strawman and putting words in someone's mouth that's poor manners- not pointing it out.

Anyway, to bring this back to the hummasexual mafia and the destruction of America, every pastor I've ever heard denounce teh gayzorz has done so based on three sentences in Leviticus. Catholics have their own hierarchy and special rules which I am not going to make any attempt to summarize.

Just because you've never heard or bothered to look for any other arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not a bible scholar, nor do I want to carry on a biblical debate- as I've said, my religion's beliefs have more to them than just the bible -, but I'll throw you the most common New Testatment reference I've heard just to prove my point that not all biblical arguments are based on Leviticus: Romans, 1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why are the Americans even discussing what 'God' wants? Or, rather, what they personally want, disguised as what their god wants?

Isn't that an attack on other people's freedom of religion? Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant? Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

[Lemur]

Unless my memory is horribly flawed, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaas

Who's "Issas"? God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac in the first place. This has implications which you don't seem to have thought through.

All religions claim to know the will of God to varying degrees.

"Varying degrees" has replaced "some." I think your first version was more apt.

Based on thousands of years of Catholic teaching, I don't think it's overly presumption for a believing Catholic to state that God does not approve of homosexual unions.

Based on at least a hundred years of documented gay, philandering and/or pedophile clergy, I don't quite understand where the Church is coming from on this issue. But it's not my church, so I'll walk away quietly.

I'm not a bible scholar, nor do I want to carry on a biblical debate

But you'll toss some verses out if you think they'll prove your point. Nice. Try this one on for size:

Galatians 3:18: "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

There are plenty more where that came from. Your selective reading of the Bible is typical of those on the far rightwing. Quote the book when it reinforces your viewpoint, ignore the weird hippie stuff.

I suppose we should spin this off into its own thread.

Did anybody watch those videos I posted? They're hilarious.

-edit-

Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

As I said, and Xiahou ignored:

This is not a country ruled by clergy, thank God, and this is not a nation founded on Catholicism. Or Presbyterianism. Or Baptism or Seventh Day Adventism or Mormonism or Pentecostalism or the Anglican Union or Lutheranism or Methodism. This is a nation of democracy and laws. If you have a case to make against Vermont, please feel free to make it.

Unfortunately, Xiahou only responds to the parts of an argument that are congruent with his methodology; seize upon a detail that you believe you can disprove, ignore everything else, no matter if the detail is irrelevant to the overall thread or whether you're ignoring salient points. Then doggedly hang on to the point you think you can win, ignore everything else, and concede nothing, ever.

Charming stuff, really.

[Lemur]

The National Review in 1957:

The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.

The National Review yesterday:

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals [...]

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Galatians 3:18: "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Spiritually, yes. On earth, Jews have a special inheritance that Gentiles do not. On earth, some people are enslaved, and others remain free. On earth, people are born biologically male or female, and are expected to desire heterosexual relationships (as other parts of the scripture make clear).

[Andres]

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage

Was God elected? If not, then what does He have to do with legislation?

[KarlXII]

Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

This is probably the best contribution I've seen.

[Lemur]

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders.

[KarlXII]

On earth, some people are enslaved, and others remain free.

Does this mean we should allow them to remain enslaved?

Also, to the "WELL GOD SAYS ITS WRONG!!!!1" folks, what would your reaction be if Muslims started pushing for all our hot Texan chicks to start wearing those head scarfs?

[rvg]

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders.

Makes sense to me. According to the author, propagation of gay marriage is an indicator of the moral decline, and moral decline within the society causes mass murders. Arguable, but plausible. He even explicitly states that he does *not* believe that gay rights somehow cause mass murders.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was merely asking where this push is coming from if not from God's will or the will of the majority.

In fact, it is counterindicated by both. The push seems to be less logical than emotional and appeals to no existing superlative other than the one that exclaims that there is no transcendent morality beyond what exists within the individual.

I reject that position and I reject the idea of Gay marriage. I support Democratic ideals, so I won't say that this Vermont decision is illegitimate.

[Lemur]

The push seems to be less logical than emotional and appeals to no existing superlative other than the one that exclaims that there is no transcendent morality beyond what exists within the individual.

TuffStuff, could you unpack this sentence a little? I'm having a hard time following your argument. Also, I do not understand how you're using the word "superlative." Could you help a brutha out?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Does this mean we should allow them to remain enslaved?

Of course not, I just think Lemur was confusing spiritual equality with temporal equality. Men and women are quite clearly biologically different, by his interpretation of Galations 3:18 you would have to argue they are not.

[Lemur]

Rhyfelwyr, you're choosing your interpretation of that passage. Fine by me, but don't pretend it's the only reading.

Apologies for this derailment. Here, something on-topic:

There is all sorts of empirical evidence that the public is growing more accepting of the idea of gay marriage. What happened in Vermont yesterday would never have happened five years ago. And it's not hard to see from the age breakdown of poll respondents where this issue is heading. How completely insulated and oblivious do you have to be to think public opinion on this issue is static?

I also love the casual assertion that "marriage is by nature the union of a man and woman," as if marriage is some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon like evaporation or mitosis. Marriage is a social construct. It's whatever we say it is. And it has meant many different things over the course of human history. For instance, polygamous marriage was once very common (still is in some parts of the world). And for many centuries, marriage was primarily a financial arrangement and a way of ensuring inheritance rights. Women were essentially bought and sold. The modern concept of love as a basis for marriage is of relatively recent vintage. And civil marriage is a very different thing than religious marriage (which itself differs from religion to religion and culture to culture). The idea that there is some sort of platonic essence to marriage is just rubbish. Marriage was created by human beings and human beings can choose how they want to define it.