Gay marriage

As soon as you take your religious agenda out.

Its a human rights agenda. I would fight for yours as well.

Obviously you think other people don't have a right to have a say in what kind of country and society they want to have.

I think you need to take your destructive homosexuality agenda to the trash can where it belongs.

I count us as human beings first, americans second, and whatever everyone's religious or special beliefs are as a distant third.

Those who flip that deserve worse that they will probably ever get.

I don't think you have the faintest idea what human rights are. And what an ugly thing it is for people like you to peddle a destructive agenda in the name of human rights.
An insult to everyone who has had their real human rights trampled on.

So?
Maybe he was about to come out of the closet just before they killed him.

There are no 'real' vs 'fake' human rights. They are what they are and do not rely on institutions to grant them or individuals to recognize them. They are intrinsic, which is to say the people you hate have the same rights as the people you love. Whether or not you recognize this is again irrelevant to their existence.

In the service of a 'more perfect union' it makes sense to align our processes and laws as closely as possible with the notion of the universality of the rights of humans. The phrase 'more perfect' is a good one as it suggests that where the founders felt they were able to get to was going to fall short and over time need to be realigned and pushed forward.

A human rights 'agenda' would be destructive only for those for those that feel they are benefiting from a system that arbitrarily declares a subset of the population as more human and privileged vs another less human and with less recognized rights. The constitution was constructed with these types of flaws in them, and over time they have been excised like the cancers on the body public that they were. Those other then white male protestants owe some gratitude for the freedom they now enjoy. Often this freedom comes with a very short memory as they attempt to wield freedom like a weapon to cut down others less fortunate than themselves.

John supposedly WAS the disciple that he 'loved'.

Maybe it's contagious ..

The claim that it is a "human rights agenda" has long ceased to be plausible.

The whole existence of the country is a human rights agenda, but I beginning to see that you don't get that.

The arrogance of some Christians is astounding. Jesus also claimed that he was the king of Israel and the son of God -- indeed, the personification of God himself. Now hold tight here, this may be too much - not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone believes in what Jesus supposedly said (and we do not have his own writing to consult). Not everyone seeks to or deserves to be subjected to laws based on what Jesus is supposed to have said. You tight-headed theocrats are going to have to somehow learn to live with that. If you can't, it's your problem to solve.

@AlessandraR: In point of fact, dearie, is it YOU and those of your ilk who know nothing about human rights and don’t wish to know anything about the subject. Human rights inhere in the human condition. Individual humans are the RIGHTS HOLDERS and the States (state, federal, international bodies) are the DUTY HOLDERS. The rights holders have the rights. The duty holders are obligated to grant, fulfill and protect the rights of the rights holders.

Among those rights which inhere in the human condition is the right to associate oneself intimately with another of one’s choice, to have that association – known as a family – recognized among his or her peers and community, and to live together in peace and security. This is called a “marriage”.

The right to marry, then, is composed of the right to choose whether and, then, whom to marry, to formalize that marriage, and to see that marriage legally acknowledged and respected in one’s community as a marriage.

When the State, for whatever reason, denies two people the opportunity to freely and willingly marry each other, where these are mutually consenting and competent adults , and where there is no compelling State interest, otherwise, that State denies the marital partners their fundamental human right to marry.

Notice that in all of this discourse, the issue of religion simply doesn’t enter into it. Especially in the United States, but also in every other secular nation, the religious definition of marriage is simply irrelevant to whether the State shall grant, fulfill and protect the right of the citizens to marry.

Furthermore, while you, in particular, harken back to the ancient society of the Jews for inspiration as to what should constitute a marriage, you will note that you are in the minority in all the world. So are Christians, overall. Most people in the world are neither Christian, nor Jew nor Muslim, in fact, and do not necessarily cleave to the ancient myths enunciated in the Bible about what is right for all marital partners.

Yet, EVERYONE in the world has the right to marry the person of their choice, or not, as they wish. We cannot allow that the right to marry should be conditioned on adherence to any one set of religious principles or other, as religion is simply irrelevant to marriage, as such.

Don't use the bible to justify homosexuality and that is in response to the article that maybe Jesus accepted it. No he didn't... You have to look for other sources to support this, maybe nature can back you up if you want to live like animals. Christians are not arrogant, we are humble sheep led by the Lord.

kenyanpaul: My comment was short and quite simple. Not once in it will you find any words attempting to use the bible to justify anything. My point is that those who have only the bible to cite may do so, but we aren't under any obligations to live under biblical law. My comment mentioned nothing about Jesus accepting anything at all. My very, very simple point was that not everyone accepts Jesus. Clear now?

NdiliMfumu in reply to AlessandraR May 20th, 01:41

@AlessandraR: In point of fact, dearie, is it YOU and those of your ilk who know nothing about human rights and don’t wish to know anything about the subject.

A completely baseless affirmation, just more of your nonsense.

What liberals want is complete lack of accountability for being as irresponsible and harmful regarding sexuality and relationships as they can possibly be. If you start questioning their corrupt sexuality agenda, they call you "arrogant" and all kinds of other names.

If they are not doing something harmful regarding sexuality, they are being negligent to everyone else who is.

smer Tass: If you failed to notice I was responding to the article itself which says in part:

"Though Jesus, as far as the Gospels tell us, was silent on the subject, and Matthew has him noting that some people have no interest in the opposite sex because they're just born that way."

I think your position of rejecting the Bible is more honest the authout of this article's hypocritical and revisionist claims about Jesus and his views on marriage. He would have made a more consistent argument if he just told readers to reject the Bible because obviously it doesn't support gay marriage.

My apologies, kenyanpaul, but it appeared that your comment was a response to mine. This thread is far too heavy at this point, and the flow of responses is getting sloppy. I do apologize if my reply to you was terse and misdirected. I may not agree with you, but as long as you are being reasonable and respectful, I have reason to regress to pointless bantering. I'll take your comments in good faith. Cheers.

Modern psychiatry, dearie, agrees, along with all other reasoned and reasonable professions, that

(1) Sexual orientation constitutes a spectrum of sexual responsiveness, which includes heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality and transexuality; and that

(2) These varying sexualities, in and of themselves, are no in way a kind of "disease" to be cured, but that they are merely varying expressions of the broad spectrum of human sexuality.

To continue, as you do, to speak of homosexuality, in particular, as if it were some kind of problem for homosexuals is to entirely miss the point: The only people who consider it a problem are uninformed, unintelligent and often rabidly homophobic people, but not in any way the average homosexual, himself.

The "cure" is to eradicate homophobia and to treat all people equally, everywhere. Homosexuality is a natural part of the human condition and hardly anything to be "cured". It has been a normal part of the human experience since before we were "human", as is readily seen from any casual observation of our nearest evolutionary cousins, i.e., chimps, bonobos and all the other primates. The fact that homosexuality is seen among a broad and diverse group of species proves that such broad and varying sexual orientation is essential to the survival of any highly social species, such as ours.

Naturally, AlessandraR, you will continue to solipsisticly deny that these facts I have presented to you, here, have any basis in reality. You will insist, instead, as you always do, that if it wasn’t said in the Bible in plain and simple English, then it cannot be true. The fact that the Bible was not written in English, but in Ancient Greek and Aramaic, won’t bother you at all in continuing your assertions to the contrary.

You will continue to assert from mere casuistry, alone, that LGBT people are pursuing a corrupt agenda when pursuing their legitimate and natural, fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. You will urge that it is unChristian and forbidden for two men or two women to marry in Christ, when nothing in the Bible states anything to the contrary. Worse, you will continue to cry “nonsense”, whenever we point out to you that, in these United States, religion is fully irrelevant to whether or not the State will grant a license to marry to anyone, and that the right to marry is guaranteed to each of us Americans by no less than the US Constitution.

When you’re ready to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion of the real issues, here, rather than slinking off into sophism and solipsism, do let us know.

yup, every child molesting priest lives by the precepts. see the log in your own eye before the mote in another.

@LuPerusa: You put forth a curious mix of proposed tolerance and, almost in the same breath, striking intolerance. You appear clearly confused about matters going to basic biology and human sexuality, let alone religion. One cannot clear up all this confusion for you, here. However ...

The mere fact that most people are recognizably male or female doesn't mean everyone is: There are people who are called "intersexed", precisely because they have genitalia of both sexes and, often, they have more than just an XY or XX genotype. They are still all God's children, no?

There is a distinction to be drawn between genetic sex, apparent sex (gender), one's role in society (gender role), and one's sexual orientation (straight/gay/bi/tran). Libraries have been filled with these distinctions. You should begin to read some of them.

Suffice it to say, however, that the Bible and most religions were written at a time when mankind knew little or nothing of these distinctions, when the one was taken to imply the other, and when "men were men and women women". Today, however, we know better.

Gender role, in particular, is entirely fluid and culturally defined. Margret Meade made this point in her work in Papua New Guinea nearly 100 years ago, already. The idea that women should stay at home and raise kids behind a hot stove is a gender role (and a stereotype) befitting an older time. It has little real relation to the modern, post-industrialized, service-oriented economy of today's world.

Genetic sex is not at all mutable, and apparent sex little more so, but it is always very apparent that these have no direct relationship to the fourth issue, here, which is sexual orientation: There are gay people and straight people of both sexes. The one does not determine the other.

What people in the LGBT community and elsewhere often find so very troubling about some Christians (yourself, perhaps, included) is their stubborn and often mindless insistence on adhering to thoroughly and obviously false interpretations of the ancient religions for the proposition that modern and fundamental human rights should be abridged and abandoned, and that people should be treated differently, let alone pejoratively, on the basis of their sex or their sexual orientation.

In particular, you imageine that there is a "natural plan" enunciated in the Bible from which the LGBT community is "deviating". But this is resoundingly untrue and merely replicates the homophobic bias of Aquinas, that war-mongering medieval monk.

Time for you to get an education and modernize your views, quite entirely.

"Gender role, in particular, is entirely fluid and culturally defined." This is patently false. And no, Mead's 'evidence' is not real evidence. A lot of problems have been found with her procedures since those early years when everybodgy got so heady about her work.

Gender role is obviously influenced by culture, even heavily influenced, but it has its root in biology, in the distinction between male and female. Nor is this distinction wiped out by the existence of a very few anomamous individuals who do not fit the 'mold'.

On the contrary: pre-modern cultures were often incredibly brutal in dealing with such unfortunates. Remember the Spartan practice of exposing children who were considered flawed? What did you think they did with babies found to have both sexes' genitals?

BTW: you show your own deep ignorance of history when you slander Aquinas as a "war mongering monk". on the contrary: his elaboration of "just war theory" was a CURB on war mongering, and that not just for only his own time.

Have you made a study of it or is this just based on anecdotal evidence? If you have made a study of it, please cite your source.

“[Gender role] has its root[s] in biology, in the distinction between male and female.” Your assertion, here, is completely groundless, SyllyBoy. If you feel otherwise, you may surely name your sources. As a biologist and a physician, I can assure you that you don’t know what you’re taking about, not at all.
Most particularly, “gender role” refers to a societal construct about the proper place and functions of a person in any particular society, which is assigned to that person on the basis of their apparent sex. Margret Meade’s work in this was seminal and has been advanced in the 100 years since by countless other cultural anthropologists. But the fundamental thrust of her work remains true, today: Cultures create and cultures destroy gender roles, and these are as fluid as any culture. And as we know, culture is completely fluid.
Most particularly, culture and with it, gender role, is heavily influenced by the prevailing economic basis of society. In hunting-gathering societies (such as, Papua New Guinea of 100 years ago, and some Amazonian and Congo rainforest tribes, yet today), there is no particular advantage to physical dimorphism and, so, no advantage to masculinity, as such. In such societies, the culture typically does not exalt the male sex nor deprecate the female sex. Marriages tend to be open and plural, and bisexual/homosexual expression is commonly recognized. Gender roles are highly varying and often very different than what they are in patriarchally organized pastoral or agricultural societies, let alone modern societies. While pastoral and agricultural societies are often patriarchal, this arises because of the relative advantage of the physical strength and endurance of the male over the female. Masculinity becomes exalted and many of these societies, especially in the last 2000 years, have become heterosexist and male chauvinist. But not invariably and not without significant hiatuses, in which they adopt a much less male chauvinist position. In modern societies, again, there is no longer any advantage to being “bigger and stronger”, and so no need to exalt masculinity. In fact, exalting masculinity merely gets in the way of being the most productive and stable, and it tends rather to encourage unproductive and dangerously warlike behavior (compare Tokugawa and Meiji Japan, for instance).
Your counterpoint based on one society’s cruelty to its intersexed babies in no way vitiates the pattern shown to you, here, and in my earlier comments. Moreover, as you remember, the Spartans were very warlike and, despite their warlike nature and their prevalence over the more enlightened Athens, they were shortly thereafter overrun and subjugated by the Thebans, who had rather different views on the value of masculinity and on gender roles.
As to Aquinas (“you slander Aquinas as a ‘war mongering monk’ ”), aside from his essentially political tracts on the need to centralize war-making authority in the sovereign, his view of the “just (sic, holy) war” is largely contained in his answer to the Christian objection that war is inherently sinful and contrary to God. He replied, quoting Augustine, “when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
Aquinas’s answer, here, is manifest arrogance and self-righteousness in its purest form. He opines that vanquishing his enemy in holy war is necessary to put his enemy out of his happy sin. The obvious denigration and dehumanization of his opponents, and all the death and destruction that follows in their train were completely lost on Aquinas.
Aquinas’s theoretic expostulations on the holiness of war were then used as foundation for exhorting the Crusaders to renew and continue their assaults on the Sarasins, with disastrous results both for Palestine and the West. In particular, he criticized the Western forces for being “effeminate” and “weak”, in order to spur them on to his goal of subjugating the Muslims. He believed arrogantly and without foundation that same-sex relations were evil, “unnatural” and “contrary to God’s Plan,” and sought to suppress same-sex loving among the military forces, the clergy, basically, everywhere he found it, again, to the same war-mongering ends. His manifest homophobia served to originate the Western pogrom against the LGBT community, which has led since then to the deaths of millions and the ruination of the lives of billions more.
YOU, Syllyboy, may be a devotée of that war-mongering monk, but I most certainly am not, nor can any sensible person be.

"But I have yet to meet anyone...." Newsflash: your small circle of aquaintances is evidence for nothing of import in the larger world. Sorry. Give us some actual evidence for the dribble that you postulate here. Give is, at least, a logical argument.

"In particular, you imageine that there is a "natural plan" enunciated in the Bible from which the LGBT community is "deviating"."

And these are the same people who are leading the spread of HIV and syphilis.

One of the problems of this corrupt homosexuality agenda that liberals are pushing is that they always lie about every single problem in society related to harmful and destructive attitudes and behaviors involving homosexuals or bisexuals.

For people with a deviant mind, nothing is deviant. Their main goal is to claim that deviant is normal. What they want is lack of accountability for everything.

@AlessadraR: First, see my answer to your most recent posts at the head of this thread.

Next, you reply, here, talking to me, a member of the LGBT community, but obliquely referring to me and the LGBT community as "leading the spread of HIV and syphilis", "corrupt", "lying", "harmful", "destructive", "deviant" and "lacking accountability." Again, you presume too much. This time, you simply go too far.

You will note that thrusting such pejoratives at the LGBT community merely replicates and pursues the pogrom started by St. Thomas Aquinas against us in 1250 AD. These are exactly the same kinds of foul, unfounded, idiotic and senseless calumnies that he innovated in his homophobic excess, then, and which the Catholic Church, in particular, and certain of the Evangelical Churches, after him, have promulgated against the LGBT community for more than 700 years to justify denying us some or all of our fundamental human rights.

As a result of the baseless, meritless and false calumnies that you replicate, here, millions of LGBT people have been put to death over the last 7 centuries: Hundreds of thousands were summarily executed in England and France beginning in the few years after Aquinas, often under the most cruel circumstances (King Edward II’s male lover died by such torture). Hundreds of thousands more were exterminated in Europe during the following centuries. In just 7 years, Hitler killed over 500,000 LGBT people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Birkenau, Dachau and yet other places, or had us shot where we stood.

Aquinas was also fond of criticizing the Sarasins as “effeminate” and “weak”, because of the prevalence of same-sex relations in their society in Palestine at the time. So much so that, beginning shortly after 1400 and not wishing to appear “weak”, the Muslim world also took up Aquinas’s anti-gay pogrom and began to issue edicts against the members of the LGBT community, as well. Today, in fact, it is largely within the Muslim world where one still sees the impulse to summarily execute LGBT people just for being LGBT (notably, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Mauritania), but the evil impulse to murder LGBT people also raises its head in such predominantly Christian countries as Uganda !

Even here in the United States, where you presumably reside, anti-gay violence is a prominent feature of everyday civil rights violations. The US Justice Department’s annual reports indicate that anti-gay hate crimes number some 22,000 annually and constitute some 15% of all such crimes (second only to racist hate crimes); some 25% of these are serious, violent crimes. You know, the kind by which Mathew Shepard died in Laramie Wyoming, a few years ago.

Again, the calumnious words that you have cast against me and the LGBT community, here, on The Economist are themselves patently false, not that you would listen to the truth. You should give up the evil, Godless and unChristian path that you have struck out upon and return your blackened heart to Christ, the REAL Christ !

"leading the spread of HIV and syphilis",

Which group is leading the spread of HIV in Europe and in the US? Which is leading the spread of syphilis?

I have stated a plain fact. I am describing reality.

"You will note that thrusting such pejoratives at the LGBT community merely replicates and pursues the pogrom started by St. Thomas Aquinas against us in 1250 AD."

Heh. Calling accountability for people who are doing so much harm is society by spreading STDs is now a "pogrom?"

This is the kind of harmful propaganda liberals spew. Every problem must be lied about. There must be impunity for every harmful attitude and behavior.

If homosexuals and bisexuals are destructive, it must be spun around to excuse them of all responsibility, provide a guarantee of impunity (even for crimes), cover it all up, and attack any social conservative who dares to criticize how destructive they are!

Obviously, according to liberals, it's not the people who gleefully and carelessly spread HIV and syphilis who need to be criticized, but the social conservatives who object to living in a sexually violent society. A rich, developed country like the US is currently infested with STDs due to what kind of attitudes about sexuality?

Hook-ups, promiscuity, prostitution, -- all of which are promoted by porn and pop culture. Who produces this harmful culture? Liberals, with their most destructive sexuality agenda.

And then, they have the gall to call social conservatives "narrow-minded" and other kinds of names!

What a disgrace for society!

NdiliMfumu in reply to AlessandraR: The US Justice Department’s annual reports indicate that anti-gay hate crimes number some 22,000 annually and constitute some 15% of all such crimes

In 2010, law enforcement agencies reported 1,470 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.

Contrast this to the following: About 25% of homosexual men are involved in intimate violence. This means there are literally millions of violent homosexuals, most of whom have a homosexuality agenda and certainly don't hesitate to defame and smear social conservatives as "bad" people.

If only such grotesque, violent homosexuals could be held accountable! And that's not mentioning any of the cases of violence towards heterosexuals, towards children, regarding sexual harassment, etc.

I don't like living in a sexually violent society, but this is what we have, thanks in a large part to liberals and their homosexuality agenda.

In point of fact:

While the overweening majority of diagnosed AIDS cases in 1981 were among gay men, that ratio in the US, Canada and Europe has steadily declined, since then and is quickly approaching 50%. Soon (if not already), the ratios will invert and the situation in the US will go over to what it is in the rest of the world, where HIV/AIDS originated, and where infection overwhelmingly amongst heterosexuals has always been the rule.

HIV/AIDS is NOT the wrath of God, but a virus which has been proven to have jumped the species from chimpanzees to humans (medically speaking, an “epizoönosis”) in the area of Gabon/Republic of Congo during the past century and, indeed, many times. The unfortunates there who first contracted the disease were largely heterosexuals who caught it by splashing themselves with the blood of the chimps that they slaughtered as “bushmeat”, a common delicacy in those parts. In this, there is nothing unusual about HIV/AIDS as an infectious illness.

From there, it was principally HETEROSEXUAL promiscuity, often and especially among truck drivers, principally between Kinshasa, DRC and Lusaka, Zambia, which initially led to the spread of HIV/AIDS during the early 1970s, not gay people. From Lusaka, the illness came to the Republic of South Africa, to Malawi, and to many other parts. A single heterosexual diplomat from Russia is known to have spread the illness there. A certain French Canadian airline steward, named Guytan Dugas, is known to have started the epidemic in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There were others who brought the illness to Europe and beyond.

As to syphilis, this is a bacterial illness caused by the spirochete, Treponema pallidum. It is an illness that originated in the Americas before Columbus and, since then, was brought back to Europe by his crew and by the others who followed after him. Unless you have special knowledge that he and his crew were particularly replete with homosexuals, I think you’re going to have to take this one back, immediately.

As far as the incidence and prevalence, overall, of venereal disease in the United States today, including HIV and syphilis, in actual fact, the overweening mass of it is transmitted by HETEROSEXUALS. If we were to follow your logic (or, illogic, as most would agree), we should be taking special measures to suppress HETEROSEXUALITY. We should be, according to your logic, prohibiting heterosexual copulation and banning straight marriage, the better to “rid the world of filthy heterosexuals and their diseases.”

But this is certainly NOT MY LOGIC. I would never recommend such rubbish.

Finally, it is very wrong of you to blame the LGBT community, the overwhelming majority of whom are no more or less promiscuous than any straight person, for the spread of HIV\AIDS and other VD. After all, the HIV virus doesn’t know a person’s sexual orientation and really doesn’t care. It’s only YOU who cares about it. All that the HIV virus cares about is whether it can reach a susceptible lymphocyte or macrophage and get a toehold, before invading the rest of your immune system. It has proven itself time and again across the world to love infecting heterosexuals just as much as others. Ditto for the treponeme of syphilis.

Time for you to get your facts straight !!

In point of fact, the US DOJ's reports of hate-crime stats for 2011 and 2010 are not yet available on their website, the latest available year being 2009 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html). What then are YOU quoting?

Further, the figure I've cited by recollection was doubtlessly for an earlier year. In later, more recent years, the numbers have been declining, but these are still very significant.

The DOJ reported 7,789 hate crimes offenses for 2009, of which some 18.5% were related to sexual orientation bias, 98.5% of which were crimes against LGBT victims, yielding some 1,414 reported anti-LGBT bias crimes, nationally, in that year. Some 4,739 of all reported hate crimes were committed against persons as opposed to property, and 19.4% of these involved serious crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, manslaughter and murder). The rates of serious violence against LGBT victims have traditionally been higher, on average, than for other victim types (e.g., by race). In any event, by my estimate, that's 1,414 too many anti-LGBT bias crimes in 2009 !! How many of those do YOU approve of?

By contrast, the US DOJ reports 945,111 violent crimes in the US in 2009, of which some 57,147 were forcible rapes. Approximately 10% of these involved the rape of a man, indicating that the overwhelming majority of rapes committed in the US are HETEREOSEXUAL rapes of women by men ! Furthermore, both the court in Perry v. Brown (CA9 2012) and Legal Momentum (www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/lesbian-bisexual-transgen.pdf), a women’s rights group, report that domestic abuse, including sexual abuse, is NO MORE COMMON among gays or lesbians than among straights.

Again, following your perverted logic, we should be suppressing heterosexuality and straight marriage, rather than legislating away the fundamental rights of the LGBT community, if we wished to improve the situation of those suffering from hate crimes, domestic violence and forcible rape !!

Dear NdiliMfumu: I do love LBGT people, in fact I have very good friends gay and I disagree with "christians" that do not love LBGT because Christ when He was on earth hanged out with prostitutes and thieves because He came for the lost to be saved. I do know and read about history, bilology and science and many of their representatives among the many, Josephus (Jewish Historian), Francis Collins (Leader of the International Human Genome), Einstein (scientific) confirm the existence of a one and only God creator.
When you say that "the Bible and most religions were written at a time when mankind knew little or nothing of these distinctions". I would like for you to read in the Bible the book of Romans chapter 1 especially verses 24 through 26 and you will see that LBGT existed at least since 2,000 years ago.
In this chapter you will read about the wrath of God against sin but if you read also the book of John you will find the love of God towards all His creation and that is the key of any interpretation, the most important massage for humanity.
I know about gays who turned to the sex they were born and now they are sharing about that love to other gays as well.
I appreciate your response and I am praying for you.

@LuPerusa: Please reread Romans from the King James Version, and throw away that NIV Bible you're been reading. Its text has been corrupted by modern translators who inserted their own prejudices into the Bible.

The word that St. Paul uses in Romans and Corinthians to describe the object of his epistles, "arsenokoitai", refers to PROSTITUTES, not "homosexuals".

In the ancient world, prostitutes commonly serviced both men and women. Since testosterone gives one a high libido and women lack testosterone and other androgens in anything like the concentrations that course through the male bloodstream, it was/is usually men who visit prostitutes. But not invariably so. And bisexual men and gay men regularly visited male prostitutes in the ancient world, albeit that these male prostitutes were not, themselves, invariably gay.

But all of this modern discourse on human sexuality and the sociology of prostitution was quite unknown to St. Paul. Remember that these sciences really only developed in the past 100 years or so. The term "homosexuality" is a 19th century invention, not a 1st century one. The ancients knew that some people enjoy same-sex relations, while others don't. But they DID NOT KNOW about "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality" as such, and nothing is said about this issue, per se, in the Bible. Nothing at all.

When Paul spoke to the Romans and Corinthians, his purpose was very clearly to criticize them for being promiscuous and visiting prostitutes. The ancients viewed marriage in the main as the means of encouraging procreation and child-rearing, and they viewed sex outside/in addition to marriage as being for the purpose of expressing love and seeking pleasure. Paul’s interest in Romans/Corinthians was to encourage his audience to abjure mindless promiscuity ad lustfulness, and to return, instead, to a more stable form of relating. Note, however, that he did not say to his audience that they should only engage in heterosexual marriage. His audience was quite aware, however, that same-sex marriage was common and legally recognized, especially in the Rome of his day. Paul’s failure, here, to speak expressly against same-sex marriage is certain proof that he didn’t intend to criticize homosexuality, let alone same-sex marriage, but only promiscuity and prostitution.

It was St. Thomas Aquinas and other of his time, some 1200 years later (!) who reinterpreted many ancient passages for the purpose of launching the anti-gay pogrom in Christianity. Think about that, dearie, and understand that Aquinas was wrong, that God created us all as we are, that Jesus loves everyone, including all us LGBT types, and that everyone should have the right to marry the person of their choice with the name marriage, including gays and lesbians!

I wouldn't deny that casual promiscuity, adultery and prostitution lead to problems -- notably sexual violence and STDs. I don't see you calling for legislation against casual sex, adultery or divorce (which makes serial sexual relationships easier and, I'd argue is a greater threat to the institution of marriage than the inclusion of same-sex couples in it).

Insofar as certain homosexuals practice unrestrained and unprotected promiscuity, we can say that they contribute to this harm. I have never and will never be an apologist for those who act recklessly and who fail to own the repurcussions. But it seems that the lion's share of the problem is with promiscuity, violence and sexual exploitation (the latter no stranger to the heterosexual marriage bed). Homsexuality exists--as it always has. Continuing to exclude marriage seems intended to deny homosexuality further legitimacy and, hence, further promotion of the problems you pin to sexual excess. But If homosexuals are seeking committed monogamous relationships--and if marriage promotes that--may that not do more to counter the sexual excesses that you wish to see reduced? It seems that you condemn homosexuals for excessive casual sexual behavior on the one hand, yet wish to deny the legitimacy of monogamous homosexual relationships. Help me out here, Alessandra.

@Pete: You don't wish to support the LGBT community in raising its children with State or Federal tax dollars, although you clearly have no problem in supporting heterosexual families to the same degree and in the same manner. Clearly, your problem with the LGBT community is that they are LGBT, not that they have children and need support from time to time, just as straights do.

You forget that the purpose of secular government is to govern ALL the people, not just the heterosexuals. WE THE PEOPLE is the rule, not WE THE HETEROSEXUALS.

Your point of view improperly mixes heterosexism and male chauvinism, let alone religious bigotry, into the interpretation of the US Constitution, the State constitutions, and the fundamental social compact of the United States and American society. This confusion of public governance with private moral opprobrium is something that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly said is completely improper and irrelevant. See, for instance, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (US 2010). Also, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, also from the Supreme Court.

Further, you need to read the complete pleadings and decisions in the line of cases leading to Perry v. Brown (CA9 2012). In effect, the State has a compelling interest in seeing PEOPLE establish FAMILY UNITS, so that the children they come by (whether through vaginal intercourse, in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, or adoption) are well taken care of. And the State has a further and compelling interest in seeing these same people establish these same family units, even if childless, because establishing such families, in and of themselves, provides the kind of mutual aid and support that the State is either fully incapable of providing or simply too penurious to even consider. Finally, the State lends its legitimacy to these family units by the act of granting them a license to marry and recognizing them, thereafter, as marriages with the name “marriage”. As the Court stated, “Marilyn Monroe’s famous film would have meant something quite different if it had been entitled ‘How To Register A Domestic Partnership With A Millionaire’.”

You have a lot of reading to do, my friend.

"With Liberty & Justice for ALL"

Obviously I am not as well versed in the law as you. So I think I will take a pass. However as an individual I would not support legislation which encourages the raising of children in homosexual relationships. You speak a lot about history, historically homosexuality has been condemned, I am sure the philisophical reasons are deep, and I am not prepared to explain. As an individual I am prepared to ammend legislation that recinds benefits to married couples, so long as there are no children under the age of 18 in the home, and in return provide assistance to homosexual couples who are raising children. I think you are wrong to encourage sexual liberation as you do, but that is only my opinion. I think sexuality is taken for granted and abused all over the place and the net effect is some extreme forms of sexual behaviour. It has been my experience that true love is rare, and that it supercedes all other relationships, likewise sex with a partner you truly love supercedes sex with someone you 'love' as a person but are not truly in love with.

Err..do you actually know what you are talking about?

In response to #1: If the bible does mention of homosexuality as you mention,then how can you also make statement #4 where you say that before the 1900's noone knew a man could have sexual feelings for another? How does the bible talk about a concept of affection that does not exist? Logically speaking, how is it possible for anyone to talk about something that doesn't even exist in their mind?

In response to #2: This is according to the bible yes? Which, if you refer to the above, talks about something that did not exist as unacceptable even though it didn't exist.

In response to #3: Telling me something is true is only a statement. A statement without facts, evidence, logical reasoning is an incomplete proof. If you can't understand that...well...I really can't help you understand.

In response to #4: TV's and the internet didn't exist before the 1900's neither. Does this mean that they don't exist today and shouldn't be accepted into our society? Can you tell me exactly what is the relevance of something not existing before if it exists now? Are you trying to dispute the validity of its existence now because it did not fulfill the precondition of existence before? You do realize that if that were the case, your belief in God must also not be true. Given that God created people through Adam & Eve, it means that people used to not exist before, and given your logic. We must not acknowledge people because they are clashing with the "law of nature".

In response to #5: Please point to me the "laws of nature" in black and white. It seems to me that you are selectively practicing when and when not to infringe on these laws of nature. After all, if you are truly against these supposed infractions against the laws of nature please do not use the computer. Please eat your food raw. Please do not live in buildings, nor use the elevators. Afterall, such things are unnatural.

it is people like you that give religious devotees a bad name; adamantly claiming the existence of things and the various truths and laws without once offering proof yet ignoring differing opinions and all the justifications of them.

We ARE the laws of nature. We are nature and exist within it. Gay people have no choice in the matter. They were born that way. That is irrefutable.

Your points are misinformed.

While I will not reply to those statements of opinion, I will reply to the statement of fact.

4. Homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom and was also thriving and quite accepted in ancient Greece, birth of our concepts of democracy and so on and so forth.

A few years back, I saw two enormous Galapagos tortoises getting it on at the San Diego zoo. The staff there informed me that "the boys" did it two or three times a week.

Don't hate on the tortoises, Lady.

"The Bible does make mention of homosexuality."

Old Testament -> Genesis 19:1-13, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13

New Testament -> 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:25-27

Lady, lady. You missed the point of my earlier post quite entirely.
We know that the Bible never mentions “homosexuality,” as such, because the concept had not yet been invented. The Bible does refer in certain places to men lying with men, sure. But that’s not the same thing as referring to the “sexual orientation” known as “homosexuality”. These are distinguishable concepts and the distinction is quite important. After all, there are plenty of people who lie man with man but who aren’t homosexual: Namely, bisexual men. This is another concept that was unknown to the ancients. There are also transsexual people: Again, unknown to the ancients.
Sexual orientation is about much more than merely a sexual act, dearie. It regards the core of one’s emotive being, of one’s libidinal aspirations, and of the motivation for one to relate oneself intimately to others. It is an innate and immutable characteristic of one’s being, as I can personally vouch, and it is regarded by all modern and competent psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors and students of human sexual behavior as being so.
One cannot condemn a person in thought and deed as being homosexual if one doesn’t even have a way of directly addressing the essence of what one is condemning. This is the first and most important way in which we know that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality and all that: Such things were simply unknown at the time and, so, the Disciples and those who compiled the Old Testament, by whatever they wrote into the Bible, were not condemning any particular sexual orientation. The words for it and, thus, the concepts in their minds, simply didn’t exist. To fail to recognize this is quite certainly intellectually dishonest of you.
Secondly, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does NOT condemn homosexuality (see the above), but, rather, inhospitality. For 1200 years after Christ and for a long time before Christ, the story was interpreted to mean that God destroyed those two mythical towns because the townspeople acted inhospitably towards Lot and his guests. (See Ezekiel, also, on this.) In the Middle East, the tradition of hospitality towards travelers (and Lot was a foreigner, too, with respect to S&G) is quite ancient, more ancient than the Bible for sure, and very important to the people of the region. At the time, to fail to provide shelter and food to travelers was as much as to condemn them to death on the highways from exposure to bandits, animals and the weather. It was only after the time of St. Thomas Aquinas in about 1250 AD that this story was re-interpreted for the proposition that it was the licentiousness of the townspeople, who demanded to “know” Lot’s guests, which was the true focus of God’s displeasure with the town. But this amounts to historical revisionism and another instance of intellectual dishonesty, this time, on the part of Aquinas, that war-mongering monk and the founder of the modern pogrom against the LGBT community.
Finally, far from “rewriting the laws of nature”, modern biology teaches us that Nature’s laws are far from immutable, but that sexual orientation in all its breadth is highly conserved across the species and across time: The fact that stable homosexual pairings are seen in animals as diverse as reptiles, birds and mammals indicates that the broadest array of sexual orientations has been a feature of life for over 320 million years, when these species last shared a common ancestor, and that the broadest availability of differing sexual orientations is essential to the survival of any highly social species, such as ours.
In order words, it’s not only quite natural to be gay, but quite good, too, and perfectly in tune with Nature and God’s Plan. This is also something that Aquinas, who fancied himself a biologist, but who clearly was not, knew nothing about; but something which the ancients, at least, were much closer to.

like i said honey, you need to get fu..ed. bad.

"Judge not lest ye be judged !" You, obviously, need to reread your catechism.

This is what the NAMBLA folks like to preach! No accountability for doing any harm, and absolute, guaranteed impunity for every crime.

@Max: I agree with you that Syllyboy's posting consists of mere causitry. You'll notice that in his original positing, above, he comes to the same conclusion from two different angles, even though claiming that these paths are somehow opposed. For him, it all seems to lead to the idea of invalidating and dehumanizing LGBT people and their relationships, whether on the basis of Scripture or by natural imperative. The fact that both points of view could be wrong (and they are) completely escapes him.

Could you highlight what you refer to as rational arguments in the post in question? I have a hard time finding any arguments at all besides these two (paraphrased, please correct me if this strays too far from what you meant):
1) God made humans with two genders, and this division is relevant (in a positive way) for mankind's prosperity.
2) Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Here's why these are, at worst, not rational arguments, or, at best, lacking in citations:
1) What is god? Give such a definition, and then procede to argue rationally for the existence of such a god. If we are to allow your premise of a god without evidence, we should by fairness also allow my premise of the Almighty Unicorn. Since everybody knows unicorns are pretty gay, we can be sure the Almighty Unicorn would wreak havoc upon mankind if we do not allow SSM.
2) "It's always been that way" is not a rational argument. At best, it's an argument for why we need to look careful at changes. I agree; if something has been a particular way for a long time, one shouldn't change it on a whim. But allowing SSM isn't a change on a whim; it's been carefully considered for some time now, and as RModule points out, there are no rational reasons to disallow it. It should therefore be allowed. I don't think I need to remind you that slavery was at one point "the way it's always been done by everyone".

Thats in your opinion and only valid if you are trying to make a religious arguement.

No, sorry. I was capitalizing rational for a damn good reason.

Well, in the sense that I will not try to stop anyone performing an action I cannot find a single rational argument against. Why would I?

Can we disagree on the rationality of any given argument? Not as long as the arguments are testable. I think the history of modern science speaks for itself when it comes to evidence-based arguments. And thus; any argument based on some non-testable fictional character cannot in any sense be rational.

The reason I do not want same sex marriage legalized is because I do not think churches should be forced by government to hold marriage ceremonies that go against their belief.

I do not understand why civil union isn't good enough? It's recognized by government and legal all over the place. (not sure of how many states)

Go form your own religion and leave mine alone!

Kevin, I think you need to rethink this.
"North Carolina does not legally recognize any same-sex union, including civil unions and same-sex marriages."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_North_Car...

Sure, I'll leave your religion alone when you leave my secular state alone (figuratively, that is... I have nothing to do with NC). I'm actually fine with your churches refusing to marry gay people. You do what you want AFTER you stop taking MY money in the form government handouts (tax exemptions). As long as you take public money, though, the practices of your church are damn well my business, and I do get to care about what you do in your church!
Edit. Oh and, I forgot: as long as there is any legal difference between a civil union, or a secular marriage performed by a non-church institution, and a church marriage, it is my business. Your church then has special status in my secular laws, and then what it does very much becomes my business.

If your implication is that it can't lead to reproductive success, then I would say I didn't realize that human population was on the cusp of extinction. (completely setting aside the fact that there are plenty of ways to reproduce in this day and age)
In other words, who cares?
As for whether or not it is natural, considering animal species regularly exhibit homosexual behavior, that argument makes no sense. And further, who would choose to be gay?

Please explain how homosexuals have kids out of a hetrosexual relationship. Thank-you.

Sperm donor, IVF - adoption - surrogacy - all the methods that any heterosexual, fertility-challenged couple would employ. And sometimes a person doesn't come out until later in life, so they may have children from a previous (heterosexual) relationship, though that's not really within the gamut of your question. And there's some science suggesting that two women could combine their genes for a viable foetus containing both their DNA (though it would be a girl, since the child would obviously have an X chromosome from each woman) which, obviously, one would carry - their child, biologically. I'm not sure why it wouldn't work with men - an X from one, an X or a Y from the other - possibly it was just that they would need a surrogate (which is obvious) which is the case regardless of the method of conception or genetic makeup of the child, for gay men who want to be parents. But that's pretty interesting science, would be nice to see it within our lifetimes. (Though that may be unrealistic.) You are very welcome.

Your casuistry is blatant and unpersuasive to anyone with half a brain. You try to make the issue moral as opposed to religious, by introducing the morality dictated by your particular religion.
Your illogic is stunning. Then your false assumptions stated as facts, 1. that homosexuality is closed to new life, 2. that homosexuality is unnatural.
Arguing with the brain dead is fruitless, so I won't even try, it's been done so many times and you people just refuse to even contemplate the possibility that you are in error.

@AmoralAndy: The only further comment I have, in addition to what has already been said here and elsewhere in this thread, is that you confuse religion and morality, on the one hand, with the purpose of public governance in the United States, a thoroughly secular nation, and in particular with the purpose of the establishment of the public institution of marriage in the US. For in the US (unlike many other nations), marriage has ever and always been a CIVIL LAW institution, and not a religious one, at all.

Under American constitutional rules, religion is wholly irrelevant to every public and legal question, other than to the non-establishment of any religion by the State. Where North Carolina allows, through its recent amendment, the religious intolerance and moral opprobrium of its majority to trample on the fundamental human rights of its LGBT populace, it works a fundamental and grave injustice to that populace and, thereby, to everyone in North Carolina.

As one example of this: A deeply closeted man, unaware of his true sexual orietation, gets married to a woman and has, thereafter, an unhappy relationship. He never achieves orgasm with her and has no children. After two years of marriage, he finds a male lover through an online site and begins to experience, for the first time, a true romance and fulfilling sexual intimacy. He proceeds to divorce his unfortunate wife for "irreconciliable differences" and, then, seeks to marry his lover.

Had this story played out in North Carolina, the man would now be completely blocked from achieving his true happiness and fulfillment in marrying his lover and for no other reason than the moral opprobrium of the State's overzealous and wrong-headed Christian majority.

To speak of such an outcome as "moral" and to assert that the State has a valid role in creating and promoting this outcome, to say that it is in any way "just and right" that this man be forever frustrated in establishing himself as married to his male lover and living happily together, makes a mockery of morality, of true religion, of justice and of compassion.

But this is precisely what the People of the State of North Carolina have now done.

and yet you were incapable of writing a single counter-argument in your comment, and just made baseless claims.

You are one of the people who ignore facts that disagree with preconceived notions. I have added my facts [US Constitution Amendment# 1 and Amendment #14 foremost among them] only to be rewarded by religion based arguments that ignore the facts.

There comes a point where repetition is a useless endeavor. Freedom of religion is another fact that is either ignored or twisted. And the twisting is illogical. Follow my comments back and you will find every thing. I won't repeat ad infinitem as I have better things to do.

As the old saying goes, attempting to get different results from the same actions, repeated time after time, is a definition of insanity.

Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity. Christianity clearly condemns homosexuality, if you want to return to Roman or pre Roman civilization, then keep it up. If you like the reality of the civilization you exist and would like to see it continue, then accept what the majority of people believe to be true.

'Western Civilization' was also built on the foundation of slavery, racism and sexism. People felt that Christianity clearly supported these things. Divesting ourselves of such prejudice was considered a step forwards, not backwards.

I am not religious to begin with. I just chose to look at it from the standing point of it being oriented towards mere pleasure, animalistic if I may use that term, but to what end is it? Call me brain dead, illogical, whatever arsenal you have in your vocabulary, but that doesn't turn sodomy into the greatest act of human freedom.

A natural human act is NOT anything that a human being does, otherwise we'd put terrorism, suicide, drug dealing and rape in the category of human acts and justify it too. Human acts are guided by the intrinsic orientation that all men (and women) are to adhere to by virtue of being a rational creature.
Not every marriage will result in kids, I agree with you. But will you use that as a bargaining chip for gay marriages? Next you'll want to elope with a monkey and cite all the reasons you have stated above in support of gay marriages. It all start with a simple stray from our human nature in an attempt to be "free spirited" and "open minded" not knowing that we are on a path to self degradation.

Sarcasm... Love it!!

That aside, I am in no way looking at it from a religious point of view, I mean, aren't our churches filled with priests who rape little boys? I mean, they don't even go after girls...

Take your time, find a philosophical article, either online or in your library. It will probably explain to you why a man and a man is not natural.

And about the man who in marriage can't be fulfilled by a woman... Low self esteem, fear of the opposite sex, needs to see a psychiatrist but instead convinces himself that he is gay. Individual inadequacies which society preys on to convince one to follow an alternate route

Fallacies... I never tire of hearing a new one with regards to rationality and human acts. Anthropological classes or literature wouldn't hurt, not one bit.

@AmoralAndy: "Call me brain dead [OK], illogical [OK], whatever arsenal you have in your vocabulary [will do], but that doesn't turn sodomy into the greatest act of human freedom.[irrelevant and obtuse]".

In fact, Amoral Andy, you're merely a garden-variety sophist, and not a very good one, at that. You don't realize when you're been thoroughly defeated in an argument, and so you continue blindly to oppose the truth by throwing up straw men and irrelevant polemic, much in the way of MaliciousAlex.

For what it's worth, the word "sodomy" is an invention of St. Thomas Aquinas and his school, which they used to refer as a label to their argument that same-sex relations and those who engage in them are somehow "unnatural" or acting "contrary to God's Plan". But Aquinas, besides being a war-mongering monk and a very arrogant, self-righteous one at that, and all while fancying himself a biologist, knew precisely nothing about biology, human sexuality and God's Plan, and neither do you.

Prior to 1250 AD, the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" didn't exist and to the extent that Biblical scholars made reference to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and their habits, these were taken as references to the grave sin of INHOSPITALITY, and neither to licentiousness nor certainly to homosexuality, per se.

Next, you really do need to take yourself to a psychotherapist and have that little libido of yours evaluated, dearie. You'll find some surprises waiting for you there on the therapist's couch !

@AmoralAndy: "Human acts are guided by the intrinsic orientation that all men (and women) are to adhere to by virtue of being a rational creature." Again, patent sophistry and certainly false.

"Natural behavior" is not necessarily what comes from rational thought. While it may be "natural" for humans to be "rational", neither abstract thought nor its consequences are generally understood under the rubric of "natural behavior".

Quite to the contrary, the debate as to whether human action is more often conditioned, if not controlled, by "nature" versus "nurture" (i.e., by learning or reason) has raged without end for a very long time. In truth, human behavior is clearly a result of BOTH, and not principally or solely the one or the other.

In the field of human sexuality, in particular, human sexual orientation is most strongly influenced by genetics and congenital events, much of which we are still unclear about. But we are definitely clear that the strongest factors which influence the sexual orientation of any person are these same genetics and congenital events. Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals have no choice (nor do heterosexuals) in the fact that they are, respectively, gay, lesbian or bisexual. They are born that way and do not, as you would rather propose, choose to be LGBT or “deviate” from some “natural course” as the result of any later intervening events. The pity is that you don’t accept this, and you don’t accept that, likewise, all heterosexual people would have to “choose to be heterosexual”, if your view of human sexuality were in fact true.

Your idea that people choose to be gay and to deviate from “God’s Plan” is itself a corruption of God’s Plan. Who are you, in all your arrogance, to say that God’s Plan should include only heterosexual people? Who are you to say that God did not create gay people to be gay, when the world has been populated with gay people throughout time, and when even all our nearest evolutionary cousins, the primates, are largely bisexual, all of them?

Precisely nothing in the Bible even speaks to the issue of homosexuality and sexual orientation, as such, and we know this to be true because these are 19th century concepts, not 1st century ones. Jesus, while He could have spoken to the issue, surely did not. No more and no less than He spoke to the ancient Jews of the Calculus, Nuclear Physics, and the methane mass of Neptune’s cloud tops !! He passed over the subject if for no other reason than that His audience would not have understood a single thing He would have been saying about it.

The problem with you, Sir, is that you’re a mindless modern homophobe who needs a much better education and a psychotherapist. Do find one, soon, before you explode.

@AmoralAndy: Again, you prove by opening your mouth what little education you've achieved. "Philosophy", my dear, is the art of imposing a wholly artificial construct on one's mind in place of that which flows freely from observation of the world in which one lives. Sophists and solipsists like you love such mindless philosophizing. The rest of us would rather live in the real world about us.

As for your notions about human sexuality, biology and genetics, all of it is merely so much uneducated rubbish. Rather than advising others to read philosophy, why not pick up some standard textbooks of biology and human sexuality, yourself, for a change?? It might make interesting reading, while you're waiting to see that therapist you need so badly.

Okay, personal attacks on me? Smart way to argue a point.

I don't understand what point you are making. Most Western countries do not legislate based on Catholicism - they are legislating (or trying to) on schismatic Christian bases. And my point is that we allow for that diversity at law, because we accept that not everyone in society holds those religious beliefs.

But a Christian says "Oh, but I'd be offended if gays had the same rights." If a Muslim or a Catholic or a Jewish person said, "Oh, I'd be offended if other people were allowed to do something that my religion forbids," no-one would listen to them. If they tried to push for it, publically, they would probably be accused of extremism. It's only Christian privilege which makes it seem fine when it's Christians discriminating against others, and pushing the law to uphold that discrimination.

Oh I completely agree. I just wanted to point out that yours is a criticism of protestant christians and not catholics with regards to logical consistency.

Oh, certainly. Although I also think there is likely a difference between Papal statements (and hardline Catholic creed) or what Catholics espouse, and a) what ordinary Catholics actually believe, and b) what Catholics are willing to accept (politically) in a pluralist society. (Just as an example, I know Catholics who use birth control for instance.)

You complain bitterly and loudly when others allegedly defame you, and yet here you are defaming so many Christians! No, Christians do NOT say, "Oh, but I'd be offended if gays had the same rights." It is a lie and slander for you to claim that is what they say.

I wasn't going to respond to any of your absurd, groundless, pseudo-intellectual comments, but this one is particularly ridiculous as well as contradicting your own arguments. Just leave the internet. Really.

As a non-Catholic, I don't give half a damn what that institution says about anything at all.

your point however is irrelevant to Sharkola's original comment. Sharkola made a claim about Christians and I was correcting him, pointing out that not all Christians have issues with logical inconsistency in the way he pointed out for non-Catholic stances towards marriage.

So I fail to see what your "not giving half a damn" has to do with the discussion.

your point however is irrelevant to Sharkola's original comment. Sharkola made a claim about Christians and I was correcting him, pointing out that not all Christians have issues with logical inconsistency in the way he pointed out for non-Catholic stances towards marriage.

So I fail to see what your "not giving half a damn" has to do with the discussion.

Since Sharkola isn't replying to this, I should clarify why this is an uninformed comment. It is quite common for bible-belt Christians to be offended by gay rights, as the politics of the North Carolina vote above demonstrates. To say otherwise is to lie and slander.

@Loco/Sharkola/Erick: Actually, yes, words matter.

Read Perry v. Brown (CA9 2012). The title of Marilyn Monroe's film would have meant something entirely different if it had been "How to Register A Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire."

In Perry, the Court exhaustively reviewed all the usual claptrap offered by the respondents, who were backed by the Catholic and Mormon churches, regarding the "sanctity" of the word "marriage", when used to describe a union between gays or between lesbians. The case is entirely about the use of this word, because California's Supreme Court had already determined that gays and lesbians had and continue to have all the rights and incidents of marriage in California, other than the claim to call their relationships a "marriage", and that the amendment to the California Constitution, commonly known as "Proposition 8" or "Prop 8" did no more and no less than deprive the LGBT community of the ability to use that word with reference to its marriages. But it changed their rights and privileges with respect to their relationships not one iota.

The Court determined the case for the LGBT plaintiffs precisely because words matter. In this case, the Court said that the People of California, having seen the LGBT community granted the right to call their relationships "marriages", then, took that right away by enacting Prop 8, but for no legitimate State purpose, at all, and only to express thereby their "moral disapproval" of LGBT relationships. The Court, citing Romer v. Evans, in particular, and citing to Lawrence v. Texas and Christian Legal Socity v. Martinez, held that the People of California exceeded their lawful jurisdiction and violated the US Constitution's 14th Amendment in revoking this right of "marriage" from the LGBT community.

What distinguishes Perry from the situation in North Carolina (aside from the fact that the Ninth Circuit has no purvey over North Carolina), is that the people of NC have never yet granted its LGBT community the right to marry.

But marriage for gay North Carolinians will soon come to pass. Washington State and Maryland have enacted gay marriage, but this is being contested, again, by the churches. These contests will be decided before the end of this year and will likely end up in the local federal courts. Soon, thereafter, the issue will rise to the Ninth Circuit in the West and to the Fourth Circuit in the East (which includes North Carolina). When it does, it's likely that marriage equality will be affirmed, at least in the Ninth Circuit, and as a matter of Due Process and Equal Protection, pursuant, again, to the 14th Amendment.

From there, if the Fourth Circuit agrees with the Ninth, the matter will rest or, if another Circuit Court disagrees, or if the Fourth Circuit disagrees with the Ninth, the matter will come before the US Supreme Court.

My reading of the issue and the Courts is that the US Supreme Court will uphold marriage equality by at least a 5/4 margin and likely more, possibly even 7/2 and within the next 10 years. The outcome in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (US 2010) case is telling in this regard: The SCOTUS upheld the right of the UC Berkley Law School to refuse to register the Christian Legal Society (CLS) as a student organization entitled to use this public school's facilities because the CLS refused to permit gay and lesbian law students to become members of the group. The majority held that it is impermissible for a State-sponsored institution to establish a religion (US Const. 1st Amendment) and, so, to permit a school-sponsored student organization to do so (i.e., the CLS). Since the CLS's refused to permit "practicing homosexual" (i.e., gay/lesbian) students to be members of the group, and since this refusal was clearly based on religion and served no valid state purpose, but was contrary to the school's well-established rule that ALL students must be allowed to participate in ANY registered student group, then, the Court held, the school was not only permitted to deny registration to the CLS but positively required to do so.

While the dissent led by J. Alito complained that this infringed on "free speech", in balancing the various rights which arise from the 1st Amendment, the majority rightly held that limiting free speech in this context was not nearly so pernicious to the Constitution as, by contrast, permitting this public school to establish a religion. After all, the majority pointed out, the CLS is free to conduct its activities elsewhere in the vicinity of the school and with such students as it sees fit. Just not on school grounds and with the free use of the school's facilities.

While the eventual outcome in the Supreme Court as to marriage equality will likely also be quite close (maybe not), it is very likely nonetheless to fall on the side of guaranteeing to the LGBT community its fundamental right to marry with the name “marriage”.

The California Prop. 8 vote demonstrates an excellent point. The public didn't seem too concerned about same sex couples having the same legal privileges as married opposite sex couples. But once the state changed how it used the word marriage, then it became a big deal!

@Loco: In point of fact, the LGBT community in California began to request recognition of its right of marriage in the 1980s and was, in fact, able to make some headway, because California's marriage statute in the day did not expressly prohibit it, speaking only to a "spouse", but not to a "husband" and a "wife." Subsequently, conservative Republicans from San Diego forced through an amendment to the marriage statute by referendum, which inserted into it the language that "marriage shall be between a man and a woman".

This was challenged in the California Courts where, by a California Supreme Court Decision, the amended statute was struck down as a violation of Equal Protection under California's Constitution.

The Churches then got the Prop 8 proponents together and set in motion the new constitutional amendment it contained. Before that amendment could be voted, however, the California Supreme Court let stand its earlier decision, reinstating the right to marry for gays and lesbians. During that 6 month period, 18,000 LGBT couples were married, including Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia.

After Prop 8 was enacted, it was immediately challenged and eventually was overturned, because it revoked the right of marriage from the LGBT community in California, solely to demonstrate to that community the majority's moral disapproval of them. Such a basis for enacting legislation is completely impermissible under the US 1st and 14th Amendments and the US Constitution's general plan of government.

Americans simply may not legislate morality. The Churches hate this fact, but they really ought to have gotten used to it by now.

Ndilifumu, you make some interesting comments, some of which we could debate about, but I'll attempt a short response.

I think we could further discuss the relationship between morality and law. For example, doesn't the law exist because of a common sense of morality (don't murder, don't steal etc.)? By the way, no one seems to be arguing here that the state should prevent people from engaging in "gay relationships" or even having some legal privileges granted to committed couples.

"Legislating morality" ... that's a very good point. Who's sense of morality should define the law? Only gays or religious or secular? If all of them, than how so? Perhaps it was this type of question, and a sense of legislating revisionist morality into state law, that motivated so many Californians to vote in favor of Prop. 8.

@Loco: Your response invokes many interesting questions befitting a class in philosophy. Note, though, that while erudite, it's thoroughly academic and, so, not a proper basis for either writing the law or for interpreting it, at least in the American courts.

Because of the US Constitution's Establishment Clause, all questions going to ecclesiastic issues are deemed outside the ambit of the Court's jurisdiction as inherently irrelevant. This includes every question of "morality". Because the Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine what the laws, rules and regulations which have been enacted actually mean, and because any law purporting to legislate "morality" is therefore unreviewable by a Court, no legislature in the United States, whether city, state or federal, many enact any law, rule or regulation as to "morality".

Religious types sometimes confuse the 19th century term of art regarding "public morals" as foundation for the proposition that the law does, in fact, legislate morality. But this is wrong. The State's interest is ever and always to legislate public ORDER, not morality. If the legislature deems that any act, positive or negative, poses a significant interference to good public order, it may regulate it to the point of banning it, so long as it has a valid State interest in doing so.

But its interest cannot be based solely on any issue of "morality". That's the crux of it.

Are- are you joking? I literally just gave half a dozen examples of changes to marriage, as well as arguing that none of them were 'redefinitions' so much as 'revisions'. The point I was making is that because those changes happened before our time, they are accepted as natural human progression (things like removing the law that has a husband take legal ownership of all his wife's possessions on marriage; that was around a long, long time - making heterosexual marriage gender-equal was actually an enormously radical change from how marriage had been, for centuries, understood) but that because this is happening *during* our lifetime, it seems strange and different.

How about you actually read a person's comment before getting your knickers in a twist, buddy.

No, I am not joking. Not ONE of the 'changes' you prate about is a 'definition' or 're-definition'. That was my point. It is not my fault if you cannot understand such a simple but crucial point.

-laugh- Well now I know you're joking. Or actually not reading any of my comments. Or intellectually disabled. (Which is fine, I'm not prejudiced. Good for you, engaging in debate on the internet!)

That was exactly my point: that none of these were redefinitions, they were honing marriage to fit it with the social mores of eras. Marriage went from a way to politically and economically control women, to today's love/choice model.

I think equal (i.e. allowing same-sex) marriage is comparable to permitting divorce. Arguably, by allowing people to opt out of something that (had been) defined as forever, lifelong, till-death-do-us-part, we fundamentally redefined marriage. Marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment.

Or is it? I would say that's not a redefinition - because people are still free to not get a divorce. Their definition of marriage (as lifelong) has not been affected by the opportunity, for others, to not hold that definition. (Although, as I've said elsewhere - in a brazen display of hypocrisy, something like 50% or 80% of divorced Christians say they believe in the "sanctity of marriage.") Anyway - similarly, by "redefining" (though, again, I do not think it is a redefinition) marriage to *include* homosexuals, this opportunity does not - these rights do not - affect the ability of heterosexuals who believe marriage is lifelong, to enter into lifelong, heterosexual marriages. Do you see my point, here? The institution remains the same - the rights of those who were getting married before, remain the same - and the beliefs of those who were getting married before, remain the same. Nobody is taking away a Christians rights or beliefs - rather, it is an acceptance (conceded by more than half the populace) that the rights and beliefs of homosexuals should not be trampled upon (to their harm; because the gay community, through discrimination, suffers actual harm) so that a different minority group can impose their minority beliefs on others (even though, were marriage open to homosexuals, this would not harm Christians in any way - at most, some would be offended.)

Although I don't suppose you read any of that and, re-reading your last comment - "It is not my fault if you cannot understand such a simple but crucial point" - am now vaguely inferring you are a 14 year old. Ah, well. Go out and talk, in real life, to some gay people. See if they're really so different from yourself. (Maybe a little more tolerant...? But each to their own.)

"Unless you believe there is fundamentally something different about the way a gay man loves his partner or the way a gay woman loves her's, compared with the way any and ALL heterosexuals love their spouses, I don't understand how you can say the two are not equal. Of course they are equal."

Of course they are NOT equal. And yes, there is something "different about the way a gay man loves his partner" etc. It has lost the link with reproduction that was nature's purpose in developing the tendency to that love. That is difference enough, though there is more.

"I think equal (i.e. allowing same-sex) marriage is comparable to permitting divorce. " Well, so WHAT if you think so? Thinking so does not make it so. On the contrary: you who prejudicially and ignorantly infer that I am a 14 year old, show an ignorance of logic and debate that is uncommon even among 14 year olds. No, it is not at all comparable. Nor did you give any good reason for thinking they are comparable. Why, you did not even give a half-good reason. You simply ran with your ignorant and groundless assertion, as if hoping no one would read you closely enough to see how groundless it is, how flawed your approach to debate is.

So if you are to think that the one crowd ignores his word, "let he who is without sin throw the first stone", then how can you miss it? The defenders of SSM are also ignoring his word, this time that they are to "go and sin no more".

RE: Syllogizer
My comment was intended to remind TS2912 that there is a New Testament in addition to the O.T.. Maybe he thinks people in N.C. haven't read it?

so the Old Testament says "stone sinners", the New Testament say "Only non-sinners can". Therefore the Old Testament was talking nonsense?

You guys are really comical :). You do not even know what to believe... The Old Testament OR the New Testament.

Glad you're amused by me and Jesus.

"""We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," said Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of the group. "And the point—the whole point—is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

Tsk, tsk! No dice. Tami Fitzgerald cannot be wanting to incompletely implement "God's design for marriage". It's like saying "I want my dessert but not my lunch" when you only implement the man-woman part of marriage but not the strict rules clearly outlined in the Holy Book

Im only amused by you. Jesus seems to have been a man who was the son of a fictional character, nothing really funny about that.

The "sin no more" is the part they like the best to skip!

@TS: "Reductio ad absurdum", as you point out, is an excellent way of showing the baselessness and meritlessness of an argument. What the perverted homophobes, above, such as MaliciousAlex, who responded to your posting fail to understand, is how thoroughly their arguments are debunked by demonstrating their absurd ends.

Do carry on !!

Your strict interpretation of democracy as majority rule government ignores the strong clauses of free and equal status among participants. A system based purely on majority rule can simply vote power and status to ever smaller circles of "elites" The free and equal status of all, a permanent status, safeguards against such tyranny.

Unfortunately for your post, the democracy voted to ratify the bill of rights which carries the rest with it. Are you so against democracy that you are advocating the overturning of the popular will that has decided on the bill of rights?

Democracy is as democracy does. Is the current mode of campaign financing in America democratic? Is paid lobbying democratic? Is the fact that Congress spends 25% or more of its time in office raising funds for the next election democratic? Do you see anything wrong that the bulk of the campaign money is spent on TV adverisements placed with the same companies who are the main news sources about Congresses actions? No conflict of interest there. Do you really think that corporations are persons? Perhaps the Bill of Rights is just a good cover.

Please check your arithmetic -> "all the citizens of a nation" + "majority rule" = "smaller circles of elites"???
My opinion is that "all the citizens of a nation" + "majority rule" is not equal to "smaller circles of elites".
Also, I respect your right to express your opinion regardless if you "meet certain qualifications" or not.
Thanks for your reply...

The Economist Magazine:

Please let me propose just one question regarding "Democracy in America" - Who is qualified to vote in America?

The Bill of Rights is what it has been since it was written as successive generation have done better or worse by it. There is nothing radically different about the Bill of rights in the last 40 years that has changed, it is we the people, as it were, who have failed it.

Precisely my point. Your Constitution and Bill of Rights give you little protection agaist a corrupt and venal Congress or activist judges on the Supreme Court. Something more is needed, to account for the fact that the determined will always find a way around a law, given sufficient time.

They actually give a lot of protection, its just not instant.

You are right about it not being instant. William Hull was employed by some members of the Continental Army in 1792 to lobby for increased compensation on their behalf. Paid lobbying has been a problem ever since. I think that indicates the glacial pace at which Congress acts against matters which are not in the public interest but benefit each and every member financially.

Paid lobbying was a problem long before and will be far into the future. It was in part what the constitution is a guard against. Madison felt the problem was mitigated by having factions compete.

Unfortunately neither Madison nor anyone else has produced any figures to support that contention. It would seem obvious to me, that any organisation, or person who can pay some one to make repeated personal representations to Congress, is in a more advantageous position than the average voter.

He wouldn't have tried to substantiate a negative claim. He was a better reasoner than that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Strange reasoning. Stating that a conclusion is possible without any supporting evidence is strange even for political science. It is also strange that no attempt has been made over the years to verify it, even though data must now exist. It's almost as though Madison had a divine revelation.

I agree and was surprised when you suggested it.

You lost me on the rest unless you are reading 'felt the problem was mitigated' as experiential vs speculative. I believe the problem was so well known prior to the constitution authoring, that they figured this out as a mitigant then wrote it in.

From a Madisonian point of view, the issue wouldn't have been that factions exist, but that they would have exclusive access to the govt. He wrote in the Federalist Papers number 10 that, in order for our democracy to work, as many diverse interests as possible would need to be able to contact the leaders. This isn't a campaign to eliminate lobbying as much as a model to ensure that there is a healthy competition of interests presented.

To me, the Citizens United ruling broke it by creating a class of super citizens with better rights than individuals.

I think we both agree that buying access to the government is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a pity that it took Citizens United to make the point. To me it seems clear that there is a difference between an interested individual lobbying Congress, and some one who is paid to conduct the busines of others on Congress's doorstep.

I do agree but wouldn't have a problem with organizations lobbying as well so long as they did it themselves.

Lobbying by organizations can give rise to unfair financial advantages to well heeled groups. For instance a company could still employ in house lobbyists who are on the payroll. The most democratic approach is to limit lobbying to the individual. I can approach Congress to express my own personal views but I should not be able to employ some one to present them for me.

Incedentally you may be interested in the following article from the New Yorker on the Citizens United case.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin?curre...

Lobbying at the individual level would be impossible logistically. That is the issue I see.

There are many situations in which minorities' rights should be shielded from the "majority - case in point, Nazi Germany.

In this technological age I'm sure the problem could be managed. Perhaps Congress should put resources into listening to the people rather than forcing the country into unnecessary wars.

I agree on the technology piece. A heatmap that shows trending topics on the Economist is suggestive of one way it could be approached.

The trouble is, the govt right now is non-functional. Perhaps irretrievably.

Yes, the US government is non-functional. And no, a "heat map" would not even begin to deal with that problem. Technology is NOT the answer here. It rarely is in politics.

REALLY!!! You believe “majority (rule)”, essentially “Democracy in America”, leads America towards becoming a “Nazi”-like state? I like to use appropriate quotations whenever possible, however, the only one that I can find appropriate here (I’m sorry) is by Bugs Bunny “What a Maroon”…

There are two things that I have learned, that I did not know before, in debating in the comments section of "Gay marriage - North Carolina begs the question too". Foremost, I’ve learned that rank & file “gay marriage” advocates are generally anti-Democracy. The other thing that I learned is why they are anti-Democracy.

It appears that the rank & file gay marriage advocates believe…

• If your viewpoint is contrary to mine - you do not have an open mind.

• If your viewpoint is contrary to mine – you are “not one of the most educated, enlightened and progressive”.

• If your conscience (I’m a Roman Catholic) leads you in a direction different than mine - you are prosecutorial.

I will continue to vote against gay marriage on Religious grounds. Furthermore, I will consider my vote against gay marriage as a vote for "Democracy in America".

Democracy for democracy's sake is uninteresting. Democracy in the pursuit of a more perfect union is more interesting. If a democracy votes to end democracy, as a democracy without limits is perfectly capable of doing, it absolutely could become a nazi like state.
The limits on what can be decided on by the majority are as important as a democratic structure. This notion is foundational to our constitution and the separation of powers as well was in the Bill of Rights, super-majority rules etc.
This will be especially important to christians in america if their numbers continue to decline and the rely more and more on the protections that they are seeking to strip away from others.

It is a pleasure replying to you - at least you believe in Democracy. This is not the case with some of your cohorts. That is the only reason I wrote “… I will consider my vote against gay marriage as a vote for "Democracy in America".”

You wrote “If a democracy votes to end democracy… it absolutely could become a Nazi-like state” – I agree. However, I believe not a large enough of a constituency is going to actually vote to end Democracy. Actually, the German people did not vote to end Democracy either. They voted for the Nazis because of their inflamed rhetoric. The Nazis, when in power, eliminated the opposition through all means including intimidation to form a dictatorship – elimination of the right of the people to vote.

As I mentioned in my original comment “I have learned… in debating in the comments section of "Gay marriage…; “gay marriage” advocates are generally anti-Democracy.”. Those bullet items I presented are the result (my conclusions) of the debates that I participated in. Some of your cohorts imply that I do not have a right to vote. I see some of your cohorts as wanting to form a dictatorship – a Nazi-like state – elimination of the right of the people to vote.

Understood. Turkey is a really interesting study in this phenomenon recently.