The Lowe Down



<< Previous entry: Wall Street bailout redux

>> Next entry: O. J. Simpson conviction

Gay marriage


friiiblog.gif

It reminds one of the life cycle of the cicada. Every four years, the gay marriage issue rears up and threatens the very existence of our republic. A furious burst of political activity ensues, characterized by a flurry of would-be laws being placed on state ballots nationwide for consideration by a vote of the people.

Some succeed, others don't. The real purpose is to turn out "The Base," which will, while they are angrily wearing a hole with their pencil into the optical scan ballot at the place that would ratify the anti-gay question, vote for the Republican candidate before they go back to sleep, politically speaking.

We should take one moment to think about not just how cynical, but how patronizing of "The Base" this strategy is. It assumes that there is a large portion of the electorate that will not even bother to turn out to vote in a presidential election unless there is a sweetener involved.

For the rest of us, the question would seem almost quaint and irrelevant, under current circumstances, if it didn't have such a potentially disastrous effect on people.

Categories: None
submit to reddit
add to delicious


Comments

Here we go again. Time r a changing and we bumbling conservatives have no idea. Morals, huh? Let them have cake and eat it to. This world would be a much safer place if there were just more homosexuals. God, heaven and hell, don't worry, religion is just for those that need self affirming. I think that we need to break down the barriers of our oppressive society and allow all sorts of debauchery. We need more vice and excess, hedonism as the order of the day. Let's entitle everybody under the guise that we are a free republic, when we know that we're slipping toward socialism. It must be clever to be able to characterize not so serious issues with cartoons. Nothing matters, so keep up the good work Chan.


Times r a changin, all right. Your fellow conservatives finally woke up and decided THIS election would be a BIG election about BIG things (like keeping our homes). Its funny how there are no statistics on the harmful effects of gay relationships on hetereosexual marriages. Why? Because there aren't any. Your friends invented scare tactics, and they cost us the lives of a lot of good men and women, plus billions from the treasury - it won't work this time, tho. Anyway, ou should thank God gays want to get marriaged - at least they can afford to pay for the license.


Thank the Lord the American people have finally woken up! It seems we've finally gotten some sense knocked into us(albeit a rude awakening), and not a minute too late. Conservatives are great people, so long as you look like them, think like them, pray like them, and worship the same God as them. If you don't, you will still get a friendly (and fake) smile, a polite nod, a little wink - knowing all the while that behind your back, they'll be using the N or S word, depending on your race or ethnicity, telling gay (or F word) jokes, and toe tapping at the airport before returning home to the wife and kids. Sick ... sad ... pathetic - that's why most people hate that kind of thinking and behavior, and want CHANGE. No wonder Florida leads the nation in psychiatric care.


You are both correct and I concede on all points, except AIDS, pornography, pedophilia, various other STDs, voluntary military enlistment, the financial bubble the socialist democrats created under Jimmeny Carter's act to issue subprime loans to the much contrived proletariat. I do believe that we are all being duped by our government especially by B. Hussein "can you smell what the Obama is cooking." You too will one day be considered an undesirable if you get your wish to be dictated by the black Karl Marx. Last unrevised public text book I perused, Hitler decided to bake the homosexuals as well as the Jews, Poles and any other undesirable for that matter. The unity of marriage was created by God, but I guess you will never understand the significance behind a covenant. I give up, if you can't beat um join um. I wish we were living back when Caligula was around because nothing beats a good ole' orgy. Wise up people, Jesus came to save the sinner. I was in that ship out to sea once just like you. It's time to realise that you will not live forever, but I guess if you think that you turn up nothing but worm dirt then it doesn't matter.


Wow. Is it just me or is every commenter here completely illiterate? The rambling is so incoherent I can't tell what point any of them are trying to make or if they are ironic or saracastic or just stuipid. Sorry, Chan! I guess pretty colors and pictures bring the dimmer bulbs over to your drawings once and while.


One of the most successful methods to manipulate and motivate Republicans is cynical hysteria. The portrayal that one couples marriage is threatened by the gender of another couples marriage is both illogical and asinine. There is no more relevance or influence between married couples of the same sex than there is between those of different sexes. Or at least if your marriage is so easily influenced, then the sexuality of the married couple that is influencing yours ...is the least of your problems. It's amazing how easily susceptible and weak the "institution" of marriage is thought to be. That the sex of those involved would somehow be threatening or deteriorate the union of other couples within this institution. Of course those people that most loudly are offended by same sex marriage are also offended by the mere presence or existence of gays. Are these people so afraid that "gayness" will possess or convert them, that they must remain isolated individually..and therefore also be isolated as a couple. I mean how weak and uncertain is their own sexuality that the mere presence of a gay person is a threat...apearantly these "straight" Republicans aren't any stronger when they're in married couples. Me thinks they protest to loudly!!! Now trying to associate or blame "gays" for AIDS, porn, pedophiles, STD's, military enlistment(I suppose you mean- don't ask..don't tell) and the financial bubble is as funny as trying to blame these issues on Jimmy Carter. It cracks me up that Republicans want to go back over 30 yrs to blame Carter for the woe's that have been caused by Reagan, Bush and the idiot son. I suppose with a withered and aged Presidential candidate that is so old his last clear memories are from the 70's it's no wonder that Jimmy Carter is the last Presidential name that most Republicans can remember.


just baffled, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Yeah...changing for guys like YOU, Good Job Brownie, Andrew, and possibly Chan Lowe:

I've a question for you. If homosexuality is not a problem for you because it's merely two people showing love for each other by what logic do you then NOT extend the same legitimacy to these:

1. Marriage/sex between parents and children.
2. Marriage/sex between siblings.
3. Marriage/sex between multiple persons.
4. Marriage/sex between adults and adolescents and/or children.

If any of you is brave enough to bite the logical bullet on any of these I salute you. And after my salute I invite you to bite this bullet as well:

Are you willing to teach your children via public schools (and in your home) that these are perfectly natural and normal forms of human relationships?


Thanks for the lucid explanation, Brownie - apparently conservative Republicanism kills neural cells en masse.


Your argument is illogical, FormFactor. Argument #1 and Argument #4 are identical, and both are prohibited because of psychological evidence these relationships harm young children. Argument #2 is still legal in many parts of the U.S. and the world, thus "legally legitimate" ... Argument #3 is enforced because of the elevated potential for birth defects between genetically similar individuals.

Ergo, your "unlisted" Argument (we'll call it #5), is this: Marriage/sex between two ADULT humans, of a single sex, engaging in a SINGULAR relationship with each other, should not be legitimate.

Argument #5 lacks the psychological harm of Arguments 1 and 4, and lacks the religiously reinforced customs of Argument #3. Argument #2 is enforced legally because (presuming the actors in question are a male and a female), the potential for birth defects is higher than the nominal average.

So your logic fails, because it cannot be applied effectively against the arguments you cited.

As for willingness to teach children, including one's own, about natural forms of human relationships ... yes. Far preferable than seeing young gay men like Matthew Shepard crucified and killed for being the person God made them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard).


Illogic,
Thanks for your reply. Here's mine:

You: "Your argument is illogical, FormFactor. Argument #1 and Argument #4 are identical..."

Me: Sorry. I should have been clearer: Marriage/sex between a parent and his/her adult child.

You: "...and both are prohibited because of psychological evidence these relationships harm young children."

Me: Psychological evidence once showed that homosexuality was abnormal. Psychological evidence changes. Why should psychological evidence be our measure? Also, what is meant by "harm young children"? Is this harm universal? Are there instance where it hasn't been as harmful as thought? And given the number of dysfunctional, broken and abusive relationships between NORMAL adults whose to say that relationships with children would have any worse consequences?

You: "Argument #2 is still legal in many parts of the U.S. and the world, thus "legally legitimate".

Me: Ok. Should we teach children that it is an acceptable and normal type of relationship?

You: "Argument #3 is enforced because of the elevated potential for birth defects between genetically similar individuals."

Me: Is the evidence of this universal? A problem with this rationale is that a) it indicates that folks with birth defects are not worthy of being born, b) we are now in the position of telling adults they can't marry or conceive children because we don't want them to have children with birth defects. But who are we to tell two adults what to do behind closed doors and what children to have? and c) what if they decide to not have children. Is it then ok?

You: Ergo, your "unlisted" Argument (we'll call it #5), is this: Marriage/sex between two ADULT humans, of a single sex, engaging in a SINGULAR relationship with each other, should not be legitimate.

Me: Correct. That also includes adults with children, children w/children and polyamorous marriages, too.

You: Argument #5 lacks the psychological harm of Arguments 1 and 4,

Me: You haven't established what "psychological harm" is, whether the definition will change or whether it's universally accepted. Here's another problem: "psychological harm" is purely arbitrary. Purely. After all, why should that be the standard and not a religious one?

You: "Argument #2 is enforced legally because (presuming the actors in question are a male and a female), the potential for birth defects is higher than the nominal average."

Me: But this turns out to be a bogus rationale with it's own problems.

You: "So your logic fails, because it cannot be applied effectively against the arguments you cited."

Me: Not yet. You may still do this; I'm open to being wrong. But I your reasons fail to this point.

You: "As for willingness to teach children, including one's own, about natural forms of human relationships ... yes. Far preferable than seeing young gay men like Matthew Shepard crucified and killed for being the person God made them."

Me: The facts of why Shepard was killed have been disputed. Certainly her homosexuality played into it. But the two a**holes responsible were apparently out of their minds on drugs. And as horrible as the crime was, and as much as those two animals need to be put of their and our collective misery for taking a life, I disagree that a moral misstep, that in all likelihood will have serious consequences in the future, is somehow justified by another.

Having said that I certainly respect your opinion. And I also respect your reply which was a heck of a lot more thoughtful than most.



Whatever happened to "Live and Let Live" ?

Let the people who want to be married, do so.

It's like, "If You're Against Abortion, Then Don't Have One! "

If you're against gay marriage, then don't do it!


Dorothy,

I'll add one to your list:

"If you want to argue against gay marriage because it's a bad idea, then do so!"

Live and let live, right?


Why is it that Republicans constantly feel the need to associate sex with children and gay marriage. There is no correlation what so ever between those two issues and the vast majority of sexual abuse in children is perpetrated by supposedly "straight" adults on both opposite AND same sex children. So it would appear that "denial" of ones TRUE sexuality would be the most likely common characteristic in child abuse... and G-d knowns no group of people are more in denial of ALL aspects of their sexuality than Republicans.

As far as bangin' your sister...I can't even believe that is something a Republican would be brave enough to mention...let's face it, the poster child for incest and inbreeding is some sorry-azz hillbilly redneck Republican...or Roman Emperor, which are you?


Brownie: who says I'm a republican?


Brownie: who says I'm a republican?


FormFactor:

I use the Harm Principle that was originally advocated by John Stuart Mill. Basically it says that if an action doesn't directly affect people who don't consent -- in other words, if all parties consent -- then government has no place regulating it.

#s 1 and 4 are wrong because they involve children, and children can't consent to such things.

#2 ... I don't think that incest should be illegal. It's sick and disgusting, but as long as all parties consent, I don't have an issue with it.

#3 is admittedly tough, though I would allow polygamy. Legalizing polygamy would have a net benefit to the nation, since it would bring groups such as the FLDS out of the shadows, protect the children in FLDS and other like groups, and minimize welfare claims by the "non-legal" spouses.

As for the government teaching my kids it's wrong, yes, I have a problem with that. Because I don't want the government teaching my children their version of morality at all. That's my job.


It's interesting how right-wing Christian cherry-pick what parts of the Bible they want to enforce.
Exodus 21:7 says you can sell your daughter into slavery.
Leviticus 25:44 says you can own slaves as long as they are from a neighboring state (so look out Canada)
Exodus 35:2 say anyone working on the Sabbath should be put to death (NFL is full of sinners)
Leviticus 11:10 says eating shellfish is a sin.
Leviticus 11:6-8 says touching the skin of a dead pig is a sin (Back to the NFL again- stone them to death)

We don't think of these as sins punishable by death because re recognize that we are a different people than 2 and 3 milleniums ago.

So why is Leviticus 18:22 about homosexuals such a big deal still?

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a gay.

Government should not legislate love.


It's interesting how right-wing Christian cherry-pick what parts of the Bible they want to enforce.
Exodus 21:7 says you can sell your daughter into slavery.
Leviticus 25:44 says you can own slaves as long as they are from a neighboring state (so look out Canada)
Exodus 35:2 say anyone working on the Sabbath should be put to death (NFL is full of sinners)
Leviticus 11:10 says eating shellfish is a sin.
Leviticus 11:6-8 says touching the skin of a dead pig is a sin (Back to the NFL again- stone them to death)

We don't think of these as sins punishable by death because re recognize that we are a different people than 2 and 3 milleniums ago.

So why is Leviticus 18:22 about homosexuals such a big deal still?

If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a gay.

Government should not legislate love.


FormFactor - How does any of your crazy assertions really affect you? What does someone else's life have to do with you? Is it becuase your sex life and relationships are so sad that you look to control everyone else and make them as unhappy and unfulfilled as you?


FormFactor - How does any of your crazy assertions really affect you? What does someone else's life have to do with you? Is it becuase your sex life and relationships are so sad that you look to control everyone else and make them as unhappy and unfulfilled as you?


3. Marriage/sex between multiple persons.

Leave out the marriage part and you have a huge number of people who need to be legally monitored by your standards.

Maybe let's go back into the not-far-past and make oral and anal sex between a husband and wife illegal?

And let's not confuse adult consensual sex with abuse.
Adult/child, parent/child, and sibling sex are clearly abuse because overwhelmingly it involves mind games and abuse that are deep-seated and on-going.

Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with morals or abuse. Those with a problem way out of proportion to their own lives are simply very paranoid and unhappy people who feel the need to monitor 2 other adult's sex life.

That, to me, is out of the norm.

No, I'm not gay. I'm a woman, married to a man, with children.

Bigger fish to fry people. Much bigger.


Just Baffled - How is marriage created by God?

It was created by the Catholic Church to protect inherited property.

This is just fact. Not opinion.


Andrew,
Thanks for your reply. The Harm Principle seems good enough but isn’t without it’s problems. For example, why is consent relevant? Why should anyone accept that condition and why should it bind our behavior? It seems like a silly enough question but I've found that every reply given to those questions is ultimately arbitrary and problematic. Mind you, I agree that children shouldn't be able to make those kinds of decisions but my rationale stems from my religious beliefs which are not nearly as problematic as non-religious ones.

In answer to your other points:

1. Why can’t children consent to such things? What makes the adult thinking process in sexual matters any better than that of children? Given the divorce rates, domestic abuse and dysfunctional marriages and relationships between consenting adults how can we say that they’re any better at handling this?

2. You’re one of the few who’s consistent when it comes to incest. I don’t know why you believe it to be sick and disgusting, though.

3. Again, you’re consistent and that’s appreciated.

Finally, I’m not asking if you object to public schools teaching your kids that these relationships are wrong. The question is whether you object to schools teaching your kids that incestuous and polygamist marriages are perfectly normal and legitimate forms of relationships. After all, if they can be taught that homosexual relationships are normal why not other relationships between consenting adults?


JustBaffled -- Marriage predates the catholic church. It was practiced by the Romans and Greeks before the birth of Christ.

FormFactor --

1. Because children don't have the power to consent, just like they don't have power to consent to a contract. There's an inherent power difference when you have an adult-child situation.

2. You're right. I think it's sick and disgusting because of societal norms. These norms do long predate organized religion.

3. Thank you.

4. I mistyped. I don't want the government giving my children any opinion -- whether they say those relationships are "normal" or whether they say they're "wrong". It's my job to teach them morality. So yes, I would object to them saying these things are normal -- not because I think they're abnormal, but because I think it's none of the government's business.


I guess if we were all homosexual life would continue infinitely like some of you believe your lifespan is. Homosexuality, why should this be an acceptable lifestyle? What good comes out of it? You rely on heterosexuals to have children so you can live in a state that has liberal constitutional laws in order to adopt a child should you want one. Statistics show that homosexuals have multiple partners and what kind of environment is that to bring a child into. God created woman form man to eventually leave his parents in order to cleave together. Your belief system is either monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic or humanistic/materialistic/na-turalistic. The first choice leaves you without an option to practice homosexuality because it is sinful. The second choice could allow you to chose to be a homosexual because you could worship a God that would allow you to engage in such practices. The fourth like Engles/Marx would imply that you are God and God is gay (COULD BE YOU) or the last three which evolved from the enlightenment period would reduce you to your own standard, just matter or without a supernatural so essentially the same as the first 2 in this catagory. If you fall under this catagory, it won't matter what you do because you are meaningless, just made up of molecules. If you are polytheistic, you can worship any God you choose therefore, you can pick a God that suits your gay inclination. If you choose pantheistic your God is gay, but if I'm a heterosexual there is a contradiction is my God straight or gay or is your god straight or gay? That eaves us to Monotheism. The big three Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Judaism the oldest of the three says that God is the law and if you break it you will pay so be righteous before the Lord or pay eternity for your actions in hell. If you sway Christianity, you've been chosen by the supposed Son of God as an elect sheep to spend an eternity in heaven, via repentence and an active faith that produces much fruit. If you choose Islam your worth is chosen by the amount of good you do vs. what you do sinful in the eyes of god will decide your fate. Bear in mind that this religion is a spinoff of both Christianity and Judaism during the end of the 7th century A.D. Man's philosophy has always been his downfall and will continue to be until the end of time. Please look at history people and see what the philosophies of the worlds most evil dictators were (i.e., Pol pot, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Amin, Khomeni, Hussein, etc.) Leftism has been the biggest detriment to human existence, from eugenics to euthanasia to infanticide. If we continue along this path we are doomed.


1. "Because children don't have the power to consent, just like they don't have power to consent to a contract. There's an inherent power difference when you have an adult-child situation."
Understood and agreed.

The question then becomes why being able to consent and power differences matter. In the case of an adult child with his/her parent, though, this isn’t an issue. How is this different from a homosexual relationship?
Go here for such a case:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/South_Australian_father_and_daughter_in_sexual_relationship

2. "You're right. I think it's sick and disgusting because of societal norms. These norms do long predate organized religion."

Societal norms change; not long ago many would openly describe their feelings about homosexuality as sick and disgusting. Not so now because the stigma of homosexuality is receeding. But since every justification given for accepting homosexual relationships applies to incestuous and polygamous ones why are the last two still viewed as taboo?

3. Thank you.

No problem!

4. I mistyped. I don't want the government giving my children any opinion -- whether they say those relationships are "normal" or whether they say they're "wrong". It's my job to teach them morality. So yes, I would object to them saying these things are normal -- not because I think they're abnormal, but because I think it's none of the government's business.
Agreed!


Trixie:

1.“Leave out the marriage part and you have a huge number of people who need to be legally monitored by your standards.”

That’s the case now. All of these are illegal or taboo. My argument is that if you justify one, homosexual relationships, you’ll have a hard time logically and fairly denying the others legitimacy and the title of “normal”.

2. “And let's not confuse adult consensual sex with abuse.
Adult/child, parent/child, and sibling sex are clearly abuse because overwhelmingly it involves mind games and abuse that are deep-seated and on-going.”

At least in our culture that seems to be true often and I agree to that extent. How about in this case: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/South_Australian_father_and_daughter_in_sexual_relationship

3. “Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with morals or abuse. Those with a problem way out of proportion to their own lives are simply very paranoid and unhappy people who feel the need to monitor 2 other adult's sex life.”

Unfortunately, homosexual marriage is a moral issue. Moral decisions have consequences in the short and long term. Those consequences will have to be dealt with by our children. That’s why I’m concerned. I can’t speak for the paranoid and unhappy people you mentioned.


Andrew - Marriage in ancient Rome and Greece was in no way similar to modern marriage in any way, shape or form. It was limited to royal households and had to do with ascension, which is why sometimes brother "married" sister. I really, really don't think you neo-con Christians want to go using ancient Rome and Greece as a model for your intolerance, fear and hatred of same-sex relationships. It was these societies that the Judao-Christian was contrary to with reference to men not sleeping with men. Rome and Greece were light-years ahead....so long ago.


Let's go farther into the fantasy bible book and start killing people who wear clothes made of two different fabrics and stoning to death people who eat shrimp and clams. Each of those two "abominations" get more coverage in the bible fairy tale book than "kill the gay people does".


BeachBum,
Rome and Greece of long ago are gone. Both Judaism and Christianity are still here. There's good reason for that.


FormFactor...
Anyone who sees the "news" has seen that before you posted it.

What you make me see is that the slippery slope we all ride on depends on if me and my husband have anal sex tonight. Because the world might come crashing to a halt and all things good and pure will cease to exist (except for GWBush, Enron execs who didn't have the courtesy of offing themselves, and anyone in the banking industry right now).

I think I'll give it a try.


If man where supposed to be with other men or women with other women, then the couple would be able to have children. Further proof that it is not correct union. I do agree a sin is a sin. Many of us commit sins all the time and no one is worst than the other. Therefore I do not judge my brothers or sister in this type of relationship just pray for them as i hope they will pray for me and the things i am struggling with. If all you want is the best for someone liaring to them and telling them that a gay marriage is ok isn't the solution. The world is trying more and more to make what is wrong seem right. Best not be fooled. Best to leave the law the way it is.


If man where supposed to be with other men or women with other women, then the couple would be able to have children. Further proof that it is not correct union. I do agree a sin is a sin. Many of us commit sins all the time and no one is worst than the other. Therefore I do not judge my brothers or sister in this type of relationship just pray for them as i hope they will pray for me and the things i am struggling with. If all you want is the best for someone liaring to them and telling them that a gay marriage is ok isn't the solution. The world is trying more and more to make what is wrong seem right. Best not be fooled. Best to leave the law the way it is.


Trixie,
The exact same reasons for accepting homosexual relationships can be used to accept a father/daughter relationship like the one in the link.
Are you willing to teach your children that this relationship is also normal.


I think what is REALLy bothering you intolerant Christians is that deep down you suspect that you've denied yourself pleasure for no good reason. That ultimately God gave us free will and isn't so concerned with the small things. If you were truly so sure that you were right, then you wouldn't need laws to back you up. You would just bask in the light of the Lord and pray for the unfortunate who do not see. But you don't do that, do you?


So tell me FormFactor - why is that you only focus on this one part of the Bible and ignore every other sin described in Leviticus?
Do you still burn a bull on the altar because the odor pleases God? Because it says you should or you are a sinner in Lev. 1:9.
Do you approach the altar with defect in sight? Cuz according to Lev. 21:20 you should be smited?


FormFactor:

The exact same reasons for accepting homosexual relationships can be used to accept a father/daughter relationship like the one in the link.
Are you willing to teach your children that this relationship is also normal.

Yes, I know this wasn't directed at me, but hey, I'm gonna answer anyways.

Firstly, it's not the same argument. I know I stated before that incest should be legal. But they're completely separate arguments. If you wanted to take it from a purely biblical sense, then one would think that an incestuous relationship would be "better" than a homosexual relationship, no? But that's not what we're here to talk about. One does not necessarily follow the other.

2. I'm willing to teach my children, when they reach the proper age, that some people grow up to be gay, and that they shouldn't be judged because of that fact.


Privatize marriage and get the government out of it altogether. Problem solved.


It's so funny that Republicans and Christian Extremists (like that's not an oxymoron) are worried that someone is going to "teach" their kids to be gay or that homosexuality is somehow a threat to them. First, you can certainly educate a person...child or otherwise on what gay is but you can't teach them to "BE" gay. If you asked those that are so adamantly against gay marriage if they are gay or are interested in having gay sex...they would forcefully say- NO!!! So clearly they are certain of...and well established in their sexuality and appear to be impossible to change their minds. So why can't they see and believe that the vast majority of others are just as entrenched and certain of their sexuality as well. Ignorance of what something is...isn't going to protect you from that something and it won't stop a person from spending a lifetime of looking for that something, even when they're not sure exactly what it is they're looking for. Gay, is not some kind of cold that you can pick up by exposure. Virtually all gay people come from straight parents...so clearly being straight is no more contagious than being gay. Education is the key and the cure to prejudice and bigotry. It's seeing that gay couples and straight couples both want to be married for the same reasons. There is so much common ground between these two groups and ultimately they want the same thing. And yes, I believe that many gay married couples want to extend their lives and "legacy" beyond themselves by having or raising children...just like most straight couples. So even there, gay couples are the same as straight, in the end are gay couples and different or should they not be extended the same rights as a straight but infertile couple.


BeachBum:
1. "That ultimately God gave us free will and isn't so concerned with the small things."

Really? Where did you get this insight about what God thinks? I'm asking for proof that God thinks this way.

2. "So tell me FormFactor - why is that you only focus on this one part of the Bible and ignore every other sin described in Leviticus?"

Because Chan Lowe drew a cartoon about the homosexuality issue. When Chan Lowe draws a cartoon on the other sins I might write about those, too.

3. "Do you still burn a bull on the altar because the odor pleases God?"

No. Jesus' sacrifice in my stead took care of that.

4. "Because it says you should or you are a sinner in Lev. 1:9."

See previous answer.

5. "Do you approach the altar with defect in sight? Cuz according to Lev. 21:20 you should be smited?"

See previous answer.



Andrew,
Thanks for your reply.

You wrote: Firstly, it's not the same argument. I know I stated before that incest should be legal. But they're completely separate arguments.

Me: How so? If the same reasons given for one apply in exactly the same way to the other then how can one be denied?

You: If you wanted to take it from a purely biblical sense, then one would think that an incestuous relationship would be "better" than a homosexual relationship, no?

Yes: Perhaps. But we're not taking it from a biblical point of view. In fact, I haven't mentioned the bible in my argument at all. I'm looking at it from a purely secular view. Few are consistent in their reply to this problem.

You: I'm willing to teach my children, when they reach the proper age, that some people grow up to be gay, and that they shouldn't be judged because of that fact.

Me: I can respect that. But it's also true that some people grow up to love their siblings or their parents to the point of having sex and wanting to be married. Others love mutliple people. Other still, love children while others love animals. And if there's a genetic reason for this as there is supposed to be with homosexuality how can any of them be ever judged as being "abnormal"? See the problem?


FormFactor:

"How so? If the same reasons given for one apply in exactly the same way to the other then how can one be denied?"

Because, again, it's not an "if a, then b" argument. I understand the slippery slope, but I don't think it's there. Again, one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

"Perhaps. But we're not taking it from a biblical point of view. In fact, I haven't mentioned the bible in my argument at all. I'm looking at it from a purely secular view. Few are consistent in their reply to this problem."

Then apologies to you. So many of the arguments I get on this are biblical, not secular.

"I can respect that. But it's also true that some people grow up to love their siblings or their parents to the point of having sex and wanting to be married. Others love mutliple people. Other still, love children while others love animals. And if there's a genetic reason for this as there is supposed to be with homosexuality how can any of them be ever judged as being "abnormal"? See the problem?"

I think the difference is that because of societal norms people have come to think that homosexuality is okay, but incest, polygamy and other such "different" sexual paraphillias are not quite so in the open. I kinda doubt it would ever come up in my lifetime. If it does, I'll cross the bridge when I come to it to be perfectly honest.

I do appreciate your eloquence in this discussion, even though we disagree. It's rare that I've been able to have this kind of civil discussion on the subject.


Andrew,
I agree that one doesn't necessarily have to lead to the other. On the other hand it's a sure thing, at least to those in my camp, that it eventually will. Given the history of our species it's as sure a bet as one could hope to find.

That open homosexuality much less marriage and child adoption by homosexuals is spoken of in such casual terms is proof itself that taboos/morality are subject to their own 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Twenty, thirty years ago the thought of marriage between homosexuals was met with the same degree of resistance as incestuous/polygamous marriages are viewed with now.
I'm guessing we'll see such cases come up within 10-12 years if not less. Australia and Germany each have a famous case regarding this. There are probably many more we haven't heard of.

We'll all have to cross or burn those bridges when we come to them. Some of us (evangelicals) and other religious types would rather prevent them from happening altogether.

Finally, I appreciate your contributions to this as well. Civil discussions on this or just about any other topic is indeed rare these days. Thanks to you!


If GOD meant for us to be gay, we would all have the same sex organs.

PS.. Gays should not be allowed to raise or possess children.


Beachbum........ As a Genuine Christian, the law doesn't affect me. God has full control over my life that everything that happens around me doesn't matter. I just pray for those who ask, don't ask and the lost.

Beachbum....My life is sooo much better since I started living through God, so I didn't miss out on pleasures for no reason. I have this peace, joy (constant happiness) and love from God that everyone else in the world dont have. Everyone else are stressed, taking pills, driking, smoking, depressed and their pain is still there. They only experience temporary happiness.

Anyways, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gommorah for their raping men in their butts! This society has strayed so far away from the religion so this is only part of what you should worry about for your children. I think the greed is just as perverted as gays.


A yes vote for Amendment 2 deserves some introspection. First, where does the Sanctity of marriage come from in our society? I propose that the Sanctity of marriage derives from Judeo-Christian teachings, namely The Bible for the majority of those that have been married, even those married by a Justice of the Peace.
In the Bible, what consists of a marriage that has this Sanctity? A marriage is when a man and a woman are joined together by God as one flesh.
According to Jesus Christ, the marriage of a man and woman that joined together under God can not be put asunder by any man!
Jesus Christ explained that if a man or a woman gets a bill of divorce and then re-marries, he or she are then adulterers. What man is there that can put asunder what God joined together, the Sanctity of Marriage?
So what happens to this covenant when it is broken? Churches are filled with adulterers and the sanctity of marriage doesn’t apply to those that accept those adulterers, acting as though they are sinless. Those adulterers are not just someone that lied, stole or even murdered once, they are voluntarily living a life of sin each day.
Jesus asked those among a crowd to caste the first stone at an adulteress, if they were without from sin. No one threw a stone.
Jesus then told the adulteress, “Go, sin no more”.
Jesus told the Pharisees, “First take the mote out of your eyes before you try to remove the splinter in mine”.
Introspection is necessary before a yes vote on Amendment 2 is made. God forbid that your church is one of those full of divorced and remarried adulterers and you throw the first stone.


Leave a Reply

COMMENT BOARD GUIDELINES:

You share in the SunSentinel.com community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.


Post a comment


(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Advertisement
About the author
Chan LoweCHAN LOWE has been the Sun Sentinel’s first and only editorial cartoonist for the past twenty-six years. Before that, he worked as cartoonist and writer for the Oklahoma City Times and the Shawnee (OK) News-Star.

Chan went to school in New York City, Los Angeles, and the U.K., and graduated from Williams College in 1975 with a degree in Art History. He also spent a year at Stanford University as a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow.

His work has won numerous awards, including the Green Eyeshade Award and the National Press Foundation Berryman Award. He has also been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His cartoons have won multiple first-place awards in all of the Florida state journalism contests, and The Lowe-Down blog, which he began in 2008, has won writing awards from the Florida Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with me


Search this blog
Get text alerts on your phone


Send me the following alerts:

STORM - Weather Alerts
NEWS - Breaking News Alerts
LOTTO - Lottery Numbers
SPORTS - Breaking Sports News
BIZ - Business news headlines
ENT - Entertainment news headlines
DEALS - Free offers and money saving deals


You can also sign up for by texting any of the above keywords to 23539. Standard messaging and data rates apply.
E-mail newsletters
Get the news that matters to you delivered to your inbox. Breaking news, hurricane alerts, news from your neighborhood, and more. Click here to sign up for our newsletters. It is fast, easy and free!