‘Dear Abby’ speaks out for gay marriage.
By on Oct 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
‘Dear Abby’ speaks out for gay marriage.
Next week, when she accepts the first-ever “Straight for Equality” award from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, author Jeanne Phillips, who writes the nationally syndicated “Dear Abby” column started by her mother, will publicly declare her support for gay marriage. “I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless ‘em,” Phillips told the AP. “That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven’s sake.” Phillips “Dear Abby” column appears in about 1,400 newspapers.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rice
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Out of line, Rory/Jake.
I reported your abuse.
I encourage others to do the same.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:40 pmI wonder how many newspapers will end up dropping her column as a result of shrieking from the Right. Good for her.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:44 pmIt ain’t called the “slippery slope†argument for nothin’.
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
It’s a strawman and a remarkably stupid one at that.
Incest is a crime and it’s an utterly different situation than a relationship between two adults. Try to keep up.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pmJustice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas that incest and all other sorts of deviant behaviors were next.
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Thus providing more evidence that Scalia is an ideologue and a terrible judge.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:46 pmIt ain’t called the “slippery slope†argument for nothin’.
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Yeah, and it all started when those liberals lifted the ban on interacial marriages. Whats next? People marrying potted plants?
Personally I think we should ban all marriage, that way we don’t have to worry about anyone marrying someone they shouldn’t.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pmHow about when a father and daughter want to commit to each other?
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Seems to me the rightards already do that, what with the dances and rings and committment ceremonies that wingnut daughters and daddies do.
Gross Old Perverts.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pmGood for her. I hope more people speak out about how adults in this country are denied basic rights, because of their gender.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pmHow about when a father and daughter want to commit to each other?
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
How about when two (or more) individuals want the contractual and legal protections and protections from discrimination that the simple word “marriage” brings with it in the eyes of the law, without having to spend thousands of dollars to draft up a contract with equitable protections, hmmm?
How about letting any legal adult who wishes to commit to such a LEGAL commitment be allowed to do so, hmmm?
Marriage is NOT just a religious ceremony, it is a LEGAL CONTRACT. One that no religion has a legal right to deny. Is there a law allowing a Baptist doctor to refuse to give birth to a Catholic woman ’s child because her marriage isn’t recognized by his church? Are there laws allowing a Christian landlord to refuse a rental to a legitimately married Jewish couple, due to cohabitation laws, just because they are Jewish?
No, none of that kind of nonsense is allowed, because marriage is a CONTRACT. A LEGAL Contract.
The entire argument against gay marriage, polygamy, etc, is intellectually dishonest, and wholly bogus. One church is not ALLOWED to question the legal status of a couple’s marriage, be that couple Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Satanists, or a combination thereof. Even if a CHURCH declares there to be no legitimacy in a given marriage, that church has NO LEGAL GROUND TO STAND ON.
Slippery slope? How is allowing two or more adult human beings the right to join in a contract a slippery slope? Children cannot enter in to a great many contracts by law. Animals cannot sign or otherwise agree to a contract. Likewise corpses cannot sign or otherwise agree to a contract. There IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE except the one in your head that is skewing your thought processes.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:00 pmWho said I wasn’t talking about a father and his ADULT daughter?
BTW: gummitch — homosexual behavior was once a crime too.
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
So was miscegenation; what’s your point?
Laws exist to make clear distinctions, which is why we see terms like “justifiable homicide.” If you can’t sort out the difference in your mind between adult homosexual behavior and incest or bestiality or whatever “perversions” you want to trot out, that’s not society’s problem.
There is no justification for preventing two adults, who are not parent and child, from marrying. Other than this irrelevant argument about “a slippery slope” why not try proving otherwise?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThis proves that her column is in shambles.
Comment by Daryll — October 9, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
You’re late, Daryll. We’ve been discussing the homos for nearly 30 minutes and you just got here. You’re slipping.
And you’re irrelevant and wrong and . . . a buffoon.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:03 pmThe fact that rory brought up the knuckle-dragging, law-hating, psycho Scalia puts his argument in the garbage.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:03 pmhis proves that her column is in shambles.
Comment by Daryll — October 9, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Yes, it must be awful cashing those 5-figure checks every month, the poor thing. Her column is in shambles? Where did you dream that up?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pmHow about when a father and daughter want to commit to each other?
Comment by Rory
They start calling themselves mormons and move to mexico from what I hear. Besides what does this have to do with Gay marriage, they cant procreate.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThis proves that her column is in shambles.
Comment by Daryll — October 9, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
This proves that your mind is in shambles.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThis proves that her column is in shambles.
Comment by Daryll
It does? Prove it?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:06 pmdaryll should find a nice boy to marry.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pmDear Rory….
!#$%^&*()+!!!#$%&^*(&^%$***%$^&##!???)*&&&
What should I do?
Please help.
Sincerely,
Daryll
October 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pmwow…
intellectual arguments go right out the window when people start talking about homosexualilty…
I wonder if its because they may have latent feelings and are trying to repress them through overcompensation….
naaaaaah, of course not
October 9th, 2007 at 7:11 pmDear Daryll
You are a very bad boy.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThe only hope for your redemption is to receive punishment directly from my hand.
I will be in the third cabana from the left, the purple and pink one, this December in Copa Cabana.
Bring the cocoa butter, leave Tiffany at the hotel room.
Sincerely,
Rory
“BTW: gummitch — homosexual behavior was once a crime too.”
..Rory/Jake
It’s called progress little guy. Slavery used to be legal too. And, according to one popular myth, we used to stone to death people who dissed their parents or approached the altar with bad eyesight.
The rest of humanity will continue this progress and drag you neanderthals along. Or not. If you choose to live in fear of homosexuals and folks with different color skin, and people who worship a different God, feel free to watch the rest of us move forward.
You and Brother Darryll can keep each other warm and safe.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:16 pmnaaaaaah, of course not
Comment by raynman — October 9, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Sorry, raynman, but I saw nothing intellectual here in this thread from the very beginning.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pmRelationships, with regards to domesticity, no matter who they are between, rarely have an intellectual foundation to begin with.
Sometimes the best way to get rid of vapid trollery is to beat them at their own game.
The ironic part is that Daryll claims to be black, but constantly smears black people that stand up for his community. CoulterIsamAnn
I am still not convinced that Daryll exists. His posts seem like poorly drawn caricatures of a one dimensional Christian. If your goal was to paint Christianity in a bad light, the crap that Daryll posts would do it.
If he is real, that’s even sadder. What a pathetic little creature he would be.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:26 pmCan Jake D. Fake (aka Rory) get any stupider, oh wait, he does that daily, forgot.
It is called EQUAL RIGHTS. And marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, so the FASCIST PIG government should have nothing to say about it.
Buck Fush
October 9th, 2007 at 7:35 pmincredible…
the first 18 comments are derailed because of the 1st trooll dropping…
until the parodyll shows up, and then it’s all about that stupidity…
congratulations…
…
my small town paper always carried abby’s sister, ann landers…
now it’s ASK AMY since ann’s passing… amy’s doing a fine job…
it’s too bad that the abby column just may suffer repercussions
October 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pmbecause of this… i sure hope not…
…
Dear Daryll
You are a very bad boy
i’d go so far as to say he’s a NASTY, NAUGHTY boy.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pmI wonder if the original Abby would have felt the same…
Good to hear there’s at least some sense in the media though.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:12 pmYou go girl, er, ma’am.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:15 pmDaryll, why don’t you start a column for lowbrow morons with a religious bent.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:16 pmThere’s millions just like you out there waiting to hear your every word.!
Please folks. Stop responding to Rory’s ugly straw-man arguments. All you are doing is giving this Right Wing Loon the attention she so craves. She must not have friends and she must have no love to come here and provoke people the say she does.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pmDEAR ABBEY IS GAY?
Comment by GoTFreedumb
Does it matter one way or another?
October 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pmThis proves that her column is in shambles.
Comment by Daryll
Why, because she has an opinion contrary to yours. What it proves is that she is a woman of courage who has a big heart. Kind of what I would like to think a Christian would be.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:32 pmWhy, because she has an opinion contrary to yours. What it proves is that she is a woman of courage who has a big heart. Kind of what I would like to think a Christian would be.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Six minutes ago you were lecturing other people about feeding the trolls! Sheesh.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:37 pmSix minutes ago you were lecturing other people about feeding the trolls! Sheesh.
Comment by gummitch
I know, it’s really tough. But since there doesn’t seem to be anything else to do on this thread, I thought I would join in on the fun. But I will not join in on the Rory’s straw-man incest argument. That is too stupid for words and should not be continued.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pmTroll-bashing is good, wholesome, thoroughly American sport. Gutting trolls with their own lies is not feeding them.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pmTo get back on topic:
Hey Zooey, heard about Larry Craig’s “Super Tuber”? It’s all here:
http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm
This was submitted by his “wife”!
October 9th, 2007 at 8:48 pmIf homosexuality is wrong, then why did The Creator make so many of them?
October 9th, 2007 at 8:51 pmThat’s pretty funny Keith, thanks!
October 9th, 2007 at 8:52 pmI know, it’s really tough. But since there doesn’t seem to be anything else to do on this thread, I thought I would join in on the fun. But I will not join in on the Rory’s straw-man incest argument. That is too stupid for words and should not be continued.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
We pick and choose. “Rory” has apparently scuttled off anyway, but I think that particular argument has more potential than arguing with Daryll about religion. I was looking to Rory for an explanation, beyond “slippery slope” (which was easily shot down) of the harm done to society by gay marriage. Which I submit is clearly on-topic and also probably accounts for the scuttling away.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:53 pmCoulterIsamAnn,
Don’t forget Showtunes
October 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pmIf God isn’t a TarHeel, then why did he make the sky Carolina Blue?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pmTo make sure heaven is properly decorated! ;)
Comment by CoulterIsamAnn
LOL
With the finest antiques…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:10 pmMarriage… the one where you get a state license… is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with religion.
Why do people keep wanting to codify their personal religious beliefs into law? Like the Muslims do…
If you don’t want to perform church a ceremonie for a couple just because God made them gay, then go ahead and be a bigot…
But do not try (like they tried in Colorado more than a decade ago) to deny people due process because of their sexual orientation.
Ya know it used to be illegal in some states for couples to wed if one was black and the other not?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pmDaryll, why don’t you start a column for lowbrow morons with a religious bent.
There’s millions just like you out there waiting to hear your every word.!
Comment by RUCerious — October 9, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Right here:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://xxxchurch.com/
October 9th, 2007 at 9:49 pmthen why did The Creator make so many of them?
Comment by Keith — October 9, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
And why did He make so many of them Republicans???
Whattasenseahumor…. BWAHAHAHAHAHA…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pmTroll-bashing is good, wholesome, thoroughly American sport. Gutting trolls with their own lies is not feeding them.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 9, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Indeed, lefty Patriot! Whack-A-Troll… the Sport of Kings!!!
October 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pmmaybe it’s one of those “have to be there” things…
but mostly the troll feeding is absolutely annoying and tiresome…
i suppose it may be fun to those who are participating,
but to those who come to ThinkProgress to read and LEARN,
those “whack a troll” games are a REAL DRAG…
it is also very selfish…
the LIES and MISINFORMATION that these idjits spew forth are so easily pointed out and cleared up WITHOUT direct engagement…
i enjoy a good chuckle and a mighty push back as much as anyone…
October 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pmi’d allow for a time or two… but anything beyond is just bad form…
bad manners… … selfish…
…
It ain’t called the “slippery slope†argument for nothin’.
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember when many states still had enforced laws against interracial marriage. Whenever these laws were challenged by an interracial couple who wished to marry, the “slippery slope” argument was used by the opposition. “If you let white people marry black people, next thing you know they’ll want to be marrying dogs!” and other similarly stupid remarks.
There are still a few people who have issues with interracial marriage, and there probably always will be people who will hang onto their prejudices no matter what. But for the vast majority of us, it seems silly to prevent two people who love each other and want to commit themselves to each other for life from marrying just because they are different colors.
The day will come when gays will be permitted to marry. AND further down the road will come the day when most people will look back and think how stupid it was that they once weren’t. When that day comes, are you going to be one of the minority with blinders on — steadfastly holding onto your bigotry? Hope you find some comfort in your hatred.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:15 pmHow about when a father and daughter want to commit to each other? Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
I am assuming you are talking about an adult daughter — a daughter of minor age would be a different situation entirely.
In most states, you may not marry any relative closer to you than a first cousin (some states permit first cousin marriages, others don’t). This has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with genetics. I won’t get into a long thing about dominant and recessive genes here, but I’ll just say that people who are related to each other and have similar genetic patterns have a higher risk of passing birth defects to their children. Even before humankind knew about genetics, they could see this, so marrying family members became taboo.
This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with gays wishing to marry.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:26 pmEven before humankind knew about genetics, they could see this, so marrying family members became taboo.
This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with gays wishing to marry.
Comment by missmolly — October 9, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
But it has everything to do w/ Rory surrepitously bashing gays…
If you want to see the problem w/ inbreeding, just look at Irish Setters or certain noble families in European history..
October 9th, 2007 at 10:34 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 9, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
Or you can just take a good look at Rory/Mr P. I suspect (s)he made that (il)logical leap for a reason…
October 9th, 2007 at 10:57 pmAnd off-topic, but to highlight -once again- the hypocrisy of the self-appointed guardians of society’s moral values:
One of America’s leading Christian universities has been hit by lurid allegations of sexual and financial misconduct, the latest scandal to engulf the world of televangelism.[…]
The [Oral Roberts] university jet was allegedly used to take one daughter and several friends on a trip to Florida and the Bahamas. The $29,411 tour was billed to the ministry as an “evangelistic function of the president.â€
Mrs Roberts frequently had mobile phone bills of more than $800 a month, with hundreds of text messages sent between 1am and 3am to “underage males . . . provided phones at university expenseâ€. The Roberts are also accused of summoning university employees to their home to do their daughters’ homework.
Scandal hits TV preacher’s academy
What is it with these “conservatives” and their obsession with underage boys and girls?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:03 pmComment by CoulterIsamAnn — October 9, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
That is just too funny.
Their hypocrisy is the gift that keeps on giving.
To think that these are the people who were going to lead the country down the straight and narrow path. No pun intended ;-)
October 9th, 2007 at 11:22 pmHey Zooey, heard about Larry Craig’s “Super Tuber� It’s all here:
This was submitted by his “wifeâ€!
Comment by Keith — October 9, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
I’m moving out of this damn state, and I won’t tell anyone where to! Just in case…. :-D
October 10th, 2007 at 1:11 amIn most states, you may not marry any relative closer to you than a first cousin (some states permit first cousin marriages, others don’t). This has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with genetics. I won’t get into a long thing about dominant and recessive genes here, but I’ll just say that people who are related to each other and have similar genetic patterns have a higher risk of passing birth defects to their children. Even before humankind knew about genetics, they could see this, so marrying family members became taboo.
This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with gays wishing to marry.
Comment by missmolly — October 9, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Well, if reproduction becomes a non-issue, why the prohibition against close family members? Especially for gay men? Brothers, cousins, etc?
All the arguments I have heard FOR gay marriage can be equally applied to any and all combinations of consenting adults, no matter how many or how few. There is no logical limitation to simply two, unrelated individuals. What logic would ultimately prevent me from starting a ‘free love’ commune and pressuring the government to recognize my personal communal marriage because it is so unfair to limit the rights to groups of only 2 people? Is there a limit that can be consistently and logically defended?
Now, what public institution will you propose to recognize and protect that relationship that produces and nurtures the next generation of humans? Or should there even be an institution at all? Does the ideal society let men and women simply procreate freely, with a communal raising of the children produced, or is there an ideal relationship that should be encouraged and protected?
Please don’t use disfuctional examples, I’m asking about what the ideal would look like.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:35 amPlease don’t use disfuctional examples, I’m asking about what the ideal would look like.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 1:35 am
You’re disgusting. Go hang out at GodHatesFags. They’ll welcome you w/ open arms.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:48 amBut LOGIC is almost never found in Rory’s posts!
Comment by criticalthinker — October 10, 2007 @ 1:52 am
“Almost never… “??? Yer too kind…
October 10th, 2007 at 2:00 amComment by richg
Stupid is as Stupid posts. Need I say more? What was that song in movie go….dar, dar, dar, dar, nar….dar, nar, nar, nar….dar, dar, dar, nar, nar….hehe, man this poster is the ultimate moron, sweet, been laughing at the total stupidity of “it’s” posts, wow, hehe
Buck Fush
October 10th, 2007 at 2:05 amYou’re disgusting. Go hang out at GodHatesFags. They’ll welcome you w/ open arms.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 10, 2007 @ 1:48 am
No, they won’t. And I hold them in just as much regard as they do you.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:08 amhehehe, still can’t put a logical post together….hehe….richg….hahahahaha…richg…repuke, funny, haha, choke, hehe, what a mAroon (aka Bugs Bunny)…hehehe
October 10th, 2007 at 2:09 amStupid is as Stupid posts. Need I say more? What was that song in movie go….dar, dar, dar, dar, nar….dar, nar, nar, nar….dar, dar, dar, nar, nar….hehe, man this poster is the ultimate moron, sweet, been laughing at the total stupidity of “it’s†posts, wow, hehe
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy — October 10, 2007 @ 2:05 am
Thank you for such an intelligent response. I appreciate your insights.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:12 amAnd I hold them in just as much regard as they do you.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Well, since they don’t know me, and the only thing you know about me is that I can tell yer one nasty, sick F*ck from yer hateful comment, yer reply makes about as much sense as yer first comment.
Yer sick, and irrational. Tough luck fer you… BWAHAHAHAHA…
October 10th, 2007 at 2:33 amRichm once again, I really encourage you to get some form of legal education before you begin spouting your illogical comparisons.
To constitutionally pass a law not involving a protected class (which sexual orientation is not), the law must merely be reasonably related to a compelling government interest.
If we allow polygamy, this will throw the marriage statutes of every state, and the federal government, into complete and total dissaray. How would we change the laws of marital property to deal with multiple marriages? How would we handle interspousal torts and divorce law? What about full faith and credit? The legal implications of allowing mutiple marriages, by itself, creates a compelling government interest not to do so. In addition, we often see that many women in polygamous relationships seem especially prone to maniupulation and exploitation, and it is this same exploitation the government would have a compelling interest in preventing by banning polygamy. Personally, I’d love to have 10 wives, but this isnt about me, or my person morality. People like you are unable to see that its not all about you and what you think is “moral” and “decent” .
Likelwise, with incest, there are similar compelling government interests that would justify banning it. For one, the biological implications (unless you are going to make the absurd argument that we should ban a certain kind of hetereosexual activity while allowing the homosexual equivalent), create a compelling government interest in banning the practice. Secondly, as mentioned by others, allowing incest, even adult incest, would enourage some parents to exploit the very powerful and easily abused power they have over thier children (even over 18) to try and turn their children into their little own f@ckfactories by preening them for years to be “daddys little girl”. Preventing the parent/child relationship being exploited for later sexual gratification is a compelling government interest.
Pray tell, what is the compelling government interest in the government needing to know what you and your partner have in your pants before they let you marry?
October 10th, 2007 at 7:05 amNewsflash: “Dear Abby” supports gay marriage!
me: YAWNNNNNNN. It aint like a war that’s killed thousands (if not millions) is taken place.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:06 amLeave it to Jake the Fake to base his argument on a movie! LOL!
October 10th, 2007 at 8:17 amNow, what public institution will you propose to recognize and protect that relationship that produces and nurtures the next generation of humans? Or should there even be an institution at all? Does the ideal society let men and women simply procreate freely, with a communal raising of the children produced, or is there an ideal relationship that should be encouraged and protected?
Please don’t use disfuctional examples, I’m asking about what the ideal would look like.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 1:35 am
The problem here is that you haven’t shown how homosexual marriage will change the protections offered by standard heterosexual marriage. And positing the “ideal society” is not working, since the ideal society would never allow the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocents in Iraq in order for a sociopath to show his father who’s boss! Homesexual marriage is a model for an ideal society, since it grants the same rights to all of “god’s” creations, while changing nothing else. The “slippery slope” is imaginary, unproven, and a canard.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:22 am#91 - “The problem here is that you haven’t shown how homosexual marriage will change the protections offered by standard heterosexual marriage.” Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 10, 2007 @ 8:22 am
You’re using FACTS! Doncha know that right-whiners make up the facts, and all us liberals are always wrong? /sarcasm
There has never been one single logical argument against allowing same-sex marriage by the right, and they know it. This is one of the last emotional arguments on which they base their so-called “values” in order to fool the American public into supporting their extreme agenda, and it’s failing. Rapidly.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:33 amThe only “threat” to heterosexual marriage comes from: heterosexuals!
Seriously! What makes heterosexuals get divorced? Is it the fear that same-sex marriage will reduce the value of their marriage? There goes THAT false argument.
Does marriage make heterosexuals have children? What about all the married couples that don’t have children? There goes the false argument about continuation of the species.
Are there any other false arguments that same-sex fearing heterosexuals use in an attempt to support the unsupportable?
October 10th, 2007 at 8:38 amThis is not entirely accurate.
The marriage license is a government issued document – mine was issued by the county – which makes a record of the marriage.
Legally that license is the document that records the fact that a man and a woman are married. The marriage itself is when a man and a woman declare their intention to be married. I say this because the constitution of the U.S. doesn’t remark on “allowing†a man and a woman to be married.
This is the accepted manner for almost forever. Government simply recognizes this relationship since controlling it is impossible, and it’s in the state’s interest to encourage marriage between a man and a woman.
That’s why there are signature spaces for the witnesses on the license. It is that declaration of intention to be married that makes a marriage, and those signatories are witnesses to that declaration. If the state simply allowed it, there be no need for any signatures.
The license makes a record, and the state recognizes certain sharing of property rights and responsibilities to children of that marriage based on that record.
The Old Testament records that Jacob and Rachael were married when he took her into his tent. Of course, he did this so they could have sex, but this was the recognition of the intent to be man and wife.
You might want to note what it takes to declare a cohabiting couple as man and wife. If the couple is ever addressed as Mr. and Mrs. – and they don’t correct the person making this address, then the state may try to declare them common law marriage should this be in the interest of the state.
Many Evangelical Christians belief that oldest human institution – marriage – was created by God. Genesis suggests, but does not make clear, that marriage is even older than religion.. This is the scripture to which Christ was alluded when he quoted from Genesis in Matthew 19.
In Matthew 19:4,5,6, Christ is speaking, answering a question.
In Matthew Christ confirms that a man and a woman are one flesh when they are married. This is not a condition that exists between a man and a woman. Hence, marriage remains a relationship between a man and a woman.
There’s no government on earth strong enough to change that.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:28 amCorrection:
In Matthew Christ confirms that a man and a woman are one flesh when they are married. This is a condition that exists between a man and a woman. Hence, marriage remains a relationship between a man and a woman.
There’s no government on earth strong enough to change that.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am#65 - In Matthew Christ confirms that a man and a woman are one flesh when they are married.” Comment by bitblt — October 10, 2007 @ 11:30 am
“And what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Now, when I hear you call for divorce to be outlawed, then I will begin to believe your piety.
Until you do, you are simply “picking & choosing” the words of God that fit your prejudices.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:45 amThe question being answered in Matthew 19:4,5,6 is a question about divorce.
Here are verses 3-8.
I believe the phrase “…hearts were hard…†is usually understood to mean that men were killing their wives because they could not divorce them so Moses let them get divorced.
The last verses is very strong: †I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Is this the
Thread is about so-called homosexual marriage, not about adultery. Adultery has caused more misery that homosexuality ever thought about – so to speak.
Among conservative Christians it’s common to hear the remark that if the heterosexuals would behave, the homosexuals would go back in to the closets. But, that’s not what this thread is about.
I do tell everyone, whenever I get a chance, that marriage is one man one woman forever.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm#63 - “I do tell everyone, whenever I get a chance, that marriage is one man one woman forever.” Comment by bitblt — October 10, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
So, when do you start your crusade to enshrine “covenant marriage” in the constitution?
One must, as it has been said before, address the real “threat” to heterosexual marriage, and not the fabricated straw-man argument blaming all hetero ills on homos.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pmWhat?
October 10th, 2007 at 1:00 pmThe problem here is that you haven’t shown how homosexual marriage will change the protections offered by standard heterosexual marriage. And positing the “ideal society†is not working, since the ideal society would never allow the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocents in Iraq in order for a sociopath to show his father who’s boss! Homesexual marriage is a model for an ideal society, since it grants the same rights to all of “god’s†creations, while changing nothing else. The “slippery slope†is imaginary, unproven, and a canard.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 10, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Ok. Let’s step back for a minute. Most of the legal aspects of “marriage” have little to nothing to do with how much two [or more] people feel about each other. It was to recognize something unique in the procreative relationship, where one person had the biological obligation to give up external pursuits in order to give herself to the pregnancy, nurturing and raising of children, while the other was obligated to the external tasks of providing for and protecting the more defenseless. This is an ancient recognition, far pre-dating our modern opinions and practices.
I was not writing anything directly attacking gay marriages, but it seems plain that to me that the traditional arrangement was there for a reason, no matter how badly it is practiced today. I don’t have as much problem with people setting up whatever living and contractual relationship they wish, as I do with disregard for the relationships that produced us. And just because many of the traditional marriages so often suck or fail, this does not prove that the traditional marriage is wrong - it just proves we don’t practice it well.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThis thread is hilarious.
I like the little scholars here. But richg/bitbit you really might want to take a refresher course in modern social history. You talk of “the traditional marriage” as if it has existed since the dawn of time, or since the the Old Testament, or since Jesus, or even since 1776. And that is bull.
By “traditional marriage” I assume you mean one life-long sexual/emotional/legal relationship between consenting adults of the opposite sex in which the partners procreate, share property, have legal responsibilities to one another, etc.
That’s a type of marriage that did not come into being until the 20th century. It’s absurd to talk about marriage today and pretend it’s the same as marriages between, for example, two children, or an adult man and a girl child. Or marriages in which wives had no legal rights whatsoever, in which women became subsumed under the legal identities of their husbands and lost all legal identity of their own. Those marriages were typical throughout the 19th century.
There’s no Platonic form of “the traditional marriage,” some beautiful ideal that has been corrupted. Crack open a history book for heaven’s sake.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:33 pmThis thread is hilarious.
I like the little scholars here. But richg/bitbit you really might want to take a refresher course in modern social history. You talk of “the traditional marriage†as if it has existed since the dawn of time, or since the the Old Testament, or since Jesus, or even since 1776. And that is bull.
By “traditional marriage†I assume you mean one life-long sexual/emotional/legal relationship between consenting adults of the opposite sex in which the partners procreate, share property, have legal responsibilities to one another, etc.
That’s a type of marriage that did not come into being until the 20th century. It’s absurd to talk about marriage today and pretend it’s the same as marriages between, for example, two children, or an adult man and a girl child. Or marriages in which wives had no legal rights whatsoever, in which women became subsumed under the legal identities of their husbands and lost all legal identity of their own. Those marriages were typical throughout the 19th century.
There’s no Platonic form of “the traditional marriage,†some beautiful ideal that has been corrupted. Crack open a history book for heaven’s sake.
I have. The view that women had “marriages in which wives had no legal rights whatsoever” seems to be a fiction created by moderns - it does not bear up under even a slight reading of pre-Christian literature from non-Christian societies. The Greeks and Romans recognized specific rights and responsibilities for both husbands and wives, as did the Egyptians and Hebrews (who may have gotten their laws from the even more ancient Chaldeans or Sumerians). Nowhere in human history have I seen women treated legally as having the status of lands or livestock. This does not say that things were identical to today, but that many modern ‘experts’ and ’scholars’ look at the past through the filters of their own current morality.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:27 pmthat many modern ‘experts’ and ’scholars’ look at the past through the filters of their own current morality.
Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
I’ll give one example of selective editing of history to make it conform to our modern sensitivities:
About 4 years ago, when my daughter was still in H.S., I picked up her American History textbook, and happened to stumble of the “Mayflower Compact”, which was listed as one of the important founding documents of the Colonies. I had heard several from the Christian Right read excerpts from their ‘version’ which seemed to make the case for the Evangelical Right’s interpretation of American History. Funny thing, the school textbook version had no reference to “the Gospel”, “Jesus Christ” or anything even remotely ‘evangelical’. I then went to my copy of the World Book Encyclopedia (1995 Edition) to look it up to see who was right - and you know, it was Falwell, Dobson and D.James Kennedy who had it right. The schoolbook’s version had been edited. With NO disclaimer or notation.
Now you may think it was right to edit this historical document under the “separation of church and state” doctrine, but to do so with NO comment presents a very different history than what actually happened. And if there is such a simple historical sanitizing that can be so easily discovered, what else is being changed? And taught to those who do not have the ability to do their own checking?
October 10th, 2007 at 8:59 pm#73 - “What?” Comment by bitblt — October 10, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
I think you know of what I speak, when right-whiners “claim” that allowing same-sex marriages will (somehow, mysteriously, magically) underminde the importance of heterosexual marriage.
Why don’t you blame the rising deficit on gay-marriage?
Why don’t you blame terrorism on gay-marriage?
They all have the same staw-man type argument.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:33 am#74 - “It was to recognize something unique in the procreative relationship, where one person had the biological obligation to give up external pursuits in order to give herself to the pregnancy, nurturing and raising of children, while the other was obligated to the external tasks of providing for and protecting the more defenseless. This is an ancient recognition, far pre-dating our modern opinions and practices.”
So, I take it you would be in favor of passing the law that would require married couples to procreate within a certain amount of time after marriage, and requiring those who do not procreate to have the marriage annulled.
“And just because many of the traditional marriages so often suck or fail, this does not prove that the traditional marriage is wrong - it just proves we don’t practice it well.” Comment by richg — October 10, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
So, because we don’t “practice” traditional marriages “well”, we should outlaw any other types of marriages, because we have to keep practicing “unwell” marriages before we can allow any other marriages?
I’m not sure where you’re going with your argument, except to say that because heterosexuals have done so badly at the whole marriage thing in recent years that homosexuals should be barred from having them because. . . . . .
October 11th, 2007 at 7:39 amSo, I take it you would be in favor of passing the law that would require married couples to procreate within a certain amount of time after marriage, and requiring those who do not procreate to have the marriage annulled.
No. I didn’t say that.
So, because we don’t “practice†traditional marriages “wellâ€, we should outlaw any other types of marriages, because we have to keep practicing “unwell†marriages before we can allow any other marriages?
I’m not sure where you’re going with your argument, except to say that because heterosexuals have done so badly at the whole marriage thing in recent years that homosexuals should be barred from having them because. . . . . .
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 11, 2007 @ 7:39 am
I thought it would have been obvious, having read the previous posts here.
So many people want to use the hypocrisy of some of the heterosexuals as a broad brush to say that the hetero marriage is not, nor should be, the ideal. I don’t buy that argument. The existence of hypocrisy doesn’t destroy that any more than the a few leadfoot drivers proves we shouldn’t have speed limits.
And I never said homosexuals should be barred from anything - just that the traditional family pattern should be encouraged. I will here go on record with how I see gay marriage weakening that - by dilution. It’s like the statement by Syndrome in ‘The Incredibles’ where he said “… And then everyone will be a super. Then no one will be.” Recognizing gay marriages, while not directly attacking the traditional family, does so in a more indirect way, that is, by removing its uniqueness. Sorta like simply printing more currency devalues what is already in circulation. So there is no longer any significant recognition of the sacrifices that many ordinary people make in order to produce the next generation, it becomes only about what makes the marriage partners feel good.
October 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am#80 - “And I never said homosexuals should be barred from anything - just that the traditional family pattern should be encouraged. I will here go on record with how I see gay marriage weakening that - by dilution.” Comment by richg — October 11, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Well, I can see where you’re coming from, but I still disagree with your surmise. I recall my grandfather telling me that the US started down the wrong track when they began repealling laws that outlawed inter-racial marriages. “It’s going to make marriage mean nothing at all if they allow blacks and whites to marry!”
Of course, his perspective was proven wrong by history. I’m not comparing your belief directly to his, as there is a difference.
Traditional marriage is “diluted” (to use your terminology) more by couples that decide to solve a problem with divorce than ever same-sex marriages would. In fact, encouraging monogamy, which is a founding principle of marriage, would do more to strengthen marriage than any “exclusive” laws would.
October 11th, 2007 at 11:38 amWell, I can see where you’re coming from, but I still disagree with your surmise. I recall my grandfather telling me that the US started down the wrong track when they began repealling laws that outlawed inter-racial marriages. “It’s going to make marriage mean nothing at all if they allow blacks and whites to marry!â€
Of course, his perspective was proven wrong by history. I’m not comparing your belief directly to his, as there is a difference.
Traditional marriage is “diluted†(to use your terminology) more by couples that decide to solve a problem with divorce than ever same-sex marriages would. In fact, encouraging monogamy, which is a founding principle of marriage, would do more to strengthen marriage than any “exclusive†laws would.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 11, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Finally! Thank you for a thoughtful and civil response. We are not really all that far apart after all. I am not so much for negative laws (prohibitions) as I am for positive encouragement to do right.
True, the rampant divorce rate, as well as the runaway numbers of never-married mothers with absent or derelict fathers is a *VERY* serious problem. A problem that we have not seen the end of yet. History shows the most productive, responsible people tend to come from stable intact homes, while most of the troubled ones come from some form of broken families.
And a lot of this seems to come from a “What’s in it for me?” attitude that is so common on both the right and the left. Life is hard, and marriage doubly so, but as long as I focus on “Me” more than on “Us”, then divorce, abandonment or abuse become more attractive than working through the rough stuff. And there can be a lot of it.
BTW, my dad’s best man was a black man who had a white wife (my parents married in 1949). I remember meeting them in 1955, when I was 5. I never knew what a n*****r was until high school, and even then I thought a ‘coon’ was an animal that ate the catfood off the porch. I had to have the prejudices explained to me.
October 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pmJust so’s y’all know, I come from the era when ‘longhair music’ meant Beethoven or Mendelssohn, and ‘Negro’ was a respectable word for a person of African ancestry, without the sense of insult that there is today.
I don’t know that we are any better off now - it all seemed so innocent then (it could have been just me). The Kennedy and King assassinations, VietNam, race riots, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon (both were equally corrupt in my book). There was so much turmoil from 1964 through 1972. As a nation, I don’t think we have gotten over any of these yet.
October 11th, 2007 at 3:50 pm#82 - “Finally! Thank you for a thoughtful and civil response. We are not really all that far apart after all. I am not so much for negative laws (prohibitions) as I am for positive encouragement to do right. ” Comment by richg — October 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Naw, we’re really not all that different. Except I’m about a decade younger than you! ;-)
I was raised very strict Southern Baptist, and was a Republican until my last year in the Army in 1990. My politics may be on the other spectrum than yours, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect someone just because they disagre with me!
I would like to marry my partner of 7+ years, but marriage is in the heart, not on a piece of paper. In my eyes, we’re married.
October 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pmUm, excuse me, Homosexuality is NORMAL. Anything else is abnormal. You don’t have a choice of being homosexual, unlike being part of a faith or religion that condones what we consider, abnormal behavior. You have a choice of religion. You are either gay or straight. There is no in between, there is nothing else. Marriage is not only constitutional for gay people, but it’s for the betterment of society. People last longer in committed legal relationships, where they get full benefits and aim to stay monogamous. Gay people make up every family, every nationality, every child, etc., this is why it’s not a crime to be gay. Canada has had gay marriage for three years. I don’t remember the country collapsing, do you? Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. To even mention saying, then you would have to allow incest, bestiality, and bigamy, is ludicrous. Those are not normal behaviors. Homosexuality is hard wired, and has existed since the beginning of time. All human beings aim to find a partner. Homosexuals are not going to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. It’s biology’s way of controlling procreation. These are two consenting adults, who pay their way in society, have families, and have known they were gay since they were children. There is no changing it, and it is completely normal. Therefor, homosexuals have every right to marry who they wish, just as everyone else. It’s no one else’s business. It has no affect on you, if you are straight. You either are attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex. Period.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#80 - “And I never said homosexuals should be barred from anything - just that the traditional family pattern should be encouraged. I will here go on record with how I see gay marriage weakening that - by dilution.†Comment by richg — October 11, 2007 @ 11:06 am
And you think homosexuals are going to be “encouraged” to be straight? They are the traditional family. If your child turned out to be gay, you wouldn’t want them to have the same rights as every other person? People don’t jump on a bandwagon and suddenly think, “Let me try that gay marriage thing even though I’m straight.” It doesn’t work like that. Marriages were always legal contracts. It had nothing to do about love or even families. I could care less what a church decides to do. We are simply talking about the legal definition or marriage, not the religious, and religions do not own the term marriage. It is Latin and wasn’t even said until the 13th century, so enough with the Christian right bullshit. Unless we all live under the same laws, we are not truly free. We are trumping one’s personal view over another. You are free to live how you wish with legal protection, just as another person. Homosexuality is normal, it cannot be changed, has been around since the beginning of time, and will end up being in your extended family, or even your child. You are literally fighting over a word and wishing to lump a group of people into another category and phrase. That is not what America is about. It’s the same as segregating blacks from whites in schools. You still got an education, but you were separated. This is the same thing with marriage and trying to push people under a civil union phrase, which doesn’t even cover all the same legal benefits. You can still be fired in this country for being gay, and the Right wing religious nutcases are protected. Yes, we should be pushing marriage, FOR ALL PEOPLE. It works for the betterment of society. You should have the right to get married if you wish. Gay people are still going to be together regardless, and should have all the legal benefits that go along with that, just as anyone else.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm“I would like to marry my partner of 7+ years, but marriage is in the heart, not on a piece of paper. In my eyes, we’re married.”
That’s nice, but if your partner is sick, dies, or you have children, you have no rights, and will be pushed aside. Yes, it does matter, whether you want to be legally married or not. It is important.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:22 pm#74 - “It was to recognize something unique in the procreative relationship, where one person had the biological obligation to give up external pursuits in order to give herself to the pregnancy, nurturing and raising of children, while the other was obligated to the external tasks of providing for and protecting the more defenseless. This is an ancient recognition, far pre-dating our modern opinions and practices.â€
Honey, you’re way off. It was a money arrangement. It has nothing to do with procreation. You can get knocked up without a piece of paper. Must be nice to live in your fairy land.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI disagree with most of what you’ve posted.
Your reference to the constitution is misleading. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. If you’re reference to the constitution means the rights under the 14th amendment, then you can be sure that neither the founders nor the amendment writers intended for those rights to include so-called homosexual marriage.
All the arguments for so-called homosexual marriage will be used to justify ; polygamy; polyandry; whatever polygamy and polyandry together would be called; pedophilia; bestiality; and robots. This includes your argument, “It’s no one else’s business.†as well as, “How does it hurt straight marriage?†and the every popular, “Other countries do it.â€
Aside:
http://www.breitbart.com/ print.php?id=upiUPI-20071011-122541-6886&show_article=1
October 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#87 - “That’s nice, but if your partner is sick, dies, or you have children, you have no rights, and will be pushed aside. Yes, it does matter, whether you want to be legally married or not. It is important.” Comment by fightindonkey — October 12, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Actually, not completely true. We’ve both had our wills written up, wiht power of attorney and “living will” provisions in which we both name each other as the primary person in charge, as well as the primary person to make medical decisions in the case of incapacitation.
These were drawn by a lawyer in Texas, probably one of the most regressive states next to Utah on same-sex rights, and they fulfill the laws requirements on who’s the primary and NOT to be brushed aside.
I d, however, understand your perspective in that anti-gay exclusive laws do great harm the US and their citizens. It’s going to change, as the anti-gay people reduce in numbers. Just look at where we are now, and where we were 20 years ago! The right side is becoming the majority, and soon the regressives will all be gone or overruled.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:34 pm“Um, excuse me, Homosexuality is NORMAL. Anything else is abnormal. You don’t have a choice of being homosexual,”
Comment by fightindonkey — October 12, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
You’re kidding, right? Heterosexuality is abnormal?
And I thought that being human we have and make choices, at least as far as how we act. Are you saying that we are simply instinctive creatures who act on thoughtless emotion - the feelings of the moment? I, at least am made of better stuff than that. I can and do choose every day to act in ways contrary to my passing feelings in order to ensure long-term benefits. Even some *very* strong inclinations that just may prove harmful to me or to those around me.
As for the rest of your post, Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. True, but not as a normal pattern, it is the exception rather than the rule.
Marriages were always legal contracts. It had nothing to do about love or even families. I could care less what a church decides to do. We are simply talking about the legal definition or marriage, not the religious, and religions do not own the term marriage. It is Latin and wasn’t even said until the 13th century, so enough with the Christian right bullshit.
I have said NOTHING about the church, Christianity, religion, the Bible or anything else in my arguments, only that the concept of marriage is older than Christianity. “The Church” did not invent marriage, only attached some trappings and sacramental meanings to it. And the governments have added legal rights, responsibilities and protections to the marriage partners. But the basic concept of a binding, [ideally] lifelong relationship seems to come down to us from prehistory, or at least from the time of myth and legend. And that pattern has been overwhelmingly heterosexual.
October 12th, 2007 at 6:05 pm