You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
A lawsuit brought by Donald Hitchcock after he was dismissed from the DNC as the party's gay and lesbian outreach director, has shed light on a fissure between GLBT people and one of the party's most crucial special interest groups, African Americans.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean describes the rift in his fascinating deposition in the lawsuit, a portion of which was just recently posted on YouTube and is causing more than a little political heartburn as the party prepares to nominate Barack Obama as its first African American for president.
In the video, according to National Public Radio, Dean describes how he has tried to broker peace between gays and lesbians and prominent African American leaders, led by onetime Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile, who had objected to goals and timetables for gay and lesbian delegates to the party's national convention.
"I wanted equal representation for gay and lesbian Americans, and I wanted to achieve it in a way that wasn't offensive to the history of the civil rights movement," Dean says in the deposition, which was videotaped in March but only made public a week ago.
Personally, I'm offended by the notion that my quest for equality somehow upsets the sensibilities of some self centered African American homophobes who learned all the wrong lessons of the civil rights movement. That movement was about Dr. King's dream of equality for all people - not the narrow, selfish agenda of equal rights for certain people.
In any case, let's hope Democrats can come together and elect Barack Obama - who will then sign pro-gay legislation into law, which will certainly help put this controversy behind us.
120 Comments:
Lets not loose sight of the fact that Obama does NOT support full equality for GLBT people as far as marriage equality goes, an attitude that continues to pervade the African-American community many of whom find the analogy between our full civil rights and theirs to be offensive. Sadly, they are perpetuating the same discrimination that they were once subjected to. They've really learned nothing except the bigotry espoused by their religious beliefs.
posted by Robert, NYC., at
8/06/2008 9:16 AM
Talk about hijacking the civil rights movement! As a black American I am deeply offended!!
Yes, as an exercise in marketing and merchandising, the homosexual activist strategy of hijack is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Probably not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes.
But the partisans of so-called "homosexual marriage" have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights.
As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery.
It was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born. The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them.
It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision - Dred Scott v. Sandford - denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.
It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual preference"...err, "sexual orientation"...err, whatever the popular political correct title is today.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 9:52 AM
So Anonymous, are you in agreement with the majority of your fellow African-Americans but unlike Dr. King, that lesbian and gay citizens should not have full equality? If that is the case, then you too have learned nothing about discrimination and are helping to perpetuate it and I find that equally offensive. Throughout history, gay people have been tortured, put to death for merely existing and in some parts of the world, that hasn't changed to this day, the middle east comes to mind. Are you comfortable with that, or better yet, do you support it? Let me also remind you that in some parts of Africa, slavery was also used by native born black Africans to enslave their own people long before the white man colonized.
By the way, it is NOT homosexual marriage but marriage equality. Since when does one refer to marriage as heterosexual marriage?
posted by Robert, NYC., at
8/06/2008 11:12 AM
Should we then have "marriage equality" for polygamists? What about the discrimination toward polygamists? And are you seriously comparing the discrimination and violence suffered by African-Americans and that suffered by homosexuals? I think you're just as much a bigot as you claim others to be!
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 11:27 AM
That's quite a jump from marriage equality between two consenting adults to polygamy. why do bigots always jump to the extreme?
the argument is about equality for all human beings. Why does it offend you, Anonymous, if two gay men want to be married?
I thought Dr. King's message was freedom and equality for ALL mankind. Period. Not just heterosexual mankind. "Civil Rights" apply to ALL citizens.
Those foolish enough to ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
posted by Rowdy, at
8/06/2008 12:28 PM
This is why McCain will win. The deomcratic party is too speical intrest oriented. And these special interests conflict with eachother. The interests of African Americans are different then that of gays which are differant then those of labor unions etc. There is not really a unifying ideal to rally around. As a gay man I can handle either candidate, but am voting Libertarian, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 1:17 PM
Talk about hijacking the civil rights movement! As a black American I am deeply offended!!
I am sorry that you are offended, but deal with it. This is not about Dr Kings opinions nor about sins and sinners. this is about equal rights for all. If some states want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. As a Libertarian, I would favor a system of merit rather that protected classes of people. I think quotas are wrong as is affirmative action. I hope that the courts rule against A/A,
posted by Anonymous, at
8/06/2008 1:43 PM
Any black person, having anguished over the discrimination and prejudice that he or she has suffered, who proceeds to reject gays and lesbians (thereby engaging in the same kind of marginalizing and dehumanizing that they are so rightly upset with) should be hanging their heads in total shame.
Homophobia exists everywhere, even amongst groups who themselves know the pain of being pushed out of the common circle of humanity. It is shocking that those who are acutely aware of the sadness of man's inhumanity to man would then turn around and attempt to impose that same type of stigma upon another group, or would engage in the pointless horror of "my discrimination is worse than your discrimination."
The controversial fact of the matter is this: If America's population had turned out to be 80% black with whites being the 14% minority, the black population would have treated white people just as badly as they themselves have been treated by whites. The black community's homophobia reveals that their problem isn't with bigotry or prejudice; their problem is simply that it happened to THEM.
posted by Chris L., at
8/06/2008 1:49 PM
Sigh.
People of color should know better.
The oppressed take on characteristics of the oppressor. It's called assimilation, what else is new.
And nobody gets hurt more by it than their fellow people of color. Gay people of color have to deal with racism from stupid white people, and homophobia from stupid people of color.
Robert NYC I feel for you, but Obama is still light years beyond McCain. I think he's more open minded than he is able to let on right now. The real problem is that our country is now so blatantly religious that one cannot become president without pandering to Christian "morality".
I use the term "morality" very, very loosely.
Oh and anonymous, you don't have a right to not be offended, so shove it right up your arse. Kay? Bye.
posted by Eshto, at
8/06/2008 2:00 PM
Dear anonymous: no one's hijacking your movement. Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is someone directing it against you or you directing it against someone else.
No one would deny that both segregation and slavery were grave evils. What is and has been done to gay people the world over is also a great evil. Playing the game of my suffering is greater than your suffering is counterproductive.
Prejudice is prejudice, hate is hate, discrimination is discimination.
Let me tell you something. you claim I cannot understand your pain. I think i do, which is why I believe in civil rights laws and ending racism, and would no more vote for a racist or give money to a racist organization than i would to a gay-hating one.
what is equally clear ot me, however, is that you don't understand our pain. you should, because in many ways they are similar. but you don't.
remember the book "Black like me"? here's an experiment for you. go aorund to a bunch of people, both family and strangers, and tell them you're gay. Stand up in your (possibly) all black church and announce "I'm a fag." See if you can reconcile the treatment you will receive with how you have been trzated as a black person.
And when you are done learning something about the nature of oppression, of hatred, of prejudice, come back and tell me how much great you suffer as a black person than I as a gay person.
posted by Ben in oakland, at
8/06/2008 3:45 PM
I'll ask again:
Should we then have "marriage equality" for polygamists (i.e., multiple consenting adults)? What about the discrimination toward polygamists? And are you seriously comparing the discrimination and violence suffered by African-Americans and that suffered by homosexuals?
And Eshto's clearly another racist on this site. I've checked and he and others have always bellyached about being offended. But when a black man says he's offended he complains and tells me to shove it. Sad man.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 8:13 AM
sure. if you can find a national movement for and against polygamy. but you won't.
sure. if that were the issue being debated. but it's not.
sure. if you actually gave a rat's ass about polygamy vs. gay marriage. but you don't.
sure. if you can answer the question 'what's preventing polygamists from getting married right now?" Or 'what's preventing Osama from marrying his dog/goat/10 year old cousin right now?"
reagrding the violence and discrimination suffered by black vs. gay. As i already said, i have no interest in decding who has experienced worse discirmination. But let's get one thing clear (assuming you are afro-american). YOU were never the subject of slavery-- maybe your great great grandfather, but not you. So don't think it is ok to accept that for yourself--any more than as a jew, i can claim that the holocaust happened to me. you never experienced it, though you may have experienced some of the lasting effects.
But yes, i will compare the two. I'm sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE-- just like black people have been-- because someone doesn't approve, or believes their God does not approve.
Prejudice is prejudice, hate is hate, discrimination is discrimination.
does that answer your question?
posted by Ben in oakland, at
8/07/2008 10:46 AM
Good post Ben. If it was not for Jewish people, life would be a lot worse for gays. Jews have been in the forefront defending gay rights. They have a respect for reason that Christians often lack. I say this even though I am not Jewish.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 11:21 AM
Nope. Basically because of its evasiveness, straw-man, and inconsistency.
For years, critics of the idea of homosexual "marriage" have made the point that accepting the proposition that two persons of the same sex can marry each other entails abandoning any principled basis for understanding marriage as the union of two, and only two, persons.
So far as I am aware, homosexual activists have made no serious effort to answer or rebut this point. Their strategy has been to dismiss it as a mere slippery-slope argument (although the truth is that it is a more fundamental type of argument than that) and to accuse critics of the idea of homosexual "marriage" of engaging in "scare tactics." Some homosexual activists have even denounced critics of the idea of homosexual "marriage" as "bigots" for suggesting that homosexual relations are on a par with polygamy and "polyamory" - the union of three or more persons in a sexual partnership.
But that is changing. A group (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/) of self-identified "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers" has released a statement explicitly endorsing "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Got that? More than one conjugal partner.
The statement lays out with remarkable candor and clarity the agenda of their movement. They have said what very few "gay marriage" advocates have heretofore been willing to reveal for fear that it would alienate people who might otherwise be persuaded to support homosexual "marriage" on the theory that "love makes a family." These are people who do not want to change the meaning of marriage or undermine the institution, but who might be open to the idea of "extending" marriage to "committed, loving same-sex couples."
In acknowledging that under the doctrine of "love makes a family," what applies to "committed, loving homosexual couples" must apply to "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner," the group actually exhibits the virtues of intellectual honesty and logical consistency.
And they let the cat out of the bag. What lies "beyond gay marriage" are multiple sex partners and government recognition thereof.
The choice facing America is this: Either we retain as legally normative the traditional conjugal understanding of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman, or we give legal standing and public approbation to every form of consensual sexual partnering and child rearing, including polygamy and polyamory. Just ask those notable lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied activists, scholars educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers. They'll tell you exactly what lies beyond gay marriage. They already have.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 11:21 AM
Anonymous, multiple sex partners beyond gay marriage, please!
Your kind were using the same tactics when Massachusetts passed marriage equality. Nobody married their dog, cat, brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew as predicted. Using polygamy is yet another desperate attempt by right wing nuts such as yourself from denying people full equality. Your group is losing the cultural war and that's why you rant on gay blogsites. You're outnumbered, closet case that you are. Come out, love yourself and be happy. You're beginning to sound like Theo.
posted by Robert, NYC., at
8/07/2008 11:59 AM
Anonymous, honey-- you still are evading the question. I don't care what one group of people says this is very much like benkof's argument that he 'stumbled' across a website that didn't specifically say that marriage had to be monogamous, and this was his 'proof' that gay people don't think monogamy belongs in marriage. It was one website that he 'stumbled' across, not a policy statement from the HRC.
Your proof doesn't represent me, or anyone I know. Every couple I know, and have known in my 58 years, has been a one-on-one situation. Every couple I know that has been married-- same thing.
I don't know who this group of people are, beyond your description of them as " A group (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/) of self-identified "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers"
what I do know is that there are heterosexual polyamorists, and they are far more common than gay ones. but no one is insisting that they represent heterosexual society.
Your either-or dichotomy is a false one. It is a slippery slope argument, not a reality based argument. It is not because a man-woman marriage holds the line against any other form of marriage. It is because we don't allow those kinds of marriages, and there is no serious push to create them. Except in Utah, where the new-age Mormons heartily condemn the polygamist Mormons, yet don't seem to do too much about it,.
Show me some hard evidence not a statement from some self-identified group. show me evidence that gay marriage leads to polygamy. It certainly hasn't in Canada, Spain, Norway, south Africa, Belgium, or Holland.
and since domestic partnerships and there equivalent exist in several states and most of Europe, show me that this has led to a demand to recognize man-on-dog marriage or polygamy, except for those nice Muslim people who think polygamy is ok.
honey, your arguments have no basis in fact, reason, reality, or anything but your fevered imagination as to what will happen if we add a little more dignity to the human existence.
posted by ben in oakland, at
8/07/2008 12:16 PM
We already have polygamy in Utah and Colorado and it is heterosexual. When a man fathers children by more than one woman the government is going to be involved. Like it or not these are de facto marriages and are rooted in religion, and deeply held religious beliefs at that. It is up to society to define what marriage is, and we have decided that a person can be married multiple times. Larry King and Liz Taylor have each been married 8 times. We have decided to make divorce much easier then it was in the past and there is no action to turn back the clock on that. Marriage is legal in Massac huts because that is what the state wants. you may not like it but some states are more libertarian on this issue and are not guided by religious superstition. If at some point people want to expand the definition to include polygamy in Utah then so be it. We have a government of, buy and for the people, not one meant to please "god". If you want that you might consider moving to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps government should get out of the marriage business all together and leave it up to chuches or other civil entities. Until the 19th century marriages were only recorded in church records in many states, especially in the South.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 12:55 PM
Anonymous; you're in luck. I feel like I'm on a roll today, and I could use a little diversion. So I'll explain the problem to you.
you ask, quite reasonably from your point of view, I'm sure, that if we allow gay marriage, we must allow polygamy as well because how else we could possibly not justify it and be logically consistent?
The problem with the question is that it ignores the obvious: making marriage gender neutral still means that marriage is a legal contract between two people that is recognized by the state, and all states. It AFFIRMS that marriage is two people, not many people. It does not negate the concept, it reinforces it.
But it also recognizes the subtext of the debate, which is the some straight people don't like the very existence of gay people, and certainly resent the idea of uppity gay people demanding an end to differential treatment. And they certainly have the right to make the lives of the people whom they don't like as difficult as possible. sort of reminds you of the separate drinking fountains in the good ol' days in ol' south, doesn't it, when 'those' people knew their place and it was unthinkable that they could actually think that they deserved equal treatment.
But more importantly, it is a recognition that gay relationships contribute to society in exactly the same way as hetero relationships contribute, including the raising of children, occasionally their own, but usually the cast offs of unthinking, irresponsible heterosexual reproductive activity that seems to be so special that our world is choking on it. There nothing special about heterosexual relationships and heterosexual families-- there are many horror stories in the papers every day. You can claim that there is, but in my life's experience, there isn't. and please, don't cite Paul cameron to 'prove' that there is. There isn't.
(But gay marriage is somehow the problem. no, what is really the problem is 1) some straight people behave very badly, like having too many babies and getting divorced in record rates, and can only point out gay people's alleged sins while missing the large beams in their assholes, and 2) that some straight people are so wigged out by the very existence of gay people that they behave badly, and then blame gay people. DADT is a great example. unit cohesion is nothing to the moral righteousness of an insecure, bigoted, and ignorant straight boys in the shower. Then gay people get the blame. We're the ones disrupting morale. Except that we're not. We're already there. IT'S THE GODDAMMED STRAIGHT BOY THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
But I digress.
It is a recognition of something called the myth of heterosexual superiority, but which is expressed as the reality of heterosexual privilege. Your relationships are important, our relationships are not. Well, why? Because you say so, and you are both morally and numerically superior. I will agree to the latter, but the former is just an unsubstantiated, self-serving assertion. (Like 'we're flagellating you to save your soul'. Self-serving,) As I wrote earlier: "I am angry as hell that any man and woman who met five minutes ago and have $50 for a marriage license can get married and have the full panoply of rights and obligations that go with it, but my friends Andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years, or Lance and Peter, together for 35 years, are legal strangers to each other. I am angry that they have to jump through all sort of expensive legal hoops to secure their lives together, all of which can be undone by the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that permits it."
It is a recognition that I share my life with another responsible, law-abiding, contributing, working, adult human being, who happens to be of the same gender, not the opposite. And not a goat and not my ten year old sister and not 37 polyamorists who exist only in the reality of fundamentalist Christianity and the imagination of anti-gay fundamentalists.
and finally, it is a recognition that the stupid vicious prejudice against gay people is yet another sad mark on the history of heterosexual humanity in general and organized religion in particular, one that many are trying to correct. It is stupid, it is vicious, and it is bigotry, like anti-black bigotry, like anti-Jew bigotry, like anti-woman bigotry. Like all the rest of it.
It's not special just because YOU believe it. It's still bigotry. it is neither special nor superior nor normal. It's just distressingly common, like heterosexuality itself.
posted by ben in oakland, at
8/07/2008 3:12 PM
The combination of homosexual "marriage" being approved by judges in California with the raid on the Texan polygamists seems to have made a few people ponder the logical connection between homosexuality and polygamy.
There is a clear, logical connection between the two and what they seek, and if the time for homosexual "marriage" comes, then the polyamory's time will come is the near future.
Why? Because polygamy has already been approved in principle by homosexual activists. Nothing should logically keep homosexual activists and the loony left from eventually leaping to approve polyamory as an "alternative lifestyle."
Look how homosexual activists argue for homosexual "marriage." They don't refer to any metaphysical or natural rules or standards or absolutes or traditions, except to argue that they don't apply.
Most of the time they simply tell stories of how homosexual couples are suffering because they cannot solemnize their relationships that have made them happy and helped them make others happy. They say that they love each other and therefore should be free to marry. It is the only way they can be fully "who they are."
Now, hearing all this, the polyamorist naturally demands the right to "relate" to more than one person at a time. It is what they want, what fulfills them, part of "who they are." In insisting that one ought to have sex only with someone for whom one has forsaken all others, the homosexual activist is, on their own grounds, just clinging to a tradition and to social mores they claim time and again they don't even believe in. After all, why just two people in a marriage? God's Word? Tradition? The homosexual activists rejects these. And the polyamorist takes the homosexual activists principles and draws a perfectly logical conclusion.
Homosexual activists dismiss all this sound logic as a "slippery slope." In that, they reveal both their ignorance of the difference between a slippery slope argument and a slippery slope fallacy and the truth of the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 1. From vaccines to health bans, from polygamy to proposed invasions, the "slippery slope" argument has never been more reliable as a predictive model. If one accepts the premises put forward by homosexual activists for homosexual "marriage," then you have to accept the exact same premises put forward by polygamists. And if you accept the premises, the conclusions follow.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/07/2008 7:11 PM
"...truth of the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans 1..."
thilly boy
Your opinion rests on a myth. the myths in the bible. All around the world Gay marriage is being inacted. we are wining the curture war! rejoice!
btw, it was just reported that Gay divorce is at !%. Perhaps god is using Gays to teach the straight world something.
anonymous honey-- I'm afraid you fall into the category 'not paying attention'. I point out to you that homosexual marriage in fact is an affirmation of a two party marriage, and you come up with some idiocy about 'homosexual activists.' I happen to be one of them, and not one thing you have said applies to me, nor owuld i agree iwth yourconclusions or premises.
And haven't. but it isn't really about gay marriagei s it, just how much you don't like gay people.
Like AJ, Theo, and one of the other anonymouses around here, you really only like hearing yourself talk. what you believe is true. the very use of the quotes around marriage tells us what your bias is.
posted by ben in oakland, at
8/08/2008 12:20 AM
fyi, AJ and Theo are the same person
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 1:51 AM
Saying Ben's response is evasive would obviously be pointing out the obvious. He and others ignore so much.
As one polygamous couple, err, party, stated in a Newsweek article: "polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle." The stirrings for the mainstreaming of polyamory clearly has its their roots in the homosexual "marriage" movement.
As already pointed out, it is completely logical for "polygamy rights" to follow "homosexual rights." After all,
IF the Biblical and/or traditional concept of marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender,
AND IF, as homosexual "marriage" advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but hate, prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love,
THEN the first requirement - the number restriction (two AND ONLY two) - is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
Now, this line of argument infuriates homosexual activists. I can understand why they don't want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does.
To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Consider a union of, say, three homosexual women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds can homosexual activists dismiss their union? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 9:49 AM
Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legal one. Our legal system is constitution based, not bible based. We as a society decide what marriage will be. If 90% of the population wanted polygamous marriage, we would have it. This is not the case. Society is moving to recognize that gay marriage is a positive step forward for Gays, not a negative one. The younger generation is more accepting then the older. Society moves forward. We evolve in out thinking. You may not like this because it conflicts with your religious views, but it does not conflict with other people religious/personal views. In the end it will be "We the people" who decide what constitutes a marriage. And the trend is toward recoginizing gay marriage. There is no trend toward recognizing polygamous marriages. There just is not a big pologamy movement outside Utah. California will be deciding soon what they want marriage to be. The decision will be close what ever it is. Peoples minds are changeing for the better in my opinion and worse in the minds of the "left behinders".
posted by Anonymous, at
8/08/2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous: it's clear your another garden variety bigot. Trying to have a conversaiton with you is a bit like masturbation-- it's a lot of effort, and you still have a mess to clean up when your done.
Your basic assumption seems to be that it is impossible that gay people could want marriage for he same reason that straight people do. that alone is enough to label you a bigot. we're not human beings, we're walking agendas. your obsession with polygamous marriages is a further demonstration of this. what theoretical polygamous marriages have to do with actual gay marriages is not clear to me, though your obsesion is.
I just came across this quote. It seems to apply. thanks daniel dirito.
"I think it's safe to conclude that this level of disjointed dogma makes it virtually impossible to conduct an intelligent dialogue with many of these intransigent ideologues. Watching the folks at FRC and FOF using the views of the same person...to make seeming judgments about the nature of all homosexuals...gives credence to the theory that ignorance is bliss. Frankly, who am I to disagree? In fact, I'll be the first to admit that these folks must be blissfully ignorant."
so anonymous honey-- no more responses for you.
posted by Ben in oakland, at
8/08/2008 1:27 PM
Anonymous, polygamy as is practiced results in large numbers of young men being deprived of partners and forced out of the community to prevent competition. It is exploitive of females and destructive. The simple fact of the matter is that with a 50% divorce rate its clear its hard enought to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it let alone with trying to balance the needs and desires of three or more. These reason's alone justify restricting marriage to two individuals.
The irony of your position is that you yourself are making the argument that you have no reason to oppose polygamy. By your "logic" the only reason polygamy is opposed is because gay marriage is opposed. That's not a reason. If anyone is justifying polygamy, its you, not the gay community. Polygamy and equal marriage for same sex couples are seperate issues and each will be decided on their own merits or lack thereof. The fact is taht despite your absurd insistence that one must follow the other, this has NEVER happened anywhere where same sex relationships have been recognized - you couldn't be more disingenous.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/08/2008 2:48 PM
"The irony of your position is that you yourself are making the argument that you have no reason to oppose polygamy. By your "logic" the only reason polygamy is opposed is because gay marriage is opposed. That's not a reason. If anyone is justifying polygamy, its you, not the gay community. Polygamy and equal marriage for same sex couples are seperate issues and each will be decided on their own merits or lack thereof"
brilliant PL. couldn't have said it better myself
posted by ben in oakland, at
8/08/2008 9:14 PM
Let me simplify this EVEN MORE for the depraved mind crew.
The concept of marriage has traditionally and historically been defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender.
Ben and his cohorts insist that the gender requirement is nothing but hate, prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love.
Now turn your thinking cap on Ben and others and read the question a couple of times if you need to.
On what basis do you retain Part One (the number requirement) of the traditional and historical definition of marriage?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 10:45 AM
honey-- you've been answered any number of itmes. unfortunately, for you, it's just not the answer you want to hear.
Please stop wasting air and electrons, think about what has been said to you, examine the very nature of prejudice (which I'm sure as a black person you've jhad some experience with), examine your prejudices, read the ideas presented, lecture the arab world, mormon, and some asian countries on their polygamous marriages, and then get back to me.
posted by ben in oakland, at
8/09/2008 12:33 PM
Quit avoiding the question with evasive rhetoric Ben. I've read what you've wrote and you know you haven't directly answered the specific question I'm asking. I'll ask it again and look forward to see you lay out a simple, logical answer.
A. The concept of marriage has traditionally and historically been defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender.
B. Ben insists that the gender requirement is nothing but hate, prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love.
C. Based on this, my specific question is this:
*** On what basis do you retain Part One (the number requirement) of the traditional and historical definition of marriage? ***
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 1:30 PM
like I said, you've been answered numerous times, but here you go.
I believe marriage is between two people who can legally make those promises to each other and are capable of signing the ocntract..
same as you. that's the basis.
though i would have to say that someone who wanted to come home to two angry people instead of one must be a blithering idiot-- much like someone hwo keeps demanding and answer to the question that has been answered numerous itrmes
posted by ben in oakland, at
8/09/2008 1:38 PM
Anonymous, you've been told the reasons why marriage is restricted to two people. A much more interesting question is what reason do you have for disallowing polygamy? It seems you don't have any reason at all as "because gays aren't allowed to marry" is not a reason to disallow polygamy.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 2:12 PM
And anonymous, the concept of marriage has NOT been "traditionally and historically been defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender.".
Traditionally polygamy has been an accepted form of marriage and is promoted in your bible. Once again, given that on what basis do YOU oppose polygamy?!
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 2:15 PM
Yes I know Ben that you believe that marriage is between two people. But WHY? On what basis (i.e., on what standard)?
My basis and standard for the people restriction in marriage is the exact same basis for the gender restriction. But you reject the latter. My question, again, relates to how YOU (YOU!) justify retaining former restriction.
So you still haven't answered my question. Probably because you can't understand Elementary Logic.
Priya Lynn, I oppose government recognition of polygamous relationships for the same reason I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships.
However, I do think that de jure or de facto polygamy - which is tantamount to polygyny due to historical sexual dynamics - is vastly more societally stable than the current Western system of a serially monogamous divorce culture. And I suspect the unintended consequences of the homosexual activist push for homosexual "marriage" may turn out to have some surprisingly positive results. For if state-sanctioned homosexual "marriage" is the price required to effectively destroy feminism - and polygyny will totally eviscerate feminism - it may be a pretty small price to pay.
Now, it's true that a polygamous culture isn't likely to be very respectful of individual liberties nor is it necessarily inclined to small government, but then, neither is the one we currently inhabit.
And you are simply wrong that the Bible "promotes" polygamy. It reports that polygamy took place. It was never God's ideal. Read Genesis 1 and 2, Matthew 19, Ephesians 5, etc.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 2:37 PM
Gay marriage isn't going to lead to legitimizing incest or prostitution, nor will heterosexual marriage fall apart because Adam and Steve got hitched. I also don't expect anyone (other than Peter Singer perhaps) to be in a rush to marry their goat.
There is, however, one landing pad at the end of the slippery slope that gay rights supporters can't ignore - and this POLYGAMY.
Now, there are vast differences between the homosexual activists and polygamy activists. The main one being that a STRONGER argument can be made for polygamy than can be made for homosexual "marriages." After all, there is already a great deal of precedent since, unlike homosexual "marriage," polygamy has been widely practiced throughout history. There are few civilizations, religions, or cultures where polygamy has not taken root.
In fact, almost ever religion has, at some point in their development, accepted the legitimacy of or allowed polygamy to some degree. All of the major world religions - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity - have condoned the practice of taking multiple wives. In contrast, none of them has ever tolerated, much less openly accepted, homosexual "marriage."
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of "serial polygamy."
Many of the same arguments AGAINST homosexual "marriage" can even be used IN FAVOR OF polygamy.
Take, for example, the claim that homosexual family structures have a negative effect on children. Both research and common sense support the idea that children function better when they have both a mother and a father. In a polygamous marriage, the child would generally not only have a mother and father but a "spare" parent as well. Imagine the benefit of having both parents at work and yet still having a parent who can stay home with the children.
When the facts are taken into account, the reasons for favoring homosexual "marriage" while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
This leaves proponents of homosexual "marriage" with two choices. They either have to (1) accept that polygamy is just as legitimate as homosexual "marriage" or (2) they must admit that there is no INHERENT "right" to expand the definition of marriage.
If homosexuals always had the "right to marry" then why did no one realize it until just now? If it does fall within the purview of the equal protection clause, though, then polygamy would also have to be included. And if it is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of homosexual "marriage."
Which branch of government retains the right to decide the issue is a subject open to debate. One thing, however, is rather clear: if the courts have the authority to decide if a woman can marry another woman, then they must afford the same right to a woman, a woman, and a man.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/09/2008 2:49 PM
Anonymous said "I oppose government recognition of polygamous relationships for the same reason I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships".
LOL, and what is that reason?! Obviously you're afraid to give a reason because you don't have a good one.
Once again the reason polygamy is disallowed is because polygamy as is practiced results in large numbers of young men being deprived of partners and forced out of the community to prevent competition. It is exploitive of females and destructive. The simple fact of the matter is that with a 50% divorce rate its clear its hard enought to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it let alone with trying to balance the needs and desires of three or more.
It is you who repeatedly argues that there is no reason to oppose polygamy, that it is opposed merely because gay marriage is opposed - not a reason!
And the bible obviously promotes polygamy, many of the bible's holy heroes practiced polygamy and your god never once criticized or opposed it - stop lying.
Once again, stop evading the question and state on what basis you oppose polygamy.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 2:50 PM
Biblical polygamists blessed by the Christian god:
Note in particular, Abraham, Moses, and David - a king of Israel "After God's own heart".
Clearly the Christian god supported and promoted polygamy as well as incest. Moses married his half sister and god blessed him. He created Adam and Eve to have children who had sex with each other to populate the planet.
Anonymous, by your bible you must support both polygamy and incest as your god did. Jesus never condemned polygamy or incest.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 3:09 PM
And I should add that NOWHERE does the bible speak against marriage for loving monogamous same sex couples.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/09/2008 3:12 PM
you are right lynn. the bible never views pologamy as an abomination. It is presented very matter of factly. It also has nothing against a young girl straddling her father berfore he dies so suck up is seed in her snatch. so all you girls are free to do daddy acording to the bible.
"If you truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same."
If you truly believe that heterosexuals have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
you see, change homo to hetero and it makes asm uch snese. Limiting marriage to man/woman is just as arbitrary. you just think its ok.
Ok. Last posting for real. you arej ust too silly...
and too filled with hate.
there is almost no "logic" in what you say, and it is very annoying to be accused of not understandingl ofic.
posted by Ben in oakland, at
8/10/2008 12:32 PM
Well, Ben's obviously a man on the run. Can't answer a simple, logical question laid out in a clear format.
As for the other question, I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships because they defy the historic and traditional definition of marriage based on the objective standard of the created and natural sexual order between man and woman. Plain and simple. If that wasn't clear from my previous posts, I again recommend to you Priya Lynn a course in basic reading comprehension as well as a skills course in deductive reasoning.
As for polygamy vs. monogamy in the Bible and your almost laughable understanding of Biblical Theology, the clearest evidence that monogamy is God's ideal is from Jesus Christ's clear teaching on marriage in Matthew 19: 3 - 6. In this passage, Jesus cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying "the TWO [one man and one woman] will become ONE flesh" (i.e., one MAN and one WOMAN, and not MORE THAN TWO).
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of HUSBAND and WIFE with Jesus Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:22-33, which makes sense ONLY with monogamy (i.e., Jesus Christ will not have multiple brides).
The Tenth Commandment, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife [SINGULAR]," also presupposes the ideal that there is only ONE WIFE. Polygamy was expressly forbidden for church elders (see 1 Timothy 3:2), but not only for elders, because St. Paul also wrote that "each MAN should have his OWN WIFE [SINGULAR], and each WOMAN her OWN HUSBAND [SINGULAR]." St. Paul then went on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with ONE HUSBAND and ONE WIFE.
One point that Ms. Priya Lynn doesn't seem to grasp given her depraved mind is that not everything RECORDED in the Bible is APPROVED in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated - first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the godly line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Genesis 26:34).
Recall that God clearly forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deuteronomy 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David's sons from his different wives; and Solomon's hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-3). Also, Hannah, Samuel's mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah's other wife Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:1-7).
Well, what about the godly, yet imperfect, men who were polygamous? Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife - note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters' urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:42-43).
But why did God allow this to take place? For similar reasons as the case of divorce, which God tolerated for only a time under certain conditions because of the hardness of the human heart, but both polygamy and divorce were never intended from the beginning (see Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:8). But whenever the Law of Moses, which has passed away, had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional "IF he takes another wife to himself..." (Exodus 21:10), NEVER an encouragement.
And God actually put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would actually DISCOURAGE polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 1:45 PM
and ladies and gents, more twisted pretzel logic from theo.
the world needs a moral code based on reason.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 3:24 PM
And God actually put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would actually DISCOURAGE polygamy
does discourage mean the same thing as forbid? I only have a first grade education so please help.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 6:29 PM
No, of course it's not the same. Just as divorce wasn't "forbidden" under the Mosaic Law, but still not the ideal. Do I need to explain that again? And really, first grade education may be giving you too much credit.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/10/2008 7:21 PM
but then god done went and changed his mind, kind of like women do.
Anonymous said "I oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships because they defy the historic and traditional definition of marriage."
And as has been pointed out to you and as I'm sure you're well aware (but too dishonest to admit) polygamy is part of the historic and traditional definition of marriage. Once again you have no reason whatsoever, as you've emphasized, to oppose polygamous marriage. The same is true for gay marriages, gay marriages have occured throughout history and even the Catholic church at one time blessed gay marriages. Nowhere in the bible does it oppose gay marriages or polygamous marriages.
Your spinning and twisting of the bible does nothing to support your baseless case. Just because your Christian god acknowledged two person marriages doesn't mean he opposed polygamous marriages and his blessing of Moses, Abraham, David and others who were in polygamous marriages shows that he favoured those types of arrangments just as well as two person marriages.
You torpedoed your own argument when you acknowleged that the law of Moses repeatedly sanctions polygamy when it speaks of "if you take another wife". Contrary to your lie, the law of Moses is still in effect - Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" and "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail". You also shot yourself in the foot when you said "god actually put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would actually DISCOURAGE polygamy". Nowhere did your god say he was trying to discourage polygamy, the opposite is true, he was sanctioning and blessing it by specifying HOW IT WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT. Despite your desperate clinging to your god's recognition of two person marriage there is no denying that he also recocnized and sanctioned polygamous marriages WHICH ARE A PART OF HISTORY AND TRADITION. By your own logic you must support polygamous marriages as well as incestuous marriages such as those entered into by your god's favourite Moses and the children of Adam and Eve whom your god created to populate the earth with incestous sex.
Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway. You want to live according to your twisted interpretation of the bible you're welcome to but no one else is obliged to follow your twisted theology. The seperation of church and state means your bible doesn't apply and your dishonest theology can't form the basis for law preventing loving gay couples from marrying.
As a black american you should know better than to discriminate against another minority. Knowing the history of discrimination against blacks you should be loath to engage in that type of discrimination yourself. You're a disgrace to your race and your history.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/10/2008 10:54 PM
Well, you're obviously Biblically illiterate. Using Matthew 5 as an argument that the Law of Moses is still rule of faith for professing Christians? My goodness...WOW!
Concerning your argument related to the "separation of church and state" and marriage, as already stated above, if homosexuals always had the "right to marry" then why did no one realize it until just now?
And if homosexual "marriage" is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of homosexual "marriage."
And, as you know full well, those citizens have time and time and time and time again rejected government recognition of homosexual "marriage."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 12:40 AM
leave it up to the states. The beauty of America is that we have a laboratory or 50 states to try these types of things out. Federalism is the way to deal with this. Besides we already allow same sex marriage. If a man has a sex change operation, he can legally become a "woman" and marry another man, yet dna wise he/she is still a man.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 1:33 AM
Anonymous said "Well, you're obviously Biblically illiterate. Using Matthew 5 as an argument that the Law of Moses is still rule of faith for professing Christians? My goodness...WOW!"
LOL, that was one of the most pathetic bluffs I've seen in a long time. Fact is Jesus was clear, not one tittle of the law of Moses shall pass until the universe comes to an end. Christians may well "profess" that it isn't, but that would be just one more in a long list of lies Christians tell about their bible and gays. Fact is nowhere in your bible does it oppose marriage for loving monogamous same sex couples.
Anonymous said "Concerning your argument related to the "separation of church and state" and marriage, as already stated above, if gays always had the right to marry then why did no one realize it until just now?".
They've been blinded by the bigotry of christians such as yourself. Up until recently gays were so oppressed few people knew one, now that gays are more visible more people know them and can see it makes no sense to condemn the actions and marriages of those who hurt no one.
Anonymous said "And if gay marriage is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of gay marriage.".
What do you care if its a constitutionally protected right or not? You claimed you opposed gay marriage and polygamy based upon the lie that historically and traditionally marriage has been one man/one woman. As you well know polygamy has historically and traditionally been a practiced form of marriage and as you may not know so has gay marriage. So your rational for rejecting both fails miserably, not to mention the fact that even if your lie were true it wouldn't be an argument against gay marriage OR polygamy - "because we've always done it this way" is not a valid reason to continue doing it that way, based on that "logic" mankind should never have accepted cars, airplanes, or modern medicine because "historically and traditionally they were never done before". If we left it up to your "logic" there'd never been any progress of any sort because "historically and traditionally its never been done before". Take your absurd excuses and go home.
Anonymous said "And, as you know full well, those citizens have time and time and time and time again rejected government recognition of equal marriage for same sex couples."
In some cases they've rejected those attempts to ban equal marriage for same sex couples and the trend is clear, the numbers of people in favour of equal marriage is growing and the number against is dropping. The young in particular are mostly in favour of ending this christian bigotry. Its just a matter of time until bigots like you are forced to crawl under a rock just like the racists of past have had to. Enjoy your brief heyday of bigotry, it won't be long until people equate you and your talk of "homosexuals" to white supremacists and their talk of "niggers".
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/11/2008 1:49 PM
Pathetic bluffs? No, it's your argument that's pathetic Priya Lynn, and demonstrates almost a zero understanding, as noted, of Biblical and Systematic Theology. You simply do not understand that which you're attempting to oppose.
Christians are not, and never have been, bound to the Law of Moses. The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Jesus Christ. The Law of Moses no longer has authority over any individual. Simply read Romans 10:4. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the end of the law. That law has been rendered "inoperative." Cross-reference that with Galatians 2:16 Hebrews 7:19.
The Law of Moses has been done away with, and Christians are now under the Law of Christ (cf. Galatians 6:2)/Law of the Spirit of Life (cf. Romans 8:2) - new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer.
Concerning Matthew 5, you simply fail to understand (small wonder) the context - historically and theologically - of Jesus' words. It's true that Jesus did indeed come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He came to fulfill the Law of Moses, and He did! Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle. He fulfilled the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses ended upon His death.
Remember, or in your case actually read in context for the first time, that Jesus spoke in Matthew 5: 17 - 19 while He was living. As long as Jesus was living He needed to obey the Law of Moses in the manner that Moses commanded in order to fulfill it. And as Mark 7:19 illustrates, while Jesus was living, He also foreshadowed the abolition of the law: "This [Jesus] said making all meats clean." Can it be any clearer than this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away?
And I'll repeat the following because it infuriates homosexuals and Priya Lynn couldn't answer it:
If homosexual "marriage" is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of gay marriage.
Why does this infuriate the Lavender Brigade? Because the citizens act on their voting ability to oppose the mockery of homosexual "marriage" every opportunity they get.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 3:09 PM
the tide, it is a changing on gay marriage. stable gay relationships, advanced by gay marriage, is good for society. I do believe that this should be left up to the states, however. as far as the mockery remark goes, this just shows anger and frustration. muture adults need to understand that we don't always get everything we want in life.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/11/2008 3:22 PM
Priya Lynn said...
"Once again the reason polygamy is disallowed is because polygamy as is practiced results in large numbers of young men being deprived of partners and forced out of the community to prevent competition. It is exploitive of females and destructive. The simple fact of the matter is that with a 50% divorce rate its clear its hard enought to make a relationship work when there are only two people in it let alone with trying to balance the needs and desires of three or more."
And those are just some of the social reasons that would be argued against it. All things being equal (male/female), if one man marries 10 wives, that's 9 other testosterone laden men who go without a partner for LIFE, and you think society isn't violent enough now?
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
So what are you saying Anon, that God changes his mind? -- Furthermore, I don't believe we’ve gotten an answer as to why you don't also approve of incest. Clearly it was part of God's original plan. So at what point did God decide that incest was a sin? -- Also, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the Bible itself is somehow without error?
posted by Emproph, at
8/12/2008 1:37 AM
Anonymous said "The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Jesus Christ. The Law of Moses no longer has authority over any individual. Simply read Romans 10:4. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the end of the law.".
LOL, you truly are pathetic, give it up you fool. Paul was no Jesus, under no circumstances do Paul's words take precidence over Jesus's and Jesus was unambiguous:
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail".
If he had meant the law was no longer obligatory when he died he'd of said that, he DIDN'T - HE SAID THE LAW WAS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE UNVIVERSE COMES TO AN END.
All your weasiling, twisting, and spinning won't change the obvious - Christians like you are liars and too pathetic to accept what your bible clearly and unambiguously says. Polygamy was endorsed by your god as was incest. By your own logic you must support polygamy, incest, and because it occurred traditionally and historically equal marriage for same sex couples.
There are rational reasons why polygamy is opposed and equal marriage for same sex couples is a good idea. You on the other hand are totally bereft of reasons to oppose either.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/12/2008 1:29 PM
Anonymous said "And I'll repeat the following because it infuriates homosexuals and Priya Lynn couldn't answer it:"
I chose not to answer your rhetoric because the answer should have been obvious to you but I underestimated your ability to be willfully stupid.
Equality under the law is a constitutional right and this covers equal marriage for same sex couples as the california court decided.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/12/2008 1:33 PM
So Ms. Priya Lynn, what about Jesus' words in Mark that was cited concerning dietary laws? HMM...convenient avoidance on your part. And was Paul an Apostle or not? Surely you have an answer and know...
And can you not read? Jesus fulfilled every little tittle of the law. It's been fulfilled.
And if equality under the law is a constitutional right that includes government recognition of homosexual "marriage," then it also includes government recognition of polygamous "marriages" as well.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 7:49 PM
Anonymous said "So Ms. Priya Lynn, what about Jesus' words in Mark that was cited concerning dietary laws? HMM...convenient avoidance on your part. And was Paul an Apostle or not? Surely you have an answer and know...".
He made an exception to that particular law, not to the law in general. Nowhere did he say polygamy is now prohibited or that the law in general was repealed - he was very clear, THE LAW IS IN EFFECT UNTIL THE UNIVERSE ENDS.
You're woefully ignorant of the bible, you should read the links emproph gave and educate yourself.
God Himself has described Himself in polygamous terms. While it must be and certainly is understood that this is not to suggest in any way whatsoever of "literal" marriages to actual human wives, it is important to note the occurrences in the Bible when the Lord God described Himself in such polygamous terms.
"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. ...While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; ...And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage:" Matthew 25:1-2,5-6c,10a-c (See verses 1-13).
It should be noted, however, that this is not a literal, physical marriage to literal, physical women. While it was only a parable, even so, Jesus would never have described Himself this way in a parable if polygamy was a sin.
God himself gave David wives:
2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:8.
The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.
Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)
But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.
If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.
But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more!
It was only because David had sinned, in committing adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all.
This is later confirmed that this was the only matter by 1 Kings 15:5, which says the following:
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. " 1 Kings 15:5.
Two verses before that, in 1 Kings 15:3, the Bible says that David's heart was perfect with the LORD God.
Very clearly, therefore, what all this shows is that God is the One Who gives wives, even when more than one wife.
God's favourites, Moses, David, Abraham, and 37 others were polygamists that he blessed. It is undeniable that polygamy is blessed in YOUR bible.
Frankly I don't give a damn about the ignorant and bigotted fantasies of bronze age sheep-hearders, you can engage yourself in mental masturbation and think the bible is of significance all you want, it matters not one whit in a country that seperates church and state and not one whit given you've alread hung your hat upon the lie that gay marriage and polygamy are to be opposed because historically and traditionally they didn't happen. They did, you know it, and you haven't a leg to stand on.
Anonymous said "And if equality under the law is a constitutional right that includes government recognition of homosexual "marriage," then it also includes government recognition of polygamous "marriages" as well.
No, everyone is treated equally if we allow same sex couples to marry. Everyone is allowed one partner of their choosing. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. If a man has a right to marry a woman then a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman and vice versa.
Once again based on the standard you have hung your hat on it doesn't matter if equal marriage is a constitutional right or not, you stated you accept those marriages that have historically and traditionally been performed. That is both gay and polygamous marriages.
Once again you hide from your god's institution of incestous relationships. Are you going to acknowledge that incestuous relationships are sacred just as your god intended, or are you going to acknowledge your bible is a disgrace that no moral person would use as an example?
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/12/2008 8:29 PM
Ah, question. Why only one person? Where does all this "two people" discrimnation and bigotry arise from?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 8:45 PM
Hey Priya Lynn, you brought up morality. I'll bite and challenge you on that.
Whenever any of us object to anything, we always assume some standard or rule that the thing violates.
So, when you object to the Christian faith, you're assuming some standard that Christianity violates.
But can you justify the standard - whatever that standard is - that you so readily use?
So I've read that you object to the God of the Bible on the basis of ethical "problems" with the character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Now, despite the surface plausibility of some of your objections, a careful examination of them shows that far from this being your strongest case against the true God, your objection actually reveals the radical futility of your unbelief.
How? Because without God there are no ethical objections to ANYTHING.
Now, save your rhetoric and make an argument.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 9:19 PM
Quote of the Day, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:
"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time," - F.A. Hayek.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 9:25 PM
OK, I've reviewed the website http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
Now, which article shall we debate first?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/12/2008 9:41 PM
"OK, I've reviewed the website http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
Now, which article shall we debate first?"
You haven't even addressed the example given, why don't you start there. And you stil haven't explained why you don't support incest - part of God's original plan.
Nor have you answered how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is somehow completely without error.
OK, I'll address the first article on the first page. The article is titled "Remember Moses wrote it." The main contention of the article is that Moses engaged in polygamy, and therefore this is allegedly evidence that polygamy is OK.
The conclusion of this article from the Christian perspective is a hearty "So what?" Even if this was true - and it probably is - it would do nothing to prove that polygamy was and is God's ideal. A very important point to again emphasize is that not everything RECORDED in the Bible is APPROVED in the Bible.
Yes, Moses probably took a second wife. Of course, it is possible that Moses' first wife had died. The article does touch on this, and I would agree that the text gives no indication of this. It may be true that Moses wife was dead. It may not be. We simply don't know.
But assuming she was alive and Moses took a second wife, it's simply not relevant to the Christian. The fact is that prior to the Christian New Covenant (i.e., prior to the beginning of the Law of Christ) God did allow this practice. Why did God seem to allow this? It's similar to the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of human hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (cf. Jesus' words in Matthew 19:8).
The practice is not consistent with the Christian life. A consideration of Jesus' comments in Matthew 5-7, Matthew 19:1-9 and perhaps especially St. Paul's comments on marital love in 1 Corinthians 7 tell us much more. St. Paul assumes either no marriage or monogamous marriage within the Christian life.
Why the change? It wasn't a "change" really. It was a return to the beginning. A return to the ideal. Again, cross-reference this with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19.
Now, I obviously don't support incest. As for your objection, it should be pointed out that for one to identify a legitimate contradiction, they must be considering the same time frame. To condemn Thomas Jefferson for not paying Federal income tax would be inappropriate because there was no Federal income tax in the United States during his lifetime.
Likewise, to accuse certain righteous men of breaking God's law prior to the establishment of that law is equally erroneous. The first indication of God forbidding incestuous marriages is not until AFTER the Israelites departed Egypt. Prior to the Law of Moses, men COULD LAWFULLY MARRY close family members. Indeed, God blessed Abraham while he was married to Sarah, his half-sister. What's more, implied in the creation of Adam and Eve is that their immediate offspring married each other and had children. Furthermore, following the Flood, the entire Earth was repopulated by Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Thus, in the beginning God allowed a form of incest.
There was no need for strict laws on marriage partners in the early Patriarchal Age (apart from the divine "one man, one woman, for life" institution), and for at least one good reason: during this time, man was in a relatively pure genetic state, having left not long before the perfect condition in which he was created and the Garden that had sustained his life. No harmful genetic traits had emerged at this point that could have been expressed in the children of closely related partners.
However, after many generations, and especially after the Noahic Flood, solar and cosmic radiation, chemical and viral mutagens, and DNA replication errors, led to the multiplication of genetic disorders. God therefore protected His people by instituting strict laws against incestuous marriages in the chapter 18 of Leviticus.
As for inerrancy, what's the mystery? Show me an error...
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 12:30 AM
show me an error..
wher have we heard that before? Yes, the bible is full of errors. you can't be shown an error because the bible,by your theology can contain no errors. Therefore an obvious error is not an error of the bible, but an error of own interpertation. So when a fundy tells you there are no errors,they are really asking "who are you going to believe, me or your own lyeing eyes?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 1:03 AM
ON THE SABBATH DAY "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH "... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
ON SEEING GOD "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
ON THE POWER OF GOD "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
ON INCEST "Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16
ON TRUSTING GOD "A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD..." -- Proverbs 12:2
Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." -- Job 2:3
ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart..." -- Ecclesiastes 9:7
"...they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not..." -- 1 Corinthians 7:30
ON PUNISHING CRIME "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
ON TEMPTATION "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS "Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD "...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
ON THE END OF THE WORLD "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33
"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:11-12
"Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18
"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1 Peter 4:7
These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the "Son of God." The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/13/2008 1:21 AM
Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translato
