Friday, June 16, 2006

Not to start a hubub, but the end of the Daily Show I just watched had a wonderful debate on gay mairrage and the conveniently timed proposal for a constitutional ban, all of which I found very intriguing.

John was saying that following the fight to end slavery and to give women the vote this is the next grand step in providing Americans with freedom and equality. Guy two refuted that this case was completely different, but didn't really have any reasons why.

I call out to you guys for some hard examples other than "Jesus said so" and "Well it's just disgusting" why it is a detriment to america to allow gay couples to build sancitified and socially positive family units.

11:50:52 PM


thewordofrashi said...

Not to poke holes in your argument, but a gay marriage will most likely not be sanctified, seeing as, as you so ably put it, "Jesus said" that gay marriage is wrong. A "sanctified marriage" would have to be administered by a priest/rabbi, etc, none of which are willing to administer said ceremony.

Anonymous said...

^I suppose by sanctified I meant respected, not holy. My bad.

Anonymous said...

get a gay priest to do it.

Anonymous said...

Jesus did NOT say so- Leviticus did. And that was over 4000 years ago.

It is most certainly not a detriment to America.

TintedFragipan said...

The idea is that Jesus said what was in leviticus.

in the beginning the word was god, and the word was with god... etc. John 1.

also, in Revelation the rider of the white horse is the word.

also, God didn't like, take a chill pill between the new and old testament. in revelation it says he is "unchanging"

so pretty much, if leviticus says it then god said it, and if god said it, then it was jesus who was doin the talking. (eh, this is oversimplifying the theology of it, but you know)

also, why should the state support any kind of marriage, gay or straight? why does the state have to be involved in any consensual sexual relationship? it shouldn't be. people take law-based marriage too far. I say get rid of it.

Anonymous said...

how do the people who claim "jesus said blah" know that its all he said. for example.
one guys writing down what jesus is saying

jesus: gay marriage--
scribe:--hey hold on a second, im getting a call (picks up cell phone and talks), hey jesus can we catch up later, well finish this tomorrow, seeya,
jesus: wait!! that isnt all! its no gay marriage without women's rights! the men will take over the world if they can marry each other!!
scribe: eh--what? i didnt catch that sorry this is an important call. oh wait, judas wants me to give you a message, he tells me to tell you, "the romans are coming", yeah he said youd know what that means. anyways ill see you later jesus. break a leg, or even both arms on a cross and then hang to death!

Graffiti Pastry said...

Besides, the Gospel of John was clearly written relatively long after the others in the compilation known as the Christian bible. Not only that, but the writings of John are rather... shall we say... antisemitic (a misnomer of course, but I am using it in terms of prejudiced towards Jewish peoples).

Kricks said...

hmm, what is ur opinion? have u noticed that the united states tries to be mostly one relion under god? like on our dollar bills and coins, it states, in god we trust, yet when it comes to an issue that goes along with or against god, nobody knows what to do? if they trust in god, and in the bible it clearly states that this is a sin, they we aren't really trusting in god, are we? please let me know what u think about this, i'd like to know. thank you.

PChis said...

I think the best way to do it would be for the government to allow civil unions between any two persons (with all the tax shit and the whole "life partner" expectations etc. etc.) whereas if you want the spiritual side of "marriage" you should go to a religious place such as a church or temple or whereever the hell you go.

I have no problem with gays having life partners and adopting etc. etc., but I do have a problem with them wanting to call it "marriage."

Everyone always talks about the greeks or the romans or whatever "great" civilization accepting guys having sex with each other, but in no civilization has the concept of marriage been between anyone but a man and a woman. It's tradition, and I'd go so far as to say it's a sacred definition. Homosexuals can have all our legal rights, but I think they need to come up with a new word.

But that's a very fine line, if I had to decide between the two battle lines currently drawn, I'd take gays getting married. Jesus is a good enough answer for a lot of people, but not for me.

Anonymous said...

i agree lets give gays the vote. I support gay suffrage.

Anonymous said...

why does it matter if they call it marriage or not does it make it any diffrent if they use this exact word? To them its a matter of principal that they want it to be equal to what everyone else calls a marriage and why should it not be? as for any religious context in this argument that is against the civil union of
gays isnt that kind of null and void as the is nature of seperation of church and state?

Anonymous said...

hey guys, its me, jesus, um...go gay marriage!

Anonymous said...

I personally don't think Jesus would give a damn (literally) about today's gay marriage. He suffered for all of mankind, not just the straight ones. Something so trivial and political today would not be of much interest to Him, I think. I mean, there are only one or two verses speaking against homosexuality in the entire Bible compared to the hundreds talking about feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and binding up the brokenhearted.

We have our priorities wrong.

Queen Sekaf said...

1. Rashi - "administered by a priest/ rabbi...none of which are willing to administer said ceremony." I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. There are plenty of ministers and the like who support gay marriage and would be perfectly willing to perform the ceremoney. Three of them are ministers at my church, but I know others too.
2. I don't think it should matter what Jesus or whoever said, because that was 2,000 years ago, and laws/social norms that were applicable back then just aren't now.
3. I agree that marriage shouldn't involve the state, but that's not going to change. Gays do have their own word - it's called "Holy Union." However, it doesn't give them equal rights by any means. When gay people fight for the right to get married, they just want the legal priviledges that married couples get.
Also, as much as I support gay marriage and all that, I'm completely with the Anon above me. There are more important, urgent issues (like thousands of people dying daily from easily preventable causes, war, natural disasters, the looming energy crisis, etc) that we aren't dealing with. We need to stop spending such a ridiculous amount of time debating things like gay marriage and abortion and worrying about our responsibilities to the global community.

TintedFragipan said...

PChis would argue get rid of the Holy part.

Down with monogamy!

Anonymous said...

I think it's insane to call a marriage between a man and a woman more sanctified than one between two men or two women. There are plenty of disgraceful heterosexual marriages that, if anything, blemish the "holy matrimony" that a marriage is supposed to be. If Brittany Spears can get "married" for a day and a half then I see no problem with anyone else getting "married".

PChis said...

^^that's the most bullshit thing I've ever heard.

If some people destroy the sanctity of marriage, then they're not good people. That doesn't mean we should allow homosexual marriages.

And fragi, holy union is totally cool.

And alot of people say that all christians are totally against gay rights and that gays are only fighting for equal legal status, and that's also a bunch of bullshit.

I've met many people against gay marriage who are perfectly fine with gay civil unions, they just don't like it being called marriage.

I've also met gay people who want the right to be "married" because they think they're entitled to it.

What I'm saying is that I think most people would be happy with the middle ground of equal legal rights and a different name, but no one likes those shades of gray. It's liberal or conservative, right and wrong.

A lot of people say others are closed minded or immoral or ignorant without really looking at what we want to a achieve.

Anonymous said...

A main problem from the very begining is that the concept of mairrage is an unhealthy fusion of church and state. Mairrage has always been a thing of the church, it's almost always tied to some religious ceremony and is supposedly a reflection of god's love for man (blah blah blah). Then the governemnt, instead of creating a seperate union that all brides and grooms had to enter seperately, they simply tied all of the economic social benefits of a union into the religious act of holy matrimony. "What could go wrong?" Now to get all the benefits that normal citizens are allowed (hospital visits, economic stability, etc.) a gay couple needs to get mairried in a religious sense. They can't get them any other way.

To solve the problem I suggest seperating mairrage from a legal union (it currently isn't, thus the controversy) That way the government's only role is to supply a commited couple with the legal benefits, then let it be left to the churches (and out of the constitution) whether two gay people can get "married" or not. No muss, no fuss, everybody's happy.

Anonymous said...

"If some people destroy the sanctity of marriage, then they're not good people. That doesn't mean we should allow homosexual marriages."

WTF? What, you think these people are fighting over a -word-? The major argument against gay mairrages looming in the heads of every bigot is that gay people are going to mess it up for the rest of us. Whether it's logical or not they think sodomy is a sin and that gay people don't have a right to claim they're married if they're going to keep on living the "gay lifestyle". They assume that letting any Tom and Dick get married is going to (quote) "destroy the sanctity of mairrage". Why? Because on the surface of it they don't think gays -can- be sacred.

If they got it into their heads that gays are actual people who love and think and feel and go to heaven, while there are some real evil heterosexual perverts out there that they should be worried about instead, they might drop the whole thing.

Anonymous said...

"I agree that marriage shouldn't involve the state, but that's not going to change."

Why the hell not? What right does the state have to tell me how much I love my spouse, and then blackmail me until I do what they want?

"Alright Tim, you really like this girl, huh? Well if you really want to -love- her you're gonna have to sign these papers to enter this binding legal contract. By the way we're not going to let you file your taxes together or see her in the hospital until you do. By the way I'd start saving now for the diamond and the wedding. See you next spring!"

Queen Sekaf said...

Just because it's dumb doesn't mean it's going to change. I didn't say that it SHOULDN'T change, but realistically it won't. There's no way the government will give up having that kind of authority over people.

Anonymous said...

I second PChis' motion.