Mass. clergy support gay marriage in NY

I am so glad to see folks in other states reaching out to Massachusetts to find out what our experience with equal marriage has been. As the debate continues around the nation, it has been particularly frustrating to hear all sorts of arguments put forth as if there is no evidence at all about what happens when same-sex couples are permitted to marry. And this is what happens: when same sex couples are permitted to marry, some of them, in fact, get married. That's all.

Can I also point out that the Catholic Charities objection to placing children with same sex couples has nothing to do with equal marriage. Both unmarried opposite sex couples, as well as unmarried same sex couples, like their married counterparts, have been adopting children in Massachusetts for quite some time. If this is the only objection the religious opposition can come up with, it pales in comparison to the real state-sponsored interference with religious freedom that is occuring in every state where equal marriage is not the law. In those states, even if your church and faith supports equal marriage, the law prevents your church from solemnizing same sex marriages. Those who profess concern about religious liberty should be concerned about the real impact these discriminatory laws have on these denominations and their congregations, rather than some imagined future harm.

Hmmm... How about the numerous clergy (many in my own town) that are dead set against this? Typical biased reporting, once again, by the soon to be defunct Boston Globe.

Any chance I can just by the sports page in the future?

ME...we know must religious leaders are bigots, nobody cares about people like them and you...it's news to hear that some aren't.

Here are the current definitions of "marriage" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Note the date, 14th century. Jesus (2000) years ago, and Genesis, several thousand years ago, said the same thing. Now, before you get your undies in a bunch, and say "this is not a religious question, separation of church and state, blah blah," I just bring up the Ot and NT because, like it or not, our country was founded by people of the Judaeo-Christian culture. Note also that traditional marriage is the first, preferred definition. But old Merriam Webster has its finger stuck up in the air, to catch the newest politically correct term, hence definition 2. But note, the most important word in that sentence, "in a relationship LIKE that of
a traditional marriage." Folks, this is what we call an analogy, specifically, a simile, where we compare two different things with the words 'like' or 'as.' That means that traditional marriage and same sex marriage are of the same genus, binary human relationships, but they are of a different species, that is, they differ in a specific way, i.e., whether they contain a man and a woman, or man/man; woman/woman.
Merriam's 3rd definition is:" 3: an intimate or close union." I think this gets the closest to same sex unions. No one that i know of is trying to deny anyone the right to an intimate or close union. I could not possibly care less what anyone does in their intimate or close union, as long as they don't block the TV.

Some say: "How does this injure your marriage?" Answer: Directly, not at all; but indirectly, a lot. What does it mean to injure me 'indirectly?' It means that the common human element, society, or culture that we all live in, affects me; so when you injure the culture, you have injured me. The culture is injured when we cannot speak with one another anymore, because you have unilaterally changed the definition, and trying to change the meaning, of our common vocabulary.
For the sake of argument, let's say that same sex 'marriage' were (de)legitimized in all 50 states. Don't you realize that in the eyes of the traditional marriage majority, you would be 'married' to the same extent Roger Maris *outhomered* Babe Ruth, or that the steroid-heads have made their *homer records* recently. Always with an asterisk, always with quotation marks, always with a wink, as in 'we'll just humor him/her', always in the sense of definitions 2 + 3 supra, that this relationshiop is "like" marriage, or it is an "intimate and close union", which no one denies.

When a subgroup uses one word in a different manner than the rest of the culture, they are debasing the language, which is the glue that binds individuals into a society. It is like printing counterfeit money, it debases the currency, and thus devalued what had previously been known as money/marriage.

gaudete - get your head out of your butt. You're going to use a dictionary to set standards for how people should live their lives?
Our nation was first settled founded by two types of people, those seeking riches and those seeking religious freedom. If a religion chooses to recognize a marriage (which is a religious sacrament) between two adults, be they opposite sex or same sex, who are you, or the government, to say it is invalid? Just because it seems unusual to you? As we all know, anything a religious conservative finds to be unusual or different is automatically labeled as wrong, sinful or evil. God created these men and women as they are, let them live as God created them. What's more, let them live in peace, as they would allow you to do.
And as for our founding fathers... Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams... some of the greatest minds and spirits of the American Revolution... these men were Deists, not Christians.

Good analysis Gaudete... I especially like the counterfeit money analogy, which "gay marriage" will always be. It is a redefined term of the language and the left can't be honest about that.

Who can it harm? How about anyone who disagrees with the concept. Ask Miss California. It is the "gay marriage" advocates who are the bigots, cf, Perez Hilton.

Interesting fact is that Bishop Shaw has never performed a same-sex marriage because his church (the Anglican Communion) forbids it. So the opinion expressed is a personal one and not that of his church; a fact that he seems to hide quite well.

The UCC (Old South Church) is the Christian form of the UU church and would probably be willing to officiate at the marriage of consenting polygamists or adherents to bestiality!

The very loquacious minister from Brockton is, again, only speaking for himself and his congregation; not for any form of the Baptist faith.

Seems like there's very little "truth in advertising" to be found in this propaganda piece.

I believe Kris Mineau has his facts wrong about Catholic Charities. If I remember right, the lay directors decided to get out of the adoption business when Cardinal O'Malley insisted that same-sex couples be excluded. I don't recall hearing that it had anything to do with state funding. Mr. Mineau and his compatriots have certainly repeated that story, though. All over the country.

I'm a gratefully married lesbian and one of over a thousand Mass. clergy who support same-sex civil marriages. We know that there are many more who would have liked to support us openly, but did not out of fear of losing their jobs.

It's about fairness, not about religious discrimination. Heaven knows that nobody can stop churches from broadcasting the notion that we are all going to hell. No law can stop that... unfortunately for the young queer people who take that condemnation to heart.

I am a member of the ucc/liberal protestants as some call. I would like to clarify one thing. Though the ucc at its general synod voted for marriage equality for all members. The individual ucc churchs decide whether or not they will allow same sex marriages in there houses of worship. Not all ucc churches do allow same sex marriage.

There is a difference between religiious marriage and civil marriage. Couples can be married in religious cermonies and not have those unions recognized by the state.

thank you gaudette - But the gay mafia will have none of it - Like saying the founders weren't Christian. Oh and Brendan, God created man and women so they could make more men and women. Have you ever noticed the anatomy?

Brendan says
"And as for our founding fathers... Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams... some of the greatest minds and spirits of the American Revolution... these men were Deists, not Christians." And to a man, if you asked them in 1776 or 1789 whether the government they were setting up would permit men to marry men, or women to women, they would have carted you off to local insane asylum. The point is, if we don't like a basic plank of our original federal or state constitution, they left us a marvelous way to change it, called the amendment
process, not legislative hysteria and certainly not totalitarian judicial ukase.

The Founders you mention all had a dab or more of Deism, but do you think it was a Buddhist Deism, or Muslim, or Hindu? No, it was a Christian Deism, only propounded in Christian countries like England and France, seen even then as an ultra liberal branch of Protestantism, out there somewhere beyond Unitarianism

I used the Merriam Webster dictionary for 2 reasons, because it is available to you online, and because it gave a same sex marriage definition. Words are one of the pillars of our culture, so a dictionary is a monument to our culture in distant and recent past.

Cult, religion, is at the heart of cult-ure. Without religion, you are uncultured. But no one is uncultured, because every one worships something/someone. Liberals believe in and evangelize on behalf of their religion, secular agnostic humanism.

Janice, you have it backwards. Marriage is a social institution which some choose to have recognized by their faiths. You can legally marry with the involvement of the state, but not the involvement of a faith. You cannot legally marry without the state and with just your faith. That makes it primarily a social institution, not a religious one. A primary reason same sex couples want to be allowed to marry is for the social benefits... it is becoming the law around the country due to the phrase "equal protection under the law." Same sex couples, engaged in loving one another, the highest calling in your Bible, were being denied legal, social, societal benefits. Equal Protection... Social institution.

gaudette ...
I should point out that the definitions you quote predate science proving the earth is not the center of the universe, as well as the understanding that homosexuality is not a choice, it is a biological fact, inclination, drive, found in humans and hundreds of other species. I believe in letting people choose how to live their lives. You say it hurts the culture. I say it broadens the culture, includes more people in the benefits of our society. I see it as making our culture richer and more diverse.

JimBob...
First, if there were a god, you might make that argument, and yes, the species dies without reproduction. Homosexuality is natural, however, and is seen all through the world in hundreds of species. The Bisexual must really scare you.
The natural implication of your statement is typically followed by, "since same sex couples can't reproduce they shouldn't be allowed to marry.” Why then are we heterosexuals not tested for fertility before being allowed to marry? How about a couple of 80 year olds who choose to marry, though unable to reproduce? Open your heart and mind to people different from you… it can be quite the broadening experience.
Second of all, the Founding Fathers were not Christian. Most were Deists. They believed in a greater being who was not necessarily the Christian one.
Thomas Jefferson: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Franklin believed in one god, in some writings expressed similarly to the god of Christianity, but he had a lot of issues with the organization… He believed we would be judged on actions, not beliefs. http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/03/ben-franklin-quotes.php
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

[Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_]
Thomas Paine described Christianity as a parody of sun worship. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
James Madison seems to have been a Christian who believed firmly in separating Church and State.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/madison.htm

http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtianity.html
Some were Christian, many were not, and even those that were seem to have not wanted Christianity running our society/government.

Thomas Jefferson may have been a deist however,
as governor of Virginia he signed off on legislation that punished sodomy with castration. Clearly he opposed neutered marriage, just like all 44 US Presidents.

revjoan,

read this article http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_pulls_out_of_adoption_business/.

Clearly Catholic Charities stopped assisting with adoptions because they could not "comply with state laws that require it to accept gays and lesbians as adoptive parents".

Catholic Charities had a reputation for being able to handle special needs adoption cases. Those kids who were a bit older or had disabilities that made it more difficult for them to be adopted. So in the name of equality the gay and lesbian community pushed their agenda onto the Catholic church with little regard for others that may be negatively effected. In fact, Catholic Charities was even willing to refer gay couples to adoption agencies that would work with them, but that wasn't good enough.

Someday, organized religion will be an antiquated notion, such as bloodletting, witch hunting, etc. I can't wait until then, when we can evolve as a society and move humankind further into a more scientific world of thinkers. You can keep your bible and talking into your hands for serenity, I'll keep my evolutionary-given thoughts and quest for learning.

Using a dictionary as Gaudete does sheds no light on the question. Speech is prevented due to unilaterally changed definitions? That's a vague statement. Marriage is a legal matter. Clergy act as representatives of the government when they perform the marriage ceremony.

To KJR I ask how does disagreement cause him or her harm?

To REMITRON: You must be a Satanist; how else to understand the fascist language of defaming a church congregation?

Jim Bob: Are the gay mafia actually the immortal Giants of Genesis, the offspring of angels and humans, who are the real power behind the Vatican, the UN and even the English Monarchy. I always wondered by religious prelates are allowed to wear such fancy clothes.

Marriage is not simply an artifact of law; neither is it a mere delivery mechanism for a set of legal benefits that might as well be shared more broadly. The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage.

In other words, while individuals freely choose to enter marriage, society upholds the marriage option, formalizes its definition, and surrounds it with norms and reinforcements, so we can raise boys and girls who aspire to become the kind of men and women who can make successful marriages. Without this shared, public aspect, perpetuated generation after generation, marriage becomes what its critics say it is: a mere contract, a vessel with no particular content, one of a menu of sexual lifestyles, of no fundamental importance to anyone outside a given relationship.

The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up.

It's all George Bush's fault....

People should remember that religion is and has been the SOURCE of tyanny and suffering for Gay people. After religions damage and destroy Gay peoples lives,Gays are suppose to go on like nothing ever happened, While churches never take resposibility for their crimes. I don't view churches and religions as an authority on anything.there a tax free politically connected entity who use fear and guilt as tools for controlling the masses.

movingforward:

Are you kidding - he abused her publically and called her a "dumb b**ch", probably cost her the Miss USA crowd, and is now said to be blackballed for many other opportunities ONLY because she has a different opinion. Is your question serious?

The article and video are typical puff pieces for gay marriage. What is more interesting is what they don't tell you. First, the headline "Mass. clergy support gay marriage in NY" implies that it is a large group of clergy. It is only 3, one of which is from a denomination that doesn't accept gay marriages. Secondly, these three clergy members gleefully state that there has been no problems with the religious rights of others due to gay marriage. That is an outright lie. Here are the facts:

1) As mentioned before, in March 2006 Boston Catholic Charities ended its adoption services rather than comply with state laws which would force them to place children with gay couples against Catholic beliefs.

2) In March 2006 federal lawsuits were filed by Lexington MA parents after public school teachers began teaching gay marriage to children as young as kindergarten. The parents were not allowed by the school to have thier children excused from these classes because administrators said gay marriage was legal in MA. The lawsuit stated that this was a violation of the parents religious rights. One parent was actually arrested for trespassing because he refused to leave the school until his child was excluded from the gay-marriage lecture.

3) In New Jersey, the Methodist Church lost is tax exemption on a beach front facility it used for weddings because the Church would not allow gay civil unions to be held there. Garden State Equality, the gay rights advocates in the case, then claimed that this victory didn't go far enough and wanted to penalize the church further.

These gay marriage advocates want you to think that nothing will change and it is only about marriage. But the truth is that the confrontations have already begun and will be increasing. These gay videos are being pushed as a retaliation for the National Organization of Marriage's Gathering Storm Video. The difference is that nothing the gay rights advocates claim can be backed up. These cases I listed as well as the cases in the Gathering Storm video are fact and can be verified in under five minutes by doing a simple Google search. You don't have to believe me or the videos. Do the research and judge for yourselves. You will see that this isn't about equality, but about trampling over our religious rights to get whatever they want.

Kai,

You are wrong about marriage being primarily a social institution, rather than a religious one. (Actually, religion is also part of society, so therefore it has its social, public side.) Merely civil marriage came about in France under the delightfully bloody french revolutionaries--you must approve of everything they did? In England, from which we derive our common law, civil marriage only became law in 1837, 50 years after our federal goverment was formed. Judaism began some 3200 years ago, Christianity 2000, so marriage is primarily a religious institution, along with a little, relatively recent government intrusion. Also, trying to send us to links called 'nobeliefs' or exchristian' is hardly persuasive.

Mark,
As Aerosmith sang so well, Dream On. Religion is only ill, not dying, in Western Europe and in a few enclaves on the 2 coasts of the USA. In the rest of the world, and in the 'red' states of the US, religion is booming. You have bought into the 'myth of progress,' propounded by Marx, Nietzsche, Compte and Freud. They are the high priests of your religion, to whom you kowtow, whether you recognize it or not That's the same 'progress' that brought us the atheist, killer regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It does not have to be an either/or between religion and science, it is a both/and.

When will it become a hate crime if you believe that two men having sex is perhaps the most disgusting thing imaginable?

Please do not think that Perez HIlton speaks for the opinion of gay people. That's like saying Farrakhan speaks for all African Americans, or David Duke speaks for white people.

Alring - Don't knock it till you try it. Can I buy you a drink?

Remember just because you call yourself "clergy" or a "church" doesn't mean you have the spirit of god.

Much like the definition argument we are having here.

"Reverend" Robinson, the man who has had nothing but gushing coverage by the Globe, abandoned his wife and children, divorced them for sex with another man. Like it or not these are not just words, but FACTS.

Also, the beauty contestant WAS vilified by the media for politely expressing her opinion on homosexual marriage. Most people in this country object to homosexual marriage. ALL striaght men find any thought of two or three or whatever men having sex disgusting. Even the politcally correct if they are honest. But today we can not tell the truth.

As a blogger point out earlier, Mr. Paulson will never interview the countless other preachers who disagree with gay marriage If someone can make you say the sky is purple, then they can make you vote any way they want. Gays are a tool for the left for power.

Am I being censored?

People should remember that religion is and has been the SOURCE of tyanny and suffering for Gay people. After religions damage and destroy Gay peoples lives,Gays are suppose to go on like nothing ever happened, While churches never take resposibility for their crimes. I don't view churches and religions as an authority on anything.there a tax free politically connected entity who use fear and guilt as tools for controlling the masses.

Also remember that atheist movements such as Nazism sent gay people to the concentration camps.

Other atheist ideologies such as communism sent everybody who disagreed to concentration camps. Look at North Korea. An officially atheist country that is nothing more than a giant concentration camp for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

What I have not heard from folks who believe that marriage can not be separated from religion is how they view marriages between Jews and Christians? Or Christians and Hindus? If marriage can not be separated from religion then shouldn't marriages between a man and woman of different religions be banned?

What of the children of a mixed religious marriage? If religious adherence is vital then exposing children to the religious beliefs of two different religious systems must be torturing them. Child abuse via religious confusion?

As for how disagreement has caused harm: if someone ranted with ugly racist or anti-Semitic statements and lost freelance jobs as a result then they are simply reaping the rewards of their bigotry. Hate language is legally tolerated and allowed, but that doesn't exempt potty mouthed individuals from the social and financial consequences. Oh I forgot, for some folks, describing gays as less than human is a right protected by their religious belief?

First, I thought the issue of marriage was left up to the individual states...so let's just drop the whole "Founding Fathers" discussion...(besides, the founding fathers were far more intelligent than any of us--including you, KJR--will ever be).

Second, I think the easiest solution to this problem is to strip all clergy the right to perform civil marriages. This will allow 2 things to happen:
1. All peope (gay and straight) will be treated equally and will have to either be married by a Justice of the Peace or at City Hall by a clerk. This will make their marriage valid in the eyes of the state.
2. If you want to have a religious service, great, by all means go ahead...but it will NOT consumate the marriage in the eyes of the state. AND it has the added benefit of any priest being able to refuse to marry anybody for any reason with no recourse by the couple.

I think this preserves the separation of church and state and allows gay couples equal protection.

To those who are against gay marriage, why? Why would you deny two people who mutually care and love each other the ability to marry in the eyes of the state and obtain all the protections (estate, medical, etc.) that confers? What, because your church says so???? Well, if you want to be a closed-minded bigot then go to your little building with your other closed-minded bigots and let me live in the world and accept people for who they are. (For your information, I am not gay, I just believe they should be afforded the same rights I have.)

gaudete says that people will view married gays "always with an asterisk, always with quotation marks, always with a wink, as in 'we'll just humor him/her'... but I say always is a long time, and my bet is it won't take more than two generations before the majority of people all over see no difference at all, and within a hundred years people will ask what the fuss was all about. Because there is no difference.

Now gaudete also offers these readers the dictionary definition of marry, but then makes up a spurious definition of the word culture, implying that culture's etymology is rooted in cult or religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Culture comes from colere, the Latin for "to till."

IMO, gaudete is doing nothing more than what other conservatives have tried to do: make up facts to fit their agenda and shop their personal conclusions as universal truth.

123 - if you have been around these boards for any period of time, Perez Hilton certainly speaks for ontheleft, and all the other radical gay advocates.

gaudette, I find it entertaining you go off about how allegedly changing the definition of marriage debases you and society in general, preaching that degrading members of society is reprehensible, when you so firmly condone the degradation of gay people.

In other words, get over yourself.

"Without religion, you are uncultured."

Actually, gaudete, those like you who hold an ignorant black/white analysis of homosexuality are uncultured; you live in a comfortable little bubble where you want everyone to live as you live your life, and are offended when you are reminded of those that don't live as you do.

Again, get over yourself.

Another of these endless arguments about religion courtesy of the Globe. Equality in marriage in American today is not about religion, it's about money and civil rights. The religion and the clergy fights are just a smokescreen for the bigger issues. I find it reprehensible that as a taxpayer I am required to pay into many systems that for years have propped up heterosexual marriages, from public schools to the tax codes and especially Social Security. But as a lesbian who has parented I can understand the demands of same sex couples for equality through marriage. Frankly, if there were some way to equalize the legal system, the medical-insurance systems and our governance structure to be fair to all, then none of this matters.

Jim Bob, some quotes for you:

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." --George Washington

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --John Adams

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-- James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
--James Madison, 4th US President

"Revealed religion has no weight with me."
--Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
--Benjamin Franklin

The one really applies to KJR, gaudete, etc:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --John Adams

You routinely bring grief to good people who happen to be gay and lesbian, and you use your religion to disguise what is clearly simple, raw contempt for "undesirables." Engines of grief, indeed.

tumbeweed:

"Remember just because you call yourself "clergy" or a "church" doesn't mean you have the spirit of god."

Who are you to decide who does and does not have the spirit of God within them? Where do you get off?

"Reverend" Robinson, the man who has had nothing but gushing coverage by the Globe, abandoned his wife and children, divorced them for sex with another man. Like it or not these are not just words, but FACTS."

Get your "facts" straight, no pun intended. Robinson and his wife amicably divorced and after quite some time Robinson found himself with his current partner.

His entire family has been abundantly suppoortive and that family is better off today for Robinson finding the strength to claim his authentic self. You condemn Robinson but you would rather he live an inauthentic, unfulfilled, unhappy life...now THAT is backwards. You would have him live a lie to be worthy of your respect.

"Also, the beauty contestant WAS vilified by the media for politely expressing her opinion on homosexual marriage."

There is nothing polite about saying, ["No offense, but I don't believe that group of people should have the same rights as I have."]...but yes, Perez Hilton is a buffoon and an embarrassment to the gay cause.

"Most people in this country object to homosexual marriage."

This means NOTHING. Most people in this country once supported slavery. Most people in this country once disagreed with integration. Again, "most" means NOTHING.

" ALL striaght men find any thought of two or three or whatever men having sex disgusting. Even the politcally correct if they are honest. But today we can not tell the truth."

This is proof of how limited your thinking is....I have several straight male friends who simply don't get it...they are not disgusted by it. I've had a conversation on the subject with my straight brother and I believe him, as I believe my friends. They are simply less narcissistic and uptight than you.

"Gays are a tool for the left for power."

Ridiculous. Gays have struggled to pursuade the Left to aid us in our civil rights battle. More and more are simply standing up for fairness, for justice, and for dignity for all.

Rob:

"These gay videos are being pushed as a retaliation for the National Organization of Marriage's Gathering Storm Video. The difference is that nothing the gay rights advocates claim can be backed up. These cases I listed as well as the cases in the Gathering Storm video are fact and can be verified in under five minutes by doing a simple Google search. You don't have to believe me or the videos. Do the research and judge for yourselves. You will see that this isn't about equality, but about trampling over our religious rights to get whatever they want."

Big surprise that you bought into that laughable alarmist nonsense.

What is so absent in your life that you spend so much time worrying about other couples partnering.

What's wrong with ALL of you who spend so much time complaining about gays finally advancing on the front of basic human dignity? Seriously. What is wrong with you? Life is short, and you're spending much of your time fighting to invalidate the lives of others. GET a life.

Posted by Peter April 23, 09 01:43 PM,

"Big surprise that you bought into that laughable alarmist nonsense."
That's your opinion, but you didn't offer any proof that I was wrong. If this was really about having the same medical benefits, survivor benefits, next of kin rights, etc, as straight couples, then why isn't the pro gay-marriage side content with civil unions which offer all those protections? Instead they have pushed this way beyond rights and benefits to the complete redefinition of marriage. The whole agenda behind this is to force the acceptance of gay marriage onto everyone with no regard for thier religious beliefs. That is what is "wrong" with us and with this whole situation.

I feel absolutely no obligation to elaborate further on a post that ends with this paranoid, alarmist, narcissistic load of bull:

"You will see that this isn't about equality, but about trampling over our religious rights to get whatever they want."

If you want to teach that homosexuality is wrong within the context of your church or your home, that is fine...but in the public schools, or in the lives of others, your desire to reinforce the degradation of others is NOT your right. It's as simple as that.

Why won't you just admit you're on the losing side of history, Rob, and go live your life in peace?

What is wrong with you that you are so committed to punishing gays for having the audacity to demand their civil equality?

What is this overcompensatory hostility? It's really all just about your bruised ego...that the lowly gays are obtaining their civil rights without your being able to have a say in the matter, isn't it?

it's really a matter of narcissism, isn't it?

Kai,
Re: cult, culture: going again to Merriam-Webster online, for 'culture' it lists 7 definitions, none of which involves religion, the closest being the word "morals" as being part of culture. On the other hand, it says culture is derived from "Etymology: Middle English, cultivated land, cultivation, from Anglo-French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle." My Latin-English dictionary defines "cultus" as (you're going to have to take my word on this) "worship, reverence; culture; refinement; adorning; splendor, smartness." So none of the definitions cite religion as the basis of culture, but the word cultus, worship, is in there somewhere: I give you an 80% victory, and i will never make that simple equation again. Thank you.

Peter, for the record, I do not hold a "black/white analysis of homosexuality," nor do i "degrade" gays. I do hold a black and white analysis of same sex marriage, that it is wrong and ought not to be legalized. Since presumably no one of us knows each other in real life, versus virtually, you will have to take my word on it that i try to treat everyone in my life with care, respect and kindness. That does not mean that i always agree with them in conversation (i doubt you would want a friend who does that), and i do argue my positions vigorously, partly because few others do here in MA, and I prefer on blogs to converse, or argue, with informed, logical people rather than name-callers.

Peter,

This has nothing to do with my ego. I'll just repeat what I said before: "The whole agenda behind this is to force the acceptance of gay marriage onto everyone with no regard for thier religious beliefs." That is what this is about. This isn't about punishing gays, but about stopping gays from punishing others.

"This isn't about punishing gays, but about stopping gays from punishing others."

You are utterly ridiculous in thinking gays are trying to punish others. It's laughable.

If I think you and your wife are a couple of jerks, should I try to annul your marriage because your union is distasteful to me?

What about the straight couple down the street who choose to have an "open" marriage? Should I try to annul that marriage?

You are simply offended by the very existence of gay people, and you find it offensive that gays are officially being given by the governement the same dignity and respect you are given.

It's that simple.

Punishing others? Gays are punishing others. Yeah. Right.

" i do argue my positions vigorously, partly because few others do here in MA"

I think you are simply out of touch with how many people are cool with gay people and are either supportive of or indifferent to gay marriage.

That's what's really sad about you, Rob, KJR, etc...you're putting all this energy into a losing battle. Years from now you may find yourself wishing for the lost time you spent trying, in vain, to deny others' of their rights.

Nah. I take that back. You won't. But it is indeed a sad statement about your lives.

"Why isn't the pro gay-marriage side content with civil unions which offer all those protections? Instead they have pushed this way beyond rights and benefits to the complete redefinition of marriage. The whole agenda behind this is to force the acceptance of gay marriage onto everyone with no regard for thier religious beliefs."
Posted by Rob A April 23, 09 02:26 PM

Why should they be content with that, Rob? Because you're offended? Some news, Rob - you don't have the right to not be offended, and you don't have the right to deny others basic human rights simply because you dislike the people involved. To you, gaudete, kjr, and the rest of the bigots, equal marriage has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever. No one is forcing you to marry against your will or keeping you from doing so. You are not being punished or persecuted simply because you lose your legal ability to persecute those whom you loathe. Your interest in the private lives of gay men and women is little more than voyeurism, and at some point, you should actually consider living your own lives, rather than trying to live the lives of others. And, gaudete, culture happens with or without religion. The idea that "worship, reverence; culture; refinement; adorning; splendor, smartness" are necessarily the province of religion is absurd. In your life, maybe. But that's one person in nearly 7 billion.

"The whole agenda behind this is to force the acceptance of gay marriage onto everyone with no regard for thier religious beliefs. "

Rob, has it ever occurred to you that gay people often tolerate heterosexuals and the so-called heterosexual lifestyle being flaunted before, constantly reminding us that some of us will never truly have the freedom to be ourselves as you do, and as you take for granted?

So, please, spare me this "shoving it down your throats" nonsense. In a pluralistic society, and in society, in general, you're going to have many different kinds of lives...some of them you approve of, some of them you tolerate. Our asking for the same civil contracts you are granted, and for asking for our dignity to be respected, is most certainly not shoving anything down your throats.

We exist. We didn't choose this "lifestyle." We deserve dignity and common respect. That's all.

If you want to teach your kids that gay people are perverted, immoral deviants, that's your prerogative...but those who are not ignorant are aiding us in our demand that these pieces of misinformation not have weight over us when it comes to our dignity and to our civil rights.

OnTheLeft and Peter,

Its your right to keep screaming about bigotry and civil rights. Keep buying into the nonsense that "To you, gaudete, kjr, and the rest of the bigots, equal marriage has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever". I am still waiting for you to refute the cases I mentioned in post #23. I have presented you with actual evidence of how gay marriage will have an effect beyond your narrow view and all you do is cry "bigots". It is proof of how your gay marriage is shoved in our faces and in or childrens faces with no consideration for our beliefs.

This has been your typcial defense. You refuse to look at the big picture and then try and guilt people into siding with you by screaming bigots and then crying about civil rights and equality and dignity. I have no guilt and no remorse for strongly believing that gay marriage is wrong.