ban marriage!Follow

Alas, the religious part of this is: sodomy is specifically targetted with vitriolic chastisement in the Hebrew Bible.

As Patrician pointed out, polygamy is also explicitly allowed in the Bible, yet not allowed currently (in many places). It goes without saying that slavery is explicitly allowed, too.

There are many other Biblical no-no's which we freely allow such as birth control, eating pork, etc. The New Testiment (Christianity) is even more problematic: "it is harder for a rich man to go to the kingdom of heaven then it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" Mark 10:24. Read the whole Mark 10:17-27 for the whole anti-materialism kick Jesus was on.

We are richer then kings in Biblical times in many ways: access to flawless indoor plumbing, clean drinking water, boundless calories, indoor climate control, instant communication, etc., ergo, we're all doomed.

Oddly, earlier it was suggested that the liberals should end homelessness and poverty - by Christians who should encourage homelessness and poverty because it is very explicitly necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. Hey what are you Christians doing using the internet anyhow? Obviously, they would be about as popular as the Amish or the Hare Krishnas if they did. It would be considered a cult and probably people would worry if their children showed an interest in it.

And why is it the Christians are carrying forward presecution of gays? Why not the Jews or Muslims in America? I have a feeling only the majority want to turn this country into a reflection of their religious values - the minorities know they are going to get stomped on next if the trend continues.

Further, we have separation of Church and State in America (first amendment) - so even if there was a Biblical, or Koranian, basis for the Man+Woman formula, it would not matter.

So partly, its convention: it has always been that only a man and a woman can marry. Of course it used to be only a man and woman of the same race, etc., but we'll ignore that for a moment.

US law cannot respect convention over freedom. You have to have a better reason then: it's always been this way.

Before starting the whole "Christian nation" thing, you might want to recall the number of Deists among the founders of the US. See, for example, The Age of Reason:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html

Next we get procreation. Nature intended the Man+Woman formula. There are many counterarguments to this: not all married couples want children, not all are able to have children, etc. In addition to many people born unable to bare children and the vast number who become infertile, as I am sure many of you are aware, humans are born all the time with indeterminant gender. If you are going to base your argument on nature, I would love to hear what you think "nature" is telling us by this. Oh, and if these people should not be allowed to marry, isn't that clearly discrimination?

Further, homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom.
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

Lastly, there are arguments about the relative safety of ****- versus heterosexual unions. The lines of reasoning are so base I hesitate to reply at all. I will only point out that marriage leads to decreased life expectancy in US women, and further, women are far more likely to be murdered by their husbands then by strangers (one contributing factor in the decreased life expectancy, among many). Also, to base any law on statistical likleyhood of events - which we have complete control over - is absurd.

In conclusion, I'm embarassed by my country. This is not the "city on a hill" anymore. It saddens me to see so many other countries progressing so far ahead of the US in basic rights. Citizens are being held without trial or legal representation for the duration of an ill defined war on "terror". My state, California, voted overwhelmingly for a proposition which, in part, denied citizenship to illegal immegrants and also tried to deny them emergency medical aid (prop 187 - overturned by our legal system). And the recent proposed amedments to our constitution try to stifle dissent: the ban on flag burning, discriminate: ban gay marriage, and weaken separation of church and state: prayer in school.

Canada is starting to look pretty good.

Why not let marriage be a purely religious institution which it so richly deserves and allow people to form legal "civil unions" between anyone we damn well like. If you don't want to have your religious traditions tarnished by the laws, don't enlist the law to enforce them.

Because of the emotion invested in this issue, and by whom, it is obvious that this is what is really at stake.

And your own church can set up whatever crazy rules it likes for marriage. Perhaps blue eyed women under 5'2" tall can only marry on Tuesdays - I don't care you can base it on hair length to shoe size ratio or astrological signs or anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field. GO YOU!

In the end, it comes down to the sparse legal benefits given to married couples: not to testify against each other, to see their children in hospital and make critical choices in treatments for them, tax benefits so slim they are chided as penatlies, join property and inheritance benefits. And health insurance coverage which is a non-trivial expense, but its a tradition not law, I believe.

Most all of this is can be replicated for gays but it involves lawyers and (low) thousands of dollars (US) so if there is some secret "fabric" of society cosider it torn. Asunder. Long ago. And move out of the 1950's America - although it may be shocking and scary to you, here and now, it is invigorating.

Edit: sorry about the italics I forgot which direction the slash should go.

Edited, Wed Mar 31 13:17:57 2004 by yossarian

As a historical note, this passage supposedly was translated a little incorrectly, but not quoted incorrectly by Yossarian. It should have been translated as "it is harder for a rich man to go to the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of the needle.
The Eye of the Needle was a short gate that was specially built in the wall of Jerusalem. It was built to allow the merchants and farmers to bring in their donkeys and goats and such in to the city after the main gate was closed at sunset. Being a rather tall creature, there was no way that a camel could enter this gate naked; much less with a pack of stuff on it.

By the way, I hope this little storry duddn't mahk me sound too much lak I is naht a countrie bumkin. Cuz Ah is trayin tuh cultivaht thet new tahtle thet DanReynolds gahvs me, hee hee.

Now you know the rest of the story. Coming up on page three: Yanari hates Vaanan because he says ****** just ain't right in da head. Or is it, because that ****** give head, ummm. Blast, I'm on the wrong thread again? Grrrr.

Vaanan --what you are claiming about 'The Eye of the Needle'-- do you have any links that explain in greater detail?

I'm not debating the point with you, just curious.

Regarding the camel through the eye of a needle, I had been told a completely different explanation of the translation of that passage.

What I was told was that the word that was translated to "camel" was actually a word that referred to the heavy twine used to make fishing nets. I believe the spelling was close, or even the same, but was in fact, an entirely different item. For my money, that analogy actually makes more sense.

Keep in mind this information came from my bible study teacher back when I was in junior high. I'm not going to even mention how many years ago that was.