The Gathering Storm
One of the problems facing opponents of marriage equality is that it’s not as if straight people are being asked to give anything up when gay and lesbian couples want to get married. The lives of heterosexuals will just continue as before. The National Organization for Marriage, however, is ready to try to mobilize people into a state of inchoate fear with this ad designed to make you think that gay marriage is an urgent threat to your liberty:
The closest thing to a legitimate issue here seems to have to do with the Massachusetts public schools. Clearly, a state adopting a non-discriminatory marriage policy doesn’t actually force the state to teach non-discriminatory values in schools. But the two tend to go together. We not only don’t have Jim Crow anymore, but we teach people that racism is wrong. This is, it’s true, a big imposition on racists. And people who don’t like gay people can be legitimately concerned that the spread of gay equality will create an environment in which their children are less likely to share their own prejudices.
On the other hand, that’s all pretty tautological. But what’s the deal with the woman who says “I’m a California doctor forced to choose between my faith and my job”? What is it she wants to do? Does her faith prohibit her from giving medical care to gays and lesbians? That sounds like a pretty sick faith. And a clear violation of existing medical ethics anyway.
172 Responses to “The Gathering Storm”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 8th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Why are all those people standing around like zombies?
By the way, the woman at 0:32-0:38 is hot.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
@1: not that there’s anything wrong with that.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
NOM could have anticipated the gathering storm if they would have invested in Doppler Gaydar.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Damn, i had to play the vid to see if she is actually hot. And you’re right, she is.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Well, on the right side of the page, I see that “The Progress Report” is about “The Rising Tide for Marriage Equality.” Storms, tides…perhaps gay marriage is caused by global warming?
April 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Makes about as much as if she said:
“I’m a California doctor forced to choose between my hate of Mud People and my job?”
Seriously… WTF is “her” point?
John
April 8th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.”
“Those advocates wish to change the way I live.”
I guess the point is that same-sex marriage supporters can be broken into two groups: the “reasonable” people who merely support extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples, and another group who wish to “force” “something” on everyone.
I’d like to for NOM to explain precisely what differentiates the two groups and what the latter group is actually demanding. Perhaps they can enter into a partnership with the reasonable advocates of same-sex marriage to lobby for marriage equality in opposition those unnamed “advocates”? Somehow, I think that’s unlikely.
I think Matt gets to the heart of it — the reason a certain segment of the Right is standing in the way of same-sex marriage is because they don’t want to feel embarrassed about their bigotry. They don’t care about the tangible harm being done to real gay and lesbian people — they’d rather be able to tell fag jokes and be disgusted by two guys holding hands without the guilt.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Also, all the guys in that ad are so gay!!!
April 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Via Andrew Sullivan we see that the participants in the commercial are all paid actors. As an actor myself, I’m ashamed.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
A “rainbow coalition”… Hah!
April 8th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Via Andrew Sullivan we see that the participants in the commercial are all paid actors. As an actor myself, I’m ashamed.
I’ll probably be scourged for writing this, but it’s very rare that I’ve met a right-winger who didn’t have something immediately, and noticeably, weird about them—some bizarre fashion choice or strange verbal tic. If you want footage of “normal” people advocating far-right positions, you’ve pretty much gotta hire actors.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
She is smokin’ that was the first thing I noticed. They may want to take her out if they want this ad to get any traction.
k1
April 8th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Maybe she’s worried about being forced to give out birth control to married gay couples.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
You can reasonably disagree with people that think homosexuality is immoral, but it’s unreasonable to call them all prejudicial. Many Christians, without prejudice, have interpreted the Bible to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Agree or disagree, they have a rational basis for their moral code.
To claim their desire to imbue their children with a similar moral code is really a hope to perpetuate prejudice is an argument that’s beneath you.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
интересное…
One of the problems facing opponents of marriage equality is that it’s not as if straight people are being[...]…
April 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Agree or disagree, they have a rational basis for their moral code.
Right: A sky fairy. What could be more rational than that?
April 8th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
To claim their desire to imbue their children with a similar moral code is really a hope to perpetuate prejudice is an argument that’s beneath you.
Kind of like a lot of religious groups were bitter about Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia. They didn’t want to imbue their children with a moral code that taught black people (I think they use a different word) as being equal. Republicans are so awesome.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Many Christians, without prejudice, have interpreted the Bible to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Agree or disagree, they have a rational basis for their moral code.
That’s not a rational basis. A rational basis would be one that did not depend essentially on accepting some particular article of religious faith, such as that the Bible is the arbiter of morality.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Republicans are so awesome.
Specifically the modern Republican party (i.e., since Nixon’s Southern Strategy). “Right wingers” would have been more accurate.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“Many Christians, without prejudice, have interpreted the Bible to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Agree or disagree, they have a rational basis for their moral code.”
Oh? What is it?
April 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
They have every right to “imbue their children with a similar moral code” to their own. No one is infringing on that right. That is the whole point.
The logic of their argument is that gay people shouldn’t be granted marriage rights because that might mean that children will learn in school that both straight and gay people can get married. Seriously, that’s the argument.
No one’s telling that woman that she can’t indoctrinate her kids at home with all types of prejudices that she likes. She can take them to Rick Warren’s church on Sundays if she wants. But the outrageousness of telling an old lesbian couple they can’t get married just so that she can teach her kids that homosexuality is wrong without anyone teaching them in school that actual gay people exist is too much.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
HRC sums up the “3 issues”
http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm
1. Doctor forced to treat Lesbian
2. Church group has Pavilion open for Public use (but not for Civil Unions)
3. School Sex-Ed now talks about the gay!! gasp
Never been a big fan of HRC, but they need to put out an Ad themselves (with all the money they get) that points out how ridiculous the hidden claims are.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Towards the end Damon Owen mentions “rainbow” coalition. Isn’t that they gay pride flag? If so, it was a very interesting choice of words.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I think what Matt and ed and hum are saying is that if you have a non-humanist moral code, you should be forced into the closet about it.
One of the problems facing opponents of marriage equality is that it’s not as if straight people are being asked to give anything up when gay and lesbian couples want to get married.
It’s an attempt to essentially downgrade heterosexual marriage from being “the norm” to being just another “alternate lifestyle,” and ultimately, to being considered “an alternate lifestyle” instead of “the norm.”
Divorce, the moral acceptance of premarital sex, and eventually the legalization of polygamy and any other arrangement between any number of people, the whole goal is to essentially dilute the meaning of marriage.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
NOM could have anticipated the gathering storm if they would have invested in Doppler Gaydar.
Ha! Kudos.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Glaivester: I know, after whites already lost their status as A-Number One Race Hooray! It’s all so unfair.
You don’t have a right to be Super-Special, sorry.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Shorter Nathan Clark: “I’m not a homophobe, but…”
Shorter Glaivester: “The government must make me feel superior about my life!”
April 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
the whole goal is to essentially dilute the meaning of marriage.
Um, I’m pretty sure the whole goal is treating all people with a common sense of decency. See Rule, The Golden, genius.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Glaivester says: It’s an attempt to essentially downgrade heterosexual marriage from being “the norm”
Just like before we had equal rights for women and Blacks, being a White Man was “the norm”. Time to leave the 18th century!
April 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Does her faith prohibit her from giving medical care to gays and lesbians? That sounds like a pretty sick faith.
How dare you insult teh FAITH!!!1!, yhou anti religgios BIGOT
April 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
No. I thought it was obvious that no one wants to “dilute the meaning of marriage” as an end in itself.
The goal of relaxing divorce laws was to give more freedom to people to leave marriages that are no longer working. I don’t know the history but I’m sure there is a strong feminist argument for this change. It wasn’t as if people were doing this to ruin healthy marriages.
Similarly, if there was a movement underway to legalize polygamy, I’m pretty sure it would be spearheaded by, you know, polygamists who were genuinely seeking additional rights and privileges. It wouldn’t be part of this abstract crusade to “dilute” marriage.
Straight people make up 90+% of the population, so obviously heterosexual marriage will continue to be “the norm.” What the NOM wants is a world where gay relationships are shown fundamentally less respect than heterosexual relationships, not because that is the best public policy, but because it is what they personally believe.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“the woman at 0:32-0:38 is hot.”
Uh, not really. You need to get out more. Or move to a larger city. She’s at best average.
Fortunately I played the video without my headphones on so I didn’t have to listen to the nonsense to check her out.
“Dilute the meaning of marriage”! Pardon me while I guffaw! This idiot thinks marriage has ever meant anything absolute over hundreds of human societies over thousands of years of human history.
It’s likely most of the cultures in human history would consider the “American way of marriage” to be a joke for various reasons. Since much of marriage had religious connotations of one sort or another in history, perhaps the Christian notion wouldn’t be quite so laughable, but since most of human history was governed by pagan religions, my guess is that it wouldn’t fare well there, either.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
For example, look at this story from when California had legalized same-sex marriage. The effect was not simply to let gays wed, but to attempt to gender-neutralize the concept of marriage for everyone.
This is one of the ways in which same-sex marriage is asking heterosexual couples to give something up.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I think what Matt and ed and hum are saying is that if you have a non-humanist moral code, you should be forced into the closet about it.
The only way to get this from what I actually wrote is if you are harboring quasi-paranoid delusions, as is well-attested by the rest of your comment.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Shorter MY: There’s no conflict between religious liberty and gay marriage. Unless there happens to be any religion out there that doesn’t approve of gay marriage–but tough shit for them. You see, it’s just like racism–you don’t care about the religious liberty of racists, do you?
I’m not positive that religious liberty would be threatened by gay marriage, but this line of reasoning, which I hear all the time from liberals, isn’t very reassuring. The Mass. school issue is probably the least threatening of all the items the ad mentions.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
to attempt to gender-neutralize the concept of marriage for everyone.
What, exactly, does that mean? (Yes, I read the article).
April 8th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
For example, look at this story from when California had legalized same-sex marriage….
Oh NOES! Gender-neutral language in the marriage license! You are so right, Glaivester, that is the end of the world.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Christians who believe and advance the agenda of killing heretics, adulterers, homosexuals, and people who work on Sunday (I don’t mean like at a job, I’m talking mowing the lawn), by stoning them to death, those are the Christians I will listen to in regard to Gays.
A Christian that sidles up to me and says, “brother, grab a rock, I caught my wife giving Harry a blow job. She must die. By the way, homosexuals should not by allowed to marry,” is a Christian making some sense.
I can understand that kind of total commitment to the Ancient Texts. I cannot understand the willy nilly pick and choose Christians of the modern era.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
This is one of the ways in which same-sex marriage is asking heterosexual couples to give something up.
What precisely are they giving up?
April 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
This is one of the ways in which same-sex marriage is asking heterosexual couples to give something up.
Really. Heavens, the semantics must have been a living nightmare for the straight Christians in California. I never considered that angle. The horror. Is this a bigger change than when women were no longer considered property. The property change seems like a much bigger movement, overturning centuries and centuries of tradition. I bet you’re still upset about that too. I can’t imagine the pain you must be in.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
So Adam shouldn’t be able to visit Steve in the hospital because these clowns are pissed about the words “bride” and “groom” on a marriage license?
And this is just rich:
“For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.”
Second marriage? What a surprise. Sometimes the more I engage with these people the sadder I become.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“Dilute the meaning of marriage”! Pardon me while I guffaw! This idiot thinks marriage has ever meant anything absolute over hundreds of human societies over thousands of years of human history.
Monogamous heterosexual marriage is the most successful model, considering that it has been the norm in the West for at least 1600 years.
Yes, there are other models out there, but let’s remember that most of the nations that haven’t used heterosexual monogamous marriage as the norm for the past 1600 years tend to be third-world countries.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I’m not positive that religious liberty would be threatened by gay marriage
I’ve never been prouder of you. Good for you, Colatina!
April 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Monogamous heterosexual marriage is the most successful model, considering that it has been the norm in the West for at least 1600 years.
You know who also endorsed monogamous heterosexual marriage? Well do you? Can you guess?
If the hell-bound queers are allowed to get married, would that mean that monogamous heterosexual marriage would disappear. Have there always been gay people, or did Liberals invent them?
April 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
The only way to get this from what I actually wrote is if you are harboring quasi-paranoid delusions, as is well-attested by the rest of your comment.
I was being a little bit playfully facetious here.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I think the elephant in the room needs to be noticed. That elephant is this constant nonsensical statement that marriage is an institution.
In point of fact, marriage is not an institution.
A church is an institution. A school is an institution. A nation is an institution. A social club is an institution.
Marriage isn’t an institution, it’s a concept.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
You know who also endorsed monogamous heterosexual marriage? Well do you? Can you guess?
I don’t know, who?
If the hell-bound queers are allowed to get married, would that mean that monogamous heterosexual marriage would disappear. Have there always been gay people, or did Liberals invent them?
I never said that “queers” were all going to Hell, nor is that what I believe.
The point is not that heterosexual marriage would disappear, but that the culture would become a lot less marriage-oriented.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
On the other hand, when I said:
I think what Matt and ed and hum are saying is that if you have a non-humanist moral code, you should be forced into the closet about it.
The point is actually quite serious when it comes to Matt Yglesias. In this statement:
We not only don’t have Jim Crow anymore, but we teach people that racism is wrong. This is, it’s true, a big imposition on racists. And people who don’t like gay people can be legitimately concerned that the spread of gay
he clearly implies that anything other than full moral acceptance of homosexuality as being on par with heterosexuality ought to be as societally unacceptable as racism. Which is essentially saying that those who believe in the Biblical view of homosexuality should be “in the closet.”
April 8th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
By the way, it’s important to note that this ad scores exceptionally high on the Unintentional Comedy Scale. The more publicity this gets, the more it will be–quite rightly–openly mocked by a rapidly growing Reality Based community. Hopefully douchebags like Newt Gingrich and John McCain will have to defend it on the Sunday douchefests.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
i.e. My beliefs have no foundation in science, history, or any branch of rational human knowledge. Rather, they were revealed to me by a supreme being and therefore I do not need to defend them in any logical way.
In addition, it is not enough for me to proclaim these beliefs in (literally millions of) churches. These beliefs must be expressed in public policy, not be contradicted in public schools, and enforced by the government against the abomination of charging interest on loans, heliocentric view of the solar system, allowing witches to live, allowing protestants to live, women voting, negroes, miscegenation, evolution gay marriage. These views are eternal and unchanging.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I want to rephrase my last sentence in post #48:
Which is essentially saying that those who believe in the Biblical view of homosexuality should be “pushed into the closet.”
April 8th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Since Obama is personally opposed to marriage equality for fags and lezzies
that’s good enough for me!
April 8th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
RS Hack (#32) is right. The woman at 0:32 is not that hot.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I was being a little bit playfully facetious here.
Glad to hear it.
the culture would become a lot less marriage-oriented.
Extending marriage rights to include more people who love each other and want to make a recognized commitment to each other means the culture is getting less marriage-oriented? How does that even occur to you as a reaction?
April 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Well, that’s it with pluralism then, isn’t it? Nice of Matt to tidy things up for us at the end of liberalism.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
A Christian that sidles up to me and says, “brother, grab a rock, I caught my wife giving Harry a blow job. She must die. By the way, homosexuals should not by allowed to marry,” is a Christian making some sense.
Hector should be along soon enough…
April 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
“Hillary Clinton wants an all homosexual Army. What will that mean for my family?”
April 8th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
For my part, I don’t believe you should be ‘in the closet’ about those beliefs; I believe you should abandon it, because it is hateful, discriminatory and irrational.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
The “biblical view of homosexuality” is no more and no less biblical than the “biblical view of race”, i.e., the belief, widespread among Christians prior to WW2, that blacks were placed on earth to serve whites. That large congregations like the Mormons and the Southern Baptists no longer openly profess racism has nothing to do with their spiritual evolution, and everything to do with essentially secular pressures they felt from the larger society.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Fine with me, because that sort of person isn’t going to take the biblical view on a host of other things because that’s not part of modern-day Christian culture.
The bible is just an excuse for bigotry, not its cause and certainly not its justification.
.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
No, I think it’s more like if you’re a sociopath who uses a magical sky fairy to get out of being held responsible for being a sociopath, you’re a public menace.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
This is one of the ways in which same-sex marriage is asking heterosexual couples to give something up.
I generally try to be more civil than this. But, Glaivester, FUCK YOU. You would tell people who are in love that they can’t live together with the same rights as other couples just so you don’t have to be “Party A” on a goddamn government form? What the fuck? I can’t fathom the sense of entitlement you would have to have to even include those two things in the same discussion, much less suggest that the latter has more weight than the former. That’s nauseating. That’s an abomination.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
If more people are getting married, fewer people will get married?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@ 63
It was quite clear to me. More equals less, more or less.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“Shorter MattY: There’s no conflict between religious liberty and gay marriage. Unless there happens to be any religion out there that doesn’t approve of gay marriage–but tough shit for them.”
No, not tough shit for them—they’re free to not marry people of the same sex, and also to teach their adherents that they should not marry people of the same sex. They are not free to legally mandate that no people of the same sex, whatever their religion, can get married.
“You see, it’s just like racism–you don’t care about the religious liberty of racists, do you?”
I care about everyone’s religious liberty. Unless you’re saying that, for instance, Jews shouldn’t legally be allowed to marry non-Jews in a civil service because it goes against the tenets of Judaism. That kind of “religious liberty” isn’t sympathetic to me, no.
Religious liberty means you’re free to practice your religion, not that other people are required to abide by it. That is a pretty basic concept.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Kth: The “biblical view of homosexuality” is no more and no less biblical than the “biblical view of race”, i.e., the belief, widespread among Christians prior to WW2, that blacks were placed on earth to serve whites
Kth, it’s Holy Week, so I’m going to be as charitable as possible, but you are simply wrong. That was never normative Christian doctrine, nor was it even heterodox Christian thought. That view has no basis in the writings of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, or any of the popes, patriarchs, or primates from the beginning. if you believe otherwise, please cite a source. Indeed, racism was explicitly condemned as heretical by, I believe, some of the 16th century popes. I understand that a lot of American liberals are not terribly knowledgeable about church history, or theology, and think that the views of some southern Protestant churches in the United States were ever normative Christian doctrine. In fact, they weren’t. The church had black African bishops from the very beginning, and only in a few societies (the United States, South Africa, Nazi Germany and a couple of others) was racism ever presented as religious doctrine.
As for my views on SSM, I’ll say this. I favor SSM. Not because I accept homosexuality; I don’t. But because as long as our society promotes a view of marriage at odds with both Christianity and natural law, it is inconcistent and unfair to impose on homosexuals a standard we do not impose on other people. My perfect society would not accept gay marriage. But they would also, of course, not accept no-fault divorce, the remarriage of the at-fault party in a divorce, the marriage of voluntarily childless persons, or marriage of people who were judged to be either ignorant or ideologically opposed to the fundamental meaning of marriage, and it would discourage the marriage of interfaith couples and the use of condoms. America is not, however, my perfect society. It’s a secular society based, not on natural law, but on liberal ideas. More’s the pity, but there it is, and there is no just reason for a secular liberal society to forbid gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage being performed in the church, and I oppose them being performed by Christian nations like Peru, Poland, or Santo Domingo, but I don’t have a problem with them being performed in the US.
As for the personal, moral issue: while I am generally agnostic on the liceity of homosexual acts, I still lean slightly towards the view that they are wrong. However, I don’t see them as more wrong than, say, masturbation. And certainly, homosexual acts do less violence to marriage than divorce. The more fundamental mistake our society made back in the 1960s was to accept no-fault divorce. The New Testament condemnation of homosexuality is somewhat ambiguous; the condemnation of divorce is not, and though divorce is sometimes the lesser evil, it is always evil.
The arguments for homosexuality being wrong lie in the fact that 1) homosexual relationships can never be procreative (a couple using the Pill is different, for the relationship could _eventually_ develop into a procreative one), 2) homosexual acts use the organs of the body for unintended purposes, and 3) homosexual relationships contravene the essential difference between the sexes, and imply that gender differences are socially constructed. It’s certainly true that homosexual relationships can have many other goods- romantic love, deep friendship, and self-giving- which could arguably make sexual acts licit. And it can be argued that in the case some people, due to biologically innate predilections, are sadly not able to, or not called to, form procreative relations with the opposite sex. I am not sure yet, however, that these outweigh arguments 1-3) above. I would welcome arguments persuading me otherwise, and I have heard compelling arguments to that effect before, which is why I consider myself agnostic today.
Again, my personal views are not relevant to whether I think that SSM should be allowed in America today (the answer is yes). I do, however, regard those who would try to replace a natural-law sexual ethics with one based on nothing higher or more important than mutual consent and pleasure, as fundamentally hostile to life, love, obedience, and the gospel of Christ. They are enemies of what I love; though we can come to some truces on SSM, in the long run our visions are utterly opposed, and I will resist them to my last breath.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I understand that a lot of American liberals are not terribly knowledgeable about church history, or theology
This from the moron who doesn’t know what “Arianism” means.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
JM,
Arianism is the belief that Jesus was the highest created being, but subordinate to the Father, and not Himself divine. It is also one of the most dangerous and harmful perversion of Christianity that has ever existed.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
It is also one of the most dangerous and harmful perversion of Christianity that has ever existed.
More dangerous than the perversions that gave us the Inquisition and thousands of child rapes? Because those were bad.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Arianism is the belief that Jesus was the highest created being, but subordinate to the Father, and not Himself divine.
No, that’s Nestorianism. You’ve now made the same mistake twice.
Arianism was the most popular form of Christianity in the fourth century. It lost out to Trinitarianism only because the Arians’ sponsor was assassinated as part of a succession crisis in Constantinople. Trinitarianism was then enforced over the next two centuries in wars of mass murder that engulfed the Christian world, but that doesn’t exactly make the even stand out.
Yours is the faith of assassins and genocides. It has never changed.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Sorry, three and a half centuries of bloodbath. I got my mass murderers mixed up.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
If two people can’t hold a relationship together who’s problem is it? And what exactly does this gay storm look like?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
JM,
From the Wikipedia entry:
“Arius posed the question, “Is Jesus unbegotten?” In other words, he taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Further, Arius taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and possibly inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a “creature”; in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of “created being.” That doctrine that Arius wrote was based on Scriptures such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is “greater than I” to John 17:20-26 where Jesus asks that the Apostles become “one as we are one” so that all of them including Jesus and God become one. This is interpreted as indicating that the oneness refers to thought and will, and not a unity in a Trinity.”
You appear to be a little confused. Nestorianism is the belief that Christ consisted of two persons, the divine Logos and the human Jesus, held by the Assyrian church today.
“Nestorianism is the doctrine that Christ exists as two individuals (hypostases), the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as one individual (hypostasis), God the Word Incarnate, of two essences, divine and human. The doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451), Archbishop of Constantinople. This view of Christ was condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the churches adherent to the First Council of Ephesus, among them being the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church.”
Thus when we confess one person with two natures, we refute Arianism, Docetism, Monophysitism and Nestorianism simultaneously.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
More dangerous than the perversions that gave us the Inquisition and thousands of child rapes? Because those were bad.
Dude, he’s just confused the Second Ecumenical Council with the First Council of Ephesus. Why would you expect him to know jack shit? He’s half a century off and can’t get a little thing like, oh, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST right.
It’s like poseur hour at the coffee shop around the corner from the seminary.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
He’s half a century off and can’t get a little thing like, oh, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST right.
Nobody fucks with The Jesus.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Jesus loves the little chillllldren, almost all the children of the worrrrrld.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
JM,
You can assert this as often as you like, but unfortunately I know more about this than you. Go look it up, or consult a clergman or theology grad student. Go ahead- I’ll cheerfully admit if I’m wrong. In fact, I’ll donate fifty bucks to the charity of your choice, as long as it isn’t Planned Parenthood.
He will tell you that Arianism consisted in denying the divinity of Christ, and Nestorianism in denying the hypostatic union (i.e. holding that Jesus consisted in two persons).
April 8th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
JM,
From the Wikipedia entry:
That’s your bibliography? WIKIPEDIA?!?!?
I think I see your problem. If your seminary is Wikipedia, it’s no wonder you’ve humiliated yourself with your ignorance. You confused Arianism with Nestorianism when you said Arian denied the divinity of Christ. I just looked up your pathetic source, and it also says this:
Wow. Even Hectors illustrious seminary, none other than Wikipedia, says that Hectory is full of shit.
So, even given your training-wheel sources, you’re still wrong. Your faith is a joke. You don’t even know what you believe.
Try these:
The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750: AD 150-750 by Peter Brown
The End of Ancient Christianity by R. A. Markus
Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World by Patrick J. Geary
April 8th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
For my part, I don’t believe you should be ‘in the closet’ about those beliefs; I believe you should abandon it, because it is hateful, discriminatory and irrational.
Yes, unless I accept all sexual behavior as equally moral, I must hate people, because to disapprove of behavior equals hate.
That is why I changed it to “pushed into the closet.”
My point isn’t what you think my beliefs should be, because obviously, then, you would think that I should give up my belief that homosexuality is immoral. My point is that folks like you and Matt believe that people who choose not to abandone Biblical beliefs should be made to stay in the closet about those beliefs.
The “biblical view of homosexuality” is no more and no less biblical than the “biblical view of race”, i.e., the belief, widespread among Christians prior to WW2, that blacks were placed on earth to serve whites.
There are passages in both the Old and New Testaments saying that homosexual behavior is a sin. There are no passages stating that blacks were made to serve whites – so the comparison is rather inapt.
No, I think it’s more like if you’re a sociopath who uses a magical sky fairy to get out of being held responsible for being a sociopath, you’re a public menace.
So you are saying that anyone who opposes recognizing two men together as “marriage” is a sociopath? And you seem to be implying that such a person should be locked up. I’m glad that all of the pro-gay people are so tolerant.
I generally try to be more civil than this. But, Glaivester, FUCK YOU. You would tell people who are in love that they can’t live together with the same rights as other couples just so you don’t have to be “Party A” on a goddamn government form?
The point is that the whole concept of marriage as expressed in heterosexual terms is being subverted.
JM: Hector is right about the Arian and Nestorian heresies. You are wrong. By the way, what exactly did you think that Arian heresy was?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
You can assert this as often as you like, but unfortunately I know more about this than you. Go look it up, or consult a clergman or theology grad student.
As a Ph.D. in medieval history, I’ve already shown, using your own pathetic sources, that you’re an idiot. The whole point of Nestorianism is that the divine did not suffer on earth because it wasn’t part of the same person.
Good night, poseur. Have fun not knowing your own faith.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
JM: Hector is right about the Arian and Nestorian heresies. You are wrong.
I guess you should have read the rest of the discussion before you posted that. You’ve hitched your credibility to a falling star.
Hector doesn’t know anything, he just cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, and he doesn’t bother to read before he does!
Fucking hilarious.
Good night, other moron.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I like the way we’re now talking smack about Nestorianism and the First Council of Ephesus.
Can’t you see what the gays have made us do!?!?!?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
There are passages in both the Old and New Testaments saying that homosexual behavior is a sin. There are no passages stating that blacks were made to serve whites – so the comparison is rather inapt.
So sayeth the Sky Fairy. Sorry fags.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Arianism is the belief that Jesus was the highest created being, but subordinate to the Father, and not Himself divine. It is also one of the most dangerous and harmful perversion of Christianity that has ever existed.
Oh, it’s that old homoousion vs. homoiousion thing again. In this case, Hector, you’re actually sort of right. Arianism was pretty dangerous for all the people who happened to be killed for the perceived crime of believing in it.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The point is that the whole concept of marriage as expressed in heterosexual terms is being subverted.
Oh, you poor dear. If people who prefer the company of their own sex are allowed to get married, then your whole worldview of marriage will change. Are you really that weak-minded?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Why do people believe all this crackpot stuff anyway?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Re: For my part, I don’t believe you should be ‘in the closet’ about those beliefs; I believe you should abandon it, because it is hateful, discriminatory and irrational.
I think whacking off is against nature, and a sin. It is an essentially universal sin among men, but no less sin for all that, for it is said, “there is no man righteous, not one”. Its immorality follows fairly clearly from a consideration of natural law. Does that make me ‘hateful, discriminatory and irrational’ against people who whack off (i.e. 95% of American men). No joking around, I want a serious answer here. If the answer is yes, then simply say so.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The point is that the whole concept of marriage as expressed in heterosexual terms is being subverted.
That is incomprehensible blather. Specifically how is a heterosexual harmed by being “Party A” rather than “Groom” on a government form? Don’t just repeat yourself. What’s the concrete harm aside from knowing that other people are doing things that you disapprove of? And how does that minor imposition (if it could even be called an imposition) compare with the indignity of being prevented from visiting the love of your life in a hospital because you are not “family”?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@87: I would say it makes you irrational.
But it only makes you discriminatory if you also try to deny people who whack off the legal right to get married. But you won’t say that, because it would be the end of marriage.
It only makes you hateful if you publicly express hate against the same people. If you say “I think it’s a sin, but I respect you as a person, so let’s go get lunch” then you’re just sweetly misguided.
In any case, you have the right to think what you want. And no one is going to *make* you have lunch with onanists, or officiate at their marriages. So chill.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Glaivester admits to being in his 30s and a virgin. I’m guessing this means he’s a sociopathic loser who can’t get a date. Why care what he thinks? He’s just going to be the type of person people read about in history class alongside crossburners as an example of how stupid people could be. I’m not sure if he’s a punchline or just sad.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Matt’s deep understanding of human nature garnered over the decades allows him to confidently predict that there won’t be any unfortunate side effects from gay marriage.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I am gathering smooth round throwin’ stones for you heretics. From what I’m reading, it’s going to take me a long, long time.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I like the storm clouds. “Teh gayz r comin!! they live in the clowds! lightnin is there sawdumy!”
April 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
oh, and for the record:
JM was right about Arianism
and no, the woman at :32 was *not* hot
April 8th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Hey Glaivester,
Any “allegedly” straight man who feels that gay marriage is a “slight” to his own marriage or his “alleged” desire for such a heterosexual union…well…let’s just call that what it really is: a gay dude who’s scared to death that he’s all out of excuses to stay in the closet.
My heart goes out to you, you confused little dude.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
If you people think I care about this Arianism vs. Nestorianism vs. whatever crap, you are sadly mistaken.
Also, the woman at :32, while hot, actually looks hotter at :13-:15, when she’s in the background.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Ted and JM,
OK, I’m sick of flinging assertions back and forth. Let’s go right to the source: St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who was the great enemy of Arius and argued against him at Nicaea in 325. Here is St. Athanasius’ description of Arius, complete with quotes:
“And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these :— ‘God was not always a Father.’ but ‘once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.’ ‘The Son was not always;’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘For God,’ he says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’”
Thus (according to St. Athanasius), Arius said that God had once been alone (i.e. a Unity), that the Word had not always existed, and that the Word was a created being. I.e. Jesus was not ‘equal to the Father as touching His Godhood’.
Who’s more of an expert on Arianism- JM, or St. Athanasius? As for Nestorius, I will look to see if I can find some relevant cites.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
that’s from “Discourse against the Arians, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.”
April 8th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
“I think whacking off is against nature, and a sin..”
Er . . . why?
April 8th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
JM:
On second look, I think that both you and Hector are correct; it’s just that Hector (and I) were using “Jesus” as being equivalent to “Christ” and you were using “Jesus” only to mean “Christ post-incarnation”
When Hector and I said that Arians believe that Jesus is the highest created being and not divine, we meant that Arians believe that Christ is the highest created being rather than being the One Self-Existent God. Arians claim to believe that Jesus is divine, but in the end they essentially believe that he is “a god” rather than “the God,” so from a monotheistic standpoint they deny his divinity in implication even they claim to acknowledge it.
It should be noted that when we (by which I mean Hector and I, as I think I am speaking for him; if I am not, please correct me, Hector) say that Arians regard Christ as the highest created being, we are not saying that Arians believe that Christ was created at the moment of incarnation. As I understand it, Arians usually believe that Christ was created before anything else. The incarnation happend later.
Nestorians, on the other hand, believe that Christ was fully divine, but believe that the incarnation, Jesus, is distinct somehow from Christ. Apparently, when Hector and I said that Arians believe that Jesus was not divine, this appears to be what you thought we were referring to. It wasn’t. It also appears that when we said that Arians thought of Jesus as the highest created being that you were looking at the incarnation as what we were referring to by the term “created.” It wasn’t.
In short: Arians do not believe that Christ is the God, even if they call Him “divine” in some sene.
Nestorians believe that Christ is the God, but maintain that the human incarnation, Jesus, is distinct from the divine Christ, rather than Jesus being the Christ and having two distinct but indissoluble natures in one person.
I think that you, Hector, and I would all agree on this, and the previous argument was all about sloppy word usage.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
“I think whacking off is against nature, and a sin..”
Sin, that’s between you and your deity, but against nature? Fella, you need to get out more. Many, if not most animals masturbate.
I’m more curious why you see a parallel between gay marriage and masturbation. Maybe if masturbation were illegal you’d have some semblance of a similitude.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
To quote Andrew Sullivan (my emph):
That applies to Hector the Uncreative Anachronism too.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Dan S., Reality Man, and Pseudonymous,
I’m going to turn in for tonight pretty soon. I will check in with this thread tomorrow. At which point I will explain why whacking off is immoral. To be fair, perhaps I should do that on my own blog.
I’m just going to ask you one favor. Today is the day before Holy Thursday, the day that God Incarnate was handed over to suffering and death, was tempted, sweated blood, and on which he instituted the eucharist. Before bed tonight, take five minutes and read Luke 22, specifically the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus prays, “Father, if it be thy will, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but Thine, be done.” And ask yourself, which is a more compelling view of the world- St. Luke’s view, or yours? Please do this as a favor to me.
Good night.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Glaivester admits to being in his 30s and a virgin. I’m guessing this means he’s a sociopathic loser who can’t get a date.
No, I’m just too lazy to bother trying to get a date. (Plus, I don’t know exactly what I would be looking for in a mate or where I would see a relationship going at this time).
Now, it is possible that I might find myself unable to get a date, but I haven’t tried, so I can’t say.
Any “allegedly” straight man who feels that gay marriage is a “slight” to his own marriage or his “alleged” desire for such a heterosexual union…well…let’s just call that what it really is: a gay dude who’s scared to death that he’s all out of excuses to stay in the closet.
I don’t see it as a slight to my (theoretical) marriage as much as a slight to marriage as a whole.
My heart goes out to you, you confused little dude.
I’m not confused, at least not in regards to my sexuality. I am a very lazy heterosexual. If I were questioning my sexuality, I am at the point where I might begin to think that I might be an asexual, but I am pretty well aware of my heterosexuality, although I am too lazy to actually try to get a date.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Lo, all ye charitable Christians, my partner of four years is an Indian on a work visa, and if he gets fired he gets kicked out of the country. (We joke that it’s more likely that gay marriage will come to America before the INS bureaucracy gets around to making him a permanent resident.) Please, for the love of God, what is more important: this “slight” you feel when gays are allowed to legally marry, or my partner being kicked out of the country? (On second thought, don’t answer that.)
Count your blessings, straight people.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
My stones have been gathered. I have amassed a posse filled with righteous men and women who throw smoke. We collectively average 93 on the radar gun and with pinpoint guidance provided from above, we paint the black. Apostates beware.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
“I am a very lazy heterosexual. If I were questioning my sexuality, I am at the point where I might begin to think that I might be an asexual, but I am pretty well aware of my heterosexuality, although I am too lazy to actually try to get a date.” – Glaivester
Okay, so you’re either:
1. closeted and frustrated and sad and pathetic
or
2. you’re castrati and/or asexual
Either way, could people such as yourself (as described above, see #1 or #2) stop dictating how and who other people screw, please? Can you not see how sad and tragic you are, that you, who apparently cannot experience sexuality, try and tell other people how to handle their sexuality? If you have no sexuality to speak of, why the hell can’t you just recuse yourself from all such debates?
I feel like a good part of history is little more than a struggle against people such as yourself: self-hating and self-loathing and ready to externalize it all onto everyone else.
You even admit that you’re both a virgin and single, yet you’re so sure that gay marriage will denigrate this marriage that you don’t have?
As I said before, you don’t like gay marriage because it means you’re all out of excuses.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
re Hector:
Before bed tonight, take five minutes and read Luke 22 [...]
I actually did do this. My answer to your question is that while I understand the value and appeal of the idea of subordinating your will to something greater than yourself, it is important to understand that that can be realized in one’s life in many ways, including secular ones.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:07 am
#79: “Yes, unless I accept all sexual behavior as equally moral, I must hate people, because to disapprove of behavior equals hate.”
That’s a pretty screwed up concept of hate. My parents disapproved of my brother’s pot smoking habit, but they didn’t hate him. I’m pretty sure they loved him all the same, they just didn’t like one facet of his personality.
What ever happened to ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’. You must be one of the really crazy religious nutjobs. At least from the look of things, you won’t procreate and pass on your values. Thank God for that.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Glaivester,
Thanks for the support. And you’re right, I mis-spoke when I said Jesus was eternal- it was, in fact, the Word that was eternal. JM is correct in using “Jesus” to mean Christ post-Incarnation- I was speaking sloppily. In essence, you are correct: Arianism, which I abhor and loathe, consisted in the claim that the Word was a created being, “divine” but not equal to the Father, and not actually Divine in the Christian sense.
while I disagree with you on the merits of SSM in the US, I don’t disagree with you on the deeper issue: that a society that believes all forms of sexual expression between consenting adults are equal and good, is one that is gravely sick at heart. I simply think that, maybe, natural law can be accomodated to accomodate some gay individuals in the spirit of “oeconomia”, and that even if it can’t, with respect to civil marriage in the US, that horse is out of the barn. A society that tolerates remarriages, and voluntarily childless marriages, has little grounds to argue against gay marriage. Better to look to Russia, or to South America, or to the far far future; for we are promised that, in the long run, the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church.
I wish you the best, including in looking for a mate.:) and also a blessed Triduum. Kyrie, eleison.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Jeremy:
That’s a pretty screwed up concept of hate.
Good grief. Can’t you tell that I am being sarcastic, in response to comment 58 by
Anthony Damiani, which I quote in my comment?
My parents disapproved of my brother’s pot smoking habit, but they didn’t hate him. I’m pretty sure they loved him all the same, they just didn’t like one facet of his personality.
Exactly the point I was trying to make.
Mr. Damiani said:
I believe you should abandon [the view that homosexuality is wrong], because it is hateful, discriminatory and irrational.
I am sick of being told that disapproval = hate, thus my sarcastic reply, which you apparently took literally.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Is it threadjacking to answer a question posed in the body of the post, after 100+ replies?
The “I’m a California doctor forced to choose between my faith and my job” thing is probably about this case of a doctor who, for religious reasons, refused to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian patient.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:30 am
No, I don’t think it’s threadjacking. People could probably use a break from psychoanalyzing Glaivester and St. Athanasius.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:39 am
I may have missed it in the theological discussion, but has Glaivester ever said, y’know, how homophobes might be “forced into the closet”? Here’s a tip: gay people had and sometimes have to live “in the closet” for fear of being fired, ostracized, arrested, beaten, or killed. By contrast, you are worried that people might disagree with you in public. I would say the injustice is not quite equal.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Hector is right. Whatever the problems with same-sex marriage (and I don’t mind saying I, at best, flirt with the bounds of my Church on this particular issue) there is just no basis for singling homosexuals out for non-recognition considering the other ways in which we have had no problem with marriage being modified, at least, in this country. It is illogical, silly, and wrong. By adopting this position, we (and by we I mean Christians) make it seem as though the essence, the sine qua non, of marriage is heterosexuality, rather than sacrifice and love, and it’s clearly the latter.
The ultimate question – does homosexual marriage debase marriage in general as a concept? – can’t really be answered, at least, as far as I’m concerned. Some same sex marriage does, and some same-sex marriages exalt heterosexual marriage as far as I can tell. Ultimately, that’s not that different from heterosexual marriage – in practice, some exalt the concept of marriage and some debase it.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I may have missed it in the theological discussion, but has Glaivester ever said, y’know, how homophobes might be “forced into the closet”?
Hmmm… anyone who says anything less than complimentary about homosexuality gets shut out and forced to resign? You know, the same as the penalties for speculating politically incorrect things about gender (Larry Summers at Harvard) or stating unpopular thoughts about race (James Watson)?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:24 am
My parents disapproved of my brother’s pot smoking habit, but they didn’t hate him. I’m pretty sure they loved him all the same, they just didn’t like one facet of his personality.
and if your parents kicked your brother out of the house when he was 14 for smoking pot, people might think they were being jerks, even if they also disapproved of pot smoking.
and, if your parents spearheaded a group trying to bring about a constitutional amendment making it illegal for anyone, ever to provide shelter to 14-year-old potheads, they’d probably get called hateful, discriminatory and irrational by a lot of folks.
(no offense intended to anyone’s actual or rhetorical parents)
April 9th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Glaivester: going back, I see how your comment can be taken as sarcastic, but you should wonder why people read it as being serious.
As my friend always says, I’m intolerant of intolerance. Your refusing to extend equal rights to gays is intolerance and therefore should receive no special protection. You have made yourself available for ridicule, and claiming yourself a victim is as laughable as all the white males who somehow think they’re being ground under the boot of tyrrany because their lead is diminishing.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:24 am
самое интересное…
One of the problems facing opponents of marriage equality is that it’s not as if straight people are being asked[...]…
April 9th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Despite being an Anglican, reading this thread seems like a pretty good way of reaching Gibbon’s belief that Christianity was worse for the Empire and political society in general than the Great Migrations, the epidemics, the economic collapse, and the Sassanian dynasty put together.
And of course, it explains why people still have such a low opinion of the Romaioi.
Makes you wonder whether Pliny, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian, and Julian were right to try and stop it from spreading.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:43 am
It is ironis that the Republicans are always comparing the Democrats to Stalinists and Nazis when in fact the Christain Rights view of homosexuality is closer towards that of the Soviets and the Nazis in the nineteen thirties.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:51 am
“let’s remember that most of the nations that haven’t used heterosexual monogamous marriage as the norm for the past 1600 years tend to be third-world countries.”
And God forbid (literally) that Christians ever have anything to do with the rest, i.e., the majority, of the human species.
Not to mention that he considers the last 1600 years to be of ultimate significance in human development, given human history is at least eight times that long.
Morons of this ilk really should be fed to the lions, as the late great Aleister Crowley used to say: “The Christians to the lions!”
A quote from Wikipedia (with cited sources):
The rest of the Wikipedia article on monogamy is instructive as well, since there are four different definitions of the concept.
The bottom line: Humans are not sexually monogamous in general, unless you’re stupid enough to believe such an idiotic concept as “serially monogamous” (i.e., waiting for the inevitable breakup so you can screw somebody else, which is what you really wanted to do all along which in turn leads directly to a breakup.) Which is not surprising since our closest genetic primate relatives are bonobos, who are promiscuous and not monogamous as all.
Monogamy is a concept with ZERO logical defense. The various concepts of marriage are also devoid of logical defense.
Without religious or cultural oppression of one form or another, humans would be screwing like rabbits.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
We probably were screwing like rabbits until our minds evolved to create/realize concepts like Power and Ownership. Then came God and Property.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:29 am
RSH wrote: The bottom line: Humans are not sexually monogamous in general, unless you’re stupid enough to believe such an idiotic concept as “serially monogamous” (i.e., waiting for the inevitable breakup so you can screw somebody else, which is what you really wanted to do all along which in turn leads directly to a breakup.) Which is not surprising since our closest genetic primate relatives are bonobos, who are promiscuous and not monogamous as all.
Monogamy is a concept with ZERO logical defense. The various concepts of marriage are also devoid of logical defense.
Without religious or cultural oppression of one form or another, humans would be screwing like rabbits.
This is a little silly. Lots of animals have evolved to be monogamous, including hundreds of mammal species (though it is true monogamy is far from the norm in the animal kingdom). Religious and cultural norms to enforce marriage and monogamous norms didn’t come from some external force — humans created these things to protect things we care about as a species.
While it’s true that bonobos and chimps, our closest relatives, are promiscuous, other primate species are monogamous, including apes (I believe gibbons are) and both old and new world monkeys. Monogamy develops in primates and species in general where mating opportunities are generally limited and especially where males invest heavily in offspring and have relatively high confidence in their paternity, not to mention when one sex is territorial and aggressive. Modern humans certainly fit that bill. Throw out monogamy and you basically lose any concept of fatherhood. Bummer.
Of course, there is biological monogamy and then there is what you see on the lifetime network. What is fascinating about this is that humans have about the same rates of adultery and what biologists call “non-paternal events” as many other monogamous animals. It suggests that there is an evolutionary advantage to monogamy as a societal and cultural norm but that there can also be an evolutionary advantage in violating that norm when one can get away with it — so long as it is not often enough to destroy that norm.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:36 am
history ‘began’ in the mid-4th millennium BC (c. 3500 bc) in sumeria/egypt with the development of written languages and the desire to document aspects of day to day existence.
anatomically modern humans have been in existence for c. 100,000 years.
clearly we’ve done a lot of shagging to stick around that long. Does anyone in the audience really think that militant monogamy led to the widespread propagation of our species or to any of our greatest technological or artistic achievements?
Monogamy is one way of forming stable family groups for the maintenance of wealth, the retention of politico-social power and the raising of youth. If your moral system tells you that a man in a dress has to wave a stick over yours and an opposite gendered person’s head and bind you together to have a moral relationship, don’t let me stop you.
All the gays want is to get adoption rights, tax breaks and hospital visits that you fricking privileged straights take for granted. Don’t advocate against ‘gay marriage’ advocate against the government getting involved in marriage.
To whit: anyone who wants to enter into a partnership/shared lifestyle pact with another person (spouse, sibling/parent with whom they cohabit, etc.) should be able to and that contract gives you ‘marriage’ benefits with the govt. Anyone who wants the sky fairy to bless them as well can then go to their local man in a dress and have him wave a stick over them to have a ‘church marriage’.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Without religious or cultural oppression of one form or another, humans would be screwing like rabbits.
Well, perhaps.
But then we would also be completely abandoning the infirm and aged to die, murdering and on occasion eating our sexual rivals’ children, using brute force to establish leadership, all those good things!
And while people who already believe in this magical destructive ability of gay people and gayness may be resolute, it isn’t going to be convincing anyone else, including young people.
Then how to explain Obama’s publicly stated and promoted prejudice?
April 9th, 2009 at 7:47 am
EUexpat wrote: history ‘began’ in the mid-4th millennium BC (c. 3500 bc) in sumeria/egypt with the development of written languages and the desire to document aspects of day to day existence.
anatomically modern humans have been in existence for c. 100,000 years.
clearly we’ve done a lot of shagging to stick around that long. Does anyone in the audience really think that militant monogamy led to the widespread propagation of our species or to any of our greatest technological or artistic achievements?
That’s a strange argument for gay marriage, seeing as what you actually must mean is that we’ve done a lot of procreating to last this long. That, and the whole thrust of gay marriage is monogamous – why else get married?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:19 am
why else get married?
tax benefits. access to spouse in hospital. visas. adoption papers.
Every sexual union (thank goodness!) does not end in pregnancy and there’s a growing body of evidence that (like Bonobos) we humans use sexual interaction to create social bonds (which, as society grows more complex become political and economic bonds too). Nor, for that matter does every straight marriage involve children – it’s an old saw, but straight infertile people, straight women who’ve already had the menopause and straight people who hate children can all legally marry so, in a legal and rational (ha ha ha) framework, the no children possible = no marriage argument holds no water.
Humans shag. We shag lots of different ways in different positions for different reasons and with different sorts of people. We always have. some prefer to shag just one person at a time (btw I am one of those). If you believe, however that the sexual organs of the person we’re shagging have an effect on whether we’re able to enter into contracts with that person to receive notable and significant social/governmental benefits why don’t you just say so.
If my bits touching another girl’s bits squiff you out and make you want to remove several of my rights as a US citizen (such as a residence permit for the person I love) just say it. It’s not PC, but your honestly will be refreshing and will help expose the moral bankruptcy of your position.
We don’t want to go into anyone’s church where we’re not welcome. We don’t want to “convert” straights. We don’t want to be part of stick waving ceremonies performed by bigoted men in robes. We just want access to the 1100 federal rights and benefits extended to married couples under US law.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:21 am
But DTM, Obama did and does oppose gay equality in practical ways.
Not only has he actively promoted homophobic black “ministers” but his spoken opposition to marriage equality provides not only cover but actual encouragement to others, especially in the black community, who share his prejudice.
Do you believe that Obama is so foolish and ignorant as to actually “… believe in this magical destructive ability of gay people…”?
If so doesn’t that call into question the entirety of his politics? After all we laugh at those who argue in Mussolini’s favor that he made the trains run on time.
Or do you believe Obama is simply lying, willing to sacrifice the rights of a minority to advance his own ambitions?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:35 am
@132: fiddle faddle. You’re pretending not to understand what DTM means by “practical,” but it’s unimpressive.
Let me clarify: Obama says he opposes gay marriage, but he has not proposed any new policies that would prevent it. His policy seems to be one of passivity on the federal level. Which I strongly endorse. I also believe quite strongly in gay marriage, and support efforts to legalize it in states where those efforts have a reasonable chance of success.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Concern Troll is concerned.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Good point. I’m also concerned about concern troll.
After all we laugh at those who argue in Mussolini’s favor that he made the trains run on time.
I agree entirely with your goals here, but I’m concerned about your choice of example. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter at all whether our national infrastructure functions effectively?
Or does your laughter indicate heartless indifference to the victims of fascism, as well as underlying anti-Italian prejudice?
Just looking for a bit of clarification so we can get on with the business of supporting . . . whatever it is you’re supporting.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
In essence, you are correct: Arianism, which I abhor and loathe, consisted in the claim that the Word was a created being, “divine” but not equal to the Father, and not actually Divine in the Christian sense.
At last, he catches on. Arianism holds that Christ was not coextensive nor coeternal with the father. Greek Orthodox Christianity has a similar problem with the Trinity, hence the Great Schism.
The arrogance of people like Hector is that, since everyone else is wrong, they don’t need to know anything about them.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Nestorians, on the other hand, believe that Christ was fully divine, but believe that the incarnation, Jesus, is distinct somehow from Christ.
… which was the whole point of their debate with the Monophysites. To a Nestorian, it’s absurd to say that something divine “suffered” and “died” on the cross. It wouldn’t be divine, then, would it? A Nestorian would agree that the risen Christ is divine.
For the Monophysites, it’s as if they threw away the synoptic gospels and read only John. For them, Christ was never truly incarnate, he was God on earth.
The Nestorian position was judged too extreme at the Council of Ephesus. The Monophysite triumph was short-lived, as they were similarly shut down later at the Council of Chalcedon.
So, the Arians never denied Christ’s divinity, only his eternal unity with the Godhead. The Nestorians denied that Christ incarnate was divine. And the Monophysites denied that Christ had ever been anything other than divine.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Is the consensus here (per ed, hum, etc) that any moral code anchored in religious faith is prejudice?
April 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@139: no such consensus. Otherwise we wouldn’t be arguing endlessly about the Arian heresy, I suspect.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Re: And of course, it explains why people still have such a low opinion of the Romaioi.
For myself, I will never cease praising the Romaioi for holding out against the Islamic hordes for a thousand years.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’ve watched the ad three times now. Verdict? 0:32 to 0:38 is “Not Hot”.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
JM,
You’re referring to the Filioque, right? Greek Orthodox Christianity is fully Trinitarian, and they reject Arianism, Monophysitism, Docetism, and Nestorianism, as the West does. To deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Father as well as the Son, is not to deny that the Son is coeternal with the Father. It’s to specify a difference in the roles of the Father and Son, not in their essential nature. In any case, I think that the disagreement over the procession of the Spirit is largely a form of words.
By the way, I believe you’re wrong about the Monophysites. The ones who believed that Christ had never been anything but divine would be the Docetists, would they not? The Marcionites, Albigensians and others held a Docetic view of Christ. My understanding was that the Monophysites held, depending on who you ask, one of two positions:
1) Christ’s human nature was overshadowed and subsumed by His divine nature, like a drop of water in the sea (old-line Monophysitism
or
2) Christ had a single nature which was a fusion of human and divine (this is, I think, the position of the Syrian, Armenian, Indian Jacobite and Ethiopian churches today.)
feel free to correct me if you think this is wrong.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am
When you’ve been a part of the majority all one’s life, it may well seem frightening to think that one holds views that put one in the minority. The world seems upside-down.
Glaivester, having beliefs that could expose you to public ridicule doesn’t make you a martyr, it makes you just like the rest of us.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
It’s an attempt to essentially downgrade heterosexual marriage from being “the norm” to being just another “alternate lifestyle,” and ultimately, to being considered “an alternate lifestyle” instead of “the norm.”
There’s something deeply weird about this idea – aside from the fact that it’s a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy that doesn’t exist and couldn’t possibly succeed if it did, I mean. (The demographics are completely hopeless – heterosexual marriages are going to remain more common because heterosexuals are more common, and even if there were a gay cabal, they couldn’t do a thing to change that.)
The obsession with norms reminds me of the reductio ad absurdum form of Platonism – the doctrine that the idea is more real than the reality.
In *fact*, there are lots of marriages (and some potential marriages) and generalizations about them are sometimes-useful, sometimes-misleading ways to describe a category of actual phenomena. In *fact*, there are lots of Americans of all ages, races, both sexes, a very wide variety of political beliefs and lifestyles – but the right keeps talking about “typical Americans” as if it were something more than an oversimplified, misleading stereotype (of a white man – anything else isn’t typical, you know).
The idea that *variation is the reality* and it’s the stereotype that is artificial is either incomprehensible, terrifying, or both to conservatives, I think. That’s why marriages and people have to be defined by the way they adhere to or deviate from “the norm”.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:04 am
The core issue here was settled long ago and merely reinforced by all the comments — opposition to gay marriage always boils down to poorly rationalized bigotry.
The debate over the woman at 0:32-0:38 is far more interesting. She’s not bad, but I’d say that reports of her hotness are greatly exaggerated.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
There are passages in both the Old and New Testaments saying that homosexual behavior is a sin. There are no passages stating that blacks were made to serve whites
Oh, really?
From Genesis 10:
April 9th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Is the consensus here (per ed, hum, etc) that any moral code anchored in religious faith is prejudice?
I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read my comment again.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Y’all are just homooúsiophobes.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place. On questions of social morality, of duty to others, the opinion of the public, that is, of an overruling majority, though often wrong, is likely to be still oftener right; because on such questions they are only required to judge of their own interests; of the manner in which some mode of conduct, if allowed to be practised, would affect themselves. But the opinion of a similar majority, imposed as a law on the minority, on questions of self-regarding conduct, is quite as likely to be wrong as right; for in these cases public opinion means, at the best, some people’s opinion of what is good or bad for other people; while very often it does not even mean that; the public, with the most perfect indifference, passing over the pleasure or convenience of those whose conduct they censure, and considering only their own preference. There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings; as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the religious feelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting in their abominable worship or creed. But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. And a person’s taste is as much his own peculiar concern as his opinion or his purse. It is easy for any one to imagine an ideal public, which leaves the freedom and choice of individuals in all uncertain matters undisturbed, and only requires them to abstain from modes of conduct which universal experience has condemned. But where has there been seen a public which set any such limit to its censorship? or when does the public trouble itself about universal experience? In its interferences with personal conduct it is seldom thinking of anything but the enormity of acting or feeling differently from itself; and this standard of judgment, thinly disguised, is held up to mankind as the dictate of religion and philosophy, by nine-tenths of all moralists and speculative writers. These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others. What can the poor public do but apply these instructions, and make their own personal feelings of good and evil, if they are tolerably unanimous in them, obligatory on all the world?
April 9th, 2009 at 10:33 am
OK, so this doctor takes her faith seriously enough for the state to step in and spare her the awful choice between faith and career, but not seriously enough to actually make the choice for herself.
Her supposed faith would be a lot more credible if she became a radiologist. She could read x rays and silently pray for her patients without ever being confronted with their sexual orientations.
Unless they showed up in the ER with an adult novelty lodged in their rectum.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
33. For example, look at this story from when California had legalized same-sex marriage. The effect was not simply to let gays wed, but to attempt to gender-neutralize the concept of marriage for everyone.
I got married (heterosexually, as it happens) in Massachusetts. One of my fondest memories of the whole thing was filling out the form in city hall and mock arguing with my [soon-to-be] husband about who was going to be “Party A” and who was going to be “Party B.” I won, of course. I guess our marriage has been “gender-neutralized” ever since.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:18 am
And what, exactly, would those side effects be?
Seriously. Give us all a non-religious and logical “unfortunate side effect” of gays being allowed to marry. Just one.
And remember: non-religious and logical.
kthxbai
April 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Apparently, yeah. From HRC, anyway. Lambda Legal is the only source I can find specifically on the case:
April 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
For nearly a year starting in August of 1999, Guadalupe “Lupita” Benitez was denied infertility treatment by the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group because she is a lesbian. Her former doctors are conservative Christians who claim their religious beliefs give them a right to withhold care from Benitez that they routinely provide to heterosexual patients.
What’s that have to do with gay marriage, though? Presumably the objection was to her lesbianism per se, not to her married status.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Rea,
The Canaanites are not black. They were (if I recall correctly) related to the Phoenicians, and to the later Phoenician outpost in Carthage. I could be wrong about that. But, as far as I know, Middle Eastern white people.
Again: until the beginnings of race-based chattel slavery in the 16th century, this passage was not (as far as I know) generally interpreted as justifying the inferiority of African people. An Ethiopian official was one of the first converts (see the book of Acts) and there were African bishops in the early church. Please cite an Apostle, Church Father, or other authoritative source, if you think I’m wrong.
The United States in the 18th thru 20th centuries is, really, marginal to the history of world Christianity, and the strange and noxious pronouncements of U.S. low-church Protestant leaders is not really a good guide to normative Christian doctrine, so you shouldn’t take them too seriously. (The Baptists, who are most known for this sort of thing, are in my view a rather odd, illogical and decidedly non-apostolic and deficient form of Christianity, but we’ll leave discussion of the Calvinist heresy for some other time.)
April 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
What’s that have to do with gay marriage, though? Presumably the objection was to her lesbianism per se, not to her married status.
I wouldn’t knock myself out trying to ascribe logical coherence to the video ad.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Is the consensus here (per ed, hum, etc) that any moral code anchored in religious faith is prejudice?
If the tenets of that moral code have no valid secular justification, then yes.
Illegitimate ideas do not gain legitimacy with a religious imprimatur. According to the rules of our political discourse, if someone says “I’m against gay marriage because I think two dudes kissing is gross,” he can be safely ignored. But if he were to say “I’m against gay marriage because it goes against my interpretation of the Bible,” he is a serious individual whose views must be treated with the utmost respect. I think that’s stupid. You evidently disagree.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’m really puzzled by religious heterosexuals distressed over gender-neutral terms in marriage licenses. I assume that these folks, when marrying one another, are obtaining “holy matrimony” from their churches or other places of worship as well as obtaining “civil marriage” from a state government bureaucracy. I also assume that for a religious person, securing “holy matrimony” from his/her church feels more significant, perhaps vastly so, than securing “civil marriage” from a state government bureaucracy. Am I wrong in these assumptions? If I’m right in my assumptions, here’s my question: if your church is still calling you bride and groom, why does it matter whether the piece of paper you buy from the state calls you “party A” and “party B”?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
American in Exile,
Very good point. Personally, I frown a little bit on those (heterosexual) couples who choose to use gender-neutral terms like ‘partner’ for each other, as opposed to ‘wife’, ‘girlfriend’ or ‘fiancee’. But then, I frown on couples who choose civil marriage too, so really what’s the point. Civil marriage is not really that important to me anyway, so if you want to refer to the other person as you ‘wife’, ‘partner’, ‘party B’, or “Ally in the Holy Agnostic Crusade against the Christofascist Patriarchy’, that’s up to you.
Let me choose to be married in the church of my choice, according to the traditional-language Anglican Service Book manual, and accepting that I am morally bound to have children and morally forbidden from divorcing except for grave cause, and you can do whatever you want with the civil ceremony. It may not in keeping with Christian faith, but guess what, neither is the whole concept of civil marriage to begin with. So have at it.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Dude! They’re called NOM!
That is unintentionally hilarious.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Why must the comment thread of every post that includes an image of a woman immediately degenerates into a discussion of how attractive she is or isn’t? Including supposed progressives commenting on progressive blogs, apparently.
If this were a one-time thing, there would be no problem with it. But it happens every fucking time and even commenters who claim to be progressives rarely call these people out on it. It’s sexist and demeaning and you shouldn’t fucking do it.
This woman is making a political point. It’s a reprehensible political point and we should be criticizing her for that, not arguing about whether she’s hot.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hector, to which edition of the Book of Common Prayer are you referring? 1662?
I appreciate your acknowledgment that civil marriages are governed by different rules than church marriages. That seems like such an obvious point to me, but time and time again I read arguments by people arguing that civil marriage should not be available to same-sex couples because same-sex relationships are contrary to their religious beliefs. Those folks simply refuse to acknowledge that the US Constitution doesn’t allow any state (or the federal government) to impose my religious views on you or yours on me.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Hugo is correct that there are monogamous species of animals.
However, even monogamous animals engage in external sexual relations. quite frequently.
This really sort of destroys the concept of monogamy per se – which is why scientists have four different definitions for it. Sexual monogamy is relatively rare. “Serial monogamy” is a concept that by definition breaks the definition of monogamy entirely.
The reality is that humans are extremely poor at maintaining relationships, heterosexual or otherwise. One obvious reason is that humans are longer-lived than many species, and it’s far harder to maintain a relationship between two diverse, changing entities over a long time. Animals have short life spans, they can afford to be monogamous for that short a time. Humans, not so much.
Also, humans have major primate issues with competitiveness. This leads to making it very difficult to establish and maintain relationships. In fact, my theory is that the reason sex exists for many species, besides being one effective way to spread genes, is to limit the amount of intra-species competitiveness. Too much competitiveness, the species kills itself off. So species that bond individuals have an evolutionary advantage.
No Comment: No, it is not sexist and demeaning. What it is is irrelevant. Males notice and comment on desirable females. The fact that it has nothing to do with the intellectual content of the female’s position on whatever is irrelevant. Get over it. Your PC is far more irritating than male comments about females. Nobody gives a shit that you’re more PC than someone else here.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
If the tenets of that moral code have no valid secular justification, then yes.
What counts as a “valid secular justification?” What principle or standard do you propose for distinguishing “valid” secular justifications from “invalid” ones?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
This woman is making a political point. It’s a reprehensible political point and we should be criticizing her for that, not arguing about whether she’s hot.
If she were making a political point that deserved respect, I would treat her with respect. Since she’s an actress who is accepting a paycheck to mouth offensive, bigoted lies, I don’t feel particularly inclined to pay her that level of respect.
There have been some very unpleasant and offensive things said about women on progressive blogs, and I’ve even been known to call people out for saying them. But I’d hate to think that we live in a world where merely commenting on whether one finds a public figure attractive is “sexist and demeaning.” If this is the case, then there are an awful lot of sexist women in the world, even within the world of progressive social circles and feminist blogs.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
What counts as a “valid secular justification?” What principle or standard do you propose for distinguishing “valid” secular justifications from “invalid” ones?
Sorry, but I have plans tonight that don’t involve letting yet another thread get derailed by the usual Mixner asshattery. Better luck next time.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Translation: If “Chris D” agrees with it, it’s “valid,” otherwise it’s “invalid.”
April 10th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Glaivester @33 definitely gave me my laugh for the week with his linked story. “We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom,” the poor 25-year old gal (who works for her fathter’s church, Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship) said, and the evil State of California is requiring them to be Party A and Party B on their marriage license. “We just feel that our rights have been violated,” she said. “We feel that some things are worth fighting for,” said her 29-year old fiance.
Yes, it’s clear that gay marriage has really harmed this “traditionalist” “family” with five children cobbled together from two divorces, with neither parent yet 30.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:39 am
American Exile,
The Anglican Service Book is an adapted edition of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer in traditional, Elizabethan era language and phraseology, produced in response to protests against the hipster revisionist currents within the church. It’s jettisoned a lot of the Jesus-is-your-best-buddy, modernist, third wave feminist imagery that mars many Episcopal churches, and returned to an emphasis on humility and obedience, which is why I like it.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Hector, I find myself wondering what your score would be on Haidt’s moral foundations quiz. (http://www.yourmorals.org/). Well, not wondering, as such . . .
“ Before bed tonight, take five minutes and read Luke 22, specifically the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus prays, “Father, if it be thy will, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but Thine, be done.” And ask yourself, which is a more compelling view of the world- St. Luke’s view, or yours? Please do this as a favor to me.”
Did. Rather unsurprisingly, I feel my view of the world is (at least personally) more compelling – otherwise I would have a view of the world closer to Luke’s. Which is not to say that it’s not, overall, a rather good and moving story – albeit marred, in terms of this part of its narrative arc, by its association with the terrorizing, abuse, and slaughter of my relatives on a pretty regular basis, century after century, finally(?) culminating in an recent orgy of genocidal horror for which (while very much not an explicit motivation) it clearly played an a major historical groundwork-laying role. But certainly fascinating from a mythic/theological point of view. And Luke 22:25 is pretty nifty as well.
You never did explain why you feel that masturbation is against both God and Nature, but perhaps that’s for the best.
April 10th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Re: Which is not surprising since our closest genetic primate relatives are bonobos, who are promiscuous and not monogamous as all.
Irrelevant. Closely related animals can and do have very different mating and offspring-rearing strategies. Lions and tigers are so close they can interbreed (as humans and bonobos cannot). But lions amass harems, one male with several females and cubs, while tigers are like their little cousins the housecats, the male mates with a female then goes his way and the female rears the kittens alone.
Re: Monogamy is a concept with ZERO logical defense
It’s unlikley it would have evolved in humans then. Natural selection will occasionally create the bizarre (see: duck billed platypus) but it does not create structures that are dysfunctional or unnatural.
Re: The Canaanites are not black. They were (if I recall correctly) related to the Phoenicians, and to the later Phoenician outpost in Carthage.
The Hebrew language (like Punic) is descended from Canaanite.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Dan S.,
I’ve taken that quiz. High for fairness, moderate for harm, low for ingroup loyalty, high for authority, high for purity. I consider myself loyal to family, friends, my faith and my conscience, but I’m not a very patriotic person, which is probably why I scored so low on the loyalty axis.
Masturbation is wrong because it serves neither the unitive nor the procreative purposes of sex. Sex is meant to be a part of a relationship, and by isolating it from that context, masturbation dissociates it from the purposes it is intended to serve and the spiritual and emotional meaning it is intended to have. The sexual act is intended to be a physical figure of the kind of self-giving and self-emptying that we experience in a healthy relationship either with another person or with God. By isolating sexual pleasure out of that context, and by making agent and patient the same, masturbation is literally a form of self-love, which as we are told, is the classic definition of sin.
Re: Closely related animals can and do have very different mating and offspring-rearing strategies.
Very true. As sexual reproduction is the agent of evolution (in most species), closely related species are often distinguished by their sexual behavior more than almost any other feature. Indeed, a change in sexual behavior can, itself, lead to speciation in the absence of any other morphological change.
April 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Here’s my original response to the NOM ad. Gathering Twister:
http://gotchamedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/gathering-twister.html
April 16th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Hi everyone. You can’t have a light without a dark to stick it in.
I am from Namibia and too poorly know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Are looking for cheap airline tickets you came to the.”
THX
, Korb.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Cousins can get married in many states and that is a good thing.
A woman recently had her 23rd wedding and that is a good thing as well because it makes the sanctity of marriage even stronger.
Divorce is a sin and people get divorced every day but at least it is something we all understand.