Tuesday September 22, 2020
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Sep-21-2009 01:48printcomments

Same Sex Marriage - Not

By trying to force religious people to recognize them, gay marriage proponents turned out to be as welcome as ants at a picnic.

Same sex marriage
Courtesy: cnycentral.com

(CALGARY, Alberta) - I’m opposed to gay marriage and same-sex marriage but not for a standard reason.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, argue vehemently that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is true and has been for thousands of years. This is because marriage has been defined as a religious coupling.

I can empathize with those who have been raised in a faith which sanctifies marriage as between a man and a woman. Now you have gay people, about whom many religious people already have very negative feelings, trying to push their way into a religious sacrament.

I think a good analogy would be if astrologers tried to join the American Astronomical Union. Scientists would be up in arms—in the same emotional way that religious people are.

Physicist Roger S. Jones offers this comparison of astronomy and astrology.

The astrological world is a living realm, like the Platonic cosmos, in which mind and matter are one, the activities of the heavens and earth are synchronistic reflections of each other. It is a world of symbolism, consciousness, and synchronism rather than space-time, force fields, and causality. It represents the ancient human struggle, however misguided or meagre, to find some purpose and meaning in existence, and it does this through a unified, rather than a compartmentalized, approach to knowledge. Despite all its modern exaggerations and distortions, medieval astrology presents a blend of scientific and humanistic knowledge from which we can still learn something today…. Astrology and astronomy are not alternative descriptions of the same reality. They portray completely different worlds.

Just to clarify astrology with newspaper astrology. If Jupiter is rising or setting at the moment of your birth, it’s irrelevant. The purpose of an authentic horoscope is to attempt to describe your place at that moment in terms of the entire cosmos. The universe is seen by serious astrologers as a cosmic flow, and the horoscope is to show where you are in that flow and the direction the flow might take you. That, for what it’s worth, is authentic astrology in a nutshell.

I can carry the analogy further. Religious marriage and same sex marriage are not alternative descriptions of the same reality.. One is a religious worldview, the other is a human relations worldview--even though gay people have religious beliefs like everyone else.

I don’t know if any one person or group made the decision to push the same-sex approach on society, but I believe they were wrong. A less divisive and more reasonable approach would have been to leave religion alone. I believe the law as it stands generally is that the state much recognize a union before it is legally binding. If they had gone after the legal definition of union they would have been better off because they wouldn’t have been frontally attacking religion.

I know and have known many gay people over the years and all they want (like anyone else) is to be recognized and validated by society. That’s reasonable. But, by trying to force religious people to recognize them, they’ve turned out to be as welcome as ants at a picnic.

===============================================

Daniel Johnson was born near the midpoint of the twentieth century in Calgary, Alberta. In his teens he knew he was going to be a writer, which explains why he was one of only a handful of boys in his high school typing class—a skill he knew was going to be necessary. He defines himself as a social reformer, not a left winger, the latter being an ideological label which, he says, is why he is not an ideologue, although a lot of his views could be described as left-wing. He understands that who he is, is largely defined by where he came from. The focus for Daniel’s writing came in 1972. After a trip to Europe he moved to Vancouver, British Columbia. Alberta, and Calgary in particular, was extremely conservative Bible Belt country, more like Houston than any other Canadian city (a direct influence of the oil industry). Two successive Premiers of the province, from 1935 to 1971, had been Baptist evangelicals with their own weekly Sunday radio program—Back to the Bible Hour, while in office. In Alberta everything was distorted by religion.

Although he had published a few pieces (unpaid) in the local daily, the Calgary Herald, it was not until 1975 that he could actually make a living from journalism when, from 1975 to 1981 he was reporter, photographer, then editor of the weekly Airdrie Echo. For more than ten years after that he worked with Peter C. Newman (1979-1993), Canada’s top business writer (notably a series of books, The Canadian Establishment). Through this period Daniel also did some national radio and TV broadcasting with the CBC. You can write to Daniel at: Salem-News@gravityshadow.com




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Elohist - Neall September 29, 2009 4:37 am (Pacific time)

Fascinating analogies, though as usual the use of historical data is greatly a skew. It was in fact before the great split of the fanatical Yahwists who were basically the prudes and Elohists who followed gods/nature law; that being gay was even encourage, Though while you were allowed your partner in life, you were responsible for your lineage. I have to laugh daily at the baby new age faith that claims such lies as truths. Shame. As for the 2000 year old faith....hmm mine is another 5000 plus on top of that. So if it is religious matter then we should ban HATE an any faith that promotes it.....In EL we should trust.....


Ant September 25, 2009 10:18 am (Pacific time)

I totally agree that the writer of this piece is not being hateful, but I do think the analogy presented is totally off-base.


Ant September 24, 2009 10:44 am (Pacific time)

Interesting that we have to watch our "snide" comments, yet you have the ability to call us "stupid". This is the first "news" source I've ever posted on where freedom of speech is so curtailed, and comments can be flushed if they point out the flaws in an article's reasoning. If you don't want your opinion challenged, don't publish it in what's supposed to be a public news source. Can you imagine the NY Times telling people "Don't argue with us or we'll flush your responses. This is a business and freedom of speech is a secondary concern."

Daniel: There's a surprising amount of leeway on this site. The NYT does exactly what you said, they just don't make a point of it. Comments they don't approve just never see the light of day. Another thing is that if you are one of three, four, or five hundred or more comments--who's going to read you anyway. My personal policy is that if I can't expect to be among the first twenty or thirty comments, I don't bother. It just gives me more time to write another inflammatory piece for S-N that the gormless can dump on.


1EqualityUSA September 24, 2009 6:06 am (Pacific time)

Daniel said in a comment midway through the posts, "I'd like, here, to thank all the commenters. The views I expressed I've held as a conclusion for many years but, until I wrote it out and made it public, I had not realized that it was fraught with so many difficulties. Good luck to all the gays and lesbians who are fighting. This is my heartfelt wish." I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think things through prior to hitting the send button. It's all learning about one another. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk." Sometimes, especially in the kind of toxic environ this debate has become, thanks in part due to ecumenical alarmists, it's easy to surmise that long held prejudices are acceptable. The gay community is articulate and slowly minds are changing. I appreciate the generosity of his comments post-article. The editor should not censor. Censorship is weakness, unless, of course, lewdness or violent threats occur. Thanks Daniel, for having the courage to use your real name and post your thoughts on this matter.

Editor:  You have no idea what kind of slanderous garbage people sometimes write, hateful, terrible stuff that shoudn't see the light of day anywhere anytime.  People specifically lie and send in propaganda from every corner of every political debate.  I don't always know how credible things are, so I error on the side of caution.  I can't change what you think of the way we do things.  We are a heartfelt group and every now and then we rile people, but look at the nasty writers and pundits out there and then look at Daniel.  Read his other articles, he is a sharp and witty writer with a great sense of humor.  If anyone thinks news story comments are not filtered by other groups, you are dreaming.  Some may take a couple of days because they use non-human approval systems which we will not.  So stop being angry with us, just make your point and move on but don't let it get the best of you.  


Steve September 23, 2009 6:10 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel...with all due respect I understand perfectly what an analogy is having spoken my Queen's English for approximately 40 years to a very high standard. I said, along with many other commentators, that your analogy was "difficult to understand". I meant this in terms of how an interest in "stars" is a basis for comparing a science e.g. astrophysics etc, with what is essentially fortune telling, and how this is analogous (see I know how to use my words) to gay people wanting the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. You demonstrate a lack of depth in your understanding of the issue and also make statements of fact which are just not borne out by any evidence or facts and are in some cases plainly incorrect. I suggest you do some more detailed research on the history of marriage.

Steve: There are more than 50 comments to this story. I'm tired of explaining and re-explaining the same thing to people who seem wilfully unable to understand my simple argument (even if they don't agree with it) so if you've read all the comments and still don't get what I'm saying, then you have my sympathy.


Ant September 22, 2009 11:03 am (Pacific time)

I understood's Bill post completely, AND I understand what an analogy is. If you can't comprehend what he's saying, I can't say it really surprises me.

Editor: I have the ability to call both of  you stupid, watch yourself around here or your comments will get flushed, not by Daniel either, by me.  Daniel didn't write a snide or condescending article, and he tried to explain where he was coming from.  Make your comments but stay civil if you want them to show up here.  This is a business and free speech has not a damned thing to do with it.  The comments are for intelligent dialog..


1equlityUSA September 22, 2009 9:25 am (Pacific time)

Ha-ha-ha! Lovely verb there! "Trot".I love these posts.


Anonymous September 22, 2009 3:08 am (Pacific time)

The author must be confused about how the words "marriage," "married," "spouse," etc. are in all the laws, across the United States. I doubt there was any law that provided benefits dependent on the word "union" (until the first civil unions were legislated in Vermont). BTW, even where the issue is not "marriage" but "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," the religious trot out to oppose it.


1equlityUSA September 22, 2009 8:38 am (Pacific time)

Can't you just see Maggie Gallagher during the Salem witch trials, standing in judgement over some victim du jour with her long sleeved, walnut juice dyed, black Pilgrim's dress, save the white collar and cuffs? Her puritanical expression, worn loosely over too tight facial muscles, is a face that has appeared to many throughout the centuries only now, she is the one donning the face of the unmerciful inquisitor. Those who felt it was their calling to burn witches in Salem were so convinced that what they were doing was correct and in line with God's wishes. Little did they know it was a fungus growing in the wheat that caused these "devilish" seizures. The religious hysteria that ensued, due to these ergot poisonings, lead to the deaths of many, in the name of God, of course. For all the pain she's caused, for all of the slanderous accusations of bestialitypolygamypedophilianecrophiliaburglary and any other negatives conjured up to supplement their weak case against our community, she and her brood will be held accountable. Both gay and straight people need to stand up to these hypocrites. Today gays are the target, tomorrow it's whomever else is deemed, "undesirable".


Bill September 22, 2009 3:49 am (Pacific time)

This is a remarkably stupid piece, from the assumption that gay couples' desire for civil equality somehow equates to a craving for religious approval, to its assumption that civil marriage is a religious institution, to its mind-boggling analogy comparing marriage to the American Astronomical Union and gay couples to astrologers, to its assertions about "authentic" astrology, to its mindless assertion that even though gay people may be religious, only straight people have an authentically religious worldview.

None of this incoherent babbling has the slightest thing to do with the issue of civil marriage, which is the issue in question.

If I could garner from your comment that you had even a remote understanding of what you're talking about, I would respond. Unfortunately, all you've done is strung together a bunch of words in an incoherent manner. It might help if you looked up "analogy" in the dictionary and tried again.


Ant September 21, 2009 8:15 pm (Pacific time)

Mike, the kids of gay couples don't turn out to be much different from kids of straight couples, except that they're usually more tolerant of other people's differences and adhere less rigidly to gender roles. This is why gay couples have been able to legally adopt for some time now, and why every reputable pediatric and psychological association supports same sex parenting.


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 6:05 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: Our understandings are about the same.


Daniel September 21, 2009 5:19 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J for me a true astrologer is one who see the cosmos as part of a living conscience oneness , the stars and planets as individual beings making up the material structure of a greater conscience . Some in astronomy view the cosmos as conscience some view it as just matter . How many astronomers are astrologers and vise versa ? Both study the universe , one thru knowledge passed thru the ages the other thru speculation from limited observation and interpretation .


Anonymous September 21, 2009 4:51 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel said, "In the battle against the churches, I think attacking their tax exempt status is one avenue. A more fruitful approach that would perhaps take less time is to go political. If a church preaches hatred and dissension have their right to perform legal marriages revoked. That is, the state would not give legal status to the marriages such churches and their officials perform. That would hit them where they would have to change. These are the kinds of ideas you gays and lesbians should be responding to." Gays aren't battling Churches, the Churches are attacking our attempts to establish equal rights. It's possible that the same bitterness and fear 'seeding' went out when interracial marriage was the topic of the day. When the constitutionality of this ban is ruled against, Churches will clam up on their own and the one's that don't will be marginalized by a society that finds discrimination distasteful. You don't hear many of the Churches today squawking about interracial marriages. This embarrassment will die out on its own. No effort on the part of the gay community will be needed. As Winston Churchill said, "Americans are always ready to do the right thing. After they have exhausted all the other possibilities."


Anonymous September 21, 2009 4:34 pm (Pacific time)

So Mike H, are we to assume that you would outlaw single people from having children? Maybe that's next.


1equalityUSA September 21, 2009 4:24 pm (Pacific time)

By the way 1equalityUSA, you better cite your quotation if you are just going to copy and paste your comments. Nice attempt at independent thought. Dear Jimmy and Daniel, you two are very correct, I forgot the quotations around the words. Generally, if a post is perfect and I feel the words are so perfectly written that they should be reposted exactly as the original author had done, I'll either leave the name at the top and call it "one of my favorite posts" or credit the writer at the bottom. I stand corrected and appreciate the feedback.


Mike H. September 21, 2009 4:07 pm (Pacific time)

I wonder what it will be like for the kids of gay couples. Where is mommy? Why do I have two daddy's? I believe in freedom to do everything you wan't so long as it doesn't harm others and gay marriage does not harm me but it does not seem right. And who says it is a religious deal? Are you saying that non-religious people can't get married? Yes, marriage should be sacred, but that doesn't mean it has to be religious.


1equalityUSA September 21, 2009 4:00 pm (Pacific time)

Here is another favorite from Debra in Massachusetts: "If what you say is correct and everyone in the military should have the same rights, then straight married service members should never mention their spouse or children and keep that part of their life totally private. If they so much as mention that they are attracted to the opposite sex, went on a date with someone of the opposite sex, are married and love their husband or wife, then they should be kicked out of the service for not keeping their private life private. This is the way LGBT service members have to live. It's discrimination, and it's an incredible burden to ask anyone to live under such secrecy, let alone someone sacrificing so much for the welfare of our country. Being in a war zone is stressful enough without worrying that any word you might say without consciously censoring yourself might cause you to lose your job." I had never thought of that. It makes DADT look ridiculous.


jimmy September 21, 2009 3:54 pm (Pacific time)

By the way 1equalityUSA, you better cite your quotation if you are just going to copy and paste your comments. Nice attempt at independent thought.


Ant September 21, 2009 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

You might think that most people see religious marriage as "real" marriage and civil marriage as a "side detail", but I think otherwise. Most people understand that it's not their church but the government that gives them all the protections they need, from protection of property to end-of-life decisions. That's why even a priest says "By the power vested in me by the STATE of..." As for tax exempt status for churches, I must remind you that many congregations are in support of same sex marriage, so it's not a matter of paying for a battle against ourselves.


1equalityUSA September 21, 2009 2:59 pm (Pacific time)

"Take away or severely restrict tax exemptions for any church that preaches discrimination and hatred. Go for it." This in itself is a problem that the Christians spout off about. If we allow same-sex marriage, it will lead to law suits etc over just this very thing. A fear tactic that gullible people who have underlined negative feelings for gays grab onto like a life preserver. The fears that have been spread by the Christian community would be laughable if it wasn't so shameful.


Anonymous September 21, 2009 2:55 pm (Pacific time)

In Europe, two marriages take place, one being in the court house and then the other in the church of the couples choosing. NOM and anti-gay forces are fighting against even domestic partnership rights. So there is more to this bigotry than semantics over the word, "marriage". I appreciate Daniel's comments regarding the difficulties gays face. It's going to need both the straight and gay community to do battle against this wave of oppression. I contend that the more people discuss this issue, the more fears drummed up about us will dissipate. Though posts might be considered "wordy, vociferous, loquacious" much has been said against us. Our only alternative is to remain silent and let the mongers have their way with the American community, world.


francfist September 21, 2009 2:49 pm (Pacific time)

I think people SHOULD marry within their own species - men wedding men and women wedding women.


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

Further to my last post: In the battle against the churches, I think attacking their tax exempt status is one avenue. A more fruitful approach that would perhaps take less time is to go political. If a church preaches hatred and dissension have their right to perform legal marriages revoked. That is, the state would not give legal status to the marriages such churches and their officials perform. That would hit them where they would have to change. These are the kinds of ideas you gays and lesbians should be responding to.


James in L.A. September 21, 2009 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

How are gay marriage proponents trying to force religious people to recognize them? It simply seems like gay marriage proponents want marriage equality under the law. For those who want a religious ceremony on top of that, there are churches who will perform them. But it's up to the church, and churches are not bound by law to perform such ceremonies, correct? Look at Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa - are gay marriage proponents trying to force religious people to recognize them there? It appears that gay marriage proponents want churches to stay out of civil law, and I believe that's a smart idea. I also think it's helpful to remember that marriage is not solely a religious coupling as long as the state allows two atheists to marry.


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 1:51 pm (Pacific time)

A note to gays and lesbians. Some of the commenters have said they wish to have equal rights under the law. Others have pointed out the battle that churches are organizing against them. Perhaps there is solution in this direction. The churches all receive tax exemptions. So, you gays and lesbians--you are indirectly paying for the battle against yourselves. Take away or severely restrict tax exemptions for any church that preaches discrimination and hatred. Go for it.


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 1:19 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: There's always a danger in using analogies.My analogy is based on the fact that there are different worldviews involved. Astronomy and astrology are radically different worldviews but they have overlap in that the subject matter is, ostensibly, the same, i.e. stars. Because of this, astrologers could claim the right to join the American Astronomical Union. I've never heard of such a case, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some astrologers in the past have tried to join some astronomical association.

Although it is changing glacially, the dominant view is that marriage is a religious sacrament and the marriage license by the state is a side detail. The overlap here is that we have two people wanting to live a wedded life (whether a man and a woman, or two men). The gays are saying that they want to have the same recognition in marriage as the straights. But this can never be because the straights are living within a religious worldview within which it is impossible to recognize a gay union. This is just a fact. In my view gays are seeking something that they cannot, by definition, have, just like the astrologers. This was the point of my article and maybe I was being too pessimistic. But they have to wear down or otherwise change that worldview in such a way that it can accept gay unions.

Reading and responding to all these comments has certainly clarified my thinking and I hope has expanded the minds of the readers and commenters.


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel says, "I won't censor your post because you don't even understand the argument. I am not against gays and lesbians having relationships and equal rights in our society. I just argue that I think they are going about it the wrong way." How else can we go about it? Catholics are culling the flocks for additional money to fight gay marriage, NOM, founded by Princeton's, Robert P. George, Catholic, buffoon's from mega-churches are drumming up the masses, sects known as Mormon's are funding proposition 8, Saddleback church nerds are speaking out...how, exactly, do you expect us to go about the business of attaining equality without addressing religion, when incessant attacks are church funded?

"Wrong way" is an absolute. I just think it is an inefficient way. Yes, I know about the religious opposition. What my approach entails is getting religion out of civil marriage. That way there would be two levels of marriage (as there actually is, just not publicly acknowledged). Everyone would require civil approval (which secures property, inheritance, etc.) Then if people want their particular religion to recognize their marriage, i.e., holy matrimony, then they would do that as a separate, even concurrent act. This was Joe Mustich's point, I think, in the very first comment.

I'd like, here, to thank all the commenters. The views I expressed I've held as a conclusion for many years but, until I wrote it out and made it public, I had not realized that it was fraught with so many difficulties. Good luck to all the gays and lesbians who are fighting. This is my heartfelt wish.


Ant September 21, 2009 12:18 pm (Pacific time)

Also, I suppose that white people felt that black people were ants at their picnic and astrologers in the astronomers' world. They clearly weren't the same... they looked different, there were far fewer of them, they came from a different part of the world, they were generally poorer and less educated than white people. With so many obvious differences, they should not have expected others to accept them as equals, at least not so soon, right?


Ant September 21, 2009 12:12 pm (Pacific time)

"Marriage was still, and still is today, almost entirely a religious phenomena." That's ALMOST! Nothing in our civil marriage laws have EVER referred to any particular religion. And, since even religious people are finding that there's no compelling reason to oppose same sex marriage, it can remain religious if that's what people see it as. However, our nation was founded on freedom of and freedom from religion. Even before "long haired freaky people" were "altering" marriage, no one was required to have any particular religious beliefs in order to get a marriage license. You're right though... acceptance of gay marriage isn't going to happen overnight. It's been slowly happening for years now, and every year more and more people support it. It won't be long before anti-gay prejudice is as unacceptable in this country as other forms of bigotry. As for your analogy, it's civil marriage that's more akin to astronomy, since both have to do with objective laws while it's religion and astrology that are open to subjective interpretation.


Daniel September 21, 2009 12:10 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J I believed you have over simplified your opinion on both astrology and gay marriage or perhaps you misunderstand each . Could you please expand upon the point you are trying to make .


1equalityUSA September 21, 2009 12:04 pm (Pacific time)

Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action. The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960’s. The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free. And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love - principles that invite homosexuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well. The political piety of the fundamentalist religious right must not be exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. And in this summer of our discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from this last prejudice.

Peter J. Gomes Professor of Christian Morals, Harvard University;Minister, American Baptist Church

You've confused me, 1EqualityUSA. Are you Peter J. Gomes, or are you just quoting him. If it's a quote, you need quotation marks.

But, whoever you are, you seem to have a lot to say. If you would write a rebuttal article, I know Tim King would be open to publishing it provided it's not just a rant. I encourage you to give it a try.


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 12:04 pm (Pacific time)

1EqualityUSA: Ah, so you're gay. I have no problem with that and I never said such in the article. All I said, in clear English words, was that I thought you guys were going about advancement the wrong way. You can disagree if you want. I was only expressing an opinion--no secret agenda. Now, calling me a "Christian". That's hitting below the belt. LOL


Anonymous September 21, 2009 11:58 am (Pacific time)

The definition of marriage has always been fluid and changes based on time period and location. Christians have only been in America for less than 500 years, in Europe for less than 2000, and Jews have alway s been a minority outside of Israel, suggesting the Judeo-Christian model of marriage was not a cultural norm outside of these very limited spheres of influence, much less for 6000 years. Judaism is roughly 3300 years old, with perhaps a few extra centuries to include pre-Mount Sinai Judaism, at best. Furthermore, Judeo-Christianity hardly represents the entire world. If you're going to make an argument, try not to embarrass yourself when you do it.

Homosexuals have always been a persecuted minority, usually due to religious reasoning or the desire to produce children (I think it's safe to sa y that with 6 billion people on the planet, we're doing fine with reproduction). Also, if you allow homosexuals to marry and encourage them to adopt children and participate in society, you are actually expanding family values and giving homes to children in desperate need of them. That means you're protecting families, not destroying them.

No one who has a heterosexual marriage is being threatened. It's the most ridiculous red herring that repeatedly comes up in these arguments, particularly by the uneducated and/or the bigoted. Your "traditional" marriage remains unaffected. Don't like gay marriage? Fine, then don't have one. But you have no right, in a country where there is supposedly religious freedom and liberty and justice for ALL, to impose your personal beliefs on other human beings. Marriage is not something you should put to a vote. Should we put your marriage to a vote? Your next door neighbor's? Should we put divorce to a vote? What about interracial marriage?

Still afraid to use your real name are you? Perhaps you need reading glasses. If you look at the five hundred or so words I wrote, you will nowhere find that I attacked, or denigrated gays. I've had gays and lesbians as friends, and I've found most of them to be very fine people, about the same proportion as from a random crowd. You will also notice that I am not trying and never have tried to impose my views on anyone. If you don't like them, don't read my stuff. And if you disagree try to be reasonable without trying to impose your viewpoint on me.


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 11:54 am (Pacific time)

The title of your piece is "Same-sex Marriage-Not" How are we to deduce from your words that you are for equality?


Too late now, but the title was my mistake. What I meant was "not the way gays and lesbians are going about it." I never realized it because I thought the content of the article was clear enough. Maybe a lot of the vitiolic comments are coming from people who only read the title. That happens.


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 11:42 am (Pacific time)

We, in the gay community have had all kinds of negatives lobbed at us, pedophilia, bestiality, burglary, polygamy, and now, thanks to your creative mind, "ants at a picnic" and "Astrologist in an Astronomer's world". It's so nice to be "loved" by you Christians!


Clyde September 21, 2009 11:30 am (Pacific time)

So let's just remove any and all 'benefits' that a couple derives from the government(local, state, province or national)solely because they are 'married'...then we have a level field. Then everyone pays taxes on everything, no one passes property to anyone else, no one receives survivor benefits, everyone must have some proof that they can legally make decisions for someone else, etc.


Anonymous September 21, 2009 11:21 am (Pacific time)

I didn't have that much respect for your warped sense of justice, but now I loath how cowardice it is to post an article and clip out those that counter it. Censorship is the tool of the weak mind. Good luck with your one sided debate and( writing?) career.

Thanks for your good wishes.


Anonymous September 21, 2009 11:18 am (Pacific time)

College kids who are straight are joining National Boycott on Marriage and refusing to partake in the 1300 rights afforded to hets, not until everyone can be married. Straights are starting to join in this fight for equality. The tide is turning on this bigotry. I would be willing to bet that the republicans allow thumpers to do their damage in order to remain fiscally free of the burden of equality.


Anonymous September 21, 2009 11:17 am (Pacific time)

I think it's is the height of cowardice to post an article online and then censor anyone countering your posts.

To reiterate: not a single word in any post has been censored. But on the point of "cowardice". How about being afraid to use your real name? If you have one. Daniel


Anonymous September 21, 2009 11:09 am (Pacific time)

Censorship, is this a Canadian ideal?


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 11:07 am (Pacific time)

This guy is censoring very valid points. Anything that refutes his opinions gets censored! It's so chicken!


Anonymous September 21, 2009 11:00 am (Pacific time)

I would be willing to bet that the republicans allow thumpers to do their damage in order to remain fiscally free of the burden of equality. To answer your gimmicky, "If it's the "dumbest" editorial, why are religious fundamentalists and Republicans (they're not always the same) so opposed to it?" Censor this too?


Not a single word in any comment has been altered or deleted. If you read all the comments you will see all the emotion brought up on this topic, because many of the commenters do not see the "reasonableness" of my argument. If they saw that, they could respond equally reasonably and perhaps refute my point of view (which is all it is). Using words like "stupid" and "dumbest" do not advance an argument. Daniel


Anonymous September 21, 2009 10:51 am (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson says, "But you and the other commenters are getting bogged down in irrelevant details. You’re talking about equality and civil rights that didn’t exist even a few decades ago and even now are only tenuously held in some locales." If laws were set in stone, women would still not have rights to vote, interracial marriage would still be banned, slavery would still be enacted. These are argumentative and stupid retorts. The law has always been there, the oppression is what has kept gay people from finally saying, "enough!". You likely won't print this post either, because it refutes your bigoted point of view. Go ahead, censor away. It's the only way you can win this argument


I won't censor your post because you don't even understand the argument. I am not against gays and lesbians having relationships and equal rights in our society. I just argue that I think they are going about it the wrong way. The law has not "always" been there. If it had been there never would have been slavery, bans on interracial marriage and women would "always" have been able to vote. What other laws are there that have "always" been around that only you seem to know about?" Daniel


Anonymous September 21, 2009 10:43 am (Pacific time)

Studies have shown that couples fare better than single people, when it comes to health, wealth, stability, and fidelity. If pairing is so good for people, denying gays the right to pair off in contractual unions seems counterintuitive, even cruel. If marriage is good for couples, it's good for society as a whole. Should those born gay be ineligible for such a healthy, stabilizing, happy relationship? Equal means equal. Damage done to the sanctity of marriage has been done long before gays opted for equality. If NOM really was concerned about the sanctity of marriage, more emphasis would be placed on protection of women from abuse, infidelity, spur of the moment marriages from youngsters with no impulse control, divorce, and on and on. Most of the gay couples I know have been together for years and years. They don't stray. They work hard, pay for college, pay taxes, vote, buy houses, start businesses, create art, save lives, and genuinely enjoy their pursuit of happiness. Who has the right to say that these American citizens are not worthy of committed marriages? Will the rancor subside when it is proven, beyond a doubt, that there is a genetic component, a biological component to one's orientation? Will the judgmental finger pointing and painful rhetoric cease? Who has the right to say which families will have benefits and which will not? Who has the right to say that the children of same sex parents deserve fewer stabilizing protections? People are gay and that is not going to change. Would you rather people stayed in the closet and lived an outward lie? That's dishonest. It's possible, but dishonest. Be yourself, your truthful self, just as God made you and don't let someone else's discomfort about your difference make you lie to the world. Be honest and treat others well. Have integrity and show patience when angry, homophobic people taunt. Fear is their weapon of choice. Disprove it with civility.The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 federal benefits and rights to civil marriage, none of which gays and lesbians have. Logically, how is continuing to ban gay families from equal rights going to stop them from having children? They will have children whether or not they are covered by protections enjoyed by the heterosexual couples. All you do when you ban gays from these protections is make it unsafe for "these" children. Is that your desire? Is that what you hope to achieve? Hypocrites! If you really cared about children, you would care for all children.


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 9:51 am (Pacific time)

Tom: If it's the "dumbest" editorial, why are religious fundamentalists and Republicans (they're not always the same) so opposed to it?


Daniel Johnson September 21, 2009 9:42 am (Pacific time)

Ant: You say that gays “want their relationships, families and households to be recognized and protected equally under the LAW; it's CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage, that gay couples are fighting for. It's also misleading to make a distinction between gay people and religious people, as if no gay people are religious”. You need to put on your reading glasses. I did say that gay people have religious beliefs just like everyone else.

But you and the other commenters are getting bogged down in irrelevant details. You’re talking about equality and civil rights that didn’t exist even a few decades ago and even now are only tenuously held in some locales.

Marriage has been a religious institution since the 13th century. Things are not going to change quickly. My analogy is clear: Astronomers and astrologers both have stars as subject matter in their fields. Ergo, why can’t they both belong to the American Astronomical Association? Two couples, a man and a woman, and two men, both want to live the rest of their lives together. Ergo, why can’t they be wedded in holy matrimony?

Marriage as a societal institution has been dominated by religion until about the 1960s when “long-haired freaky people” started practising alternatives. None of that, however, changed the underlying society. Marriage was still, and still is today, almost entirely a religious phenomena. Now, in some locales, gays and lesbians can also partake of civil ceremonies. But, lest we forget—those “rights” can disappear as quickly as they were given. In the 1950s Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren offered the opinion that if the Bill of Rights were presented for ratification, it would not pass. I fear it would encounter even greater opposition today.

TB: You need to understand what an analogy is. Using your Catholic example would be meaningless if no one has ever heard of it. I’ve never heard of it and I doubt that many others have either. More to the point, even those who have probably say “Who cares?” I’ll stay with my own example.

Steve: I hope you get the analogy, now.


Tom September 21, 2009 8:54 am (Pacific time)

This editorial is about the dumbest editorial I have ever read on the topic of same sex marriage (and I've read many). Regardless of whether or not marriage is a concept born out of religion, it is something that the state has gotten involved with and with that, provide benefits for married couples. Gay people who want to get married couldn't care less whether or not their marriages are recognized by religious people or institutions. They want the state to recognize it so that they can be entitled to the same benefits and rights as opposite-sex couples.


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 8:44 am (Pacific time)

Let's create a board game and name it, "Referendum". With just one roll of the dice, rights could be stripped away, NOM-skulls could land in a prized square, a "Family Values" Republican could go down in flames, or an "activist judge" could be appointed to the bench. Oh! You landed on a slippery slope! Guess it's bestiality for you! Put that sheep down! Roll the dice, win a beauty pageant. Roll the dice, your crown gets taken away! Slippery slope, oh!, polygamy, who knew? Roll the dice, the Bishops and priests line up to form a wall, ohhhh, another scandal! Get out of Jail free card. Procure property in Iowa and marry your partner, oh! Nom-skulls show up dressed as Pilgrims breathing fire and beating their sanctimonious breasts on your lawn. When is this game going to be over? Sincerely, 1EqualityUSA


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 8:30 am (Pacific time)

Jesus never talked about gays, nor are gays mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet expounds upon gays. It really wasn’t that concerning in early churches. Being judgmental is the worse offense. That’s spoken of so often that it would seem to be the more important lesson for us. I question the faith of any Church leader who wallows in politics in order to plant spiritual seeds. It’s futility. It’s striving for the wind and feeding on it. It’s time to teach transformative Word, let Wisdom prevail, and leave politics to the world. You’ll honor the God for whom you so often speak, changing hearts in a more permanent fashion. People are being driven away from the message. Is that wise? For the religious minded, bear in mind that the dollars donated to church coiffures, is being thrown down a political rat hole. Even if NOM or any church leader succeeds in changing the laws, those laws stand to be overturned in a matter of years. All of this effort and money and time will have been futile. For those really wanting to transform hearts, spread the Gospel, and Glorify their Father, they would be wiser to take these donated dollars and humbly emulate Christ Jesus. The Lord did not use politics to heal and spread the Word of His Father. Jesus didn’t run to Herod and ask him to impose His Father’s Laws onto the people for Him. Our Saviour, Jesus, taught, transformed, and healed. Even Herod Antipas was moved by John the Baptist’s words, though not enough to refuse Salome’s request for his head. Every person breathing has a chance to be moved by the Spirit and these concepts, if even for a fleeting moment.


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 8:09 am (Pacific time)

Religion is beautiful when taught properly with love. When it is used to dig up cash from the people, it's ugly. The only halfway decent minds that emerged from the Catholic Church were Juan De La Cruz (John of the Cross), Teresa of Avila, and Fulton Sheen. Bellicose, quarrelsome, angry priests filled with anti-gay wrath should direct their disdain towards their own fellow priests, who have disgraced the Catholic Church with rampant pedophilia, child rape. It’s difficult to point out weeds in another’s garden when weeds in one's own are so out of control. A lot of money donated to these men has gone to pay off the victims of molestation, child rape. The highest authority, the Pope, dragged his Papal heels, a scratch likely heard all the way to Heaven. Churches need to stay out of politics and tend to their own gardens. The Catholic Church is a disgrace. Church is no longer a place of healing, but rather a fear-mongering, money generator getting people to dig deeply into their pockets, by focusing on people with genetically predisposed sexual orientations. The shame in that is that the Church is driving some people away from the Word of God. Jesus didn’t say to go out and find perfect people for My flock. All people are called, irrespective of their spiritual realities and then, it is the Word of God that transforms those in contact with the Spirit of God. For Church leaders to draw a line in the sand and reject thousands of people based on sexual orientation is short sighted. It’s likely a test for those in power. No man has the last say over who will be accepted into the Kingdom. The Reader of hearts has the capacity to understand people on levels that man cannot even fathom. It would be unwise to hold brothers and sisters in judgement, just to win an earthly debate.


1equalityUSA September 21, 2009 8:08 am (Pacific time)

0 Minutes did a piece about gays in which twins were featured. (Google video 60 Minutes, Gay, twins.) This segment, headed by Leslie Stahl, spoke of physiological components to one's sexual orientation. Studies are being conducted about orientation being influenced by the mother's own immune system. The more boys a mother has, the greater the chances that one of her youngest will be gay. (Population control? I wonder.) The mother's immune system, subjected to the "y" chromosome, sees it as a foreign substance, so that by the 3rd or 4th male, physiological responses are often set into motion, a combination of genetics, hormones, and immunological systems are being studied, as to why some turn out gay. There's so much we have yet to learn about this. I would like to know what modern day Christians think about this research and how that effects their opinions on those of us born gay. These boys are so young and innocent and natural. I cannot comprehend anyone being able to point a judgmental finger at these youngsters. Back in Biblical times, had they known, what we are just now beginning to comprehend, perhaps Paul (Saul) would have had a deeper understanding. Perhaps any religion that discriminates against gays would benefit from this research. Christ Jesus must have known, as He stayed so silent on the subject of gays. Google video this segment. It's fascinating.


1EqualityUSA September 21, 2009 8:02 am (Pacific time)

Would God rather we hide who we are, outwardly lie about our sexual identities, enter into empty marriages with these secrets, and not be truthful? Gays are lumped into one, big, amorphous category of sin by others who sin on a daily basis. Women don't want to be solely defined by their sexuality, a very small part of a being's personhood. What makes you think that gays want to be defined solely by this very small aspect of our being? God knows the truth about every person breathing, so to "pull off" a fake heterosexual life for the sake of being loved and accepted by humans (of this day) is not only dishonest, but pathetic. It is dehumanizing to sum up people based on this very small aspect of their personhood. Have integrity and don't let anyone tell you that God hates you. God will likely consider that the worse offense. Be honest and truthful.


Ant September 21, 2009 7:59 am (Pacific time)

This article is a perfect example of one of the biggest misunderstandings concerning the gay marriage issue. Gay couples don't want to force "religious people" to recognize their relationships. They want their relationships, families and households to be recognized and protected equally under the LAW; it's CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage, that gay couples are fighting for. It's also misleading to make a distinction between gay people and religious people, as if no gay people are religious. Many gay people are religious and many churches, temples, and synagogues have been performing gay marriages for decades, so there are plenty of places for them to go where "religious people" welcome them with open arms. Gay couples aren't trying to rain on your parade or be ants at your picnic. They are a part of your community; they pay their taxes and contribute to society; they teach your kids, bag your groceries, perform your surgeries, fight your wars and, yes, even attend your churches. They deserve to have their relationships equally protected under the law. This is a very different thing from "forcing" anything on anyone, which is why no church in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for five years now, has been forced to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to.


TB September 21, 2009 7:26 am (Pacific time)

This article is ridiculous. It's not about receiving recognition from religions or religious individuals, it's about receiving equal treatment under the law. Catholics still don't consider many marriages that are legal in the US to be real marriages... and I don't think many people are really trying to push that the Catholic church must recognize those marriages. Maybe THAT would have been a better analogy.


Anonymous September 21, 2009 7:04 am (Pacific time)

"This is true and has been for thousands of years." Christianity took ownership of marriage and began sanctioning in the 1200s. There was a means of controlling their members and at that time same sex marriage was not uncommon. As their reign of tyranny ensued, same marriages were supposed to have been removed from history. Christians have not been marrying for thousands of years. If someone is not christian does that mean their marriage isn't valid? Perhaps a new christian initiative is on its way.


Steve September 21, 2009 5:22 am (Pacific time)

Daniel. Sorry to say a poorly written piece with a difficult to understand analogy, which fails to grasp a number of the basic issues regarding the struggle for equal rights.


Joe Mustich, JP September 21, 2009 4:46 am (Pacific time)

Marriage is firstly a civil matter, as marriage licenses are issued by town halls not church halls, or mosques or temples in America. And all summer long couples have been coming to CT to wed from all around the country. And many of them have been together for many years. Congrats to all. Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA. None my couples expressed any interest in a religious marriage. They clearly wanted a civil marriage.

[Return to Top]
©2020 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for September 20, 2009 | Articles for September 21, 2009 | Articles for September 22, 2009
Donate to Salem-News.com and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.

Your customers are looking: Advertise on Salem-News.com!

Support
Salem-News.com:


Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.

Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.