eclecticism

Help send flowers to the newlyweds

Current Affairs 02/21/2004 |

14 Responses to “Help send flowers to the newlyweds”

1. The Republic of T. Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 11:44 am

   Catch the Bouquet

   Via eclecticism. One of the wonderful things about the net is when someone comes up with a great idea, someone else takes it and makes it even better. That’s what happened with Flowers for Al and Don. Here’s what the

2. Adam Quinn Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 2:47 pm

   I strongly oppose same-sex marriages. What’s next, human-pet marriages?

   “Look at me — I married a sheep so that I could get those extra job benefits. She is expecting our first newborn baby, so I’ll also get maternity leave at work!”

   People, this is disgusting and it has to stop.

   [Edited by Michael to remove Viagra spam link…come on, Adam…say what you want, but you put spam links on my weblog, and I will ban you.]

3. Adam Quinn Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 6:08 pm

   I posted no such link as one you are mentioning. This is a stupid way to make people with opinions that differ from yours look bad.

   [Edited again to remove the same link as before.]

4. Prairie Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 7:05 pm

   Adam, I know Michael very well, and I know he is willing to have people express their opinions on his site. I also think that you should be a lot clearer and more logical about expressing your opinion. Let’s take this step by step. Human beings can only reproduce with other human beings. Sheep can only reproduce with other sheep. Human beings are not sheep. Therefore human beings cannot reproduce with sheep. I think that effectively takes care of your human/sheep concerns. If we take this argument a little further we come up with this: According to the U.S. government, all people have certain rights. Homosexuals are people. Straight people are people. African Americans are people. Asian Americans are people. Native Americans are people. Women are people. Men are people. Therefore homosexuals should have the same rights as straight people, men, women, African Americans, and any other group of PEOPLE. To deny homosexuals the same rights that are given to other people is, plain and simple, discrimination. This is not an issue about your religious beliefs—if you don’t want to share your church with gay people then don’t. The government, however, unlike a religious institution, does not get to discriminate against people based on things like gender or sexual orientation. So, Adam, if you have an opinion to express, go ahead and express it, but in the future could you try to be a bit more logical, and explain yourself more clearly? And really, phrases like “this is a stupid way” do not make you look all that intelligent yourself.

5. Michael Hanscom Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 7:10 pm

   Adam: the link you are putting in for a URL when you leave comments ( http://stuff.com/ ) leads to a website advertising “Natural ‘Viagra’ for Women”, as well as links to sites to deal with premature ejaculation, breast and penis enlargment, and so on.

   I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time and assume that you just put that particular URL in the field as a ‘junk’ URL, and you may not have known that it resolved to an actual website. However, if you continue to use this URL for your posts, I will continue to remove it, and if necessary, ban you.

   You will note that I did nothing to edit the content of your post, merely removed the URL that your name was linked to. I have no problem at all with people expressing views contrary to my own on my site (for instance, just take a gander at the “Why I Hate George W. Bush” post, which seems to have taken on a life of its own recently). I do, however, have issues with people using my site for unauthorized, unrelated advertising.

   I sincerely hope that you were not aware of the content of the link you were using, and this was merely a mistake. In the future, if you wish to put a ‘dummy’ link in when commenting on my site, please use ‘http://www.example.com/’.

   Thanks much.

6. Adam Quinn Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 9:12 pm

   Intriguingly enough, the junk URL does point to such a site. Had I known this earlier I would not have used it, but it’s too late to change that.

   As to Praire’s comment about homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else (this includes marriage rights), I must say that I am against that. Yes, religion does play a role in this matter. If you read the bible, you would have noted of the the well-known city of Sodom and Gomorrah, which fell into corruption primarily concerning homosexuality. This is proven by Genesis 19:5, whereupon Lot was asked by people of Sodom if they could have sex with the men who had “come under the protection of [his] roof”. You see, homosexuality is a major conflict in God’s plan. It is a sin. Resultingly, the city of Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, as there was no other way to save the people; God cannot change people’s will.

   I realize that I cannot convince anyone here that gay marriage is wrong. You will take me to think that I’m a religious nut. Or that I am a bigot.

   Such is the inevitable case when a matter like this one comes to the table. I cannot argue whether or not gay marriages will have bad effects on the economy (I don’t think that they will in the short term), and I also cannot argue that gay marriages are wrong from an intellectual, logical viewpoint. Indeed, gay people are people too, and they have should have their natural rights. But marriage rights? I don’t think so, and I explained why above.

   Adam

7. TwilightCafé Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 9:57 pm

   justly married in san francisco

   As the mass weddings pour through San Francisco, one man was there on February 15th and took photos of the happy couples, “justly married.” Derek Powazek has the pictures he took on his site, as well as a poster available

8. Firas Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 9:57 pm

   So married homosexuals will bring your country closer to extinction than unmarried ones? How does that work?

   Newsflash: some smart people realised a long time ago that not Americans are Christian. Hence, laws are based on justice and rights of the individual, not those set in your holy book.

   Newsflash 2: your country is signatory to this:

   “Article 2

   Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

   Everyone, without distinction of any kind, including “other status” such as sexual orientation.

   Just so you know.

   You don’t like gays. That’s fine from a legal perspective. Don’t push your morality onto laws that govern the rest of us.

9. Michael Hanscom Says:
   February 21st, 2004 at 10:04 pm

   Fair enough (though I don’t agree). One small question, though.

   Your religion (as you see it) condemns homosexuality.

   Why should a homosexual couple be forbidden to marry because of your personal spiritual beliefs? If they belong to a religion that has no issue with same-sex marriage, or belong to no religion at all, why should your religion determine what rights they do or do not have?

   If your personal religious beliefs declare homosexuality to be a sin, then fine, don’t practice homosexuality. I have absolutely no problem with that, and will defend your right to believe anything you want to the bitter end. But the moment you start declaring what other people can and cannot do with their lives because of your religious beliefs, you’ve crossed the line, and I cannot and will not support that. Your life is yours to live as you see fit — and everyone else is theirs to live as they see fit.

10. Prairie Says:
    February 22nd, 2004 at 12:28 am

    Adam, Read a little bit earlier in the verse you quoted. “and Lot said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not yet known a man, let me bring them out to you, and do with them as you please […]” (Genisis 19.7-8). It sounds a whole lot like Lot is condoning rape here, but rape is perfectly all right as long as no one is practicing homosexuality, right? I should also mention that the word homosexuality is not mentioned at all in the text of the story you’re citing—the verse you’re actually looking for is Leviticus 18.22. The Bible has been used as justification for many horrible things over the years. For example, based on verses like Genesis 19.7-8 and Colossians 3.18-25 slavery of Africans and the Nazi movement were justified. Based on verses like Genesis 3.16 and Colossians 3.18 women have been subjected to thosands of years of patriarchy, not to mention abusive husbands who use the Bible to justify spousal abuse. Leviticus 22.17-30 explains the proper way to sacrifice animals, which if you tried it today would have PETA up in arms, and you would most likely be branded a Satanist. Leviticus 20.27 condemns all wizards and witches to death, sparking such things as the Salem Witch Trials. There are many wonderful, helpful passages in the Bible as well—I’m certainly not condemning Christianity. However, all of this comes down to how you interpret the Bible. You can chose to hate and fear one group of people, and say it’s because the Bible tells you to, but the fact is that the Bible advises you to love everyone, and let God do the judging.

11. Adam Quinn Says:
    February 22nd, 2004 at 3:11 pm

    I don’t hate gays, nor do I think that they should be forbidden from having constitutional rights. They should all have equal rights as everyone else. But, as I said earlier, marriage rights are out of the question. You seem to be saying that the constitution already supports same-sex marriage, but it does not. Also, I don’t think our founding fathers had the idea that America was to become a gay society; the “every should have equal rights” does not extend to gay marriages because, by definition, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

12. Firas Says:
    February 22nd, 2004 at 3:25 pm

    Some of the founding fathers didn’t have the idea that America was to become slave-free society either.

    I remain mystified: what will gay marriage change? Seriously. Besides the “we’ll-all-go-to-hell” part.

13. Michael Hanscom Says:
    February 22nd, 2004 at 6:52 pm

    They should all have equal rights as everyone else. But, as I said earlier, marriage rights are out of the question.

    Well, then, they wouldn’t have equal rights, now would they?

    I’m also still awaiting an answer to my question, which you seem to have ignored. Why are marriage rights out of the question? What gives you the right to declare what other people can and cannot do, simply because it conflicts with your religious views?

    Also, I don’t think our founding fathers had the idea that America was to become a gay society…

    We’re becoming a “gay society”? Wow — I guess it’s time for me to affect a lisp, practice my limp-wrist waving, and get used to ogling men’s asses, huh?

    With all due respect, Adam, that’s a patently ridiculous statement. Allowing gays to marry isn’t going to suddenly (or even not-so-suddenly) transform America into a “gay society”. America will be the same place it’s always been, only with a few more marriages on the books.

    Out of curiosity, just what is a “gay society”? Seems to me that if that’s a society where people can love whoever they do, no matter what sex they are, without worrying that other people will try to brand them “evil”, “deviants”, or declare that they can’t enjoy the same rights and freedoms as other people, than maybe we should become a “gay society”.

14. Prairie Says:
    February 22nd, 2004 at 6:59 pm

    Okay, here we go again. I do wish people would do their homework before spouting popular catch phrases. Webester’s Dictionary DOES define marriage, in part, as “the social institution under which a man and a woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.” However, there are five more ways to define the word (and that’s according to Webester’s, not the OED), including “any intimate association or union.” Pay attention—the definition does not have to be gender specific. That’s what the word “any” means. Now, let’s talk about some of the rights homosexuals are being denied, which you say the government does not need to protect, but which the government DOES provide for straight couples. And let’s also talk about who some of these straight couples are, and go back to our agrument about the Bible. The Bible identifies not only one type of sexual deviant, but rather several (again, see Leviticus 20.10-16). According to the Old Testament all of these “sins” are punishable by the same penalty—death. Clearly today none of them meet with death. In our society, however, only one of these so-called deviants is punished by the withholding of marriage rights. People who commit adultry are still allowed to marry—multiple times if they want to, as long as they aren’t homosexual. People who commit adultry are also allowed to visit their spouses in the hospital, even if they are coming to the hospital from their lover’s bed. People who commit incest, if the incestual partner is above the age of consent, aren’t terribly likely to be caught, and if they were the punishment would consist primarily of social humiliation. While it is illegal to marry one’s relative, people who commit incest are still free to marry a person of the oposite sex who is not a family member. People who commit incest, and yet are legally married to someone are still allowed to list their spouses on their health insurance forms. We’ve already discussed bestiality to some extent by determining that a sheep cannot mate with a human. However, that same sheep-molesting person can marry a human member of the opposite sex and be given all the rights that come with marriage, such as filing a joint tax return. To call one “sexual deviation” worse than another is illogical, and to penalize one when the others aren’t penalized is discrimination. The line between what should be the business of the government and what should not is very fine. I think we can all agree that we do not want the government peeking in our windows to see who we’re in bed with, and what we’re doing with that person; sexuality should be a private concern. However, when the government is going to offer special privileges to one group of people based on exactly that—who they’re in bed with—that turns sexuality into a governmental issue rather than a private or moral issue. So, we’re back to square one again—is marriage a religious or legal institution? If marriage is strictly a religious institution then certainly churches have the right to decide how they want to deine marriage. But, if, as shown above, marriage is a legal institution, then the government has the right to decide how to define it. The government cannot deny rights to a group simply because it does not like how they behave in the bedroom any more than the government can deny rights based on gender or race. P.S. The definition of prejudice is “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge , thought, or reason,” among others. Exactly how many gay people do you know? The definition of discrimination is “actions or policies based on prejudice or partiality,” among other definitions. If an action is based on “an unfavorable opinion formed beforehand” is that the action we want our government to take?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Note: This post is over 4 years old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.