Associated Press – October 9, 2007:
“I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless ’em,” the syndicated advice columnist told The Associated Press. “That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven’s sake.”
“I’m trying to tell kids if they are gay, it’s OK to be gay. I’ve tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,” she said Friday.
“If gay Americans are not allowed to get married and have all the benefits that American citizens are entitled to by the Bill of Rights, they should get one hell of a tax break. That is my opinion,” said Phillips, who speaks with the no-nonsense tone of someone who is used to settling debates.
“If they are my readers, they know how I feel on the subject,” she said. “I don’t think I’m a flaming radical. I’m for civility in life. I’m for treating each other with respect, trying to do the best you can.
ECA:
I think you make a good point on a philosophical level, and I entirely agree with you, but I think that is something that we, as a society and as individuals should decide not something the government should impose.
-Ben.
Good for Abby.
It is also nice to finally not be hearing how homosexuality is a choice. I just hope this is a sign that society has finally come to grips with facts.
Why shouldn’t gay people be subjected to the same torture of marriage, as straight people?
#25, Marriage is not a means to produce children. Last I checked, religious dogma and societal institutions are independent of biological functions.
The fact of the matter is that marriage, as we are discussing, is a state granted privilege, it is not a right. Sure, people have the right to declared themselves “married” to whomever they choose; but as far as state sponsored marriage is concerned, they do not.
As #24 suggested, the real solution is to get the government out of the business of putting their seal of approval on people choosing to live together.
#32, well, technically, while attraction may not be a choice, having sex certainly is. đ
#36 – Sea Lawyer,
So … how long is the longest you’ve ever managed to remain sex-free in your life? Perhaps you should join the LBGT community and ask them to add an A to the acronym so that it will include asexuals like yourself.
#37, apparently there are quite a few people who would most accurately be classified as asexual. Though I don’t know how many of them would want to march in an “Asexual Pride” parade wearing a leather g-string and feathers; so hitching their wagons to the LBGT “community” might not be their first instinct.
#29 “I donât quite see why people canât legally have open/polygamous marriages if they want it (not my thing but if someone wants to do it why shouldnât they”
I agree, there are plenty of unmarried men with children with multiple women.
Get the government out of the marriage business entirely and make it illegal for them to collect the information and/or make any law or tax consideration for marriage.
It’s what causes these dumb problems.
#34 “The fact of the matter is that marriage, as we are discussing, is a state granted privilege, it is not a right.”
There were marriages long before any existing government, it was a function of the church (which was why the Anglican church was started by whatever king wanted to get a divorce).
If we believe in separation of church and state, what the hell is the government doing in the marriage business and by what right do they grant them?
And for what purpose? Taxes? Wills? To determine what 2 people can get health insurance?
I’m not arguing legalizing gay marriage nor against it — I don’t think the government has any business in the marriage business … period.
The government and their willing corporate allies created this debacle when the government should not be doing marriages at all nor legislating benefits.
Does the government recognize Akmed from the Middle East’s 4 wives? His religion says that is ok.
Gay marriage isn’t the problem nor the solution; the problem is a government that uses marriage as a legal basis for laws/decisions/taxation when it should NEVER have been doing that to begin with.
#18 – Raff… Dude… obviously you went way off topic and for that you got smacked (a tad unfairly, thinks I)
But I got it…
There is no law that compels two parents, married, with chil;dren at home, to allocate any set amount for their well being, and at 18, there is no law that compels a parent to continue caring for them. (in some states, its 18 or high school graduation, whichever comes last)
But since you are divorced, not only has the state imposed a cash value of your duties as a parent, but they have seen fit to extend the time table.
I get it… and anyone who can’t see the double standard isn’t looking too closely.
So there ya go… A little much deserved support for your point… tangential though it may be.
God is never gonna “Bless ’em” when it’s against HIM!! Somewhere we have forgotten that He doesn’t condone this act, because of His love for them, would ask them to change!! He has the right to do that!
#25 – Well, close. Governments actually do have a vested interest in marriage as the means to produce children, so itâs not just a religious interestâŚ
NO THEY DO NOT
Government is nothing more than a tool used by a society to regulate commerce, provide general protection, etc.
If government had an interest in producing children then you’ll eventually reach the conclusion that we are subservient to government, and all this blog’s cynicism notwithstanding… we are not subservient to government, but rather government is subservient to us.
Ostensibly, if society has individual liberty as a core value, then an interest in promoting a high birthrate runs counter to that… but its all gonna be an academic debate as a quick trip to Wal-Mart reveals that squirting out babies is not an uncommon happening… Unless you are qualifying for the quality of the lineage…
#44, wait until we get to the whole prickly business of how licensing marriages came about in the first place because they wanted to clamp down on all that evil miscegenation going on.
Great. It’s just another case of a famous figure abusing their platform to voice their own opinions. And that is all it is – an opinion.
I can’t wait to see what our society does when NAMBLA starts clamoring and petitioning for public acceptance and special rights.
#46 – Brian,
Perhaps we need a Godwin’s Law part 2 that references NAMBLA. It seems to be filling that context in your post.
#44 – I think the US Government is dangerously close to inverting the role/position of government such that the state overshadows all other concerns. Actually, on some levels they’ve already done it. And a society under those conditions is primed for a rebellion/revolution.
#47 – I can only assume from your post that you’re implying that I’m erroneously comparing the two, because NAMBLA is “obviously” wrong while homosexuality (in this case, homosexual marriage) isn’t? Just 50 years ago, it was obvious to the majority of the population that homosexuality was wrong. Now I think it’s dwindled to about half the level it was then or less, thanks to some very aggressive political marketing.
Actually, I remember NAMBLA posting flyers on lamp posts and bulletin boards at college, so their petition has officially begun. It’s just lagging far behind the GLBT movement.
Fusion – Best current guess (once you can find someone who does not have a screaming fit one way or the other) is that homosexuality has many “causes”.
Lacking precise data, assume a smooth gradiant from “obligatory hetro” to “obligatory homo”. Some of those between would find reasons to choose one lifestyle or the other, and the choices would make no sense to anyone not in the same location in the distrobution.
I think we would need to assume several factors make up the person’s position in the distrobution.
This subject touches on one of the better arguments that humans and Chimps have common ancestors. Consider the Bonobo like behavior displayed here:
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
#48 – And a society under those conditions is primed for a rebellion/revolution.
And not a moment too soon…
#49 – It’s still a red herring. Gay relationships are consensual between adults. Nambla (which no one takes seriously) is about adults victimizing children.
Do you really think there is coming a day when we are going to let adults start raping our kids… I mean, other than in church or the GOP picnic…
#43 Joey… Ah, the religious argument rears its pious head again. Because of God’s love for homosexuals, he asks them to change??? Do you have that on videotape, or is it just coming from a book written by long-dead men of highly questionable credibility who happened to think a lot like you do?
How is “stating an opinion” “abusing their [sic] platform”, Brian?
Actually, I remember NAMBLA posting flyers on lamp posts and bulletin boards at college
I think that says more about the college you attended, rather than society in general. As many places as I’ve been, I’ve never seen such posters.
Phillep –
I’ll bet you liked those pictures, you naughty boy.
So why didn’t he just not create them that way in the first place, if he loves them so much, and homosexuality is so bad?
Frank, more like “incredulous fascination” LOL.
I was more entertained by the question of “he sunburned /what/?”.
As for the original topic, by all means allow anyone to marry who they like. Let’s spread the joys of divorce court as widely as possible.
Hey, how about bigamy and polyandry? Imagine the complications of a divorce in /that/!
Does anybody give a crap what “Dear Abbey” says? Must be a slow news day John.
#49 – Brian,
Yes. I am saying that. And, even 40 years ago, so somewhat within my memory, people were already saying what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. Sorry. NAMBLA is way out of scope of this conversation.
Phillep,
I can not answer why these people behave this way. Although I too was wondering why you posted that link, I like and respect your answer to Frank.
Wasn’t there a reminiscent scene in the movie Behind The Green Door?
#58,
I have a theory why… It’s because they have crafted their identities, and latched onto this community of people “just like them,” based on a single personal characteristic out of the thousands that cumulatively make us all unique from everybody else. Part of the requirement for belonging in this “community” apparently is to act like a hyper-sexualized maniac in public whenever the opportunity allows.
Since I’m not a group-think, conformist type, it gives me plenty of enjoyment mocking them.
43. God is never gonna âBless âemâ when itâs against HIM!! Somewhere we have forgotten that He doesnât condone this act, because of His love for them, would ask them to change!! He has the right to do that!
I think you’ll find that the God of our Bible is fairly silent issue. Never once in the issue of two people of the same gender having a loving relationship with each other mentioned in the whole of the Holy Bible. The act of buggering soldiers after defeated them in battle is mentioned in the old testament (Sodom and Gomorrah) and frankly, I think raping soldiers, even if you have beaten them fair and square, isn’t really something you could do while maintaining a loving relationship with God. In the New Testament Paul mentions that “you shouldn’t lie with a man as you would with a woman” (or something to that affect), but again, this wasn’t in reference to consenting relationships between loving adults, it was mentioned in the specific circumstances of a city in Greece where everyone was fucking everything, including children and animals. Again, I am with St. Paul on that one, I think fucking animals and children doesn’t really jibe well with a life full of love and wonderment for your God. I don’t think God wants them to change. I think he loves them just the way they are, the same as he does with you and me.
How this all fits into Dear Abby, Dear Abby you are what you are and you ain’t what you ain’t I am not sure, but as you brought it up I thought I’d mention something here….
#50….Phillep…..I swear I saw Senator Craig talking to police officers in that one photo…….lol
If the Gays want marriage, more power to them. Personally I would think just having all the legal rights enjoyed by *hetro* couples would be far enough……the rest is just religious trim.
In the UK…..all marriages must have the civil part to be legal, the religious part is just an add on for those that want it.
#60 – Ben Waymark,
From what you are saying, you no longer believe in any part of the old testament. So, if you think Christianity does not still include the O.T, why are there so many who want crap like the 10 commandments displayed in courtrooms? Why are there so many Christians that believe in the literal truth of Genesis? Why are there so many Christians that believe in the story of Noah and many others?
I must be missing something. At what point is the fictional character Jesus ever believed to have said, “OK guys, my daddy was completely blowing it out his ass in the O.T. Believe only my words now, OK?”
#63 – Ben,
Nope you made it.
If you still believe in the O.T, there is plenty about same sex relationships. It’s in the section I like to call the “who you can fuck” section. It’s a rather lengthy passage.
A man should not lie with a man as he would with a woman. It is an abomination.
Ditto for women with women and anyone with non-humans. All of which are punishable by public stoning to death. In the case of human an non-human animal, the animal must be slaughtered too, just for good measure.