h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just heard President Bush saying something about 'protecting marriage between a man and a woman', a phrase I've heard uttered an awful lot in the past month, particularly since the rush of gay couples to marry in San Fancisco this week.

How on earth do the people who are against same-sex marriage think that same-sex marriage is going to threaten their marriage, or the institution of marriage What on earth do they think same-sex couples will do to the institution of marriage that opposite-sex couples haven't already done What kind of defilement and mockery of the institution of marriage can same-sex couples make, that opposite-sex couples haven't already made

Take a look at the figures for divorce, domestic violence, and adultery. Opposite-sex marriages are far from being the picture of bliss people would like to make them out to be.

Gosho? New name?

Were you in my Anthropology class last nigh? that's all we talked about, finding a definition and reason for marage and kinship.

The argument that same-sex marriage are a "threat" to the Church/marriage/Civilization-As-We-Know-It really burns my butt.

In the newspaper last week, some bonehead said that they were tired of "the rights of the majority being bulldozed in order to give rights to a few".

How on God's Green Earth does giving the same right to one group of people that the majority already enjoy infringe on the rights of the majority?????? It isn't as if anyone is suggesting that same-sex couples will have the right to marry and no one else will.....

No one is going to MAKE churches marry same-sex couples..... No one is going to make heterosexual people marry in same-sex ceremonies.... So what the heck is the problem?

My name changes as often as the wind changes direction

Were any conclusions reached in your class?

In another soundbite from the same place, I heard him state that marriage should be determined by the people not the courts.

I wonder if he feels the same about Pesidential election results Oh, stop it, you're killing me

Of course, by "determined by the people" he doesn't mean just any people. He means "people who are against same-sex marriage" not people who are for it....

Apparently, the majority is always right unless it is about something that offends the religious right minority.... at that point, the majority is not only wrong, but they, by some mysterious magical process become the "minority".

'If you're not with us you're agin us'

Conclusions from my class? Let me find my notes.

Originally we were looking at defining how our Canadian/North American culture view marriage. We decided it was ‘The union of one man and one woman excluding all others for the purposes of procreation’; however, this didn’t last very long.

We had a look at a plethora of different cultures and saw that although marriage in some form is evident in all cultures, the definition of marriage we decided was inaccurate. Revived: ‘The union of people’

I (insert word even stronger than hate here) it when people discriminate! I do find it interesting; however, when I watch peoples’ reaction to things that are beyond cultural acceptances. Example: crime, in some places sodomy is a crime, others it is encourage. How much of crime is a cultural construct and how much of it goes against Rousseau’s Natural Law (it’s wrong to kill people)

Your friend Ebert – never wanting to offend, let me know if I go too far.

Mr. E. You say this. You hate people who discriminate. And so we hate? The very things we despise in ourselves? Before we condemn. We must understand. It is the Christian culture. All the abrahamic cultures even. Not to sanctify the marriage. Of homosexuals. The erosion of their ethics. And morals. Is what they fear. It is understandable? Even if you do not agree.

Discrimination? You do not like this. I say to you. Mr. E. You would accept the marriage of a dog. To its master? Or perhaps you would like. To allow. The marriage of twelve year old girl. To a thirty five year old man? Discrimination is not always a bad thing. I believe this. Good luck. Mr. E.

>>Or perhaps you would like. To allow. The marriage of twelve year old girl. To a thirty five year old man?<<

Mr. Fleas - apparently you are unaware that this is already legal.
In the states of Kansas and Massachusetts it is legal for a twelve year old girl to marry (although boys must be 14), in New Hampshire a girl only has to be 13 (boys still 14), and in Alabama, South Carolina, Texas and Utah fourteen-year-olds may marry, but in SC boys must be 16.

Mississippi has no age requirement at all for marriage.

In the following states minors of unspecified age may wed with parental or judicial permission, which leaves the field wide open for pre-teen honeymooners:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio (girls only) and Oklahoma.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

Pet owners are already legally responsible for the pets they welcome into their home, they don't need a marriage certificate. The relationship between owners and their pets can be just as strong as a relationship between two people, especially for people who consider their pets as their children. And despite the illegality of beastiality some sickos still have intimate relations with their animals.

No one is in an uproar to stop any of this from happening, yet somehow we are supposed to accept that it is wrong for two people who love each other and are devoted to each other to legally marry and enjoy the legal benefits that marriage allows JUST because those people share a common gender?

Discrimination is always a bad thing when it is administered at the whim of a person or group of people who declare themselves the majority for the purpose of imposing their own sense of moral rights on a more diverse mass of population.

And I see that you've started following me around in some of my journal and message centre threads making the same kind of comments. Have you read this <./>HouseRules</.> ?

That was a reply to fleas btw - a person who seems to have something of an axe to grind with Jim Lynn's sterling work on this website

I think it's a case of insecurity. If same-sex marriage becomes common enough, there is a *chance* that young people will notice that some same-sex couples are happy together. This will kill the notion that people *have to* have heterosexual relationships in order to be happy. Monopolists always scream loudly when their monopolies are threatened.

"It is the Christian culture"

That has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Christian churches or those of any other faith, for that matter, have the right not to perform marriages that do not conform to their particular doctrines.

However, the Jewish faith prohibits the eating of pork. If they object to eating pork, is the rest of the universe to refrain from eating pork? No.

The Roman Catholic Church does not allow its priests to marry. Do they insist that no men should marry, or that no church leaders should marry? No.

Churches can lay out the rules for marriage withing the doors of their churches, but they do not have the right to insist that their particular viewpoints must be accepted and enacted in the laws of the land.

"Discrimination isn't always a bad thing." Yes, it is.

Mudhooks!

I’m worried we are coming down hard on Mr. Fleas. Even though his beliefs are so contrary to my own, or maybe because they are, I’d like to hear more of why he feels the way he does.

The idea that under the religions of Abraham, same sex marriage is forbidden is interesting. I have seen no evidence of this in my studies. May I be permitted to challenge you, Mr. Fleas, to show me where I might look in religious texts to see evidence of this? As for an older man marrying a young girl, I am not wholly familiar with the story of Abraham; however, didn’t he?

Mudhooks- When our culture is called 'Christian culture' it is saying two things (1) that the predominant religion is Christianity, (2) the laws and ethics of our culture evolved from are those of Christianity.

Lastly, I feel the need to clarify my self. I don’t dislike people that discriminate. It is the act of discriminating that really gets to me. (yes even positive discrimination, but that’s a topic for another time)

Your friend always - Ebert

Fact. Culture evolves and changes, whether it is based on the precepts of a particular religion or a particular political movement (eg; Communism). If a culture does not grow and evolve and change over time, it dies.

While the originas of American "culture" are partly rooted in Christian ethics. However, there are a lot of other forces which have affected the development of that culture.

Whose Christianity? The largest percentage of founding fathers were Unitarian. If Americans chose to only follow the mores of a particular group for developing our laws, and based our choice of the religious beliefs of the predominant religion of their founding fathers, they would have to use Unitarian mores. Of course, since Unitatianism has grown and developed and evolved since the days of the founding fathers, I think that no one, not even today's Unitarians would be happy with the resulting laws. Unitarians, as a whole, these days support same-sex marriage, the right of abortion, etc. Unitarians of the days of the founding fathers was quite a bit more Christian mainstream.

The fact is, we cannot base our laws on the particular mores of one group of people, whether Christians, or anyone else, like it or not. Laws are based on the needs and aspirations of ALL a nation's people. That includes gay and lesbians.

Since having the right to marry, whether same-sex or not, does not hinder the rights of anyone, in the least, and only enhances the rights of fellow citizens, there is no legal reason to base a denial of those rights.

In the case of San Francisco, people have been screaming that the city, by issuing licences and marrying same-sex couples, is "breaking the law".

Nonsense.

The city has been issuing legal licenses to people it knows are same-sex. It has been performing legal marriages of couples they know are same-sex, and who are of legal age of consent. They have set a precedent that now cannot be successfully challenged in the courts. Good on them!

"Unitarians of the days of the founding fathers was quite a bit more Christian mainstream."

They would dance in their graves to hear themselves so described. Persecuted in Europe for questioning the divinity of Jesus, they were not accepted as "Christian" at all. http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html

Until recently, we still considered ourselves to be Christian. There are a growing minority of Unitarians who consider themselves to be Christian Unitarians. Whether Christina Unitarian or atheist or other, do not subscribe to a particular dogma.

While we were persecuted in the 15th century for being heretics, it wasn't because we didn't consider ourselves to be Christian, rather that we rejected the trinity (hence, Uni-tarian). Unitatians believes in salvation through the teachings of Jesus. Universalists believed, rather, in Universal Salvation.

It came to me as a huge surprise that Unitarians weren't, strictly speaking, Christian. Growing up as a Unitarian, back in the 1960's, our services were pretty much like any other church's. Here in North America, while there are differences from Congregation to Congregation, in services and people, we generally hold values that are common. In Europe, Hungary, for instance, the church is much more what we in North America would coinsider "Christian", both in beliefs and trappings.

"As noted by the First Unitarian Congregation in Budapest, Unitarians center[ed] the faith on Jesus and the Four Gospels, but most Christian theology is centered on Paul, a man that never even met Jesus in the flesh. Salvation is based on living a moral life as Jesus defined it as love for ones fellow man and repentance. This is at the polar opposite of Paul who taught "by faith" which was interpreted by Augustine and later Martin Luther and John Calvin to mean the total exclusion of all moral conduct from playing any part in salvation. Considering these men were immoral men, this false idea can be understood from their viewpoint."

"The signature of salvation is caring and justice work in this world, at this moment." http://www.uuottawa.com/citizn27.htm

"Unitatians believes in salvation through the teachings of Jesus. Universalists believed, rather, in Universal Salvation."

Should have read Unitarians bemieved (past tense).