Chik-Fil-A gives money to the Ugandan “Kill The Gays” Bill support. Yes, this is bigotry.

You support this? Then you are a bigot.

I’m not sure why antigay bigots are so upset at being called out on their bigotry – you’re against full marriage equality (a civil right) for an entire class of people…how exactly is that NOT antigay bigotry?

Can’t figure out why religious people are so obsessed with the sex lives of others. We turn a blind eye to divorce, single mothers and all kinds of relationship debacles, but get twisted up because two guys – or two girls – want to commit to each other.

You are no more entitled to an entitled to an existence free of homosexuals than I am entitled to one free of “Christians”.

I can see if someone really has religious objections to this (not that I agree and I would ask them why, when I hear the “one man/one woman” argument no one can explain why, just that is what the bible tells them) and are worried that the govt would make their church perform gay marriages. However, beyond that, shouldn’t organized religion, whatever they feel about homosexuality, be in the business of promoting monogamy and stable relationships, no matter who is involved?

The “Biblical standard” never has been “one man/one woman.” How many wives did Abraham have? Solomon?

Bless your heart. You are so ignorant and blind to the hatred inside of you.

Oh my goodness, you are being called out on your bigotry, that must be awful. You know what will make you feel better? More whining.

So it’s ok to use your company profits to support hate groups? Would you aso be ok if a muslim owned business owner talked about his hatred for christians and gave money to anti-christian organizations? You love to talk about your superiority(christianize) but doesn’t your bible also say that marriage is for life and that women are subservient to their husbands? Or are we only picking and choosing what part of your bible counts? How does gay marriage affect you personally in any way?

And I’d prefer your religion not be my business o my government’s business.

Why do you follow conservative political leaders who have multiple wives? Men like Reagan, Dole, McCain all left their Biblical marriages to enjoy bigamous relationships with second wives while the first wives still lived. Jesus Christ called that adultery.

No need to restate something already written so well.

“This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.”

Yes Betsy, you are a bigot.

You are of course lying about the Bible, but then you’ve never read it, have you? If you had you would know that the Bible is not on balance antigay, that there are hundreds of passages like Daniel 1:9 “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” You would know that Jesus himself had a same sex family hinted at in John 13:23 “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” Then it is confirmed in John 19:26-27 when he assigned that disciple to care for his mother when he is gone. Then there is the famous love affair of David and Jonathan in 1 and 2 Samuel, which priests and pastors have tried to lie away by saying it was just friendship when the original languages made clear references to sex. When they tell you gays are anathema and abominations, they are lying, taking a few passages out of context and twisting the meaning of words. They do this not because they believe it but because they are catering to what they perceive as your prejudices, namely that you will give them money if they trash talk about gays. Stop being a victim and try reading the Bible you pretend to care about for a change. You will see there is nothing Biblical or intelligent in Chick Fil-A’s bigotry.

Et tu, Betsy?

Et tu?

Forgot to add:

“I respect your right to call your relationship what you like. But I’d prefer your relationship not be my business at all. So please respect me in turn and don’t make me call it what you like.’”

Totally agree.And that should be the same for all couples gay and straight alike. I don’t care if your getting married, don’t invite me to have sit through it and the bad band and the bad food and cough up money for a present. And please don’t announce the engagement or the wedding in the papers. And forget about the anniversary parties, and the kids birthday parties, etc, where we are all supposed to cough up money and “honor,” the fact that you decided to live with another person and have children with them. Oh, and the announcement you made on your blog about finding love. That is a private matter please!!!

The street should go both ways.

I am a straight, middle aged mother from Kentucky who has been married to the same man for most of my adult life. I cannot imagine not having legal rights and protections that marriage imparts to heterosexuals, such as the right to visit my husband in the hospital or coverage by his health insurance.

I don’t know why it is anyone’s right to keep others from enjoying those same.

Are you even aware that this glorious binding of one man to one woman was initially no more than a way to collect fees and taxes by the crown?

And finally, doesn’t your brain burn, trying to decide which parts of the Bible you will take literally and which ones you’ll simply choose to ignore?

Thanks all for weighing in. I will point out one misunderstanding in particular: that the Bible, in portraying sin (polygamy as well as divorce/adultery) is “endorsing” sin. In no way is this true. From Genesis to Revelation the ideal of marriage being one man and one woman is clear. I.e., so it was in the garden before the fall, and whenever marriage is referred to it is always “a man and a wife” never wives, etc. Rather, particularly in the old testament the blatant sin of of even our church fathers is often portrayed, at least in part because of God’s desire to demonstrate that all mankind is sinful, and even His children are desperately sinful and in desperate need of a Savior! Finally, marriage is portrayed in the new testament clearly as first and foremost a picture of the ultimate and eternal union of Christ with his true and only bride, the Church.

Meanwhile, I would issue a challenge and I would so appreciate a response: if we are going to argue that gay marriage must be legally recognized, on what grounds – if any – may we argue that it is not discrimination to deny that “right” to groups of lovers – or friends for that matter? How about an adult brother and sister?

In other words, it seems to me those who would argue that I must legally recognize gay marriage have only two choices: they must say that anyone desiring to call himself or herself married (even to himself? How about to an object?) must be given legal recognition for doing so. There can be no standards for what marriage is or isn’t. The moment you say, “some unions are legal marriage, some are not,” you are agreeing in principle that the state must regulate marriage, we are then just disagreeing on the particulars. And how exactly does disagreement on one particular (gay marriage) make me a bigot, when arguing against another particular (threesome marriage? One person marriage) does not?

I would so appreciate hearing principled, well reasoned responses to that question.

I think then you might understand why I say, “I completely recognize your right to call your union whatever you like. It’s only when you force ME through the law to call it what you like” that my concerns begin.”

Meanwhile, one of the best pieces I’ve every read on the matter, by a professor at Princeton, is below. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal in August of 2009. I believe he answers the other concerns made here and raises other excellent concerns. Again, thanks for stopping by.

By ROBERT P. GEORGE

We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.

Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.

It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.

Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.

By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.

Enlarge Image

David Klein
Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.

Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.

The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.

Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.

Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.

So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior question that some want to shuffle off stage.

Because marriage has already been deeply wounded, some say that redefining it will do no additional harm. I disagree. We should strengthen, not redefine, marriage. But whatever one’s view, surely it is the people, not the courts, who should debate and decide. For reasons of both principle and prudence, the issue should be settled by democratic means, not by what Justice Byron White, in his dissent in Roe, called an “act of raw judicial power.”

Mr. George is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project (www.americanprinciplesproject.org).

I don’t give a shit what you call it. It’s the recognition of the US Government that gay people are concerned with, not the church. As soon as people like you stop obsessing about how it doesn’t fit your idea of a marriage, and mind your own damned business, you’ll all be much happier. Gay people, and Marriage Equality are here to stay. So get used to it, and concentrate on something positive, like education, or ending poverty.

Porter, all posts containing abusive comments and foul language will be automatically deleted. ( I simply do not understand why do those who advocate your cause so often resort to that.) In any event, my webmaster will leave this one here long enough for me to reiterate my challenge: “And how exactly does disagreement on one particular (gay marriage) make me a bigot, when arguing against another particular (threesome marriage/one person marriage) does not?

Thanks.

I disagree both with Mr Chick Fil-A and Betsy on this matter: I don’t much care if homosexuals want to marry each other, and I also understand that gay marriage opens the door to all sorts of variation on the traditional definition of marriage. However, embracing the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman–whether Biblically sanctioned or not–is NOT evidence of bigotry but an appreciation of tradition, and understandable concern about the unintended consequences of gay marriage. In the meantime, the rage and personal venom of Betsy’s critics here suggests a deeper disturbance than mere disagreement about the issue.

Well said, Porter. Betsy, you need to fight hunger and poverty rather than trying to stamp out loving relationships between consenting adults.

Anthony, it’s pretty clear to me that you (and Ms. Hart) have never experienced the kind of discrimination that many of us on here have. That is often where the anger comes from.

Have you ever been told you’re perfectly qualified for a job but they’ve decided not to hire you because of who you love?

Have you ever been barred from your loved one’s hospital room because you are not “family”?

Have you had to spend thousands of dollars to create powers of attorney both financial and medical to assure that none of your spouse’s relatives can take decision making powers away from you?

Do you listen to co-workers talk about the tax breaks they get as a married couple while you and your spouse get no breaks?

The list goes on and on. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to us what you and Ms. Hart and your ilk think. What matters is when you stick your nose in our business where it doesn’t belong and actively and financially try to stop us from having the same rights as you do. Remember that document called the Constitution that says ALL men are created equal. That is what we are angry about. That we are treated as second-class citizens and not as worthy as others. Do what the good book says, walk a mile in our shoes.

I don’t  care what other consenting adults do, but on the other hand I don’t want to be required to approve of things they do either.  So I oppose mandating legal recognition of same sex marriage on libertarian grounds.  

Great column Betsy!

Looks like an activist group sent a lot of people here to kick up a fuss. No cross-section of Americans showing up at random has this much anger. Sad for them, really, though it would be kinder if they did not choose to spread their unpleasantness around.

Welcome to the Internet, Amy. You can’t expect to post things on the Internet and not have people respond to them. If you can’t handle opposing viewpoints, then don’t post things on a PUBLIC forum for that is what the Internet is; it is not a private affair.

And Dennis, you know what, I don’t like being required to approve of things I don’t like. So keep your pictures of you and your wife to yourself, please don’t hold hands with her in public or show affection, etc. I oppose it on your libertarian grounds.

Scott, I can handle you, I just feel sorry for you. That much anger can’t be good.

Friends, there were some extremely ugly comments made in the name of Amy Ridenour, that my web master tells me came from another poster, not Amy. That poster has been notified and barred from my site. If the abuse of this forum which I have freely provided especially for those who disagree with me continues, I will shut it down.

By the way, no one answered my challenge. I find this all very telling.

Finally Scott, I appreciate your thoughtful comments but yes, I have experienced all kinds of difficulties and discrimination in my life. I.e., being passed over for a job in part because I was a single mom of 4 very young kids and the employer didn’t think I could handle it. I have single heterosexual friends who ache for a husband, but have none and may never, because men generally prefer younger women. How “unfair” is that? (They also have to spend money on powers of attorney, as I have had to do, for loved ones I’m not married to.) Before I became engaged again I thought many times I might face a life of singleness. Sure it was hard sometimes to have happily married friends talk about and share about their spouse! That doesn’t mean I had a right to a spouse, or to have them not talk about theirs. I was prepared to live that way for the rest of my life if that was my calling. So yes, I have a sense of the things you touched on, and also have experienced pain you have not.

The point is, married and hetero people face all kinds of pain and discrimination too, I admit most of it much worse than mine.

(BTW, I also know that if your sick loved one puts you on the list of people they want to see, that door is open. Literally. And tax breaks for married? Scott, just the opposite – there is a marriage penalty in the tax code, meaning that the lower income of one spouse is taxed at the higher rate of the other!)

This doesn’t make such difficulties right, it does mean we live in a fallen and sinful world, and we need to be loving our neighbors and supporting each other in our churches and in and communities, particularly, as scripture says, the widow and the orphan. It does not mean that one group should get to use the law to force me to violate my conscience.

Again, please live your own life and call your relationship what you like – just don’t force me to call it what you like. That’s all I ask. Conversely, as I asked in the original piece, I am concerned at how far I would have to go in order to satisfy the folks here, and not be called a “bigot.”

Thank you, again, for your thoughtful and respectful posting.

No one is forcing you to call it something you don’t like, Betsy. If you don’t like it, don’t call it. In the reverse, do not actively work against or force me to not have it be what I want it to be whether I call it a marriage or I legally make it a marriage. If you can’t do that, you’re not a bigot, you’re a hypocrite.

Scott, please answer my challenge: why am I a “bigot” to oppose legalization of gay marriage, but not a bigot to oppose legalization of group marriage?

Thank you.

Betsy, I do tend to feel sympathetic toward those who decry political correctness, which often amounts to attempts to use rhetoric that impedes free thought. Perhaps the use of the term marriage, when it applies to same-sex couples, feels like political correctness to more traditionally minded people. To same-sex married couples, though, the term captures something we long for; it’s a recognition that our love counts, too, and that our relationships can endure with many of the same legal protections afforded to other marriages. As it stands, however, many essential protections are still withheld from us. For example, there are thousands of Americans who are basically living in exile abroad because they are married to a same-sex partner of another nationality; the federal government refuses to acknowledge their relationships for immigration purposes. I cannot begin to tell you the kind of pain that is involved when someone is separated for years on end from his family and the country he loves, owing to the cruel effects of some law written in Washington, D. C.

I suppose if I really wanted to be militant, I could refuse to acknowledge any marriages that are performed by states or churches that do not recognize same-sex marriage. But to me that would just feel uncivil and hurtful.

For the record, I support measures that prohibit employment discrimination against single parents. Although I have no children of my own, I think it’s important to support compassionate policies that make it easier for families to flourish.

Betsy, I compliment you on your question, which is excellent. I also thank you for noticing that someone apparently took umbrage at what I thought were reasonably mild comments and pretended to be me saying terrible things. You and your webmaster deserve kudos for noticing and taking action. Few websites, I am sure, are managed as well.

My two cents on the topic at hand: Marriage (the legal part of it, not the religious) provides a legal framework for the protection of children born of the union. That is the reason society established a legal framework for marriage: children are born from them often enough to have a substantial impact on society. Therefore, it makes sense to have a legal framework in place. Children are never born of same-sex unions, on the other hand. For a same-sex couple to be the legal parents of a child, at least one must adopt, possibly both; and the legal rights of the biological parent or parents must be curtailed through legal means (even in the case of their death, it must be legally certified). By definition, society cannot put a legal framework in place in advance of the birth of children for same-sex couples, because it is impossible to know in advance who both of the biological parents will be. So the utility of legal marriage for opposite-sex couples is not in play for the same-sex couples.

The obvious next question is: why not do it anyway, if the same-sex couples would like it? The answer gets back to the issues in Betsy’s question: because a lot of different family arrangements would like it. Where does a “would like it” standard end? No logical, workable and broadly satisfactory answer appears to be available. A man who legally can marry a woman but who says he would not be happy with a woman spouse but only with a male spouse has no stronger argument than a male who can legally marry a woman but who says he would not be happy without both a female spouse and a male spouse.

Thanks, Amy. Great point. Luke, thank you for your respectful comments. I would offer that there are thousands of married Americans living apart from their spouses too, believe it or not. Or, who have to live with their spouse overseas because he or she can’t be gotten into the U.S. In other words, I think you are citing a problem with immigration law, not with marriage law.

Again, if you want to be in a church or community that agrees with you about what to call your relationship I totally recognize your right. To use the law to require me to call it what you like is, it seems to me, repressive. Once again, it goes back to my challenge that Amy elaborated on. And I think until that challenge is answered, it’s difficult to move forward with the conversation in a way that is intellectually honest.

Again, thank your for your sharing your thoughts respectfully.

Betsy

Re: “Does backing tradition really equal hate?”

No, Betsy, it doesn’t – in and of itself.

But the “Christian” right go way beyond merely “backin [their own] tradition”. They go all the way to trying to take away the rights of other citizens to pursue their own happiness. IOW, they are taking away other people’s rights and liberties, while gay citizens seek only to secure those (formerly inalienable) rights.

Sorry you can’t see the difference.

Meanwhile, please let me tell you what DOES “equal hate”: having one’s personal, loving,committed relationship compared to (and I’m quoting here): beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, child-molestation, theft, murder, “marryin’ a dog” (or bicycle, rock, plant), and (in the case of one Republican politician) being “worse than terrorists”.

No gay person has ever sought to take away any rights or freedoms from heterosexuals. I’m gay and I’m perfectly okay with “traditional marriage”. I am not seeking to deny heterosexuals their right to marry whomever they want to.

The reverse cannot be said of some heterosexual “Christians”.

Have a nice sandwich.

Thanks tell the truth, but you kind of make my point for me. No one is offended by heterosexual marriage, so no one is asking you to recognize something that violates your conscience. You see the difference?

I will issue my challenge question to you too. If you like, to make it easier for you, I will recast it to include only adult, consensual relationships between human beings. Okay then – why am I a “bigot” to oppose legal recognition of gay marriage, but presumably I am not a bigot when I oppose legal recognition of group marriage?

Thanks for stopping by – Betsy

You are a bigot, and a hypocrite. 10 to 20 years from now you will be deemed with the same regard as the rich white ladys from “the help” who didn’t see their black help as people. You are D I V O R C E D! what was so sacred about your marriage?!
Who cares if the your church doesn’t recognize a gay marriage? I don’t believe in the same god you worship. I just want the the same legal rights as you. Gay people exist in all cultures whether openly or not.
The world is changing get with it, or be looked back on as we do civil rights era bigots.

John, am not going to delete your post, even with all its invectives, because I want to issue my challenge to you too and see if you will answer it: why am I a “bigot” for opposing gay marriage, but not group marriage?

Yes, tragically I am divorced and very much against my will. I completely agree with you, by the way, that heterosexuals have done more to undermine the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals ever good. Completely agreed and granted.

By also by the way, to compare the pursuit of the legalization of gay marriage to that of civil rights is really base and unjust. This is one reason most black churches and their leadership oppose it. (One surrounds a behavior, the other a skin color.) Moreover, gays and nongays have exactly the same rights under the law – to marry one willing adult person of the opposite sex at a time. Strictly speaking, current law literally does not discriminate at all.

Please answer my challenge question with intellectual honestly. I look forward to it. Thank you.

Oh Betsy! You Bible Thumpers slay me!
Let’s take religion out of the equasion.
There is a thing called separation of church and state! Others may, but I am not looking for approval from God, You, or your Church. Besides there are churches that are accepting of gay unions. I just want the legal right to marry someone of the same sex if I so choose to make that commitment. I’m even willing to extend that to you Hetros, because you know..since you think we made a choice to be this way, you would have the same opportunity in case for whatever reason ( jilted by too many men)you DECIDE to go Lesbo!!
So..you are a selective bigot and don’t see anything wrong with group marriages.
Obviously you are perceiving gay people as having an affliction, in that case it would be the same as not wanting mentally challenged people, or disfigured people from marrying. You are a bigot because you discriminatre against a group of society that you don’t understand,and don’t want to acknowledge. You never will.
Because it is repulsive to you, you don’t want to hear about or think about it. There is not any point in arguing with a narrow minded person such as you.
How would you respond if you had a daughter, or son who after having the same roommate for years, and tired of fielding questions about when they would find a nice boy or girl and settle down they answered that they were gay? Would you disown them? Try to make them change? Think you did something wrong? Think they are mentally ill? Not want them to be themselves, but pretend to be your “normal” and live unfulfilling lives?
I’ve been in a committed monogomous relationship for 20 years. The company I work for provides benefits for my significant other. Yet I pay higher insurance cost, higher taxes, have less tax breaks because I am deemed as single.
How long did your marriage last?
One final question do you not have anyone in your family, a neighbor, a co-worker that you know or suspect is gay?
You must not, or your secretly damming them to hell.

Please do not proceed to asking me questions until you have answered my challenge question: why am I a “bigot” for opposing legalizing gay marriage but presumably not a “bigot” for opposing legalizing group marriage (which yes, I also oppose.)

Oh and a point of clarification – married people typically “enjoy” a huge tax penalty.

Thanks for stopping by.

If one of your children came out as gay, you
be forced to ask yourself that question.
Hope you’d be happy with the answer.

Okay, I will answer your question: I would love them unconditionally, of course. And I would still oppose the legalization of gay marriage. Now, again, please answer my challenge question: why am I a “bigot” for opposing the legalization of gay marriage, but not, presumably, a “bigot” for not opposing the legalization of group marriage?

Thank you.

Betsy, you’re not a bigot. You have no need to defend yourself, nor your stance on homosexuality/same sex marriage. Not to be hateful towards people-it’s OK to hate that which is sin. This is not being bigoted towards that which a person is, and cannot help being. This is sinful behavior, and no one has to accept it, nor be forced to like it. These groups are noisy about trying to normalize abominable behavior, and legislate laws protecting it. God is the author of marriage, and it is between one man and one woman. period. Make no mistake about it, God’s word is absolute on this, and there are consequences for engaging in abominable behavior. Like it or not, believe it or not, it is what it is, and what God says, will be. Let people squawk about it all they want, it doesn’t change anything. They are inviting God’s judgement upon themselves, and our nation. The Bible tells it all. I’ve read it-I know the outcome, and we win.

Yes….one can support gay marriage without supporting group marriage. States have used a number of criteria to decide who is eligible to marry including age, sex, mental/ intellectual disability, consanguinity, quantity, species, etc. The reasons behind each of these criteria are different and each stands on its on, separate from the other criteria and changing any one of these criteria is an independent expansion of marriage. So group marriage would have to be argued on its own merits and would have significate “public policy” arguments to overcome that gay marriage does not, since there is historicle evidence that polygamy frequently involves coersion, abuse, welfare dependency (how many men can really support several families?)and lets not even try to imagine divorce (triple alimony and child support suits anyone???). If gay partnerships had been proven to result in significantly worse outcomes than hetero unions, I would oppose it; but the evidence just isn’t there. But I don’t have to fall for the “slippery slope” fallacy and believe I can’t draw the line somewhere else.

Heather, thanks for trying, I genuinely appreciate the effort. But I think you are missing the point. Sure, one can, strictly speaking, support the legalization of gay marriage without supporting the legalization of group marriage. But in making such a distinction you make my point: that marriage ought to be regulated by the state and we are allowed to apply our moral sensibilities to how we think it ought to be regulated. You and I agree on that fundamental point. What we are disagreeing on, then, is not that moral sensibilities ought to come into play when we regulate marriage, but ONLY which sensibilities ought to prevail? In other words, the question still stands: Why am I according to the culture a “bigot” in opposing gay marriage but not a “bigot” in opposing group marriage? As opposed to, for instance, a nice person who opposes both, and whose opinion on opposing gay marriage should be as respected as your opinion on opposing group marriage?

Personally, I don’t think one necessarily IS a bigot for opposing gay marriage, I just think they’re wrong and their fears are misplaced and they’re probably coming from a theological perspective that I don’t find logical. But name calling, unfortunately, is a part of our political discourse and conservatives certainly do their fair share of it, too.

Thanks, Heather. As evidenced by the recent public outcry over Dan Cathy’s comments, I think that on this issue most of the name calling goes in one direction, and that’s a shame. I think we should respect each other’s rights to different opinions on this issue, which is exactly why I don’t think I should be forced to legally recognize gay marriage. At the same time, I should not, nor do I have any desire to, interfere with how homosexual couples want to define their relationship. It seems to me that’s real tolerance.