In the fifty-two years I’ve been on the planet, I’ve experienced great joys in my life. But I’ve also experienced many great tragedies. Only those who are closest to me know of them, and will ever know what they cost me.
Yet, as much as I’ve suffered because of those tragedies, I’m glad of them in many ways, because not only did they make me stronger, they made me more compassionate. Having been judged and condemned, and hurt by the unfairness of it, I really try as hard as I can to walk in the shoes of others before I condemn or judge myself.
Yet, when I do come to the point where I feel no amount of compassion can help me excuse the acts of one human being against another, I become so outraged that it’s better for me to withdraw for a while, spend time in my garden, say, and think things through.
As a result, I haven’t been commenting much on my neighbour’s blogs since the election here in the United States has been heating people up, but I’ve been reading everything. And when I do comment, I’m very careful, trying to think things through,trying to see things from all perspectives, trying not to lash out and accuse.
But enough is enough.
I’m referring to the term, “the sanctity of marriage.” I have been hearing it a lot on blogs and on the telly because it’s election time. And I have to admit, it’s making my blood boil.
Because those who make that statement, ” I believe in the sanctity of marriage,” believe that just because they make it, they alone have a God-given right to determine how a segment of the human population can live. A segment, who, if we observe nature carefully, we can see exists amongst all living creatures, not just amongst humans. A segment who have been naturally selected by nature as its clever way to keep the population down, without denying them the one joy granted to mankind — the ability to love, mentally, spiritually, and physically.
Well, let’s examine that statement:
Webster’s Definition of ‘Sanctity’– The quality of being ‘Holy’
Webster’s Definition of ‘Marriage’ – the state of being united to a person in a voluntary and contractual relationship recognized by law.
So, ‘sanctity’ and ‘marriage’ are not linked together in the dictionary, and in fact, mean two separate things. But when put together and stated by heterosexuals, those heterosexuals mean that to them, marriage is a holy, legal union to which only heterosexuals are entitled, because by this very definition and belief, only heterosexuals can be holy and only heterosexuals can uphold a holy, legal union.
And so, there is the insidious melding once again of church and state. Why? because they’re not talking church, synagogue or even mosque marriage here, blessed by a cleric, when they say “sanctity of marriage”. They’re talking state marriages by a non-secular, government official.
And let’s examine the ‘holy unions’ of some of the very people who tout this belief, “Marriage Sanctity”, “Sanctity Marriage” the loudest:
First of all, some go out of their way to proclaim themselves, “Staunchly heterosexual.” And that alone makes me wonder. ‘Staunchly?’ You either are or you aren’t heterosexual. There’s no adverb needed, unless for some reason, you need to convince your own self how ‘staunchly’ you feel about your own heterosexuality.
But, who cares, anyway? I certainly don’t. When I encounter new people, what they may or may not be doing sexually in their own bedrooms does not in any way affect my marriage or me, unless they’re registered child molesters who are now living right next door.
Frankly, I think the ones who do care are just plain nosy.
It’s like saying when you meet someone, “Hi, I’m Dick. Say, I put my penis in a vagina. Before I shake your hand, can you tell me where you put yours?”
But the ‘sanctity of marriage’ types go even further than that. They actually lie to others and themselves about the verbiage, ‘holy marriage’. They know and we all know that unholy heterosexual marriages abound. Heterosexuals get married for all kinds of ‘unholy’ reasons. They marry for money, they marry to have someone to iron their shirts, they marry because their biological clocks are ticking and any stud or brood mare will do.They marry someone much older who they don’t love, because they want financial security and can’t wait till the old bastard dies. They marry someone straight out of the schoolroom, because they want to deny their fading youth, their comb overs and their spreading gut.
Every month it seems, there’s the minister in the news who has a lovely wife and three beautiful kids, but who’s boinking a male prostitute and lying about it. There’s the ordinary woman who uses the term, but is divorced from a loser who left her and his kids to fend for themselves. Or, like in my own case, an ex-husband who believed in the ‘sanctity of marriage’ (meaning he’s repulsed by gays) and promised his wife a happy marriage if she moved overseas with him, where he then ignored her and spent his time on another woman.
Sanctified marriages, all.
There are the holy men who talk about the sanctity of marriage. The ones who take a “vow of chastity” Another deceptive term, which translates to mean a “vow not to sleep with consenting adult females, but with unsuspecting little boys, instead.” And then have it hidden by the ‘sanctity’ of the church.
Then, of course, there’s John McCain’s idea of the sanctity of marriage— Leave your sick wife for a younger, hotter one. And Sarah Palin’s idea of the sanctity of marriage, (and motherhood)—force your seventeen-year-old to become a wife long before she’s ready for your own personal gain, bind her for life to a boy-man who’s not much of anything and most likely never will be.
And as this goes on and on, this disgusting hypocrisy which we are on the verge of making into law, I have a lot of anger and a lot of questions:
1) How can the people who talk like this live with themselves?
How can they call themselves or their relationships “holier” than my good friend and neighbour’s, a human being filled with compassion for his country and fellow man, who lovingly nursed his lifelong partner through sickness,spending his savings on medical care,then watched him die and is forever missing him; yet was not allowed to make this very blessed union between two loving, caring individuals legal?
2) How have those of us who see not only the unfairness of it, but the out-and-out wickedness of it, allow it to get so much airtime? Dismiss it because, even though we don’t agree with it, it doesn’t actually affect us, because we just happen to have been born heterosexual?
And the most important question of all, the one that makes me angriest is this:
3) Why in hell is every gay man and woman not openly and fiercely protesting this? Is it because they have bought into it, and they really do think they are evil and unholy, unworthy, somehow, of the rights the rest of us can legally enjoy?
Is it because they are scared to shake the status quo, find it more comfortable to hide and lie because they are able to?
What I mean by “able to” is that race can’t be hidden, but homosexuality can. However, if every gay person’s skin was, say, the colour purple, they couldn’t hide. Then, to the “sanctity of marriage” types purple skin would = gay, which would = unholy and unsuitable for marriage. Or even, maybe, shaking hands.
What then?
You see, this is why I haven’t been writing about this election.
It's like saying when you meet someone, "Hi, I'm Dick. Say, I put my penis in a vagina. Before I shake your hand, can you tell me where you put yours?"LOL!Then, of course, there's John McCain's idea of the sanctity of marriage— Leave your sick wife for a younger, hotter one. And Sarah Palin's idea of the sanctity of marriage,
(and motherhood)—force your seventeen-year-old to become a wife long
before she's ready for your own personal gain, bind her for life to a
boy-man who's not much of anything and most likely never will be. Absolutely agree with you. All the hard worked, loving and committed relationships are sacred and beautiful. When you read things like Palin's soon-to-be SIL drops out of high school to "support his family", yet didn't manage to register on time to vote for his soon-to-be MIL, you would question "is this kind of marriage really so much better than other "kinds" of bonding that it can be protected exclusively?"I'm sure you've already seen this, but just in case if you missed it…
Well you know I probably disagree with a lot of what you wrote – only because you made some extreme examples to make your point (for instance, who says Sarah Palin MADE her daughter marry her young boyfriend cause she was pregnant… there are teen girls everyday that choose to do this despite their parents BEGGING them to get an abortion)… but I do agree with the base premise of what you are writing…. Who cares how and with whom people have sex? It's none of our business. It should not affect our humanity or the way we treat others.
"But, who cares, anyway? I certainly don't. When I encounter new people, what they may or may not be doing sexually in their own bedrooms does not in any way affect my marriage or me, unless they're registered child molesters who are now living right next door. "
I am one of those people that believe in the "sanctity of marriage"… but I mean it from a prospect of I believe the union of marriage is God-blessed and given to man and woman to make a holy bond to create children — and I am quite aware the majority of our current society abuse that holiness and do not enter into it with the right mindset. However, I am NOT talking about a civil union between two consenting adults. I think any two ADULTS that want to bind themselves together in an intimate way and legally/contractually should be able to. I have zero issue with it.
I will leave it there. I have theological beliefs about marriage, premarital sex, and homosexuality… but they do not interfere with my ability to love every human just as they are… without judgement. Basically it all comes down to… we are all born with sin and no sin is greater than another in the eyes of God… we will all face His judgement someday… so I will leave it to Him. While I am here on this earth… I will be faithful to His word and love each person just as he commanded me to… whether they love me or not. :o)
Because when it comes down to it, I have made my own choices in life that many would throw stones at me about, but they don't make me any less or better than them. Just different. Different isn't always bad. It's just not the same. So I will never presume to throw stones at someone that I don't agree with… I'd rather embrace them and learn from them and enjoy their company.
It's late… I am rambling… but this was a very thought-provoking post as usual Patricia… thank you.
Oh, my gosh, no I hadn't seen it. Thank you for showing it to me, It's wonderful! That took a lot of courage. I know someonwe who will love to see it.
Some of us don't actually have to worry about it. Here in Canada we were the fourth nation in the world to adopt marriage at least for state-blessed (hah!) unions for gay people. It's really just a way for couples to gain access to the same process and laws as regular heterosexual folks. It's a little embarrassing that the US is dealing with this issue in such a huge way in a political campaign. It makes me glad that I'm a citizen of the Great White North. What's funny to me is that in the progressive thinking and law making that goes on here, we still get labelled the 'backwards hicks' of the north. The jokes not on us! LOL!Anyways, I'm not sure what it's like in the US but here even if you live together for 3 months heterosexually you are considered common law by the government and are handled as any other married couple. Like you Patricia, it makes my blood boil to see and experience injustice. However in the end I don't think the government is out to simply marginalize gays. The joke is on the people…(do you hear the people sing?) the government seeks to marginalize everyone, it's in their best interest. For some it's just a lot more subtle than others. I believe that the very religion that brings people the "sanctity of marriage" is used in itself to marginalize the people that prescribe to it. Even for those of us who, in the US, would not benefit from the same state sanctioned rewards for heterosexuality, we are more free in many other ways… mainly though, we are free from fear… the fear of god.
Great post and I share your anger. Thanks for writing and posting it.Australia also needs to get up to date on this matter.
Thanks for posting that link. That was so moving, even I have tears in my eyes.
Here in the UK we now have civil weddings for gay couples which is a massive step forward but there were many who objected to it at the time and continue to do so. If two consenting adults are in love then they should be together, regardless of the gender combination involved. I've known some fantastic gay couples and some truly. truly dysfunctional heterosexual couples who are joined in the 'sanctity of marriage'. No one has any control over who they fall for and as long as the pairing is not illegal, i.e. man and small boy, woman and marsupial etc, I don't see why anyone should object.
Well said, Patricia. I'm so tired of religious bigots attempting to impose their narrow minded views on everyone. I see nothing Christian about the persecution of minorities. I detest religious fundamentalists and their ignorance. I look forward to a new era of tolerance under an Obama administration.
Well, I for one am glad you posted!
As for marriage, I sort of work on the assumption that the more people who want to get married for the "right reasons" (love, honour and all that jazz), the stronger the insitution of marriage becomes… regardless of gender. The more people who get married for the wrong reasons (as noted above), then the weaker it becomes… regardless of gender. In the words of Regina Spektor, people are just people. I once shared a house with a committed lesbian couple, and they were disappointingly dull and domestic… lots of debates about whose turn it was to do the washing up, and few (if any) Satanic orgies.
Well, emotions certainly do run high about this issue, and I understand that I will be entirely reviled for posting this comment, but:
First, I think your characterizations are not all fair. I don't know and I doubt you do either that Palin forced her daughter to do anything. There are many, many priests who take a vow of chastity and stick to it; the evidence I have seen suggests that these are, in fact, the majority. I'm not a Christian, let alone a Catholic, but it isn't fair and certainly isn't compassionate to judge an entire group by its worst members or to make assumptions about someone's family life because you disagree with the decisions that were made. Bigotry works both ways. I don't actually think you're a bigot; I think you're upset.
Second, I think that you are assuming that the "sanctity" of marriage rests on the notion of love, but the idea of love-based marriages is relatively new in terms of human history. Marriage, in religious and secular terms, was traditionally a contract between two people (or, in many cases, two families) for various societal purposes: to sanction some pairs reproducing but not others (for example, incestuous relationships), to bind some families but not others, to encourage people to live together for economic and social reasons, and so on. So, those marriages you cite above, for economic reasons and all that, might have had traditional sanctity and not been hypocritical just because there is no love. Marriages in Japan, for the most part, are still thought of in terms of duty and family relationships and reproduction rather than love. Consequently, though Japan is a fairly un-homophobic and secular nation, gay marriage has not been sanctioned because gay marriages have not traditionally been capable of producing offspring (adoption is not popular there).
Liberals who support gay marriage tend to assume that love is the central issue or value at stake here. Conservatives don't see love as the central issue, or sometimes, as even an issue at all. Conservatives, whether they are religious or not, tend to view marriage in more traditional terms in which the purpose is not love and happiness but duty to family, reproduction, and even economic benefit.
Now, again, I'm not arguing that conservative marriages are less likely to break up than liberal ones–I haven't ever seen any data on that (the sometimes-cited statistic that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country also appears to show that Massachusetts has the lowest marriage rate in the country, and you can't very well get divorced if you don't get married). Just like I said about priests, every group has members who do not do what they say they will–bad apples, if you will–but it is unfair to characterize an entire group by its bad apples. It is even less fair to judge an entire set of values because some people who espouse those values are subject to human failing.
Usually, when I post a comment like this, people automatically assume I oppose gay marriages (I'd prefer "civil unions" but whatever), which I don't. I am a pretty conservative person, though, and my views of marriage and family are quite conservative, so I am sympathetic to conservative arguments on this subject. I'm unsympathetic to the view that anyone who loves each other should get married; if you love each other, that's great. Live together, by all means, but don't get married unless you bloody well mean it. My stance–and it's one that conservatives can sometimes relate to (much more so than just being told that they're bigots)–is that legalizing gay civil unions ideally opens the doors to a few more structured two-parent homes for children. That isn't how it always works out, of course, but it's something to shoot for.
Also, you can love someone and still cast judgment on their behavior. You can have compassion for them and still think what they do is wrong and seek to correct their behavior or punish them for it. Parents do it all the time. Many Christians, and many people who are not Christian, can and do care about people whose behavior they find immoral. Not all of them have that kind of courage, admittedly, but neither do most people in general.
I have been avoiding Vox for the very reason that I am bored silly with the US electoral process.And agree with most of what you say ~ I think the biggest danger however is that we polarise each side of the argument to the point that there is no middle ground.My ideal is that we have secular / state / legal civil unions/partnerships open to consenting adults and leave marriage to religion.
Wow. -That's quite a mouthful, and I can tell you feel strongly about this.
I didn't come here to pick sides, but to say one thing:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
(silence)
heh – I couldn't think of anyone either!
Here in California Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage was put on the ballot with out-of-state money really to try to get the lunatic fringe to the polls.It is so offensive that I can barely discuss it civilly.Apparently it will be close.I can't stand it.
Like I've told Kirk…I'm tired of all this wishy-washy stuff! When are you going to just be passionate about something????? 🙂
I just sent a contribution to the No on 8 campaign yesterday. Having said that, my take is strictly libertarian. I don't believe government has any business being involved in marriage whatsoever. I believe that, from a legal standpoint, the case law has been built up to the degree that, in order for gay committed couples to have equal rights under the law, the word marriage needs to be applied to their unions. But the ideal would be that all unions, whether gay or straight, would be civil unions only, from a legal standpoint. In other words, for legal reasons, a couple could register as having made a commitment to each other. If that couple were to then wish to be "married", in other words, joined in a secular ceremony in any religion willing to sanctify that union under the term "marriage", more power to them. That should be between them and their faith of choice.
I was personally raised in a Christian faith, Christian Science, which did not have any sort of formal marriage ceremony. I was also married in my ex-wife's church, the Maronite church, because it was important to her. I respected that it was important to her, and it was a bit of fun having the incense censers waved around us and being crowned.
But this is the United States of America. Equal rights for all under the law. And, in terms of what that means, anyone who is against gay marriage, given current legal jurisprudence as it stands, is a bigot. I mean that term as explained in the following from the so-called Free On-Line Dictionary:
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
Amen, my friend (no pun intended!!). Excellent post and thought-provoking as always.
I see that some others aren't comfortable with some of your examples, but I thank you for stating the uncomfortable truths about many of the hypocrisies that exist within religion. I don't buy for a second the argument that "as a Christian I can love the wrongdoers without judgment" Bleh. Hypocrisy at its finest. I'm tired of hearing it, and hopeful that their overinvolvement in American politics is about to come to a screeching halt.
This is exactly my take on it as well. Thanks for a great response GinBaby.
Well I personally take offense to that. I am a living example of loving despite wrong-doing. Hell, I still find things to love about my ex-husband… because I have the power to forgive and see good in everyone. Maybe you don't understand it because you don't have that same capacity? I don't know. But to assert that I cannot love someone, even if I disagree with them, is insulting.
Patricia… I LOVE that you are letting your inner voice be heard. I just wanted to say again – – GREAT job as always. I so respect your opinions and thoughts – as I ALWAYS learn from them. xoxo
No on 8. Already voted.
Patricia, you make good points. With you all the way….as I have stated before I am Liberal – I come from a very liberal country. I don’t care about your color, religion, sex, sexual orientation – be with who you choose. It infuriates me to hear people hide behind religion for their choices. I was brought up as a Catholic…and even then….we were told never to judge others….let he who is without sin cast the first stone….hmmmm isn’t their something in that statement. A comment being made re: all born with sin… I don’t believe we are all born with sin, a new born life is innocent – unless you believe in reincarnation…..then if you are preaching the bible… you are straying away from what you’re supposed to believe. Yet I digress.
If you’re gay, straight, pink, purple be with the person you want to be with….if it doesn’t work out…get out of the unhappiness and live your life, find the right person, we all make mistakes, and we make them for a reason to learn, to better ourselves and move forward.
Also, there was a statement in one of the comments about being married by the church…holy union, etc…what if you are married by a Judge….Justice of the Peace….does that mean that you have an unholy union!? Sanctity of Marriage…Holy Union…phewy –
thank you for the post. i feel the same way you do. i have been avoiding all political talk/blogs because it just ANGERS me to the point where i literally see red… but i knew i would regret it if i didn't read your post. :)there were a bunch of people holding signs and yelling at cars telling us to "protect families" and if i had been driving my car, i would've run them over. thankfully, steve was driving. hehe. i've already voted via absentee ballot… i hope my vote makes a difference…btw, i know that many conservatives who are backing mccain/palin are choosing to believe that palin is NOT "making" her daughter marry that boy… but in my opinion, at 17, you don't know much. i know there are people who marry their high school sweethearts and there's a happily ever after, but when the stakes are so high and there's a conversation between you and your high-profile mom (and your mom's handlers) i'm *pretty sure* there's really no contest as to who's going to win that debate. i mean, come on. really? okay. i think i totally rambled on that last paragraph. i'm sorry. hehe.
By stating that they're "doing wrong" you're already judging them. You've banged the gavel, even if you claim to love them. It's talking out of both sides of your mouth. Kind of like saying, "I open my heart to love you, even though you're going to hell because my God doesn't approve of your 'choice'. Too bad for you, but I'm still a good person for loving you."
I know how all of this goes. I used to be a Christian, back in the day (for the first 25 or so years of my life, anyway). I am painfully familiar with how they claim to corner the market on "love."
Always good chatting with you. 🙂
It's nice to see you here, GB. You always have a well-thought out and also passionate response. I'm going to address your arguments one at a time:
I don't know and I doubt you do either that Palin forced her daughter to do anything.
My friend, IrishLuckyLass pointed out the same. Point well taken, this is an assumption on my part, based on what I see as reasonable circumstantial evidence. The argument can be made that circumstantial evidence is not true evidence of guilt. But, that is; how OJ got away with murder in his first brush with the law. To this day he says he wasn't guilty and we can't prove he was. Nonetheless I suppose you and I have to make a judgement call on that one and this one. Based on what I hear Sarah Palin say and what I have learned she has done,and what she outwardly states she wants to accomplish, it's a logical call, and I stand my my assessment.
There are many, many priests who take a vow of chastity and stick to it; the evidence I have seen suggests that these are, in fact, the majority. I'm not a Christian, let alone a Catholic, but it isn't fair and certainly isn't compassionate to judge an entire group by its worst members or to make assumptions about someone's family life because you disagree with the decisions that were made.
Notonce did I say that all priests are bad, or Christianity is bad or Catholicism. I have very solid belivfs about God, and if you ever read my book, you will see what they are. One thing has nothing to dow itht he other. My point which I hoped was clear is that religious groups ar eagainst gay marriage because it is NOT holy. I meerely pointed ut that they are pointing fingers and judging holimness based on what sexual act, which they see as a perversion, but ignoring other genuine perversions of child abuse that are going on right under theri noses.
I think that you are assuming that the "sanctity" of marriage rests on the notion of love,
No, I'm hoping it rests on basic human decency. marrying for financial gain and for personal vanity, marrying for short term kicks don't fall into that category. My point is that gay marriage is oposed because it's not seen as decent and I'm challenging that notion by pointing out how indecent some marriages already are.
but the idea of love-based marriages is relatively new in terms of human history. Marriage, in religious and secular terms, was traditionally a contract between two people (or, in many cases, two families) for various societal purposes: to sanction some pairs reproducing but not others (for example, incestuous relationships), to bind some families but not others, to encourage people to live together for economic and social reasons, and so on.
These are contracts between people, certainly, and not unfair ones, especiallyif agreed upon by both parties.. Where is the 'holiness' in them? I still don't see it.
Liberals who support gay marriage tend to assume that love is the central issue or value at stake here.
I don't know how all Liberals see it, nor am I a Liberal. I see the idea of banning gay marriage by law as discrimination for whatever reason. It's like the drinking fountains from years past- one was for 'coloreds' and one was for 'whites' I'm sure there were a million explanations for why that seemed reasonable back in the day, too.
Conservatives don't see love as the central issue, or sometimes, as even an issue at all. Conservatives, whether they are religious or not, tend to view marriage in more traditional terms in which the purpose is not love and happiness but duty to family, reproduction, and even economic benefit.
Goody-goody for Conservatives. They can see it any way they wish, too. Nobody is legally trying to stop them from doing so. No one is legally trying to tell them they must marry for any other values than their own, or not marry because their values don't match someone else's, either
Now, again, I'm not arguing that conservative marriages are less likely to break up than liberal ones–I haven't ever seen any data on that
I have and the divorce rate is actually higher. But that's neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with my point.
. It is even less fair to judge an entire set of values because some people who espouse those values are subject to human failing.
So, what you're saying here is that I shouldn't call someone a bigot, because those who are against gay marriage and want to turn that belief into a law, a law that all Americans have to adhere to, not just those of a particular religion, are not trying to impose their beliefs on all of the United States of America? They are not trying to make my country into the stomping ground for their particular principles and no one else's? And you're saying that I shouldn't say this, or think this, because some of these people are basically "nice", even though that's exactly what they're trying to do? Sorry, Gin Baby, we're just going to have to disagree here. People who are trying to make a law against certain other people having the same legal rights they have are discriminating bigots, no matter what the reason. They might be nice about it, but let's call it what it is.
and my views of marriage and family are quite conservative, so I am sympathetic to conservative arguments on this subject. I'm unsympathetic to the view that anyone who loves each other should get married; if you love each other, that's great. Live together, by all means, but don't get married unless you bloody well mean it.
Once again, we're all entitled to our own opinions, just let's not make them into law for everyone to follow, please. And I agree with that last part, alright. Say, doesn't Bristol Palin fall under that category?
is that legalizing gay civil unions ideally opens the doors to a few more structured two-parent homes for children. That isn't how it always works out, of course, but it's something to shoot for.
I love this point, but you're right, it doesn;t always work out that way.
Also, you can love someone and still cast judgment on their behavior. You can have compassion for them and still think what they do is wrong and seek to correct their behavior or punish them for it. Parents do it all the time.
I don't need my neighbours, nor the United States government to be a "parent" That's not what government was set up for. people who see the government as their parent and any president or politican as a "father figure" are going tobe in for a lot of disappointment.At a certain age, hopefully bythe time we reach adulthood, we are proactive, reasonable and intelligent enough to not need parenting.
Many Christians, and many people who are not Christian, can and do care about people whose behavior they find immoral.
In this case, immorality is a judgment call. It's perfectly acceptable to judge homosexuality as 'immoral' just as one can judge sex before marriage immoral, or any number of other things that two consenting adults take upon themselves. Just donltturninto law, please. Sexual laws shoud be for the protection of individuals. Rape, pedophilia, those are areas where the law should step in. The others are personal preference.
Thanks for you comments, Gin. I haven't even had coffee yet and I woke up to find twenty comments here. It's a hot topic, alright.
Hmmm…
I would generally think in a sane world, (not this one) they would do things differently, but seeing as we are here… my view would be to totally separate the two things. One is a LEGAL union, i.e. subject to human laws and as such i really think that barring a few exceptions (incest possibly, violation of underage people certainly) pretty much ANY union between consenting ADULTS would be ok, including polygamy of whatever sex/combination of people.
The other is a MARRIAGE under a specific religion. So for example in most Christian denominations only a heterosexual marriage of 1:1 would be allowed. Ditto in say Hinduism (as far as I know). But not so for example in (at least some denominations of?) Islam, where more than one wife is ok (again, as far as I know).
This should finally clear it up for everyone. If things were set up that way then i would very STRONGLY object to people not allowing two gay people (or more, whatever) having a legal union. I would also similarly STRONGLY object to any gay people insisting that they should be allowed to marry in an orthodox christian religious cerimony.
Freedom should be equal for all. And some freedoms means the freedom to exclude others from certain activities unless they subscribe to the "rules" of the club. It's the same in say a martial arts class. Join one and then sue them for getting hit….it's just bullshit.
The whole argument above is actually really quite simple to resolve when one uses logic to do so, but I see from the comments that most people just emote.
There is nothing to emote about. One is a legal issue, the other a religious issue. They are separate things. Now if you are arguing that some religions should change their stance on some issues, well, that's your right…to argue it. But that will not mean that the official position of that church will change because of it.
G…you make a good point. One is a legal issue (in some states), the other religious…but aren't we supposed to live in a free country…isn't that what wars have been won and lost over – FREEDOM. Yes simply logic would solve it…but we don't live in a logical world. We live in a power hungry world that no matter how hard we try to hide it someone will always be oppressed.
;)… well… last time I checked… christian or not… just having an opinion on something didn't equal judgement. My opinion is that if God says it's a sin… just like premarital sex, cursing, and drinking to excess… then it's a sin. Guess what? I have premarital sex and have gotten drunk a time or two AND am known to use curse words. I never said that because you sin you go to Hell. Only ONE way to go to hell and that is to not believe or have faith. But again… that's my opinion. Gay or not… I do believe if it's stated by God to be a sin, then it is. But it certainly DOES NOT condemn them in my eyes or in God's eyes… HE loves us all, even if we don't love or obey him. And sinning doesn't put you to hell, else NONE of us would make it to heaven. Christian for 25 years or not… you should know that, right? I feel pretty comfortable with my faith and I know that I don't judge anyone unless I've walked in their shoes. My best guy friend in the whole world is gay and I love him dearly. I love his boyfriend. I hang out with them frequently. I think if you were to ask them, they would say I have never ONCE judged them in my life. And I've known him for about 15 years. xoxo FFA… as always you make me think about my views and how I can intelligently defend them. Thanks 🙂
Good Morning, M. You weren't rambling. You were clear. On more issues than you know, we don't disagree. I know you've been even more busy than I have, judging by your blog, but when you do get a chance to get to my book, read the part about religion.
There's only one thing where you and I disagree and that's on electing pollies that reflect our religious beliefs. Why? Because right now at this moment in time in the United States, Christianity is the prevailing religion whether people see that or not. But, what happens years from now, when, by some chance, it isn't? Would you want your gradnchildren to be struggling against another religious group's idea of what should be or not be lawful?
I lived in a country for seven years where there was no separation of church and state. Greece says it's a democracy, but one is not really considered 'Greek" in Greece, unless one is Greek-Orthodox. I know Ilias K., one of our writers,will back me on that. Children in Greece in public schools attend religion classes. If they don't want to, they are asked to sit out, there are no alternatives for that hour. Can you imagine how that makes a child feel? The small inequities go on and on.It's only recently that Greek citizens are not required to carry identity cards that state their religion. Once it's known that someone is not Greek Orthodox, they have problems. Relatively smaller problems than in other countries, I admit, but problems none the less.
After experiencing that, I came back to the United States thirsty for our Constitution, only to find that it was under seige. Separation of Church and State was put into effect for all of us, so that we could ALL practice our religious beliefs freely.If the time were to come that another religion was the predominent one in this country, I would like my civil liberties to remain just as they have always been, and not subject to the whim of who's ever in charge.
The fact that we have debates in this country such as whether or not we should have the Ten Commandments on a capital building, or if it's acceptable to have a menorah in an airport,illustrates to me how great this country's constitution is. In other countries, citizens don't have the right to fight for or against religious practices. In Greece, a fairly democratic country, there are no menorahs in public airports.Certainly not. If you read Alex's blog, read about her struggles being Greek Orthodox and marrying a Jew. The couple is madly in love, so well-suited, and have come up with some lovely compromises,regarding their religion. Their children will be lucky because they will get to experience two religions and the customs that come with each. If done correctly, they will grow to be more tolerant of different groups than most of us can ever hope to be. And yet, she goes to her marriage with a bit of heaviness in her heart, worried. Is that what religion should bring us?
I taught in public school in New York for many years. In one school, we had a principal who demanded all children say the Pledge. In my classroom, I certainy demanded that all my pupils stand silently and respectfully for the Pledge and allowed those of us who wanted to say it out loud, to say it. But I never forced a Pledge out of someone, can you imagine? It makes a mockery of what the very Pledge says. Further, Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to say the Pledge, as their religion dictates that they pledge only to God. I wasn't tenured yet, I could have lost my post, and my family badly needed the income. Still, I fought that principal and WON because of our Constitution. As it stands, it protects ALL religions, and all non-secular rights. A ban like this one is an insiduous step towards other bans. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are dying and you are one of the people who believe we are protecting our rights and freedoms by doing so. We fight there against facist regimes, only to come home and slowly spoon-feed the same sort of dogma to our population.
When it comes to politics we have to think beyond the issue, the moment, we have to think three steps ahead. If there is a gay marraige ban, what next? When will we become the same sort of goverment we fight now in Iraq?
That's what I resent most, I think, that good religious people are being manipulated by their faith by politicans who have a entirely different agenda, which is to take the power of goverment away from the citizens and allow them to "parent" us.And you know, there's no more benevolent dictator than a parent, but he is still a dictator nonetheless.
That's why I am so hard pressed for what to write. I don't condemn those who are religious, who have faith, as some do, saying that religious are all mean-spirited and selfish, I know that's not true. But, at the same time, I think religious conservatives are naive, because they are capable of having such a strong faith in God and the hereafter,that they have somehow placed that same capability for faith onto their politicans. They have faith in God, and so they have faith in the president. These must be two separate things. God is God, and a man is a man, no matter what position in life he holds.I believe that's what Jesus Chtrist meant when he said, "give what is due to Caesar to Caesar and give what is due to Me to Me".
The bible also states that "the devil will come from the sea of politics." I wrote about this a long time ago, albeit in a humourous way, that the devil (or "evil" for those who prefer that term) found a clever way to make religion work for him. He does it through politics.The same 'liberals' who want to fight a ban on gay marriage had better and should fight a ban against people having the freedom to practice their religions as they see fit I know I would, because we have a right to any religion in this country, as we have a right to have none, if we so choose.
But that won't last long if a ban on gay marriage is passed for 'religious reasons'. Today a law is passed for religious reasons, then another and another until there is not one civil right left, the very thing our soldiers fight for. Yes, the devil has confused those who see politicians as a way to gain religious freedom, It's really quite the opposite, to my mind.
How were you able to say in three sentences what took just me five times as long to jwrite? Good lord, I need an editor for everything I write. Now I know why mine was tearing her hair out when I was writing my book.
[This is brilliant] Gee, are all Martians as smart as you are? ; )
I bet you just can't wait to get back to your planet.
I agree with ya hon… I don't want a goverment that parent's us either. And I don't vote based on religious principles. I vote based on economic and security issues, which is what our government was created to maintain. NOT moral issues. I do not support a ban on gay marriages… I think it should be mandated by the state and the voters within. If you don't like your state's stance on it … move to another state that is more in line with what fits your moral beliefs. Just as people who want to practice poligamy do better to live in the state of Utah. It's not legal, persay, but its most definitely tolerated.
I don't WANT my government to tell anyone who they can worship or have sex with or what they can do with their body. But I also don't want my goverment taking money from hard-working Americans that educated and worked hard to get where they are so that they can give it to those that have made a career out of living off handouts. I don't want to live in a country that even teaters on the brink of espousing socialist policies. That's why I am voting the way I am. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, abortion or whether my kids can pray in school (they will anyways).
I think we have a lot of views in common my friend. And I certianly would not have wanted to live in Greece or any other country that treated religion as a mandatory conviction instead of the God-given right that it is.
I tell you…it's a problem. Still looking for my spaceship…and the all female nymphomaniac, superhotties, bisexual crew that goes with it. Martian spaceships only work that way…it's the LAW :)))
Amen sister!! Patricia, honestly! Where we live, I see people holding out signs to vote to make gay marriage against the law and I just want to cry, go out and hit them with the signs.. a whole host of emotions go through my mind and body.
Wow, this world would be so different if people actually married simply because they loved each other and wanted to be with each other for the rest of their lives
I agree with all you've written here except this:
we still get labelled the 'backwards hicks' of the north. The jokes not on us! LOL!
I don't see you that way and I don't know any other American who does, either.
Please keep in mind thatthe population of Canada is around 34 million, whilst the population of the United States is around 300 million, if I'm not wrong. That makes us ten times larger, ten times more likely to make mistakes, ten times more likely to havesmall-minded people. But in the same way it's small-minded to call an entire nation "backward hicks of the north', it's small minded to assume everyone down here is the same, or would even say such a thing.We are an amazingly diverse society. There is no such thing as one American profile. (One of the very thigns I address in my book)
Do I sound testy? I hope not. I don't know what's wrong with me today, I think I'm tired and stressed.
Wasn't that unbelievable? I hope his daughter is very proud of him. San Diego is a very conservative part of the state. That took a lot of courage and probably cost him his job..
Hi, Chezz. What is Australia's position on it? I follow your politics much more closely now since meeting you and Snowy and Peter, etc, but I'm not up on this……
Now you've gone and done, it Vik. The Equal Rights for Women and Marsupials group are picketing right outside my door! As it's Halloween here, I've only got bags of candy to offer, and I don't think that's going to appease them.
; )
Thank you, Snowy. But, I wish you'd be clearer on your viewpoints. Soemtimes it's hard to follow your cryptic political statements. ; D
By the way, I love what you're doing over at your blog. The polls are very, very close, you know.
With astute and colourful comments like these, is it any wonder I put you on my 'sex bomb' list?
My ideal is that we have secular / state / legal civil unions/partnerships open to consenting adults and leave marriage to religion.
That's what we do have here in the US. To be recognised as a married couple and file taxes as such by the government, one has to have a state civil union (or marriage) license. To be recognised as married by a religion, one also has to have a religious ceremony. The religious groups already ban gan couples to marry under religious law. Conservatives want to make those secular unions issued by the states illegal. A clear overlap of church and state.
But, you're right. I'm sick of this whole thing, too. I can't wait till Nove 4 for so many reasons.
Thanks so much for commenting. Your thoughts are always so intelligent.
Wasn't that unbelievable? I hope his daughter is very proud of him. San Diego is a very conservative part of the state. That took a lot of courage and probably cost him his job.. His daughter and family would be so proud of him.Hi, Chezz. What is Australia's position on it? I follow your politics
much more closely now since meeting you and Snowy and Peter, etc, but
I'm not up on this……We are very slow here in getting this situation a lot fairer. To be honest I can't understand why our country is lagging behind on this issue, as we are very similar to Canada in how liberal we are.Well here is where we are at. One little territory (ACT – smaller than a state) tried to put through same-sex marriage and the federal govt prevented it.In most states now same-sex couples can register their relationship at a registry office to give them some legal rights.At the moment federal legislation is being considered and will probably be passed so that both heterosexual and same-sex de facto relationships will be given the same legal rights as a married couple if the relationship breaks down. This legislation will be Australia wide once passed.Pre nups are also being considered in the legislation for all de facto couples.Also child custody is another issue being considered at the moment for same-sex couples should the couple split.At present we are no where near accepting civil unions, let alone same-sex marriage. Very disappointing given how much of a secular country we are.I see you have had a busy time of it, I can see why you haven't been game to say too much about politics leading up to this election, as you would be swamped trying to reply to all of the comments.
amazing post…. 🙂
I would just like to raise a few points of my own if you don't mind Patricia.I am unsure of how many people get married in a church and how many people are married outside of a church in America. But in Australia the trend is that church weddings are declining and weddings conducted by non-religious celebrants in a non-religious setting are increasing.Australian stats:63 percent of couples choosing a civil
celebrant to officiate their marriage, compared to 20 years ago when almost 60
percent of marriages conducted were by a religious minister. Church Weddings Down Again 1st Oct 2008So I guess my point is are 63% of Australian marriages less holy than those conducted in a church? If they are less holy, should we call these marriages something else to distinguish them from the sanctified marriages?If marriage is defined as a union blessed by God, then where does it leave the 63% of Aussies not married in the church? What should we refer to their marriage as? An unholy marriage. What about other religions which do not believe in God, such as Buddhists. If they get married, is their marriage less holy than a Christian church wedding? If so, then should we not be terming their marriage by another term?If people are considered equal then they are entitled to the same rights. To only allow a same-sex couple the right to a civil union and not a marriage is not equal rights at all. There is a discrimination, as one type of union that being marriage is deemed superior by the community at large. If in fact a marriage and a civil union are legally equal, then they should both be referred to as marriage for there to be true equal rights.Same-sex couples should have the right to be married in a secular civil service if they do not belong to a supportive church community and in a church if they do belong to a supportive church community.No one is forcing churches to conduct these marriage ceremonies, that will be a matter for individual denominations to decide upon. The RCC does not generally recognise divorce and no state body forces the RCC to recognise divorce. So no state body is at all likely to force churches to conduct a same-sex marriage service if the church is against it. I cannot imagine a same-sex couple wanting to be married in a church on their special day by someone who does not fully support their marriage.
Usually, when I post a comment like this, people automatically assume I oppose gay marriages (I'd prefer "civil unions" but whatever), which I don't.I am curious why you prefer "civil unions" over gay marriage if you believe same-sex couples deserve the same equal rights as heterosexual couples? The two are not equal, if they were they would both be called marriage.
Sure, except that pretty much everybody I've ever met from the US has at some point made fun first… and then never said anything nice about my nation… truth. There's a general consensus up here that nobody in the US even knows anything about Canada. And we fight in Afghanistan! Anyways, I suppose the billions down there equates to a higher probability that we up here won't meet the smart ones (except on Jeopardy). It's a good thing that the online revolution has brought smarter people like you closer and given us hope, but the past and the bias burns deep… really deep and… well… I'm very inebriated from a night of halloweening! Weeeee! I don't have one close friend or aquaintance who has much of anything to say on the US that isn't negative. Sorry to say folks, you have a shit-ass reputation globally, even right next door. But hey, you've gotta have a sense of humour… and we do.
Well, because to me, "marriage" is best understood as a religious term while "civil unions" would be a more secular-legal term. Marriage, in terms of what religions choose to sanction or not sanction, I don't think should be the business of the state. Civil unions should. Since I wasn't married in a church and I don't believe in God or any other god, it would be fine with me to say that me and my husband are civilly unionized rather than married, although it sounds awkward and probably we would informally continue to say we were married.
I guess I have an idea that it isn't the business of the state to tell religions what they must or must not accept, just as it isn't the business of religions to tell the state what to do. Pragmatically, too, I think this argument is more convincing to religious traditionalists, many of whom do understand the civil rights arguments involved but have religious objections. So, couples could choose to be both married and civilly unionized, or just one or the other, although if they did not get it legally documented and recognized they would fail, probably, to have the legal rights and privileges conferred on the civilly unionized.
I don't know…perhaps this is unnecessarily complicated, but it seems to me a compromise position that could work and disentangle state and church business in the partnership of two people.
I can tell you haven't had your coffee.
Well, you say that one group wants to make all the country adhere to their point of view, but that's essentially what all groups want to do. You don't like discrimination, but not only is discrimination–moral and otherwise–necessary in life, you have done it, too, in that very comment. You have judged Sarah Palin and heaven knows how many other people for, basically, not agreeing with you. For myself, I'd have to say that most family relationships are such that I have no way to know what happened in their family. What I will say about Sarah Palin, whom I in no way support politically, is that she has been more supportive and less judgmental of Bristol in public than many people have, including you. Thankfully, Obama at least had the guts and the integrity to leave that alone as well. What she says to her in private is something I am not privy to, and I don't care to make that kind of assumption about people.
I've spent most of this election cycle writing about this very thing. You have focused on your idea of what constitutes "holiness" without, as far as I can tell, any determination that it is the only one out there. On most issues in this country, we have two "sides" and neither of those sides will bother to try to actually understand the other side's views, and, consequently, we remain in so many ways a country divided when this is a time when we should certainly be pulling together. Of course, I've been growing more and more pessimistic about us being able to come together as a nation, because we don't listen to each other, and, more than that, we don't take the time to debate calmly and reasonably. Instead, we go for the big emotions–we get upset, offended, outraged, scared of what the other side does and is, and totally sure of our own point of view sometimes to the point of self-righteousness.
I am not going to respond to you point by point, because I can't really argue with emotion.
Finally, I knew you were going to say that about the parents. I should have chosen another example, because I can think of plenty. Perhaps you couldn't think of a person you loved who has done something bad that you believed deserved punishment yet you still cared for them. I can think of several in my own life, my father among them. And, please, while occasionally one of the old holdover sodomy laws still pops up on state or local books somewhere, these are virtually nonexistent and not enforced anymore. Homosexuals are not prohibted in this country from loving or having sex with any consenting adult they choose, even living with them. Whether or not they can marry them and gain the privileges (and responsbilities) that heterosexual married people have is not the same thing as a "sexual" law.
The growing trend here in Australia is that people are not getting married in a church or by a member of the clergy; but we still call it getting married because that is what it is.In a country where there is a separation between church and state then
the church does not have sole rights to the term "marriage" and I
certainly don't associate it with religion. I think many churches have
done an excellent job in convincing people that marriage is solely the
domain of the church.From looking at US marriage law every legal marriage is a civil
marriage and if you get married in a church you also have the religious
side to the marriage ceremony. But the only reason clergy can legally
conduct a marriage ceremony is because the clergy have been granted the
authority by the state to endorse the marriage licence. As you indicated you were not married in a church, but wouldn't your union still be referred to as a marriage i.e. a civil marriage and not a civil union? Then once married you would just call it a marriage because that is what it legally is.I understand your point that you wouldn't care if you called your marriage a civil union, but you would have that choice. Where as a same-sex couple would not have that choice if civil unions were their only option. Once the choice has been removed then it becomes discrimination. Their licence would say "Civil Union" and not "Civil Marriage" or "Marriage" full stop. You are right the state has no authority over a church to make them marry a gay couple and that is not the state's intention if it grants same-sex couples the right to be married. There are churches willing to marry same-sex couples they just need the legal permission to be able to do so. There are same-sex Christian couples who want to be married in a church, but the state won't allow them to be married, so for them a civil union just isn't the same. As I said in a previous comment:Same-sex couples
should have the right to be married in a secular civil marriage service if they
do not belong to a supportive church community and in a church if they
do belong to a supportive church community.No
one is forcing churches to conduct these marriage ceremonies, that will
be a matter for individual denominations to decide upon. The RCC does
not generally recognise divorce and no state body forces the RCC to
recognise divorce. So no state body is at all likely to force churches
to conduct a same-sex marriage service if the church is against it.
I cannot imagine a same-sex couple wanting to be married in a church on
their special day by someone who does not fully support their marriage.People are not equal unless they have the same legal rights.I don't know…perhaps this is unnecessarily complicated, but it seems
to me a compromise position that could work and disentangle state and
church business in the partnership of two people.I I understand what you are saying. You are trying to find a middle way. The only problem is many same-sex couples don't see it as a middle way, they see it as if their love and commitment to their genuine relationship is inferior to a heterosexual couple and as you know there are good and bad relationships no matter what sexual orientation you are.Anyway I have rambled on for far too long.Cheers.
Mm, but legally and morally, what would be the difference?
This is an argument about semantics, really, what words mean. What they mean now doesn't have to be what they always mean, and the two are theoretically separable both in legal and religious terms. Already, the religion I was baptized in would say that I am not married in the eyes of God because my marriage was not in a church or sanctioned by any religious official. Being married in the eyes of the law and being married in the eyes of the church are often already separate, so why not make it official? Besides, as I said, from a pragmatic standpoint, more people support "gay civil unions" than "gay marriage" and, again, so long as a civilly recognized marriage and a civilly recognized union had the same legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges, what is the moral difference here? You say that gays may not have the option to "marry" but I don't find this a compelling argument because it would not involve any state discrimination. Besides, it would seem to be the case that some churches will eventually come around and offer that option, even if they have to start a new church for it. Like I said, I have seen no compelling reason to ask churches to revise their restrictions on marriage, whatever you may think about those restrictions. The state has a different set of obligations to its citizens, and that is supposed to be the crux of the matter, yes?
Besides, it would seem to be the case that some churches will eventually come around and offer that option, even if they have to start a new church for it.As I stated the option is already there in some churches, it is the state preventing the issue of a marriage licence. Plus as it stands now if civil unions for same-sex couples are approved by the state, the couple can have a church blessing but they still can't be termed as being married because the state won't allow that. However a heterosexual couple can be married in a church (i.e. be blessed by the church) and come out with a marriage licence and not a civil union – so how exactly is that fair?Being married in the eyes of the law and being married in the eyes of
the church are often already separate, so why not make it official?
So what you are saying is in fact anyone married outside of a church
should receive a civil union licence and not a marriage licence. So you are giving into the church bodies who are against recognising a civil marriage of any description.Like I said, I have seen no compelling reason to ask churches to revise
their restrictions on marriage, whatever you may think about those
restrictions.I haven't said churches need to revise their rules – I said some already have revised their rules.Besides, as I said, from a pragmatic standpoint, more people support
"gay civil unions" than "gay marriage" and, again, so long as a civilly
recognized marriage and a civilly recognized union had the same legal
rights, responsibilities, and privileges, what is the moral difference
here? .But they do not have the same legal rights because they cannot get a marriage licence even if they are blessed by their church. Also what is the moral difference in letting them call it a marriage and not a civil union then? Why cannot the reverse be the same? As I said the church does not have the monopoly on the word "marriage" Just because more people support "civil unions" over same-sex marriages doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the courts need to step in as they did in California, to look closely at the laws and make unbiased, educated decisions rather than let the mob rule. If the US waited for the majority to be in favour of interracial marriage then that would not have been allowed by law until close to the early 1990s. Perhaps interracial marriages should have been known by some other name other than "marriage" until the majority came around so as not to offend the majority. What they mean now doesn't have to be what they always meanThat's right so now it is time to allow gay marriage to occur in these enlightened times. Time for a change.
I wish I could retract my last comment. I barely remember writing it.
[isto é bom]
I'd love to make a joke about this, because I know you so well, and in fact, Pete and I were just sitting here coming up with snappy "American" responses, and laughing at our own jokes,but I have a feeling you won't find it funny right now. I'm happy to delete it it, if it really bothers you, but it wasn't all that terrible. I guess we'll just have to prove you wrong one day. : )
I suppose we're all a little emotional some times eh? You don't have to delete my comments.
I suppose we're all a little emotional some times eh?
Tell me about it! I'm so sick of this f*cking election and what it's doing to people. Though I stand by what I wrote here, I just wish it wasn;t so upsetting for people. I swear, next post is going to be so relaxing and benign. Somethign to make people laugh and connect ,rather than get their insides twisted up…I know we have to do that sometimes, in order to grow and improve, but it's been non-stop for months, now
Well… you need to do what makes you happy and what works to gain insight. I think you are an amazing writer and I love that the people who comment here are so well written as well. the comments from people like Irish Lucky Lass and so many others are just so insightful and well thought out… and respectful. People here learn from you and from each other despite emotions and I LOVE that. You should chair a symposium some day 😉 Anyways, I look forward to all of your posts regardless of topic. This is a safe and beautiful blog with so many fine people… it's dizzying sometimes the number of comments you garner and the number of them you respond to with such care. I could gush some more but I'm a little hung over at the moment and need to go make a pot of coffee! 😀 What a great Halloween out last night! Happy November first, it's my sister's Birthday today so more late autumn parties tonight!love, x
I can't wait to meet you, honestly.. We're going to have some interesting talks, but you know what? I want to have some fun, too! I am so sick of all this sh*te. Even though I know we need to expound on these topics, hear other people's perspectives in order to grow, etc. etc. and blah blah. it's been, as I just told Michelle, non-stop for months. It's so stressfula nd I have been working so hard on top,that it's just affected me in a negative way. Onestly it has, and I see itin others, too.
Last night, for the first time in a loong time, we just had fun. No work, just all play.We had friends over, I made two cakes and we ate ourselves sick. We even had costumes on. (I was some sort of dragon thing with wings,though nobody could tell that's what it was. I got it at Target an it had been marked down to 20 bucks. I never had a costume with wings before, It was so cool)
I agree that the 'get from the rich to give to the poor' is a democrat ideal that borders on socialism. But what we have now is a socialism at the top, capitalism at the bottom policy going on. TWhat I mean is that the banks were all bailed out with our tax dollars. That's socialism. And there was nothing put in the argreement that the banks would have to reinvest those dollars back into the economy by giving out loans. That's stupidity.
Citibank actually had the nerve to say, "We're just going to sit on these dollars for a while." It's outrageous. We just bailed out the richest in the nation.. It's like my kid, in college. We give him a budget, he spends it the way a 20-year old does—irresponsibly–then comes to us with his head hanging down, saying, "I spent all my money.Can you help?"
Grrr.
Well, at least in that case, it's my own flesh and blood and not a bank CEO. Ironically, my husband and I are in the income bracket that means we will be taxed higher on Obama's plan. Yet, we're still voting for him. And I have a feeling that when whoever gets into office, all our taxes are going to be raised, despite what they say now, because there is just NO money left and you know, they have to get it somewhere. They can say anythig until they're actually in there. They've done it before.
But, I misunderstood from one of your posts and thought you were voting because of your religious convictions. I think because I do have religious beliefs that are strong, I want them protected by virtue of keeping them out of the equation of goverment entirely. So kudos to you.
Did I ask you if Jenna got her tee? I have to come over and see your blog today. I bet you have the kids costumes posted. I can't wait to see them.
You have really spent alot of time writing out your thoughts on this, not only to me but to other people here. and I thank you for that. It's an honor. I can tell I upset you with some of my responses and I'm really sorry for that. It's a hot topic issue and I think all of us are stretched to the breaking point with this bloody election, so if I didn't respond with as much care and respect as I should have, my apologies again.
I just have to tell you I'm so proud of myself because I took some time off yesterday, I ate carrot cake and we wore costumes and we had friends over. We laughed and joked. I haven't done that in too long. So, I know what you mean about celebrating a bit too hard. I don't have a hangover but I'm still full of carrot cake and I had another piece today! Sugar shock, anyone? : )
"It's a bit like the masses of the favelas in Brazil: if they wanted to take over the government, trust me, they more than could, and would be doing a hell of a good job. But, like with the gay people, the great institutions of the world have convinced them they can't"
Boy, is this the truth.
I don't know about why you might be keeping your ex-husband's last name, but there are many reasons to keep it that I can think of that are not so nefarious. I keep my ex's last name as my middle one now, because it is my son's last name and I don't want him to feel excluded in a house of Davis's. I also wrote professionally under that name the whole twenty years we were married, so now essentially, I'm somewhat recognised by it as an author.
Speaking of, thank you so much for your kinds works about my book. They mean the world to me.
This is a well-thought out response, Chezz. Thank you for posting this comment here.
Time to leave this discussion.However Ginbaby, I think we have established that at this point in time you cannot say you are in favour of "gay marriage," because as you have explained you are actually in favour of "same-sex civil union" and the two are not the same. There is nothing wrong with having that personal opinion, as you have a right to your opinion.A summary:This is a state issue and not a church issue, as it is the state who is not willing to grant same-sex couples a civil marriage licence with or without the church blessing. Once the state has resolved its issue on same-sex marriage, it will then be up to each indivdual church denomination whether they choose to allow a same-sex couple to be married in their church – that is a church matter and some churches have already decided either in favour or against this matter. The state is not stepping over the separation of church and state boundary by granting lgbt people a civil marriage licence. At present every couple who is married in the US is granted a "Civil Marriage Licence" irrespective of whether their marriage is blessed/recognised by a church. The word "marriage" does not belong to the church because if it did then there would be no such thing as a "Civil Marriage Licence."Also words and terminology do matter. Perhaps the word "marriage" is not that big of a deal in your mind, but it is a big deal to many people whether they are heterosexual or lgbt, religiously or secularly minded. Ask an Australian Indigenous person whether words matter and you will soon discover as all Australian citizens discovered, there is a big difference between saying "sorry" or expressing "regret" for past actions. For over a decade our former Prime Minister (PM) would only express "deep regret" for past actions, but it was not what the Indigenous people needed to hear, they needed to hear the word "Sorry" because it has great signifcance in their culture. Our country could not begin to heal wounds because of one simple word and finally we elected a new PM and he said, "Sorry" and the healing could begin.I promised someone I would comment on their abortion post so I must leave this post. "Out of the frying pan, into the fire"Thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion with you.Keep healthy.
Sweet! Sugar is good… except for those of us who are hypoglycemic… ugh..Well… I'm out the door yet again, have a wonderful relaxing sugar-shocked evening Patricia! 🙂 x
Oh, no! Not abortion after all this? Aren't you supposed to be resting? Whose post is it? Is it Natasha's, that little minx? Let me know where you're going and I'll follow you. As Michelle and I were just discussing, I'm on sugar overload today anyway…..
Very informative, Chezz. It's nice knowing so much about Australia, as I'm sure Australians know more about the US than they probably even care to! ; )
Hi Dk!
I could swear I heard a rock being cast somewhere…Who threw it? ; D
But, you're right. It was a mouthful. I'm not sure whether it was good or bad to let it out. I keep lots of these thoughts locked up, seething inside me…If I were a great musician, like you, I could sing them out….
Where in Cali are you? Why can't I find that on your blog? Am I losing my eyesight, as well as my mind? You mean we're neighbours, sort of? Cool!
Thank you very much. I always appreciate it so much when you say you enjoy my posts. : )
The abortion post is on another friend of yours blog. I will rest up before heading over there, I haven't had breakfast yet. No not Nat, she is too busy enjoying herself with a high tea at Windsor Castle in the UK. I will send you a PM saying where it is as I don't want this person to be flooded by too many comments.As for knowing about the US, at the moment I am starting to think it is my second home ;-)Thanks heaps for posting this post – this issue is one of my pet issues.
she is too busy enjoying herself with a high tea at Windsor Castle in the UK
Seriously? Good for Nat! I hope she writes about it for HS!
BTW-this is one of my pet peeves, too. Could you have guessed?
I know, I know! And I'm sorry. I'm notoriously wishy-washy. BTW- I might have already mentioned this over at your blog, but my my husband loved Snapshots at St. Arbuck's. And he never even drinks coffee in there!
Hi!
No, I think it was GOOD to "let it out". -Otherwise, it sits inside you, festering like a runaway boil.
I might be able to create a song, someday, on this subject, but didn't Melissa Etherige just about cover it all?
😉
My husband would LOVE that dictionary. You just saved me having to rack my brain for a Xmas pressie. He's notoriously hard to shop for and I always end up getting him somethign to wear.
Yes, marriage ceremonies are fun for their pomp and ritual circumstance.
As you know, since you were brought up here, I am living in a very liberal part of the country. And yet, today, at Fairfax Health Club (Center Blvd., just to refresh your memory) someone said that homosexuals are a different "species" and that because of that, they shouldn't be "allowed" to marry. I nearly fell off the treadmill. Makes me wonder how many people who say they are not bothered that Obama is black are not telling the truth. We'll know shortly. Oh, and I just thought of something for which I'm going to send you a private message in a bit…
Hypocrisy at its finest. I'm tired of hearing it, and hopeful that their overinvolvement in American politics is about to come to a screeching halt.
Thanks for your support and for writing this. I wish I knew how we let it get this far. This is not what American politics is supposed to be. It's not what it was designed for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
Do you know I hated having to memorise those words as a little girl, because I had no idea the what they meant, or the fact that I was lucky enough to live in a country that, as a female, afforded me the protection to be bored with my studies and rather than be ostracised from them,to take them and the entire voting process as well as my rights for granted.
After what I have witnessed going on in this country for the last eight years since I returned to it , after I have seen these very liberties written by our country's forefathers eroded under the guise of our safety, after I have seen my country's citizens divided by fear and suspicion, I WILL NEVER EVER take them for granted again, nor will I ever find those words BORING nor forget them, EVER, till my death. And I will speak out always for any American citizen who is not afforded the same rights as I.
That's it. Short and sweet honey. Thanks!
BTW- do you guys ever get up this way? How far is it by car?
I LOVED THIS! Especially the "phewy" part.
Thanks for stopping by, Just Me. Thanks so much for writing this.
My goodness, but didn't you just stir things up!!! BTW, that link you provided was dead. Not sure what happened. Maybe send it again?
Still looking for my spaceship…and the all female nymphomaniac, superhotties, bisexual crew that goes with it. Martian spaceships only work that way…it's the LAW :)))
Boy, you must be really sorry you misplaced that spaceship!
When you start to say who can do what when it comes to consenting adults you go down the line of segregation, alienation, inequality, and hate. It is no one else's business what two CONSENTING ADULTS agree to in marriage. PERIOD. They have the right to be just as happy or miserable as anyone else.
The world would be different if all people had someone who they really lvoed and who loved them. Sometimes youhave to settle for a pet, but they are the least judgmental of all. They don't care if you're gay or straight, either. Sometimes I think dogs are more like the a true God than people. They are non-judgmental, they put your well-being before their own, they are happy when you are, they don't ask for much and theylove you unconditionally. Hey god spelled backwards and all that. (Although, cats are great,too!)
http://www.patriciavdavis.com/links_and_quotes_
This is the link, R.G. as far as I know. It's my personal site. Every month, I choose a quote by a writer who I admire and it gets postedthere with the writer's name. I chose your quote this month, because I loved what you wrote on your blog today about the election results. They will be words to stand by on November 4th for all of us, whether our candidate or the other guys' wins or doesn't..
Thanks for the way you think and write.It's a blessing for humankind. I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
LOL! She probably did. Funny, DK. ; D
Yes she seriously is at Windsor Castle, I am sooooo jealous.I think I did gathered this is one of your pet peeves and well done to you for helping our fellow brothers and sisters try and obtain equal rights.Oh that's right I need breakfast – gone………..
[isto é bom]
Hehe, I'm more of a cat person than a dog person. I think they're a bit more independent than dogs are
; ) I remember very well that you are a cat person, that's why I wrote that, I was teasing you. Though I am coming to appreciate dogs more and more, as most of my neighbours have one and they're all very likeable, I have always had cats, too. The last one I had was when I lived in Greece. If I had one here, I'm afraid one of the mountain lions would make a snack out of it.
Ha! I didn't remember saying anything about that, but I'm glad you remembered =)Coyotes enjoy cats as well. We have to worry more about them than mountain lions, but the big cats have wandered down before
I remembered that I wore my wedding rings until 2003, when I had to get them out to go into surgery, they had to cut them at the jewelers…to me that was like a sign…
Now that would be a great way to start a book. Yes, I would see it that way,too.
Well, I appreciate that you respect me enough that you would tell me if you didn't like it.Especially, as I'm using you as a character in my nex t one, I think you have a special right to a critique! ; )
Hey- maybe I should have my Cynthia in my new story do that, cut off her wedding rings? Hmmmm. It's dramatic and perfect for her character….
But, even your latest post mentions them. I'm sorry about Merlin, btw. It's so hard to lose a pet.
Thanks! -Funny was my intent there!
-Glad I could put a small smile on your face for a second!
🙂
Heh, there was a reason for them to be mentioned today. She had that cat for at least 8 or 9 years. He was a few years old before he was adopted. And yes, it is really hard to lose a pet, even if you have it for a couple of years
yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Patricia… the blog is written for the lay person. But I do have the scientific evidence as you know I do alot of medical research.
The Sanctity of marriage,yeah right. Bill Clinton has been known to say that exact phrase but he held a whorehouse in the whitehouse. Your right Patricia to stay away from this issue because its just a statement from alot of people who throw it out to sound faithful to there marriage when they are the worst offenders. In these times marriage has turned to how much money you can get to how long do I have before he or she dies before they change there will. I have actually been dating recently and the last woman said she would marry me after a weekend,after she said that I accidently realised she went through me bankbook and other papers. In my opinion very few believe in the sanctity of marriage and you need to be very careful,man or woman when marriage is talked about. Roboter
I understand it's an emotional issue for many people, but part of the reason we can't come to compromises on issues like this is because one can't really argue with or about strong feelings. I try to remain dispassionate about issues precisely because it's the only way to work with people, understand where they're coming from and work toward a compromise solution. Otherwise, we all just end up shouting at each other, which is what we tend to do a lot of in America and I find it counterproductive. I've had a lot of problems with Obama, but one thing I like about him is the way he has taken big emotional issues and defused them by being rational and technical. Most people seem to understand and sympathize with the civil-rights concerns involved in the gay marriage debate, but for a wide variety of reasons they end up opposing it. That's one of several reasons I think we should defuse the situation by not talking about "marriage" but about civil rights. It doesn't give some people everything they want–they don't get the language of "marriage" mainly–but they get the equal rights. Maybe that isn't a perfect solution, but it's a compromise and most compromises aren't perfect for either side–that's the nature of compromise. Certainly, women and African-Americans can understand from their own battles for civil rights that you usually don't get everything in one package. It's not fair, I suppose, but life isn't fair. Until human nature and the nature of states undergoes some sea change, I expect that to continue to be the way it goes.
Have you seen what has happened to your reply here? VOX has some strange flukes going on for sure. I can't read your comment because there is something wrong with the HTML. It's getting really frustrating this. I have been trying to respond pn Mrs. Peel's blog and I can't post my coments there for some reason. I'll see if it fixes itself.
That's terrible, Craig. I really sorry to hear that a woman tried to take advantage of you. Luckily, you found it out. It's the second time this has happened and it's really not fair. I'm angry on your behalf. Maybe it's a good idea to take things very slowly, no matter how much you like a person, just to get to know for sure what kind of person they really are? It takes some time to tell when somebody likes us just for 'us', or for what they think they can get from us.
Standing ovation for this one. I could not agree more. It makes me so angry when any part of society thinks it has the right to exclude another part – same goes for women's bodies and their right to an abortion – we watched a close friend of ours die a distressing death from Aids, but it was also so beautiful watching his partner, whom he met after being diagnosed, care for him. Why they should be denied the same rights as others just stuns me. What are people so frightened of that they mus regulate others so much?
What are people so frightened of that they must regulate others so much?
This is really what is at the bottom of it all, I think. It's nice to get this comment, on many levels, In particular because it's 4:30 a.m here and I have the worst case of insomnia. I've been up for over two hours. What time is it there, BTW?
it is 11 pm! Hope you sleep well soon!
You seem up late, too! Get a good night's sleep…
Patricia… Ill email you the link ok?
Patricia, you brave, brave woman. A topic like this just days before the election. Personally i feel the government needs to stay out of it and let the people chose their own path. Marriage regardless of sexual orientation should be the same across the board to do anything different is to deny one group of people religious freedom.
I didn't MISPLACE IT!! I tell you I was dumped here by a faction of warring Martian Houses obviously. And they tried to mess with my memories so I'd think I was a Terran….Obviously I am meant to run a Galactic Empire somewhere and they thought best to get rid of me by dropping me off here on this backwater planet….
It's only a matter of time before I get my rightful vengeance…and the starship..etc. etc…
It's good that your mind is strong enough that you haven't lost all of your memories of Mars, that you've fought the brainwashing….Keep up the good fight G. Your Martian people are waiting in hope for your return, I'm sure…
: D
That's exactly how I feel about it, Indiana. It's the only truly American thing to do. We'll find out how the majority of our country feels about this in two more days. We just have to hang tight until then and maybe maybe keep fighting for it afterwards…whoknows. Thank you so much for you comment and for stopping by.
Very well said and once again, thanks for your comments and your thought-provoking stance. It was a pleasure seeing your name on my blog.
Thanks for the link, I will have look at it tonight when I get home. I wonder if I am going to see you Saturday?
Yes, Im planning to come! I wouldn't miss it!
I am so glad I asked you! May I introduce you to the audience before I read? Or would you prefer that I not draw attention to you that way? I am planning to introduce a number of special people…
Sure honey whatever you'd like… 🙂 Id be honored to be a part of your special day! Wow… really Im so flattered!
Wonderful! I will introduce you as a very special inspirational writer from VOX and Harlots Sauce Radio and friend (and you are all of those things)
(Sigh) I just hope everyone likes the food. Even more important than whether they like the book or not! ;D
WOW/ That's all I can say. We will arrange a book signing there, for sure, My husband has never been to London and he's keen to go. (We'd stay at a hotel, though, so worries there.) I wish I could get all our kids to go on a trip with us. They are all too old now and working, etc. It's a really big deal that I managed to get them all here for this Xmas coming up I can't wait.
I wish you would do a book signing in Dallas!! 🙂
Once again you tell it like it is!Be great to meet if you did come over to LondonStick it to them girl and fear NO ONE!
I would LOVE to see Dallas. I's all a possibility.A lot stems on what happens at the launch here this weekend. Thanks, friend, for your encouragment and support.
Thanks, B. I actually don't fear anyone that I can think of atthe moment. ; )
You mentioned you'd also published a book. Would you please take a minute to tell me about it? You know we do book reviews at our magazine….
Well, it is called The Sound of Money and it is all about how to deal with the music industry for newbies and outsiders. I only published last year and already sales have soared – thanks to a recalcitrant publisher and a hep of other hassles that stopped me promoting it. I can send you a copy by post of email.Written with 19 year olds in mind, it is not exactly Coleridge but it is fun and I got some nice reviews.
Exactly the sort of book my son needs to read. He is a twenty one-year old musician. I think we'd love to review that. You can send by email, it's so much easier for you. And a jpeg file of the book cover. editors@harlotssauce.com
No rush, because the mag is getting a facelift and we won't print it until next month. Best of luck with it. These things are a trial, but exciting, too.
Ill send it over now before I get swamped with more work!thanks
[isto é bom]
Can I request an appearance in CO? 😀
You know what? I think we actually are going to Colorado because the publisher is there! That would be great to meet you!
You have so many comments I don't want to use up any of your time, but I DO want to thank you for this post.
Oh cool! Where?
Don't be silly,you. You're not taking up my time. Who does not like to know that people are reading their blogs? I appreciate that you appreciated it. I wonder if it will inspire a bit more work on "that project."
I think we will be visiting Denver and Colorado Springs…..And where are you?
I'm sitting at my desk! Hehe
So what color are bisexuals? green would be nice
LOL! I love jokes like this! The cornier the better. I don't know why, but they really tickle my funny-bone. Thanks a lot- I needed the laugh!
Are you sure you want green? I think Kermit cornered the market on that one with his "It's not easy to be Green" ditty. But it does goes nicely with so many accessories….
😀 You're welcome! I'll have to keep that in mind
Unlike with all of you, this is a proposition that will affect me on a personal level. I live in L.A. And have been in a long term relationship with another man. I just want to thank all of you who have/will vote against this bigoted and divisive proposition and those who have the sense to see the unfairness of what prop 8 would do and mean.
Chin up, Mexid. Maybe after Tuesday, you will have to worry about whether or not the question will be/should be popped, and all the stress and/or joys that go with that! Let's hope….
A great article written by Rev. Madison ShockleyTo This Minister, Prop. 8 Is RepugnantAlso:
At
a LGBT Community Center, more than 6,000 San Diegans turned out as a
counter-rally to TheCall and candlelight march. The "Making the Right
Call" No on Prop 8 rally included Republican San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders
and his lesbian daughter Lisa and lesbian City Councilmember Toni Atkins.
Earlier, more than 500 people attended an interfaith service at St. Paul's
Episcopal Cathedral with more than 30 local clergy from diverse denominations.Good on them.
Thank youf ro showing me this wonderful article and this terrific blog spot. What I liked even more wer ethe comments , sone by Republicans and Christians both, who agree that to vote yes on Prop 8 would be immoral and un-American.
We'll know in a few more hours. Thanks for this, Chezz.
What I liked even more wer ethe comments , sone by Republicans and Christians both, who agree that to vote yes on Prop 8 would be immoral and un-American. I know that made me happy.
Sorry but personally I don't think this guy is so great. So he changed his position based on a PERSONAL situation.
Excuse me but HOW does that make him a great guy or a good politician?
It makes him your typical retarded, emoting hominid.
A politician should in theory be a leader and objective. His choices should reflect as much as possible an objective, logical position. This guy basically is just saying, hey, if my kid was autistic i'd pump mney into research for that, if my wife had cancer I'd spend more money on health issues, and if my kid were shot bu an illegal immigrant I'd get more cops to brutalise more illegal immigrants. You know…basically, if it affects ME personally then hell I'll do some thinking about it. If it affects YOU personally though and not me…well…you may be shit out of luck there buddy…
Why is everyone saying what a great guy he is? Honestly….why?
You Earthlings make me homesick. And my planet is a cold miserable rock without oxygen on it now….
I suppose you're right. That woudl be teh ideal, all right. (sigh) It was just nice to see a politician admit a mistake and have the guts to come out with it in such an emotional way. You know we earth women are suckerts for seeing a earthman cry….
BTW- Still waiting with bated breath to see what's happened with Prop 8 here. It's that close….Prop 2 passed. Apparently it's easuer to show compassion for a chicken in a cage than a fellow human being.
We did getthe prez, though. Maybe I wonlt have to join you on Mars, after all…
Do they let earth women enter without a visa?
Not sure what prop 4 and 2 are. I understand 8 is about the illogical mixing of law and religion.
As for Earth women…no visa required, but there are requirements. They have to:
1) be hot
2) be good in bed
3) understand they are WOMEN and we are MEN and like it that way as much as we do
4) Generally the first 3 points above will ensure entry in most cases, however point 4 is that they should actually have a brain and be intelligent (which generally if they have points 2 and 3 is kind of assumed, however point 1 can cloud judgement on some inferior-quality Martians)
From what I can tell of you, you should fly through customs without any problems.
I understand why you wrote this post. I know that you have been trying to stay objective through the whole elections period. But there are issues that enrage us. Prop8 enrages me too, even if I am not an American citizen. Why? Because it's a personal issue for me.I wasn't always pro homosexuality. When I was younger I believed that it was a misfortune for someone to be a homosexual. Blame Greek social upbringing. As I grew older and met different people, I came to understand that homosexuality is just an orientation option like every other option or choice we have in our lives. For me, the "holy" element is not in the act of marriage but in the finding of someone to truly love, respect, create a family and share the rest of our lives.I have met homosexual couples who offer more to the society than the average heterosexual family and love each other so much that is heart-aching. When an extremely dear person in my life embraced its sexuality, got "married" to its significant other and adopted a child, I was really happy but with a bit of skepticism.Yet, when I visited them, my skepticism was evaporated. Even my best friend who came with me and is really pro-macho felt their happiness and understood their brave choice. Right now I can't find a happier couple. And frankly, I can't understand why in a country where a few hours ago an Afro-American was elected as President ( which is a great lesson to equality and I wish him the best of luck ), homosexual couples can't get the same rights with heterosexual couples. I don't understand the reason why these people can't have the same legal rights to secure their dignity, fortune, family and future? Don't they too pay taxes? Don't they too vote? Don't they too go to schools, colleges and grad schools? Don't they work in the next cubicle? Don't they live next door? Don't they look like you and me?I really find Prop8 hypocritical. And remember that I was raised in a country where church and state are deeply "in bed". This is beyond religious beliefs and sexual orientations. This is about the right to be equal.
Why…thank you. I'm batting my eyelashes, holding up my college degree in one hand and kama sutra in the other, as I stand on the incredibly long queue of hot, intellegent women waiting to gain entry.
; D
As usual, you write with a riveting comnbination of honestly, logic and emotion.
I ws dismayed to read this morning that the polling indicates that the same Latinos, Hispanics, and Blacks in California who voted for Obama and finally see their dream of equal opportunity coming true, are also the same who voted for Prop 8, because they are for "traditional" marriage. How they don't see that they are voting for the same discrimination they have suffered through in American politics and society is beyond my comprehension. If you ask them to explain they say, "that's different."
Yeah, it is –in one instance, you are the one being discriminated against, in the other, it's someone else.
In 1956, in certain parts of the US, there were places where there were three public toilets–one for "Men', one for 'Women, and one for "Coloreds' The "Colored' toilet was for both sexes. Blacks weren't even allowed the same privacy and dignity as Whites, if they had to have a wee.
What would the public toilets look like today, figuratively,with an African American president, if they were separated out as Prop 8 wants to separate marriage? "All Women, Except Lesbians" "All Men, Except Homosexuals?"
Welcome aboard my spaceship! You can now consider yourself a crew member 🙂
Very good post as always. I say live and let live. If gay people want to get married, let them! let them suffer like the rest of us (wink)
It's done. Prop8 has passed in California and unfortunately I believe that more states will follow. To be honest, I am sad. We support equality among color, religion, political views but not sexual orientations. I am amazed that people can still get offended by this. I am done with this conversation. Probably, that's the reason why Brooke Smith (Dr. Erika Hahn who was in a romantic relationship with Dr. Callie Torres) was dismissed by Grey's Anatomy cast.
LOL! Exactly. Marriage counseling, In-laws, Adultery, Divorce,Alimony, division of assets, custody fights, etc. etc. They should have those privileges just like the rest of us!
Thanks for stopping by!
Yay! Show me where my space suit is and I'll suit up, Captain!
I know it's a depressing setback, but we must continue to fight for civil rights and equality. It will happen. Just last month I truly believed the United States was not ready for a Black president. How wonderful to be proven woring! This will change, too, my friend. It will just take a little longer. It might even have to be the fight of your generation, so don't give up.
I have gay friends and they are true friends who would do anything for me. One good friend was voted mayor in a small town close to KC and after 2 years it was found out he was gay and promptly fired. They never wanted to get married and im against it because they are both the same sex. Why should they benefit getting insurance and tax deductions,they are not supposed to get the same benefits as heterosexual couples. Call me crude but I don't trust them with small children and when they get a child legally I hurt for the child being teased all his life. Gay people are usually great relating to others but they want to be treated as heterosexuals and they aren't,they love and have sex with the same male or female and transmit diseases rampently when they don't stay with there partners,just like everyone else except gays have been proven to be the culprits of spreading aids first when they screwed monkeys that they caught it from. Who would screw a monkey,maybe a male gay with a male monkey. I realise this isn't a popular comment but thats how I feel and its still a free country. Im not slamming gays,i have alot of gay friends who agree with me,they just don't live in wonderland california.
I'm so glad roboter is your neighbor and not mine. LMFAO
they are not supposed to get the same benefits as heterosexual couples
Who says they're not?
Call me crude but I don't trust them with small children
Gays are homosexuals, not pedophiles.
and when they get a child legally I hurt for the child being teased all his life.
That doesn't happen
Who would screw a monkey,maybe a male gay with a male monkey
Homosexuals do not screw monkeys.
its still a free country.
Not for gays it isn't. Not till they have the same basic rights as other human beings.
I have gay friends and they would do anything for me.
But I see you would not do anything for them, which is to defend their constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
they just don't live in wonderland california
Thanks to people who think like you do about this subject, California is not a 'wonderland' for gays. They were just denied the right to love honor and cherish here in this state, to share their lives and have a legal union with all therights of law that brings, with someone they love and who loves them. I will do all I can to help correct that injustice.
Hey GYour planet is sounding great.Sorry but personally I don't think this guy is so great. So he changed his position based on a PERSONAL situation.
Excuse me but HOW does that make him a great guy or a good politician?
A politician should in theory be a leader and objective. His choices
should reflect as much as possible an objective, logical position. This
guy basically is just saying, hey, if my kid was autistic i'd pump mney
into research for that, if my wife had cancer I'd spend more money on
health issues, and if my kid were shot bu an illegal immigrant I'd get
more cops to brutalise more illegal immigrants. You know…basically,
if it affects ME personally then hell I'll do some thinking about it.
If it affects YOU personally though and not me…well…you may be shit
out of luck there buddy…Why is everyone saying what a great guy he is? Honestly….why?I don't actually know this guy from a bar of soap and I see where you are coming from with your opinion and you are essentially right.But we can't forget that he actually did come around and yes you are right he did have a personal reason to come around. But we can't totally dismiss the guy. Not every politician would have put his career on the line for his family and not every parent does come around in regards to this issue. As you know down here on Earth many, many families have been broken beyond repair when a parent discovers that their child is gay and the parent cannot accept their child's sexuality. It is obvious by the video footage that this man lost a lot of sleep over his decision, so it isn't as if he discovered his daughter was gay and then immediately jumped on the side of gay marriage. Yes for this man it was his daughter being gay which made him think, but many people have to have some type of a personal event/connection before they are able to put themselves into the shoes of someone else and have that 'light bulb moment.' I see where you are coming from with your analogies but politicians don't normally lose their jobs/votes over standing by their autistic child or being there for their wife with breast cancer, those things normally enhance a politician's career – Palin and her baby with Down Syndrome is a classic example.I do hear what you are saying and to a point I agree with you, but I am going to give the man some slack and give him a bit of credit for rethinking his stance.
I second that! Thanks for standing up and saying something before I had to say something.By the way I have an Uncle with the same name as yours, but he gets called Uncle Bob.
Your completely saying my words out of context. Not all gays are pedofiles but I have run into some and my gay friends called the police on them. and yes children do get teased in school when they find out they have two fathers. I do alot for my gay friends and just because they don't want to get married doesn't mean I don't defend there rights or happiness. It is a free country but I can understsand that gays are treated with disrespect and racisim. I brought up california because thats where the people of the state denied their right to marry,and yes I regret the monkey statement,it was stupid. Gays are going through what blacks fought in the 60's and I hope it will change someday. You say people like me,im not a gay basher by any means and I should have written my previous comment without sounding like a jerk and thought about what I was writing. I think you made a good statement of facts on my first comment and it was deserved. When its legal for gays to marry I will be behind that law,its illegal now and probably wrong but its illegal to murder someone also so should I go kill somebody,no I shouldn't and I have always followed the law,I was a forest ranger who saved blacks,whites,gays who would have died on the mountain of hyperthermia. I risked my life more times I can remember and many cussed me out when I carried them to the helicopter. It never bothered me but to be taken out of context made me think I wrote something that was confusing and not my exact thoughts.
I would encourage you to read up on the scientific studies about pedophilia. Scientists are concluding the pedophilia is a separate sexual preference, unrelated to any other sexual preference. So the idea that a person being straight or gay has any bearing is outmoded. Of course, it was in the best interest of the groups supporting the gay marriage ban to suggest otherwise. But we need not be so ignorant of the scientific facts ourselves.
(Sigh)
Thanks for clarifying this a bit, Roboter. Like many people, you are trying to clear up your thoughts and feelings on this issue. I think like everything else, the more we learn about something, the less it seems strange to us. Ancora is right that there is no connection between pedophiles and gays, but many people have been told that, so they fear it might be true.
A pedophile is a sexual deviant, just like a rapist.
A homosexual knows from a very young age that he or she is sexually attracted to the same sex. Many studies have shown that they come by this perference naturally, like it is nature's way to keep the population down, as I said in my post.
Gay marriage is illegal now because Mormons stepped in with lots of money to make commercials to scare people into thinking some of the things you wrote in your first comment. They did this, because they are against gay marriage for their own religous reasons.
But we live in the United States of America, whose Constitution expressly forbids religious discrimination. By voting for this amendment to the state constitution that is exactly what we are doing, something our forefathers did not want-discriminating religiously. They wanted everyone protected under our laws. If we the people of the UnIted States do not go into Mormon churches and force then to allow gay marriage, how can they come into our state capital building and be allowed to ban it?
No matter what anyone's opinion on gays is, by allowing the religious groups to do this, the next step is for the churches to be telling us all when we should pray, how we should pray, what are sins and not sins. They are already doing it. They think homosexuality is a SIN and so they want to force their opinion on everyone of us, even those of us who are not homosexual. And hey- doesn't that sound just like the Taliban that we are fighting in Afghanistan? They force strict religion on the people, too.In fact, in some religions, if it is discovered that someone has engaged in homosexual acts, they are stoned to death! By voting for this measure Prop 8, to change our constitution, we are not saying gays should be stoned to death, but we are coming closer to agreeing with that.
You don't have to be comfortable with the idea of homosexuality.And you can be as suspicious as you want that they might be pedophiles, too. . You are allowed to feel that way, even if no one else here agrees with you. You have the right to limit your contact with any people that make you feel uncomfortable for whatever reason. Those are your rights.
But, what none of us in the US have the right to do, or should have the right to do, according to our Constitution, is to discriminate against any group of people who are different than we are.They have to be allowed the same freedoms and privileges the rest of the country enjoys.
I resent any religious organisation making laws for me, when they are allowed the full freedom to practive their religion as they see fit by those same laws. They don't see that they are changing laws that actually protect their religious freedoms, as well as gays freedom to marry
Look at it this way–what happens if gays all get together with lots of money from their group and run commercials for a "Prop 16" say, that states heterosexuality is BAD and that we should all be gay and that we should change the constitution so that it says that?
What Prop 8 in California does is essentuially that very thing, only the opposite way. It's saying homosexualityis bad, and gay marriage is bad.
And I don't know about you, but if we passed a law banning heterosexual marriage, I don't think I could be gay just because the law says I should be. That would mean I'd have to give up my husband who I love so much. And essentially, that's what we're telling gays they should do- give up being gay, because you will never be allowed to make your relationship LEGAL.
I'm sure Arthur doesn't really think you're a jerk. It's just such a hot topic that people really get emotional.It's nice of you to write back to him in such a polite way. Thank you.
Thnkas for this comment. Ronoter has a lot of comments to look over and think about,I believe.He is basically a very good person, so I know he will think about these things.
I was just coming over to visit you. Do you know my publicist got an email from your parents and they are coming to my book launch on Saturday? That is SO nice of them. I can't wait to meet them! : D
Thanks for your comment Arthur, and for stopping by.
Im through with this discussion except to say gay people are some of my best friends and I know they all are not pedofiles,in fact probably less than 00.1% are if that many. Nobody knows how many serial killers there are but the scientists think they know about how many,I regret even mentioning the whole stupid thing. Scientists don't know everything,especially about child abuse so lets drop it right now and just hope they change this dumb law. Gays and lesbins have the right to be treated like every other american,scientific thoughts or not. Jesus christ im an idiot for even commenting on this and never will again.
This is a great comment, Chezz. But I warn you, if you start talking to G too much, you might end up on his spaceship in a crew suit. He has a very smooth way of persuading us gals to do that…. ; )
Good ol' Uncle Bob
No worries, Craig. Really.
That is terrific to hear. Just make sure they buy the book. ; )
Wow, am I ever late to this party. Great post and discussion, Patricia.
Well, there is no obligation to buy a book. But my publicist is not a fool. She is using food and music to lure people to this party, just the same way those prostitutes in Naples use harlot's sauce to get clients.
However, I do think I am going to introduce your parents before I read, if they don't mind being singled out and tell how we met One of the themes of the book is xenophobia and the fact that they have been neighbours all these years and I have never met them, yet know their son who lives halfway across the country is a marvel of modern technology that is going to bring people closer and closer. It's wonderful, isn't it?
Late or otherwise, your presence is always a blessing, Red Pen. Thanks for your comment.
By the way, how did you come up with "Red Pen' anyway? I couldn't find an explanation anywhere on your blog. I was thinking that perhaps you were a teacher?
Thanks to the amazingly advanced Martian technology, our space suits are not as bulky as the Earth ones and also double as shiboard uniform for the crew.
Here's yours: http://www.fresh99.com/images/bikinis/string-bikini.jpg
See also my very first post when the technology was still a bit behind the times for an older version of the uniform: http://g-man.vox.com/library/photo/6a00d41427b9853c7f00d41427fbfc3c7f.html
I wonder if I dare to look. I am afraid if I do, it will be something my husband will want me to wear and then play "spaceship"
What??? You mean you don't play "spaceship" with your husband already??? Good God I may have to revoke that crew certificate!
It seems you may require some crew training. Immediately let your husband know that your uniform has an additional piece of apparatus until you have shown correct crew behaviour, here it is: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kinklab.com/images/pink_leash.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kinklab.com/products/pink_leash.php&h=500&w=400&sz=43&hl=en&start=2&um=1&usg=__wMmYBlXHcvDRPJDlAdapH_PoaO0=&tbnid=cq6JSXryZADkFM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleash%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4GFRC_enGB208GB208%26sa%3DN
Please note the clinical and professional setting in which this apparatus gets used. See the doctor in the white coat. It's all very professional and clinical see?
Oh and PS: Make sure at least your husband sends me a thank you post card. Damn Earth males are SO ungrateful….and to think of all the Earth women I had to train….not so much as a postcard, never mind the crates of Chivas they should be sending every Xmas….
I beg your pardon? We might not play 'spaceship,' but we play other interesting games. My hubs was in the World Series of Poker two years in a row so far and he also played professional baseball. ( I know, I know, you all are not interested in baseball on Mars, but never mind)
So we play lots of games, Like "All In" "Two Pairs" and "Bat Boy." Do they have those on Mars? Martians should be so lucky.
Training, indeed! I earned that crew certificate fair and square!
By the way, I hope you're not sending me porn links from Mars. I shan't open them. My kids read this blog! They're already in intensive therapy due to some of my posts! ; D
Don't worry about that Patricia, Nat and I have been trying to find ways to get off this planet if 'some' people get their way and ruin our planet. Although we were actually hoping to put 'them' on the spaceship and just put it on auto-pilot so that it just keeps on going out of our galaxy, far, far away ;-)Perhaps G can help us with our idea, as we aren't having much luck finding anyone who can help us achieve our goal. G do you have any contacts who could possibly help us?
hey Patricia:)i hardly need to contribute (especially since you no doubt already know where i stand on this issue)i like it when you get mad – excellent post:)it's simple, reallyit's a civil rights issue – to me this shouldn't even have been up for a voteit's a crime to deny marriage rights and everything that goes with it to the gay community – plain and simple – it's blatant discrimination – and it is unexcusable(while i was away in the UK, i thought up a good rant – it should be appearing on my blog at some point soon)congrats on your book reading:) – chezza told me about it:)hugs
Hahahahah!!! Good. Just making sure you weren't one of those fake crew types! You guys sound great. My brother plays poker semi-pro. He would do it full time if he could…he just might one of these days he sure seems to make more than he loses and paid for a lot of stuff from poker. So I know some of the terms. me I'm pretty useless at poker, don't have the patience for it I think, and I tend to be too aggressive so my game is easy to read.
Besides…the payoff in poker is money…hmm…not so interesting… women…now…like space…the possibilities there are infinite.
And I am not sending you porn-links! That would be crude.
And I am raw, and can CHOOSE to be crude on purpose at times, but I don't see the need here!!
So click away on them. They are safe.
Actually yes.
But you'd have to prove you can keep a secret under torture, qualify to be a crew member and have a few billion lying around.
Let me know when you got all that lined up 🙂
Well I think I can pass the torture test.Yes I think I would pass the crew test.Now this few billion you mentioned, what currency are we talking about? I am currently on level 32 on Mob Wars at Facebook and worth about $50 million. So give me some time and I might be able to come up with the dough in Mob Wars currency.
Excellent post. I also wrote today about this topic, about how the "sanctity" of marriage, however one defines it, has nothing to do with its legality; the two are different, unrelated issue.Keep on posting.
ummm… application forms for crew members begin by submittal of very scantily clad pictures of yourself…
as for the billions, I'm afraid it's got tobe real money…you know pounds sterling or gold, not zimbabwean or US dollars…. they are about the same value as Mob Wars currency. Though maybe you should use your fb skills in real life and become a drug baron…. 🙂
Okay, I'll have a look. Sounds like fun.
I'm useless at poker too. Can't count that fast, way too impulsive. If your brother plays online, there's always the chance my husband and he have actually crossed paths. Don't you love technology?
Unless, of curse, your brother is still on your planet. I don't think we do interplanetary online poker yet. Think of how confusing it would be to the tax collectors
I agree. And I just went over to your blog and say the same back to you, "Keep on posting" You have a great voice.
Might be worth it, Chezz, it's a lot of fun up here on his space ship. Wheeee!
I would write about tax collectors, but if I did I would end up in jail no doubt. Or maybe I would just "commit suicide" in a field like that UK scientist around the time of the Iraq war…besides…someone already pretty much expressed my views on taxes already:
Lysander Spooner: Natural Law
and This Guy: Assassination Politics (he did go to jail)
My bro is on this planet, so he probably might even know your husband. He tries to keep up with the big players…
See? Your friend who has already become a crew-member agrees. Send pictures. After which, if you are deemed suitable, a short "crew essential skills" test will be required to be passed. Submissions by video are acceptable if of good enough quality but may take time to process. Submissions in person will receive their results within 24 hours.
Would you believe that my first response to your "Hi I'm Dick…" question was to divulge all the fun and excitement of anal play?
Hi, Tony! I do lov eyour satire and I love to read your post! Please send me the link!
Patricia,congrats on the book deal,didn't I tell you something very good was going to happen to you,if you don;t remember it I probably told someone else. I want to buy it now so put up a link or say the name of the book and ill find it,wow this is exiciting for me,I can only imagine how it is for you. Your karma has a lot to do with your success. Helping others everyday and not expecting anything in return. You helped me alot of times and you deserve everything that you get. I can't wait to read it Later Craig
Ask and you shall receive:
You know, Craig, this is very touching, it almost makes me want to cry. I am overwhelmed by all the support my friends have given me on this book. Yes, I am excited about the book and hope it is successful, but what got me even more was the warm congratulations and support I have been receiving from my friends. We had a book launch here at a local bookshop . I cooked Greek and Italian foods (because the book talks about being Italian-American and living in Greece) we had wine and live Greek music. Almost everyone of my friends made it there, and the best part was that everyone was smiling and so happy to be there! What's more valuable- getting a book published, or having such loving friends? I learned the answer to that by my friends' and cyber-friends' response. I can't forget the wave of love and support I felt yesterday and ever since this book came out. Thank you for your good wishes, friend. And i hope you enjoy the book.
Well, I want to thank you for pointing me to these two posts. I think your satire is brilliant. By writing in this tone you highlight the foolishness of some of the assumtions people maintain. You certainly keep the bar raised for writings on VOX. And by the way, thanks for the in depth interview on Amazon.ca
Live and let live. That's it. I live my life and don't hurt anyone. What's difficult about expecting the same in return? Why complicate matters?
I wrote you a personal message a while ago and said I'd comment on this post. As usual, your commentary is original, well thought out, insightful, incites 🙂 and challenges, and to those willing can open the possibility of another "side." I am always delighted to read your posts.Thank you. Congratulations on your book release and publishing. I linked from my site to Harlott's Sauce Podcast/site as well.
Thank you so very much, my dear! I am just recovering from a cold so I am late to reply to comments. I'm hoping to be back in the swing of things next week. : ) (By the way, so glad your posted a photo. You are lovely!)
бесплатное порно, скачать порно
бесплатно, порно видео бесплатно, порно скачать бесплатно, порно,
бесплатные порно ролики, порно ролики, скачать порно порно онлайн, порно ролики, порно, порно бесплатно, порно видео онлайн, бесплатное порно, бесплатные порно роликипорно фото, эротика, порно, красивая эротика, голые знаменитости, голые девушки, большие сиськи, секспорно картинки, скачать бесплатно порно, порно скачать бесплатно, видео xxx online, порно журналы, xxx онлайн 18
Вы говорение по-русски? Я не говорю на русском языке
uh? Your point?
If it's a free world then do what you want. I do.
You read and write Russian?????
You're not an Earthling! You've just been brainwashed into thinking you are…clearly Martian.
I understand enough Russkie to get the jist when they talk..but writing it…? Very cool!
Wait…you read and write Russian porno…..that's even MORE awesome!
balderdash
Thanks for stopping by, ken.
This still going. I saw that another comment had been posted so I couldn't resist dropping by and saying hello and adding a few more cents to this discussion.We have a very happy event coming up this Saturday, our daughter is getting married to a wonderful young man – we couldn't be happier for them. They are able to make a public declaration of their love and devotion to each other and that is the reason they are getting married. They are letting the world know that this is the person they each wish to spend the rest of their lives with. It is the same reason I married my husband; I married him because I love him and I wanted the world to know it and there is no better way to tell the world of such love and devotion than to have a marriage ceremony.How fortunate am I that I am not gay, because if I was gay I couldn't have a marriage ceremony. How fortunate am I that my biology didn't make me attracted to someone of the same sex, or if you believe in a god, how fortunate that god didn't decide that I should be gay and have me born into a society that does not accept that I have a right to make the same public declaration of love and devotion that straight people are able to make.Two people who love each other, who are totally devoted to each other in every way possible should have the right to make such a public declaration, in the same way every other person is allowed to make such a declaration. It is only fair. We should we be encouraging that sort of love and devotion. The world needs more real love.
Thanks, Chezz for your comments. I hear ya, girl! : ) Yes, comments can still be posted on my old posts- the problem started later and now I have the comments closed off for new posts, since I can't respond. You can also write at my second blog, which is http://patriciavolonakisdavis.wordpress.com
I only just discovered this comment today. I also only just discovered your post saying that you were leaving Vox and heading to WP. I closed my WP blog some months ago because I wasn't using it, looks like I should have kept it.I shall bookmark your new blog – all the best over at WP, it isn't a bad place to be. It has a different feel as far as community is concerned, I also used to notice that my old posts still got plenty of comments even a year after I had written them. I won't say good-bye because I will drop in when I can.