Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

ziggy (25)

ziggy
  (email not shown publicly)
AOL IM: ziggyatpanix (Add Buddy, Send Message)

Journal of ziggy (25)

Sunday March 28, 2004
12:08 PM

Gay Marriage and Shrimp

[ #18098 ]
The whole issue of gay marriage has calmed down over the last few weeks, thanks to Richard Clark, Condi Rice, and Tom Kean's 9/11 commission. But the gay marriage issue won't go away.

One the one hand, there's the doctrine of equal rights and non-discrimination. On the other hand, there's the sanctity of marriage, and the slippery slope. Marriage has always been recognized as a holy union between a man and a woman, and allowing "alternative definitions" of marriage to be recognized, it's only a matter of time before group marriage and unions between a czarina and her noble steed attain the same recognition.

Opponents to gay marriage cite that homosexuality is an abomination before the lord. On that ground, it should be outlawed, and the mere idea of gay marriage doesn't even merit debate.

Fine. Then outlaw shrimp first. Public stonings of adulterers will then be regularly scheduled on alternating Tuesdays in front of the Washington Monument.


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Gay Marriage and Shrimp 22 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
    • Opponents to gay marriage cite that homosexuality is an abomination before the lord. On that ground, it should be outlawed, and the mere idea of gay marriage doesn't even merit debate.

    Oh? John Kerry is opposed to Gay Marriage, and I haven't seen him make this particular citation.

    Nice strawman there. Shouldn't you have, perhaps, qualified your statement with "Some opponents...", or even, more accurately, "A very few extreme religious opponents...".

    Actually, even extremely religious types generally do

  • Hehe, That's funny, the shrimp thing recently came up at a gathering I was recently at. Anyhow, all I can say about the shrimp thing, being a religious person, is that the Mosaic law they followed in the old testament went away with the death of Jesus, as he instituted a new covenant with his followers. However, homosexuality is clearly (well, clearly to me anyways) condemned in both the old AND new testaments. I'm not lookin for a debate, just throwin it out there. :)
    • You would be correct, on all counts.
    • I wonder why, then, people even bother using Torah quotes to make their point, when they're not even bound to follow them, as it seems.
      • One of the great mysteries my friend...
        • As someone who does keeps kosher, I'm quite gratified to see this God-hates-shrimp meme enter the public fray.

          My real problem with the gay marriage "debate" is that the "religious" opponents are falling into the very convenient mode of condemning other people as sinners. This has the effect of increasing self-rightousness, which is of course the direct opposite of righteousness or holiness.

          • Not really, we're not condemning anyone, the Bible is. If the Bible accepted homosexuality, so would I. If you just plain disagree with the Bible or think it's old fashioned, well, there's not much else to say. We won't have a foundation on which to base our discussion, so anymore talk would be pointless.
            • The problem is this: The Torah condemns sex between men. It also condemns the eating of shrimp, and sex with a menstruating woman. I happen to follow the Torah's views of these three actions (which I've listed in order of increasing personal sacrifice/annoyance -- I find sex with men as attractive as eating porcupine; my wife, fortunately, disagrees).

              Now, you want to argue that, according to the New Testament, Jesus has freed me so I can now eat shellfish and even bacon. Mazel Tov! But somehow, my gay fri

              • Hehe, nope, I'm not catholic, but my faith also condemns divorce except on the grounds that one of the persons commits adultry. Not sure what 'idiosyncratic' means even after looking it up, but...you're probably right. :)
    • If the gay marriage doesn't happen in a church then what the Bible or Torah say is irrelevent.

      The church and state in the U.S. are supposed to be seperate so there is no legal reason not to have gay marriage.

      In fact the treatment of people who are gay as different is against the country's oh-so-sacred constitution.

      From what I saw, none of the gay couples married in a church so what x-tians think does not matter.

      --

      @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
      print reverse @JAPH;
      • TeeJay, but we call both of these different things -- civil marriage and social marriage -- the same thing, and until recently, there was no significant distinction, because both defined it in the same way.

        Now, we are looking at two things that will be defined differently, but *still called the same thing*.

        Simply saying that these people were not married in a church (which isn't true, as some were, but it is beside the point anyway) is what is irrelevant. The church is not irrelevant, it is at the crux o
        • Civil unions for all, civil marriages for none. Civil marriage should go away, recognized as an anachronism.
          Absolutely. The quoted text is something I can agree with, which is fairly rare. Unfortunately, removing something that's agreed upon by large masses of people and is regarded as the general standard doesn't usually work well. (ref. Metric Adoption.)
          --

          ------------------------------
          You are what you think.
        • Pudge, you seem to be assuming that the christian church has a monopoly on marriage. Other religions have had marriages before christianity existed, and others will have marriages in the future.

          A Marriage between two humanists would still be a marriage, ditto atheists. Perhaps in the U.S. this is unclear, but in the UK you can have non-secular marriages in a registry office, outdoors, (in any licensed location).

          --

          @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
          print reverse @JAPH;
          • Pudge, you seem to be assuming that the christian church has a monopoly on marriage.

            Not at all. You certainly misunderstand what I wrote.
            • So marriage (beyond the christian definition) is the union of two people, who takes vows and sign a legal agreement.

              Whether you call it a civil marriage or a civil union is irrelevent - both mean the same to most people.

              --

              @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
              print reverse @JAPH;
              • So marriage (beyond the christian definition) is the union of two people, who takes vows and sign a legal agreement.

                That's exactly the point that you don't understand: the vows and the legal agreement are two distinct things. "Christian" has little to do with it; there are two distinct institutions: civil marriage (legal agreement), and social marriage (taking vows). I know many homosexuals who call themselves married, and none of them are Christians, and none of them have the legal agreement.

                They are

    • Of the six biblical passages which are commonly associated with homosexuality, most are misinterpreted or viewed out of context.

      Genesis 19:5(Story of Sodom) The people were punished because of their inhospitable intentions toward their guests.

      Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 These passages include the "shrimp ban" as well as personal grooming requirements (no shaving your sideburns or beard) and body modifications (no tattoos) (both 19:27-28ish).

      Romans 1:26-27(Denounced acts against nature) The common argument

      • Act 20:29,30 Chances are, we apply these scriptures to each other, therefore, we can go no further in the discussion. *shrug*
      • Romans 1:26-27

        Paul clearly says that homosexuality is "indecent."

        And your shallow glimpse at what "Westerners" view about Paul is rejected. Paul says nothing negative about ethnic minorities or the mentally ill, and he does not come out in favor of slavery. And Paul's words about women are not at all rejected in the West; indeed, they are one of the most controversial things about the New Testament (in America, anyway). And I personally believe Paul's statements about women being subservient to men we
  • I knew there was a good reason to love shrimp.

    I mean, I loved shrimp anyway, but now it's good Discordian practice, because it violates holy works of other religions.

    --

    ------------------------------
    You are what you think.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.