The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[June 19, 2008 1:33 PM]

Chuck Anziulewicz : →http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com

What a wonderful little film!

That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.

# 2

[June 19, 2008 3:24 PM]

Other John

Even though I consider myself to be reasonably conservative on many issues, I have trouble seeing why people oppose the idea of gay couples being able to gain the same benefits of a legally-sanctioned partnership as straight couples get. The fact that some gay couple in California, Vermont, or down the street decides they want to marry does not affect my marriage to my wife at all. To anyone who says it affects their marriage, please enlighten me on how it actually does. Celebrities like Britney Spears have done more damage and discredit to the idea of marriage than a long-term committed gay couple likely ever will...yet celebrities are free to marry and divorce within a matter of hours, days, or weeks as they see fit.

# 3

[June 19, 2008 4:16 PM]

downtown

"The fact that some gay couple in California, Vermont, or down the street decides they want to marry does not affect my marriage to my wife at all."

-Wonder if that same thought process was running rampant in people's minds pre-Sodom and Gomorrah??

# 4

[June 19, 2008 5:45 PM]

AJ

I couldn't care less what was going on in Sodom or Gomorrah.
As a secular person, a story in somebody's holy book has no relevance to me, and has no relevance to the system of law.
I welcome the union of any loving couple who wish to marry.

# 5

[June 19, 2008 6:03 PM]

Henry

Why just couples? Are you polyphobic? If 7 people want to marry 7 other people, why should anyone care?

# 6

[June 19, 2008 6:09 PM]

ronbailey : →http://ntelligentsia.com

Awesome stuff. I think it's important to note that the ongoing efforts to overturn California's recent progress in this matter are actually efforts to overturn and annul thousands of happy marriages. You can call it the "Marriage Protection Act" or the "Defense of Marriage Act", but in truth it's all about destroying happy families, not protecting them.

# 7

[June 19, 2008 6:54 PM]

Josh

Gays who don't support tax benefits for any arrangement one or more persons choose are bigoted. I think my single straight brother should be allowed to marry himself and get the tax breaks married people get, so long as we're opening up the definition of marriage to arbitrary arrangements.

# 8

[June 19, 2008 9:01 PM]

Ed S.

Maybe this is starting to expose reasons why the government shouldn't be involved at all.

# 9

[June 19, 2008 10:15 PM]

Henry

Funny, marriage has been blessed by the government for centuries. Now people want to redefine marriage to get the benefits. It reminds me of people who redefine "porn" and call it "art".

# 10

[June 20, 2008 8:13 AM]

AJ

The suggestion that because two individuals of the same sex should have the right to marry that any arrangement should qualify is simply ludicrous. It does not deserve a response.

# 11

[June 20, 2008 8:26 AM]

Henry

Why is it ludicrous? What makes the number two so sacred?

# 12

[June 20, 2008 10:01 AM]

AJ

Nothing. Nothing makes the number two sacred.

# 13

[June 20, 2008 11:21 AM]

terry

Exactly Henry, that’s the question I asked you. I never received a response. Why do you care if 7 people marry each other? Explain it to me.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

*Such profound statements are almost beyond comment and should only be taken at face value. Terry’s is indeed one of them. –Will
X 2 – Blue John

# 14

[June 21, 2008 1:22 AM]

downtown

Its always refreshing to realize among us we have 'secular' people who believe that law should be secular from religion (although this country was founded on religious principles), that government should be secular from religion (although the hypocrites still pay for things with and carry around money mentioning religion), and that anyone should be able to marry someone else as long as they are in love (man-man, woman-man, woman-woman, brother-sister, father-daughter).

# 15

[June 21, 2008 9:38 AM]

AJ

Downtown,
I'm glad to know you find us refreshing. You may find it "refreshing" to know that there are many more secularists among you than you may have thought. Many of them, as I, have decided to be more outspoken about our beliefs.
We believe that the country was founded on principles and values that exist outside the confines of any religion. It doesn't bother me that our money mentions a god, although I am more inclined to trust reason than some undefinable deity. Why does this make me a hypocrite? Do you think that since I don't acknowledge a god the way that you seem to believe I should that I should not use money?

One more thing. Neither I nor any secularist I know has every advocated acceptance of incestuous relationships. Whoever told you otherwise is not telling the truth. I'm sorry if this makes you find us less refreshing. Maybe you can find some solace reading your bible, which implies an incestuous relationship among Adam and Eve's progeny.

# 16

[June 21, 2008 1:43 PM]

Rob Miles

AJ, I am a secularist, and though I agree with everything else you wrote, I wonder why incestuous relationships should be treated any differently than any other relationship between consenting adults? As long as they aren't hurting anyone, why would relationships among family memebers be wrong?

There is nothing inherently wrong with incest, as long as it involves consenting adults, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex relationships. Various mythologies, including the Christian ones, agree with this sentiment at least in part (most religions don't care if the woman consents to the relationship or not, as long as she is "treated well"), but there is no secular reason to object to incest.

Unless "it's icky" is to be considered a valid argument.

# 17

[June 21, 2008 7:53 PM]

Josh

Rob,

Here's something that isn't mythology. Incestuous unions produce seriously damaged offspring.

I jus shake my head at those who think denying the existence of God and natural laws means they are exempt from the consequences thereof.

# 18

[June 21, 2008 8:35 PM]

Henry

OK. If a woman consents to being beaten by her husband, should it be legal?