I’ve only been married for seven months, but without your help, it could be over.
The problem is those gay people. And I mean that in the best possible way. If not for the bold pronouncements of President Bush and the Pope, it might already be too late. But now, thanks to them, we might be able to save it.
President Bush wants to make a move to “protect the sanctity” of marriage, defining it as between a man and a woman. Legislate sanctity now, in other words, or lose it forever. That’s true in my case, and I suspect I’m not alone.
See, what makes our marriage so special to me and my wife is that our government recognizes it as a sacred union that gay people can’t have. I mean, sure, we love each other and everything, but the real glue that holds us together is that we’ve joined an exclusive club that gay people aren’t allowed to join.
Now don’t start thinking that we’re anti-gay or anything. We have lots and lots of gay friends. And we love them and want the best for them.
But not this. Because when our gay friends start getting married, it will cheapen and destroy what we have. Not in a religious way (No. Legislating on those grounds would be illegal, for heaven’s sake!). It’s more of a general thing. Like, generally, gays getting married will undercut everything Jeanne and I have tried to build because… because… it will make our union less special. It will. We’ll lose interest. We’ll probably just start thinking, “What’s so important about our vows? After all, even gay people can make them.”
And that’s not a knock on gay people. No no no. America loves its gays. Look at the TV, with all those funny gay people on “Will and Grace,” and “Queer as Folk,” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” They’re funny! Funny, colorful people - they’re nature’s clowns, really. Like penguins.
I’m not sure if legalizing penguin marriages would have any effect on my own marriage. I’d have to think about that. And obviously, gay people are people, not penguins. It’s just a metaphor. But I think you all probably know what I mean.
Straight people are good with marriage, too. Jeanne and I can look around at other married couples - at least the ones that aren’t currently dealing with serial infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, or bigamy - and think to ourselves, “Yes, that’s what we’re striving for. That kind of sanctity.” I’m not sure that gays would show the same universal respect for the institution that comes so easily to us straight people.
Anyway, these are dark times in my household. My wife and I look at each other with haunted, suspicious eyes, feeling like we’ve bought a whole bunch of shares in a stock that is about to be devalued. Suddenly, the eternal, personal vows that we swore to each other will mean very little. How could they, when gay people are out there making similar vows? We’ll basically become roommates who happen to wear matching rings, while meanwhile out our window we’ll see gays and penguins feeding each other wedding cake willy-nilly on our very own street corner.
Don’t let that happen. Save my marriage. Call your congressman or your clergyman, whichever, and tell ‘em that to stop this madness before it’s too late. It’s only good sense. And you may just save my marriage.





255 comments
Murray
July 31, 2003 at 5:27 pm
1First we legislate scanctity, then morality, and eventually we can legislate what religeous demomination everyone should be.
It’s a good thing that we can fool God so easily. As long as we have laws to set people on the straight and narrow, God won’t show his displeasure as he did on 9/11. Just ask Pat Robertson.
tim
July 31, 2003 at 6:02 pm
2Maybe it’s just me, but all this talk of gay people and penguins keeps reminding me of Catholic school.
brooke
July 31, 2003 at 7:35 pm
3I was just talking to God and after He got done lecturing me on my God-given penchant for women, He told me to tell you that Episcopalians suck.
So I told him that I would promise never to have sex or enjoy anything ever again, so long as he arranged to have the church bells down the street (which ring too loud, too early, too often) rust into silence. He wasn’t happy, but He relented. I’m very persuasive.
Don
July 31, 2003 at 7:39 pm
4Adam advocates penguin marriage??
Next thing we know he’ll come out in penguins marrying people! Who can tell where it will all end?
This may not be a good way to start a presidential campaign, Adam. Unless you’re trying to get a corner on the penguin voting bloc.
Ya know, that could be as good as anything the Democrats have come up with so far. And even the penguins would have to work hard to do worse than Bush et al have accomplished
Erik
July 31, 2003 at 8:13 pm
5Legalizing penguin marriage would destroy the unique penguin culture in a marginalizing human institution of marriage, destroying the penguin identity.
Murray
July 31, 2003 at 8:55 pm
6A good Calvinist knows that others, not like us, are having fun and God commands us to stop it. As soon as all others are miserable, we and God are happy.
Farberwear
July 31, 2003 at 9:33 pm
7Nice entry Mr. Lileks!
t.a.
July 31, 2003 at 11:54 pm
8the president said they were looking at “codifying” marriage between men & women. among that which was left unsaid is the possibility of mandatory marriage. it could be that to combat all possibility of gayness (gaiety?), men & women will be required to marry someone of the opposite gender. clearly, this will resolve most problems as we know that life is automatically & immediately wonderful when a man & a woman are together.
one possible benefit for straight losers like me: it could allow me to offer myself to cute lesbians who would appreciate my feminine side, as opposed to being stuck with someone as butch & manly as adam. god knows i need some help in finding chicks.
Bob
August 1, 2003 at 1:40 am
9So here’s what we do: pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriages and civil unions. And to further protect marriage, the same amendment can outlaw divorce, which has got to be as big a threat to marriage as the gay stuff.
Whoa, I’m feeling more secure already.
Elusis
August 1, 2003 at 2:18 am
10You’d better do something about those infertile and “childfree” people too. Because as our President and the Pope made clear, the biological rationale for marriage is at the heart of their arguments, not some “prejudice.” So those people who aren’t having children are probably polluting your marriage almost as badly.
Dee
August 1, 2003 at 8:32 am
11Adam– this distresses me greatly. I hate to think of you and Jeannie, alone in that apartment, with nothing to do while all those gay people and penguins are out registering at Bloomie’s and poring over brochures from the Poconos.
I realize this is just a temporary measure, but perhaps the two of you could spend your time watching television, something morally uplifting that affirms the sanctity of marriage and the superiority of heterosexual relationships. Something like “The Bachelor” or “Who Wants to Marry my Dad?” or “For Love or Money” or “Temptation Island” or…oh.
Never mind.
mellobear
August 1, 2003 at 9:41 am
12As a colorful, funny, gay penguin, all I can say to this is to quote Margaret Cho:
“Any government that would deny a gay man’s right to bridal registry is a facist state.”
Chicory
August 1, 2003 at 10:00 am
13I feel your pain, Adam.
That’s the problem with belonging to an exclusive club. All the non-members get hypersensitive, pouty and start demanding the right to join. Hello! We are an exclusive club. Not everyone can join. That’s what exclusive means- Duh!
And it doesn’t mean one is anti-gay just because one wants to belong to a club that excludes them. It just means we want to have a “special” club of our own. One that lets us feel superior to them. Hey- they’ve got all the good clothes, music and taste. Why can’t we have something?
John isbell
August 1, 2003 at 10:04 am
14Who are bis supposed to marry?
abby
August 1, 2003 at 10:57 am
15Well, if you don’t let the gays marry each OTHER, that frees them up to marry poor single mothers who really NEED husbands!
Dugrless
August 1, 2003 at 10:59 am
16With this, the infamous marriage tax penalty, and stopping us from forcing school children to pledge their allegiance “under God”, it has become obvious that the American government exists only to oppress Christian heterosexuals. I say: Enough! It’s time for us to rise up!
Perhaps we should strengthen our numbers by joining with the group brought low by reverse-discrimination, that insidious institution that keeps rich white men out of the remaining 2% of top CEO positions. We could form a coalition! (What’s the opposite of “rainbow”?)
Power to the already-powerful!!
ralph
August 1, 2003 at 11:52 am
17What’s the opposite of “rainbow”?
White sheets and hoods?
phil
August 1, 2003 at 4:35 pm
18Bison
drprocter
August 1, 2003 at 4:38 pm
19In the future, please refrain from talking about, or even “implying” penguin marriage. It gets Senator Rick Santorum all hot and bothered. Pretty soon he’s talking about “hot man-on-penguin” action” and phoning Justice Clarence Thomas for more of those weird Phillipino DVDs.
gttim
August 1, 2003 at 5:55 pm
20If penguins gets married, does the groom have to wear a tux?
the talking dog
August 1, 2003 at 5:58 pm
21Enough! If penguins were meant to be flyboys, God would have given them wings… oh wait…
Erica
August 1, 2003 at 9:41 pm
22What we need is more Ben Affleck movies so all the lesbians can turn straight. And then the gay boys will all die of AIDS and the problem will be solved.
EV
August 2, 2003 at 12:58 am
23See now I’ve been trying to tell the very nice but quite conservative penguin couple across the street that they are just being plain hypocrytical.
Jules
August 2, 2003 at 1:56 am
24If you were here now you’d witness my standing ovation. Since you’re not, I just feel silly.
Doug
August 2, 2003 at 4:42 pm
25Well, you do know that several species of penguin have invented prostitution…
Loved the post, and will refer to it often. Good job.
pericat
August 3, 2003 at 12:08 am
26Several penguins have just come round to my door, with a petition demanding that all the GLBT businesses in the area begin listing themselves as GLBTP.
I signed. I’m a leftie, after all. Still, I was wondering if there was anywhere we could buy a vowel before the Pride parade tomorrow?
Sharoney
August 3, 2003 at 12:45 am
27“Legalizing same-sex marriage… would signal that we no longer attach unique importance to the union of married opposite-sex couples. It would affirm that same-sex unions are as valuable in every way as conventional marriage. Teach children by example that traditional marriage is nothing special, and many of them will grow up unwilling to marry. My foreboding is that a generation after same-sex marriage is legalized, families will be even less stable than they are today, the divorce rate will be even higher, and children will be even less safe.”–columnist Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 7/6/03 (”Gay Marriage Would Change Society’s Ideal”)
Sounds remarkably like Mr. Felber’s column, doesn’t it? Only Jeff wasn’t kidding.
Temble
August 3, 2003 at 1:37 am
28I have to ask, all jokes aside. Was the combination of penguins, homosexuality and marriage intentional or accidental? Because penguin species do form long term, exclusive partnerships, and do engage in homosexuality.
Elric
August 3, 2003 at 10:33 am
29Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. While we’re at it, we want to keep our club of married straight people distinctly better than all those other clubs, right?
Well, then, it’s certainly past time to get the Department of Fatherland (oops, Homeland) Security forces out there to take care of all those fornicators who live together and act as though they were just like married people. Yep, we’ve got to get the police and national guard and NRA and other right-thinking groups out there, inspecting for marriage licenses. No tickee, no nookie!
Split them up, and send them back to their parents’ places, where they belong if they’re not married.
How about it Adam, won’t that help all us good, card-carrying, straight married couples know that we’ve got the best club on the block?
And, while we’re at it, we’d better send all those danged penguins back to Argentina or Antarctica or wherever it is they came from. After all, if we allow them to marry each other, next thing you know they’ll be wanting to marry us, and then where will we be?
bd
August 3, 2003 at 2:04 pm
30You people are all amazingly stupid, especially Adam. It doesn’t cheapen what you have when people marry for love, it should make what you have even more valuable. Maybe it threatens you because you’re got some tendencies…
Dee
August 3, 2003 at 2:33 pm
31Kaiser-chan
August 3, 2003 at 3:14 pm
32This is just great. Really. The sarcasm is loaded so thickly that I’m having trouble telling what you all really think of the matter, but I can say I’m laughing. Very hard, really. The part on how straight people are good with marraige… gays may do as poorly at it as straights - that’d just show us how deep human nature goes, ne? - but in a situation where there are likely less people to cheat on their spouses with, and extremelyheavy disaproval of such a thing (After all, “those damned gays” have no right to foul the institution of marraige the way straight people already do!) ^^;;
I’m still praying for those people who say such things as this without any sarcasm at all, or those who are unsure of the very existance of sarcasm in Adam’s statement, but the penguins really were a nice touch. Because, for all we know, penguins are treating marriage with far more dignity, love, and intellegence than we humans. And thus the comparison with them to gays…
I think I’ll leave this on that note. Have a nice day, ya’ll. And please, please do keep a sense of humour.
Bob
August 3, 2003 at 5:09 pm
33Dave Barry once wrote a column on the subject of the humor-impaired. He said that the most distressing reader feedback was not from people who thought he wasn’t funny–hey, tastes vary–but from people who didn’t even know he was joking.
bd, please take into account the fact that the sarcasm level here is, well, stratospheric. Unless, of course, *you* were being sarcastic, in which case, all I can say is, “Whoops.”
Tim H
August 3, 2003 at 10:26 pm
34Has it escaped everyone’s attention that President Bush has admitted to being a sinner? And in the same week that the Pope proudly claimed to be tolerating evil.
Neither has announced their stance on penguins.
craig
August 3, 2003 at 11:28 pm
35Does anyone in the administration (or the CIA) realize that the Taliban is against Gay Marriage? Therefore, being for Gay Marriage is a strike against terrorism. If we outlaw gay marriage, then the terrorists have won.
PS The Taliban has no known official stance on penguin marriage as long as it is performed in the muslim tradition.
Boozy
August 3, 2003 at 11:43 pm
36Craig makes an excellent point:”If we outlaw gay marriage, then the terrorists have won.” Does this mean that married gay penguins could now be considered “America’s Heroes”?
katie
August 4, 2003 at 12:33 am
37“If we outlaw gay marriage, then the terrorists have won.” Does this mean that married gay penguins could now be considered “America’s Heroes”?
HOOAH!!
Dan
August 4, 2003 at 9:47 am
38That was GREAT!
And the comments after were even better.
If a penguin couple married, then both bride and groom wear the tux, and that is really wrong. Just WRONG. It cheapens my wearing of a tux.
Kathy Howe
August 4, 2003 at 10:41 am
39Well said Adam!
Now…get away from your computer and figure out how you are going to win the next presidential election.
aussieintn
August 4, 2003 at 12:51 pm
40Very funny and well written!
Robert G
August 4, 2003 at 1:10 pm
41Adam,
Come on, you know darn well that if gay marriage is permitted, the chances of you being spirited away by one of those Chelsea boys and ending your nice hetero union prematurely (as a number of things end in your hetero) increases exponentially. Instead of going off to join the military like all good American lads, our boys will instead want to run off to New York and become cast members in the next big broadway musical!
The nation must be preserved.
Sincerely yours…
micheal knight
August 4, 2003 at 1:14 pm
42dont forget to outlaw marraige of old people who are past the point of procreation. how dare they marry for love!
Shannon
August 5, 2003 at 9:17 am
43LOL!!!
Here’s an easy solution! Have parents start arranging their children’s marriages, again. Then there won’t be any possible room for mistaking which gender to walk the aisle with . . .
Nivbed
August 6, 2003 at 2:11 am
44This was quite a hilarious read!
It made my day.
Don
August 7, 2003 at 11:01 am
45(BTW. there’s an unclosed blink tag above)
I am so glad that Bush feels so strongly in his convictions as to attempt to defend our marriages. Hopefully we can bring the troops back home for this action. We’re not safe in our homes with these homosexuals, elderly couples and penguins running around.
Amanda
August 8, 2003 at 9:39 am
46Poor bd is so sheltered and confused….
This post totally made my morning–thanks!
Shag from Brookline
August 8, 2003 at 5:26 pm
47Garrison Keillor tells this story on a Prairie Home Companion joke show:
I ran into some penguins and said that you penguins look like you’re wearing tuxedos. After a pause, one of them responds: How do you we’re not?
Let’s leave the penguins out of this. They have enough problems with the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Also, aren’t they protected by the Monroe Doctrine?
Shag from Brookline
August 8, 2003 at 5:27 pm
48Correction: “How do you know we’re not?”
James Green
August 8, 2003 at 8:38 pm
49I would like your permission to repost your great essay on my webzine at http://www.otternaut.org.
James Green, Editor
xmaggiex
August 10, 2003 at 3:49 pm
50actually, my biggest fear here, is as an unmarried young lady, if gay marriages become legal, therefore completely decimating the entire heterosexual institution of love, i may get confused, and accidentally marry a woman. gay marriage will turn us all gay. fight the power. god speed, all of you.
Lisa
August 10, 2003 at 4:40 pm
51What with gay people and penguins pushing for the right to get married and thereby devaluing heterosexual marriage, at least it takes the pressure off me. Maybe now my mother will stop bugging me and asking me when I’m going to find a nice boy, girl, penguin, what have you, and settle down already.
asha
August 11, 2003 at 1:05 am
52i can’t believe you compare a person, a human being, in complete serriousness to a PENGUIN and expect us to take you serriously…
i noticed you didn’t refer to the word love at all in your little rant. so it doesn’t matter is someone loves someone with their whole being and will be with them through sickness and health, since god determined they should both be of the same sex they should automatically not have the respect of their society. what bullshit. a partner is a partner, a lover is a lover and a husband/wife is a husband/wife no matter what your traditional narrowminded definition says.
now if only you’d pull your head out of the sand and start recognizing the humanity in everyone around you instead of looking only for a human’s stock value.
nota bene
August 11, 2003 at 2:15 am
53asha–I’m thinking you missed something….like the sarcasm.
G
August 11, 2003 at 1:20 pm
54When you have rocket scientists like Asha and BD around, it’s no wonder Dick Cheney has a higher approval rating than Nelson Mandela.
Opus
August 11, 2003 at 5:16 pm
55Penguin lust is NOT “Immoral and wicked”, and anybody who says so is just an old prude. It’s beautiful! And natural! And I for one fully support penguin lust!
Phil
August 11, 2003 at 5:17 pm
56Great. But today’s topic is “Nun Beating”
Opus
August 11, 2003 at 5:18 pm
57Good Lord, man…I can’t support THAT.
adam
August 12, 2003 at 2:13 pm
58James - go right ahead. Just make sure you link back to here.
Asha… oh, Asha…
Mikey
August 12, 2003 at 7:03 pm
59OPUS!!! So good to hear from you again!!!
PS: is that “Asha” as in “Brim full of Asha on the 45″???
Bill S
August 13, 2003 at 6:28 am
60The “Opus/Phil”(as in “the Penguin” and “Donahue”) exchange is lifted directly from an old “Bloom County” comic strip.
But you KNEW that, right?
:P
August 13, 2003 at 6:18 pm
61i ated the purple berry
katja
August 13, 2003 at 7:51 pm
62quality stuff, made my day.
does “James - go right ahead. Just make sure you link back to here.” hold true for all who would link up to the site?
Bridgid
August 14, 2003 at 1:10 am
63Unlike most of the heterosexuals we now see on such “reality” television shows - penguins mate for life and are monogamous.
But then if you think about it… All penguins look alike. It’s not like Mr.Penguin is going to leave Mrs. Penguin for a better looking penguin.
adam
August 14, 2003 at 3:35 pm
64katja -
Sure. Attaching my name n’ link would be nice, but help yerself.
Casey
August 14, 2003 at 5:12 pm
65As Lyle Lovett once sang, “Penguins are so sensitive to my needs.”
Erik
August 14, 2003 at 10:53 pm
66Any bets when the comments here die out? I say never, but I’m not good at this “betting” thing.
Bill S
August 15, 2003 at 6:21 pm
67I say, let’s try and set a record and see how many months worth of comments we can keep posting.
I’ll add a new each day myuself.
there, i just did. that’s it for today…
Bill S
August 17, 2003 at 8:13 am
68Darn. I missed Saturday! Oh well…in re Erica’s August 1 comment: How would I get AIDS from watching a Ben Affleck movie?
Anonymous
August 24, 2003 at 9:50 am
69you poeple are all homo-phobes- grow up! Why can’t people just mind their own damn business and butt out of other peoples lives
Tottal Long
August 25, 2003 at 7:44 pm
70For a good penguin time visit me at http://www.mondodev.net/
tyson
August 25, 2003 at 11:18 pm
71Okay, i’ll enjoy your penguin time…
and i’ll bring my mum
Bill S
August 30, 2003 at 10:40 am
72August 24th-what an unusual name! Whoever you are, you failed to grasp that Mr. Felber’s column was intended to mock homophobes, and you have also probably failed to grasp that most (perhaps all) of the people posting comments here are in agreement with Adam. Sad for you, really. Still it’s always worth holding out hope for the humour impaired.
Anon
September 18, 2003 at 11:39 am
73It’s funny how the only constant in the ever-changing social definition of marriage has been “between a man and a woman”. In the 1800’s and latter, it was acceptible for a man to marry a young girl. I doubt conservos would want to include that in their tidy definition. I sure the hell wouldn’t. Also, before the women’s rights movement (and to a very minor extent still present), marriage was essentially a man owning a woman: she was basically the husband’s property, free to do anything he wished to.
So, we have gone from a definition of marriage as a system of control that a man has over his wife (which may be quite young), to one that is basically extablishing husband and wife as one economic unit. To say that redefining civil unions and the like is unprecidented is flat-out wrong. Even adultery has been redefined: it used to be a system to establish paternity (men could fork whatever chick they wanted too, but women could only fork her husband so she knows who’s child pops out of her), and now it is considered wrong for men and women alike to commit it.
/rant
Anyways, the author of that shit is more of a selfish bitch than anything else. “Waaah! Waah! I’m angry because other people want the same freedoms and benefits I have!” sums up her thinking.
matt
September 26, 2003 at 12:21 am
74i bleive gay marrige shuould be if your gay your gay, why should they not be allowed notto get marrige just beucse it the same sex the want to marrie.
Addriene
September 27, 2003 at 2:00 pm
75Dood, this is the greatest thing I’ve seen all day XD
I want to hear Bush’s stance on Penguin Marriage.
I mean, what if I want to marry a penguin?
If he’s going to make penguin marriage illegal, I want to know, so that I can get married before he does.
I mean, if my penguin was a good, Christian Penguin, it would be okay, wouldn’t it?
He could join the army, like a good boy.
I mean, really, how many terrorists are going to expect to be pecked in the knee by an American Penguin?
He has the element of surprise!
Dan
September 29, 2003 at 5:20 pm
76Who knows? Maybe one day God will become so impressed with all the straw man arguments against Him that He will change His mind.
For now, I find it interesting that most of the time we come out against God and use hypocrites to mock those who really serve God, it’s mostly because we cannot find a way to rule over God and get Him to submit to our will. But, that’s just normal human nature.
We want to come to God when we need Him, and then we want to dump Him the moment we don’t get what we want from Him. We say we love people when we want something from them or when they please us somehow, but in truth we mostly just love the pleasure or comfort or protection we get from people.
At the root of human nature is a deep seated infantile self-centeredness that has a concept of this universe that says, “It’s all for me and to hell with everyone else who bugs me.”
We redefine God to our pleasure creating Him in our own image instead of conforming to His. We call Jesus Lord, Lord, but we do not treat Him like a King. We don’t trust Him. When something in our flesh tells us to disobey, we’re on that road in an instant.
Our God can be a million headed God or a non-existant God or a gay God or a baby slaughtering God or anything we want Him to be as long as we close our eyes to any God who would be rightfully entitled to any position higher than ours.
When we are wronged, we appeal to God’s laws as reasons for our anger, but when it comes to obeying those same laws, we’ll violate them the very minute that’s convenient or pleasing to us. We stand on the very foundation we break.
Will our straw men be believed in heaven or hell?
Will God just say, “Oh, well, I see where you were coming from–my bad–come on into heaven and I’ll get back to work and straighten things up to your liking?”
We want our smorgasboard of religions. Some worship Vishnu, some Krishna, some Baal, some Athena, some Jesus, some Budda, some worship a tree, a stone, whatever. If I buy a new Ford and pay the Chevy dealer, that seems crazy, but when God gives us life and we pay someone else our worship, somehow people seem to think that is our right.
That’s intolerance. So? That’s biggotry. No it isn’t. Biggotry is hatred for people, and this is not hatred for people. This is hatred for bad behavior–bad behavior that hurts people. To accuse a person of biggotry for this is to accuse God of biggotry.
And, yet, there is a reasonable sense that people come to different conclusions based on the evidence they are exposed to and the reasoning they do with that evidence. So, in a sense, it is arrogant for someone like me to go around acting as though I am more qualified to present my conclusions than someone else. After all, the Moslems, Hindus, Budhidst, and others have an equal right to be respected for their belief’s, too. I’m not entitled to some sense of superiority just because in my eyes, I’m “me”.
But, I think Ghandi gave the best reason I know why more people are not Christians when he said he would become a Christian if it were not for Christians.
The problem is, we have the right “religion”, but we don’t live by it. We apply it to everyone else and we say Jesus is Lord, but we do not make Him Lord of our lives in practice. Our divorce rates are as high as the rest of the world, and perhaps some would say that’s just because worldly people live together outside marriage instead of marrying, but I think it’s because many Christians are not really Christians; Jesus is not Lord of their lives.
How do I know this? Because there are two aspects of God’s Lordship. There is one aspect which makes Him to be a physically controlling God able to manage every quark in a universe of perhaps a hundred billion galaxies or so. And, then there is the Lordship that is by free will–that is, God gives us freedom and authority over our own domain and allows us the choice whether we will use our blessings selfishly even hurting others if necessary, or whether we will surrender ourselves and every part of our lives to His Lordship, trust Him, and obey Him.
If there is something in my life that would lead me to disobey Christ, then Christ is not my Lord. That thing that made me obey is my lord.
For most Christians, their Lord is their flesh. Religion is their aparatus for getting what they want. God is a big Santa in the sky giving them what they want and a set of morals they can appeal to when browbeating someone else into submission. They really don’t care if others submit to Christ–they only want others to submit to whatever it is that will bring themselves pleasure.
Why do some Christians cheat on their spouses? Because Jesus is not Lord in their lives. Why do they lie and cheat in business? Because Jesus is not Lord of their lives. The fish symbol and cross become nothing but business generating tools.
Why do Christians pray and not get answers? Because many pray just to get something they want. They’re not interested in a relationship with God. They don’t have time. Other things are more important. Jesus is not their Lord. God would like them to come around and spend a little time in prayer just adoring God and enjoying His presense. God would like to be loved for who He is and not just for what people can get from Him.
Why else do prayers go unanswered? Well, some pray for their marriages to be saved but would not pray for 30 seconds to help save another couple’s marriage. Some pray for help but refuse to give it when they have the chance. Perhaps they think the only prayers worth answering are those who belong to them personally. It isn’t as though God doesn’t have enough power and ability to answer many people’s prayers at once, but He would like us to care for others, too and not just for ourselves.
Wow. It sounds like I’m harder on Christians than non-Christians are. I am. And, the reason for that is that I think Christianity starts with us–not with someone else. We have to live the life and walk the walk. We have to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior before we can expect anyone else to do so. And, if we think someone is going to believe us if we are insincere, then we’re just being stupid, and God isn’t going to believe us either.
We Christians need to get our act straight so that when we are the brunt of straw man jokes, at least we will not have to feel guilt for living lives worthy of those jokes.
Thank you for putting up with my rant!
Dan
Cerys
October 16, 2003 at 6:44 am
77I really think you have your ideas about marriage screwed up. “A club gay people cannot join”?! Marriage is not a club, it is an expression of love and if two men feel that love to one another then they should be able to express it in whatever way they wish. I am actually shocked by this. Your marriage is about you and your wife, not about the rest of society. You are NOT in a club. You are in a RELATIONSHIP. With these attitudes I wouldn’t be surprised if your marriage was over pretty soon anyway. Get your head out of the clouds and show your new wife what she means to you.
Megan Bailey
October 16, 2003 at 6:00 pm
78I dont understand where anyone gets the right to undermine anothers happiness. Im not gay but I will always speak strongly for anyone persecuted over anything they have thier own personal beiliefs about. Where in the bible does it speak to persecute thoses who have not done anything on to you! Or to voice your opininion on a matter that in no way affects anyone but those people. How does that better your lives. do you feel more in control. get over it, everyone is different, that’s what makes this country great we are supposed to look on to no one above or below us, we are ALL EQUAL!!!! We all deserve the same privileges as the next! so why try to undermine anothers life when they have done no wrong to you. If you ask me you all are going to hell for judging others because you think you are holyier than thou.
pierre
October 26, 2003 at 1:10 am
79Excellent!
I look forward to more of your writing.
Seems like some of the folks posting
want a little levity.
I once knew a penguin, didn’t like humans much.
Said all they wanted was all they wanted.
I thought about it and became enlightened.
(for that moment of course)
pierre
November 9, 2003 at 11:49 am
80In his novel above, Dan, (posted Sept. 29)surprises me by telling us what we think. (Um.. does he know me?) He continues on to tell the readers what we all think, and what we are all trying to do. (If we are not christians that is.) Then assuming the Doctoral robes of Psychology, Antrhopology, and
Sociology; proclaims that he knows the root of all problems. (If only that were true.) I wish Dan, you would render the above in the stew pot of your mind for a while, and in 50 words or less tell us what you trying to say.
Dan
November 12, 2003 at 8:11 pm
81Pierre, am I supposed to find content or support somewhere in your criticism?
Dan
November 12, 2003 at 8:32 pm
82On the subject of telling people what they believe, is that sort of like the way some people accuse others of “hate” simply because they express concern that their chosen behavior may be dangerous healthwise, socially, and eternally?
Some of us believe that to love someone, you have to hate what destroys them.
J
November 16, 2003 at 1:19 am
83I fail to see the reason why it matters if it’s man or woman, man-man, woman-woman, other genders with …. what ever.. (excuse my ignorance please. ) (transvestites? what cattagory of sexual orentation do they fall under? gay or strait? Do you know what I mean? )
Maybe it’s my lack of religious sight but still; all it is, is gender. And it rather angers me to the fact how you actually do degrade to an extent about gay people getting married. Gay people have the same mind as you, not some “lets get married” crazed people, they actually care for each other like you do for your partner. CHARISHING the fact they got married. Like YOU do.
Zephyr
November 28, 2003 at 10:48 am
84Actually, transvestism isn’t a gender-orientation in and of itself. It’s practiced by hets, gays and trans…I suppose it would even be practiced by penguins if they wore different clothes, but what fun is transvestism if you’re just changing into the same outfit….HEY, maybe the penguins are -all- transvestites, and they’re just -hiding- it by all wearing the same thing so nobody can tell! But anyway, back to the issue of gender-specific marriage…transvestism doesn’t matter, but here in Texas, if you’re a trans-sexual, you can marry someone who’s the same sex as you, as long as you were the opposite sex when you were born, cause really, in keeping with the Thanksgiving spirit, maybe it’s all a safety thing…something about making sure that guys are ready for -real- marriage because when they were born, the male’s “done” timer had popped up.
Eden
November 28, 2003 at 6:57 pm
85is Dan for or against gay marriage? that’s what I’d like to know.
J - It. Is. A. Joke. So lighten up, eh?
I miss my penguin lover. She was so good to me.
S. Edward
November 30, 2003 at 10:29 pm
86What would happen to a married couple if one or the other got a sex change. Whould this new constitutional ammendment deem the marriage null & void? I imagine this has already been the case throughout the country in some fashion, but am unaware of the result.
It’s amazing to me that a group of ( supposedly ) intelligent people could get together and make a decision ( that in No Way affects them ) to change the founding document of this nation to single out and re-classify a group of people to the status of a second class citizen. The amendment goes on to codify that gays and lesbians and/or bisexuals won’t even be appropriated the civil benefits of a vowed relationship.
This, of course undermines the whole notion of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, for the basic tenents of the Constitution is that We are ALL afforded the same basic equal right to Life, Liberty & Pursuit…so long as in doing so doesnt’ infringe on someone else’s right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit..
All these issues regarding equal rights for gays cannot ( and will not ) be properly addressed until we get to the cruxt of the situation..the 64 million dollar question?? Why do gays exist..Where DO they come from…why have they been around for as long as man and animal has walked the planet. Why have nations and religions and politicians come and gone and we still have about ten% or so the planet being “homosexual?..Perhaps homosexuality is simply part and parcel of God’s nature. For it existed before there was even consciousness of God. ( Actually, I believe we are part of God’s consciousness, but that thought’s best left to another dissertation.) But more simply put, gays are part of Gods nature.
Of course the arguments will be strong. They will be unable to keep the argument focused on 2 consenting human being adult citizens of a ‘free’ country. It will extrapilate into beastiality, polygamy and bigomy. All things, by the way that heterosexuals have been known to engage in, whether within or without the sacred sacrament of their now threatened marital existance. And for an institution that everyone thinks is so suddenly sacred, why do over have of new marriages end up in divorce,…or seperation. And the less than 50% that stay the course, I wonder how many are cheating incessantly on each other. Or simply can’t stand each other. Yes, marriage certainly is in big trouble and it has not one thing to do with Homosexuality.
But we really should listen to the polls, for these polls are on average with polls against “mixed marriages” in the 1950’s & 60’s and even against the right of women to vote during the suffrage movement. Why then didn’t we Rush to a constitutional amendmnet to stop this ‘destruction’ to the moral fabric our country then?
It seems this will truly be the dividing issue in this country in the very near future and this country has so many Real things to concern itself with. It’s too bad that a country of intentionally dumbed down misfits and calculating bureaucrats will wedge this country apart based on the genitals that happens to be parked between someones legs.
This will all be touted as part of the Gay Agenda, as if going to work, eating lunch, paying taxes, seeing a movie and being with the person you love is some new strange venture in the arena of humanity.
I wish the conservatives would leave me alone to my God given right to the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. And Leave my constitution alone too!! Since it’s obviously not broke, don’t fix it and in the end, reduce an entire class of tax paying citizenry to second class citizens.
The end..for now
Charlene
December 6, 2003 at 12:08 pm
87Are homosexuals 2nd class citizens? No, they are not. Why do Gay’s exist and are they part of God’s nature? Homosexuality has it’s root in sin (so do marital problems). Yes, homosexuality has been around along time. We can thank Adam and Eve for introducing sin to God’s perfect creation. Homosexuality IS part of a nature; however, it is not part of God’s nature. God hates sin and homosexuality is an abomination to Him according to His Word; therefore, it is part of sin nature. Marriage is in trouble; however, not due to homosexuality. Marriage is in trouble because of (big surprise) sin. Dan is right. Too many say one thing and live another. That is not Christianity. The Word of God stands true and unrevokable no matter how intolerant humans are to God’s commandments.
Yes, rest assured, homosexual marriage WILL eventually be nationally recognized as an appropriate and lawful union. Yes, you will feel the pride of victory and feel you have finally won. However, these things must be because time is short. Those who have stood in open rebellion and sin against God will soon account for that.
That in mind, why are people like me (and I presume from the post, Dan) often called intolerant? It is not because I hate any homosexual. I have a good friend who just gave his heart to God and turned from homosexuality (Praise to God) after much prayer & witnessing. I have a God given duty as a Christian to try to take as many as I can to heaven with me. That means warning of the consequences of sin. Does that mean I hate homo’s? No. It means I hate sin and how it separates man and woman from God. Do I believe homosexual partner’s truly love each other? Yes, so far as anyone is able to love when walking in sin and just as much as most heterosexual partner’s love each other before gett married. Most use love and lust interchangably and don’t know the difference. True love takes three. God is the third in true love. That kind of counts out more than just homosexual marriages, doesn’t it? It counts out the majority of relationships today. It’s time we get back to the biblical aspect of love and marriage. But that will never be. Because the world is destined to become worse because it is controlled by sin. That saddens me and makes me happy at the same time. Saddens because so many will die lost and make hell their home. Makes me happy because soon My Lord will call His people home. God help your people to work while there is still time and help us to work in love not in hate to save sinners.
S. Edward
December 7, 2003 at 12:42 am
88Charlene, It would seem to me that you are confusing my comment on the reduction of homosexuals to 2nd class citizens in a “free” country with a particular religious viewpoint ( in your case, Christianity). I would never expect a particular religion or church to be Forced to marry two homosexuals as strongly as I don’t believe the government to Deny the Civil union of two consenting adults to marry based upon religious viewpoints and arguments. Religions, afterall, have the same right to operate without government intrusion as do consenting United States tax-paying citizens. I was arguing more on the basic tenets outlined on our founding document( the Constitution ) while you were relating to the biblical version of creation ( Adam & Eve ).
Adam & Eve was a nice story for an ignorant ( & I don’t mean that maliciously) and illiterate mass of people to give them a simple, dumbed-down story that they can grasp onto for answers to a question that is so much more profound ( that is, where do we all come from & how did the whole thing get started). Not get off on a diatribe here, but the Adam & Eve story basically makes no sense logically. Why would God create all the animals mature ( both male and female ) and then put Adam out there in charge of them all but still alone..then, almost as an afterthought ( not very Godlike), decided that Adam needed a female counterpart. That would mean that God would have initially created Adam without his male reproductive parts ( i.e. a penis and testicles ) as the only thing he would have needed would have been a urinary aperture ( pisshole for short). These reproductive apperatus would have then been supplied to Adam after God put him to sleep to steal a rib ( really now..) to create Eve..and the story just keeps getting better as Adam and Eve had three sons..so who did they marry?? Well their sisters of course ( I thought that was incest?). While I do believe that aspects of the bible were divinely inspired, it is a series of books, written over time, by man. The story of Adam & Eve is SO written from a man’s perspective that I’m surprized so many women accept the plot so graciously. Afterall, God initially only Creates Man, ( men-1, women-0), Then He decides to create Woman, but not independently from the same earth-dust he created Adam but From Adam himself, The Rib…( men-2, women-0), then of course we have the Sin Factor, and just who would you expect the first offender to be..( remember, Men Wrote the Bible)..Well, it’s the Woman of course..it’s all her damn fault for eating that stupid apple..(men-3, women-0)..and in All Gods Creativity and Wisdom and Mercy (not to mention omniscience)..all future civilizations would all be condemmned to Hell over a stupid apple..( My God is acutally smarter than that..) So men Then and men Now (and all men in the future) can be comforted in knowing that it was all originally the Woman’s fault…( I guess it’s nice to have someone to blame when you’re men controlling most governances through-out the world)..Couple All this with the pure simplicity and logic behind the evolutionalry theory as well as Darwin’s realization of the process of ’survival of the fittest’. We see animals adapt themselves to their enviroment over time consistantly..it’s not some secular belief system designed to undermine religion, it’s simply scientists understanding of how nature works here on earth in a logical and methodical sequence having to do largely with environmental factors. I never meant to get off on a religious tangent here when we were talking about civil unions in a democratic republic, but if a person is going to argue against civil unons based on Adam and Eve, then the opposite viewpoint must be heard as all citizens don’t necessarily ‘buy in’ to a particular religious veiwpoint and should not have their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness be thwarted because someone likes a simple story ( or worse, they have not the mental agility to understand the nature of reality or of God)..You mention that when Gays are finally allowed to marry, that we will feel like we finally “won”. That would imply that you ‘lost’..I don’t know what it is you will lose..perhaps you will not cook your husbands eggs the same ever again..I suspect however that when homosexuals do marry in this country (several other countries allow it already with no disruption to the heterosexual marriages), you will find that affects your married life not one bit..( personally, I think it will be the best thing for marriages straight and gay as people will take the union more seriously with all this heightened awareness on the sanctity of such a committment. As far as your freind that you think you converted back to being straight..I hate to tell you the news..we have a name for people that are drawn to both sexes ( and they can hide in the Light very easily witout suspicion)..we call them Bisexuals ( people who are sexually appreciative of both sexes)..Actually, bisexuals FAR outnumber Gays by a wide margin..and can seamlessly hide their bi-sexual condition because of their ability to engage with the opposite sex..( I would put the number at about 50%…and I thinks that’s a beautiful thing).. Understand that I too believe in God ( as do most homosexuals I suspect)..Let’s also remember what Jesus had to say regarding Homosexuality……..NOTHING…I know many Christians wish they could wake up one morning and see the Bible transformed with new quotes on Jesus’s disdain for the homosexual..or at least secretly wish he addressed the issue directly to their liking..unfortunatly, you will have to rely on an ‘Old Testament God’ that is far more intolerant, judgemental and merciless than the “new Testament God” that Jesus tried to convey to his followers…In Fact..Jesus gave a new commandment to all above all others…to Love one another..Charlene, you have a surpisingly open and gracious mind..I hope you continually seek a truer understanding through time and at the very least, are not thwarted to want ‘better’ answers to lifes most difficult questions..God Bless
cayde brown
December 16, 2003 at 3:22 pm
89this is so stupid why would anyone want to do this someone should be sued
zjwillie
December 22, 2003 at 8:59 am
90Get over yourself moron and be open minded…
zjwillie
December 22, 2003 at 9:06 am
91S. Edward, beautifully said by the way, my earlier comment was for the writer of the original post.
K
December 23, 2003 at 7:45 pm
92Jesus sucks my cock and loves it.
Kirk
December 27, 2003 at 4:29 pm
93I do not want a constitutional amendment making me a second class citizen in this county. The United States was built on the premise that we would not have a cast system and that all citizens would be treated equally under the law.
With a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage and or civil unions to be recognized under the law does just that.
The United States government must not and cannot support a religious institution. Our own constitution says there will be a separation of Church and State. Then why would the government allow a religious institution other than a house of worship special tax benefits under the law?
You may ask how this is happing and the there is no such distinction. Well here are some examples of what I am talking about.
I cover my domestic my partner via my employer’s health care benefits granted to all domestic partnerships including those of straight couples. Under IRS rules my partners premiums and that portion paid my employer for my partner are considered income. You say well that is the same for straight couples as well. This is true, if they marry the tax implications STOP. I am not allowed to marry or have a civil union recognized by the government so I continue to pay more taxes. This is not right.
Capitol gains are another one. If we sell our home that we own together and the home sale is $250,000.00 or more we are subject to capitol gains taxes. The married couple would get double that amount up to
$ 500,000.00 before taxes are imposed on them.
.
If a spouse dies a non-working spouse can collect his/her social security benefit. I can’t. The government is telling me that since we are not married my partner’s life is meaningless. That to me is incomprehensible. If I give my partner more then 10,000.00 we must claim it as a gift, and are subject to a gift tax. The same is not true for married couples it is considered marital assets and there is no tax implications.
The list goes on and on. If you think the country is not ready for gay marriages, I wonder what they will think now. If you hit the citizens in the pocketbook by taking away all of the tax benefits for being married I am sure that the view would change. I understand it takes time to accept people’s differences. After all the African-American community has been fighting for civil rights and equality since the 50’s and is still waiting, I guess I can be more patient.
However, the government cannot subsidize a religious institution period. These subsides must stop. So I guess we are in for a long battle. Unless the government stops treating all of gay America like second class citizens that pay more taxes than anyone else we will have to continue to fight for gay marriages. You have given us no choice.
As for the peguins. I think they are cute .
Brenda
December 30, 2003 at 9:01 am
94You are forgetting something. Traditional marriage involves not just love, not just sex, but the survival of humanity. Only a man and a woman can make a baby and ensure the survival of humanity. It’s easy to forget this because 1. there are so many of us (some would say too many), 2. in industrial nations, survival is no longer a daily issue for most people and 3. modern science and a lot of money enables us to go beyond biology. Survival, however, is the real reason why society finds traditional marriage so valuable and is willing to subsidize it.
Now, if Joe cares for John, that’s fine with me, but why should I pay for it? Advocates of civil unions want me to help subsidize the romantic lives of these people through tax breaks, and I do not feel obligated to do so. I don’t hate them, not at all, but I don’t see why they should get tax breaks at my, and everybody else’s, expense. I am happy to pay for somebody else’s children, however, because they are the future. When I am elderly, they may be caring for me in a nursing home. I want them to turn out well. It’s survival, folks.
I understand that John and Joe want to feel valued by society, and homosexuals and lesbians have indeed made tremendous contributions in the world of work. We need to award benefits for practical reasons, however, i.e., insuring our future.
What has happened to the concept of Mom and Dad? Prison inmates most frequently have two things in common. They are male, and they grew up without a father. Children need fathers. They need mothers. Something I find remarkable about the sexual revolution is that the needs of children seem are treated as if they are secondary to the desires of adults. Why is it that the kids have to accept substitute or part-time parents when we do not require adults to have substitute or part-time partners?
In third world countries like India, traditional marriage initially at least doesn’t have much to do with love at all. Marriages are still frequently arranged, and not between John and Joe. Western ideas have become far more prevalent in such places, but don’t expect our ideas to take hold there any time soon. The Anglicans of Africa are not too thrilled at the prospect of a gay bishop. These people don’t think much of homosexual and lesbian marriages because they are more in tune with daily survival issues.
Kirk
December 30, 2003 at 9:57 am
95Brenda;
I respect your views but you have a few things wrong.
You don’t want to subsudize the romantic lives of joe and john. Well, then why should I subsizde the romantic lives of john and jane????? I do everyday thru unfair tax laws aimed at you.
Also hello have you heard of a womens prison. Did they grow up with out a Mother. It would seem that the prison system has nothing to do with what is right and wrong with this argument. That is a whole other issue.
The Straight community says the Gays have the gay adgenda. Well being gay I don’t know what that is other than being treated like everyone else. If that is an adgenda then I am for it.
And by the way. My gay tax dollars will be paying for your nursing home care not your kids. They will be divorced and not paying child support
Kim
December 30, 2003 at 12:32 pm
96Also, Brenda, please note that numerous studies have shown it is NOT true that children need a mother and a father. Loving parents, yes — and preferably more than one; it’s obvious why that would make for a more stable household, although many fine people have been raised by a single parent/guardian. But visit http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html for the American Pyschological Association’s documentation that children raised by same-sex parents fare as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents.
Murray
December 31, 2003 at 10:46 am
97I think that it is always a bit presumptuous to speak for God.
Charlene says that a gay marriage is against God’s laws. (Sin)
OK, Then where does God stand on slavery, polygamy, racism, genocide, rape, and punishing one’s own children? Well, according to the bible, he condones all of these.
No where in the bible does God either condemn, or indicate his displeasure with slavery, and it is even condoned in Leviticus. The south used the bible to defend slavery.
Polygamy? Abraham- 2 wives, Jacob -2 wives, -2maids, David, lots, Solomon, 700 with 1400 concubines. (no problem)
Racism? I was told (in a Christian grade school) that blacks were the descendants of Ham who was cursed by his father Noah so that he and his descendants would serve his brothers, (we good white folks) after laughing at Noah’s drunken nakedness. “A slave to a slave shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25) (Drunken naked Noah, didn’t even get a reprimand)
The bible also teaches us to stone our own children outside the city walls if they disobey us. (Not that I wasn’t tempted occasionally).
Remember Israel’s first king, Saul? Remember why God took the kingdom away from him? Seems that God commanded Saul to kill all of the Amalekites; men, women, children and animals. Saul only killed the men, women, and children, sparing the animals. This really angered God, forcing him to give the kingdom to David. (1 Samuel 15). Genocide was not only condoned it was mandatory!
Rape is no big problem as long as you do it to a slave, the punishment is a ram guilt offering. (The cost of a movie and dinner) (Leviticus 19:21)
So the same God who says that eating shrimp, and homosexuality are an abominations, still gives slavery, killing women and children (genocide), racism, raping slaves, and marrying as many women (not men) as you want, a pass.
This is the God you are speaking for?
Or are you just willing to pick out the passages that fit your social agenda and demand that everyone else follow them?
You may try to take a completely literal understanding of the bible but all you need to do is re-read the first 6 or 7 books to see what a bad idea that is. Then you are left with taking some parts literally and some metaphorically, Once you do that, then You are acting like God.
The great thing about the bible is how wonderfully ambiguous it is. Everyone reading it comes away with a different interpretation. (All exclusively right).
So who gets to determine what God is really saying?
You? John Ashcroft? Pat Robertson? Jesse Jackson? Louis Farrakhan? L. Ron Hubbard? White Supremists?
The president wishes to change the constitution to enforce his understanding of the bible.
This is why religion and legislation need to be separated. You and our president have a right to believe what ever you want.
But so do I. When you take the step of enforcing your beliefs through the laws of the land, you are infringing on my beliefs.
I personally don’t have a dog in this fight. I have been happily married to my wife for 15 years and having gays around me married or just living together won’t affect that. (And any one who thinks that it could affect their marriage, is just making excuses).
But someone needs to stand up for our constitution.
Katie
December 31, 2003 at 11:47 pm
98Murray,
HUZZAH!!!
Well stated, and great source quoting.
However, where does eating SHRIMP show up in the bible?!! Must have missed that week in catechism class…..