Very possibly. But then I _was_ translating for someone who wasn’t Jewish. And possibly not – after seeing you diss the woman emailing you about jonahweb.com, I’m sceptical there’s as big a difference between how Jews regard these things and everybody else as you make out.

I forgot to address this above. Why on earth would I be mistaken or lie about how I use the word gay? It’s perfectly simple: I use it to mean primarily or exclusively same-sex attracted, period, because that’s the prevailing use in the gay community and it’s our word. I’m aware that other people use it for other things. Many conservative Christians use it to mean someone who primarily or exclusively has same-sex sex. Also, although I can’t quite figure out the nuance, but it seems that some also mean people who are out and proud and reserve the _right_ to have same-sex sex, as opposed to those who are struggling to be celibate or keep up opposite-sex relationships and just fall off the wagon regularly. But I don’t use it in any of those senses, and I have no intention of cooperating with it being used like that.

Yes and no. I’m fine in principle with some government restrictions on who can marry, there just has to be a pretty good secular reason for it. For example, I think there’s a moderately good case against polygamy: in practice it will overwhelmingly tend to be polygyny, i.e., one-man-many-wives, which will lead to other men missing out on a wife, and in turn fights over women and ‘surplus’ young men being thrown out of the community. (This _is_ what happens in fundamentalist Mormon communities.) But the same argument doesn’t apply to SSM because the number of gay men roughly balances the number of lesbians.

Mind you, I don’t think for a moment that there _couldn’t_ be a reason that would justify cramping my lifestyle, I just think that there _isn’t_.

‘David has made the argument much better than I, but marriage is more than just a legal contract between two consenting adults that later helps lawyers determine whose property is whose when allocating the divorce settlement. It is an essential societal institution necessary for an advanced and humane civilization by instituting the most ideal and socially preferred framework for the creation and education of future generations.’

Very possibly – so what? How does opening it to same-sex couples interfere with this in any way?

‘They are not the enemy. The real enemy is anyone who sophistically and sophomorically relegates this debate to one between white hats and enemies.’

Err, no, really, there is an enemy. I had the chastening experience of having to go on a long drive through Central California the day after the Lawrence vs Texas decision was handed down, and there was little to listen to but Christian radio. Station after station after station of people hopping mad that they weren’t allowed to have the government lock us up.

‘And kid yourself all you like, people have not been beaten into relative submission by you and your ilk – people genuinely believe that I shouldn’t be treated rudely and with disrespect because of whom I’m inclined to love.’

Sorry, I was unclear. What I was trying to say is that the many people who, still, really hate your guts have largely been steamrollered by the alliance that has been forged, at least in more progressive states, and at least on the big-ticket issues like sodomy laws. And most of the people in that alliance really do think as you say. But there are degrees of these things. Some people don’t want to think of themselves as haters, but they’re not entirely OK with your relationship either. As far as I can tell, it pleases them to be magnanimous towards the unfortunate wretches who are same-sex attracted, but only as a favour from a position of imagined superiority and only so long as the unfortunate know their place. And of course to maintain such an attitude, excuses have to be manufactured as to why same-sex relationships are unworthy. I wish I could say that I saw more in opposition to SSM than that, but I don’t. I think it’s just a milquetoast version of the same narrow-minded religion I heard on the radio that day in the central valley.

I think you’re taking the attitudes toward sin and immorality of some other religion and imputing them to me. You wrote “I think it’s laughable to suggest that thinking something I’m doing cheerfully and unapologetically (i.e., having gay sex) is immoral isn’t ‘looking down on.’”

I believe a lot of things are immoral. I believe it’s a very serious sin for a Jewish man to have sex with his wife during and for several days after her period. The vast majority of Jewish men I know commit that sin. None of them thinks I look down on them. I don’t.

We’re a free country. There are people with many different religions, and even among Jews there are many attitudes and practices regarding Jewish law. Most people in my life do not observe halacha to the extent that I do. That usually doesn’t create barriers; we respect each other’s approach. Heck, I have more friends who are Democrats than Republicans.

Jaroslaw-

You have to admit there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in at best four states, but really only in two. The other 46 or 48 states have no such right, and Loving v. Virginia makes no difference in that regard.

I clearly referenced the new court decisions referenced previous decisions and built on them.

Anyone reading posts on these subjects would have to know that.

For what it’s worth, I figured you’d almost certainly butt in to say that, but I don’t consider myself guilty of a straw man because I think it’s laughable to suggest that thinking something I’m doing cheerfully and unapologetically (i.e., having gay sex) is immoral isn’t “looking down on”. I certainly know I don’t regard it differently from any other sort of looking down.

I don’t believe you for one second but oh well…

>>>Yes, but I don’t have all of the rights and privileges that every other _person_ in this country has. There’s something _I’m_ prohibited from doing because of my sex: marrying another guy. And on the one hand that’s an inconvenience because I’m gay (see above) and on the other hand, I’ve never heard a coherent reason as to what purpose such a prohibition serves.

Actually you do have the same rights and privileges as every ‘other person’ in this country. They have the same prohibitions that you have. Now some of those prohibitions may not affect them in the slightest and I assume most don’t affect you in the slightest – you don’t desire to marry your uncle or a 12 year old, right? Regardless the prohibitions imposed are equally imposed on you as every ‘other person’ in this country. Thus we all have the same rights and privileges.

Now let’s get this straight – you are actually arguing that it is just for the government to have marriage prohibitions but just not the one that affects your chosen lifestyle? And that the people who desire to maintain that particular prohibition are now the enemy?

>>>Anatole France skewered this sort of narrow thinking better than I ever could: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Yes some may have reason to hate some laws more than others. I’m sure fundamentalist Mormons hate bigamy laws too. But I guess that is just narrow thinking on their part.

>>>I can make moral arguments against some of those and practical arguments against others, and I’ll be happy to if you’d really like, but it seems pointless because I’ll bet large sums of money that you’re not a moral argument type of guy. You strike me as the sort of guy who could care less about moral arguments and just wants the fighting to stop. I can sympathize, because the fighting is wrecking the furniture and trampling the grass, but I reckon you’re going to like it even less if our side gives up.

I hope you are not a betting man (or should I’ve said betting gay man?)… I have no problem fighting righteous battles; in fact I’m inclined to take sides in such a fight. Read my posts – I’m a scrapper who loves to duke it out. I’m rarely one to make the Rodney King argument.

However changing the law and what most believe is God’s law regarding the holy matrimony of a man and a woman to those of two men or two women is hardly, in my opinion, a righteous battle. David has made the argument much better than I, but marriage is more than just a legal contract between two consenting adults that later helps lawyers determine whose property is whose when allocating the divorce settlement. It is an essential societal institution necessary for an advanced and humane civilization by instituting the most ideal and socially preferred framework for the creation and education of future generations.

>>>I doubt Jaroslav wants to take on 9 with 1, and I certainly don’t. Nothing can be achieved without sympathetic straight allies. Fortunately, sympathetic straight allies are not that hard to come by because the enemy’s case is really pathetic.

They are not the enemy. The real enemy is anyone who sophistically and sophomorically relegates this debate to one between white hats and enemies. And the more people are inundated with your ‘us vs. the enemy’ mentality, the fewer sympathetic straight allies you will have to count on in the coming years.

>Good luck to you. But, err, David openly looks down on you, and he’s a moderate of sorts. A good third of people in the US despise you with a passion and the balance of close on a half think you’re a second-class citizen. We’ve just beaten them into relative submission for you.

I think you should let David speak for himself. If he looks down on my argument he is more than capable of pointing out how and why. And kid yourself all you like, people have not been beaten into relative submission by you and your ilk – people genuinely believe that I shouldn’t be treated rudely and with disrespect because of whom I’m inclined to love. However, if you and your ilk keep up your hate crusade they may reconsider.

Just to clarify, I don’t look down on you, despise you, or think you’re a second-class citizen.

Jaroslaw-

The Supreme Court definitely did not say in 1967 that people have a right to marry a member of the same sex. If they did, we wouldn’t be fighting these battles state by state. There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Massachusetts and California have (for now) a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. New Jersey and Vermont have a state constitutional right to the equivalent of same-sex marriage. In 46 states there is neither a federal nor a state right to same-sex marriage or its equivalent.

Point – Unless you want to scrap the entire legal system of western civilization, you can only have one spouse. (which sex the spouse is not important as you’ll see) If you have more than one, who gets custody of the kids, who gets to decide if you die etc. These are very real issues, so your Mormon argument goes down the drain.

Point – Moral war and religious war? This can only happen because the masses are so easily confused – when you have no health care, no social security, no pension, no clean water to drink, no alternate energy sources because big corporations run the government you won’t really care who your neighbor marries. ( eg focus on what matters)

Point – Since when does the government get to define what marriage is? I assume you don’t know any history, because originally only white men who were property owners got to vote in this country. And then there were religious tests for office – you had to belong to a certain church to even qualify to run. And people had to pay taxes to support speciifc religions.

Do you think we would have the freedoms we have today if no one ever rocked the boat?

You have to do what is right, not what is easy.

The fact that the world has changes, we know scientifically most people don’t choose to be Gay – why would you restrict who they can marry based on that? Why would you deny yourself rights? If you have religious reasons you don’t want me to marry the man of my choice, you can say that, but please stop accusing me of asking for special rights. Frankly who I marry is none of your business. If you are going to restrict that, then we need to have a consensus on how many children people are allowed to have, whether or not single people are allowed to have children etc.

Finally, do you think Massachusetts, California, Vermont, New Jersy, Connecticut, New York allow Civil Unions and/or same sex marriage because they hate the United States? NO they have realized what the Supreme Court of the United States said in 1967 – the choice of whom to marry is the most personal and intimate choice one can make and the state cannot place restrictions on it without a compelling state interest.

Err, dunno about you, but that’s what _I_ mean by “gay”, neither more nor less.

‘You have all of the rights and privileges that every other man in this country has.’

Yes, but I don’t have all of the rights and privileges that every other _person_ in this country has. There’s something _I’m_ prohibited from doing because of my sex: marrying another guy. And on the one hand that’s an inconvenience because I’m gay (see above) and on the other hand, I’ve never heard a coherent reason as to what purpose such a prohibition serves.

‘In truth, you have the exact same right to marriage as every straight man in this country.’

Anatole France skewered this sort of narrow thinking better than I ever could: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

‘Now the fun part comes as you try to make moral judgments against that Mormon, hippie, pederast and backwoodsman while excluding yourself, lmao.’

I can make moral arguments against some of those and practical arguments against others, and I’ll be happy to if you’d really like, but it seems pointless because I’ll bet large sums of money that you’re not a moral argument type of guy. You strike me as the sort of guy who could care less about moral arguments and just wants the fighting to stop. I can sympathize, because the fighting is wrecking the furniture and trampling the grass, but I reckon you’re going to like it even less if our side gives up.

‘So he’s happy to have 1 take on 9 and he thinks in the end he will win?’

I doubt Jaroslav wants to take on 9 with 1, and I certainly don’t. Nothing can be achieved without sympathetic straight allies. Fortunately, sympathetic straight allies are not that hard to come by because the enemy’s case is really pathetic.

‘I am attracted to guys. I have a partner and have been in a loving relationship for over 6 years now. I am treated well by everyone and no one openly looks down on me, harasses me or prevents me from living the life I have chosen to live.’

Good luck to you. But, err, David openly looks down on you, and he’s a moderate of sorts. A good third of people in the US despise you with a passion and the balance of close on a half think you’re a second-class citizen. We’ve just beaten them into relative submission for you.