Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage

posted at 10:01 pm on February 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

It passed the House last week and the Senate tonight, and the governor’s signature is a fait accompli:

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials…

Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

The bill didn’t become viable until two more Democrats were elected to the Senate in 2010, which finally gave them the votes to move the bill out of committee. Next up: The inevitable popular referendum to see whether the law should be blocked. According to Ballotpedia, polls taken in early 2011 and 2012 show roughly 50 percent support for gay marriage in the state versus opposition in the low 40s. Much will depend on turnout, but the true significance of the referendum is that potentially it applies a bit more pressure to the Supreme Court to take this issue up constitutionally. That’s probably a done deal anyway thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling on Prop 8, but if Maryland’s gay-marriage opponents win the referendum and gay rights activists sue to have it thrown out, that’ll be two cases in two different states in two different regions involving a question of majority rule pitted directly against minority rights. Hard for the Court to resist.

Via Mediaite, here’s Chris Christie squaring off with WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart this a.m. on “Morning Joe” over his veto of New Jersey’s gay marriage bill. They’re actually both wrong here, I think. First Capehart accuses Christie of letting a popular referendum determine the civil rights of a minority, but that’s not actually true. As I understand it, any potential referendum in New Jersey would seek to overturn Christie’s veto by asking simply whether gay marriage should now be legalized. That’s different from a referendum asking whether gay marriage should be banned. The former, if it fails, adds nothing to the state constitution, merely affirming Christie’s veto and the status quo unless and until there’s a legislative majority willing to change it. Whereas the latter, if it passed, would lock in a constitutional prohibition barring future legislative efforts until a popular majority overturned it. Christie’s wrong too, though, in claiming that Obama’s trying to have it both ways on gay marriage while he’s standing on principle by resolving to veto the gay-marriage bill when it gets to his desk. Christie’s trying to have it both ways too by consistently talking up the referendum as a way around him. He knows full well that it’s likely to pass if it happens — according to a poll taken a few weeks ago, the public supports gay marriage 54/35 — but he wants to keep his ducks in a row on social issues in case he ends up on the national GOP ticket someday. By supporting a referendum so effusively, he’s basically encouraging New Jerseyites to legalize gay marriage for him so that he doesn’t have to get his hands dirty doing so. Which, of course, makes the scolding from Capehart and others ironic. Christie’s not booting the issue to the public because he wants the majority to crush the minority’s rights, he’s booting it because he expects the majority will affirm the minority’s rights and thereby nullify his politically expedient veto.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Samesexmarriagepolls.png

Your time is (nearly) through, bigots. Look how much opinion has shifted against you in a mere 2 decades. Your totalitarian religious excuses have no weight with anybody outside your own circles of hate-cultivating religious sects.

[=]

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

How do you consummate a gay marriage?

Sonosam on February 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

How do you feel about abortion?

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

How do you feel about abortion?

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? As many gay-haters are so fond of reminding everybody, a gay couple isn’t even capable of conceiving in the first place.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? As many gay-haters are so fond of reminding everybody, a gay couple isn’t even capable of conceiving in the first place.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

It has everything to do with your ridiculous bigots comment. Who is it that is truly against a gay man or woman? The person who supports indiscriminate killing of the unborn, or the person who rejects the redefining of marriage? I have no interest in denying any liberties, including life, to any homosexual. My interest lies in how we define marriage. I can make a compelling argument for why we shouldn’t redefine marriage. Can you make a compelling argument for why gay children should be killed in the womb?

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I can make a compelling argument for why we shouldn’t redefine marriage.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Highly doubtful, not the least of which is because it is built upon a false premise.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Highly doubtful, not the least of which is because it is built upon a false premise.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM

What false premise is that?

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM

..and yet, the Sun still rose today.

Non-issue.

Yakko77 on February 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Well, good. Maybe a whole host of rich gay couples will move into the state to take the place of all the millionaires the Democrats chased out and pay for all the illegal aliens the same Democrats welcomed in. Maybe one of the richest counties in America (Montgomery) will be able to fill their pot holes. Maybe O’Malley’s proposal for an 8% gas tax and a tax on fixing your old car and a tax on watching TV can be shelved. Maybe.

Portia46 on February 24, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The state can make “same-sex marriage” legal, but it cannot make it legitimate, because “marriage”, by definition, is a heterosexual institution.
One could say that he plans to bake an apple pie, but substitute peaches for apples, but any one with sense will see that he is really baking a peach pie.

Regardless, homosexual couples do themselves a disservice to involve the state in their relationship (5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License). The state only corrupts and destroys what it touches. They would do better to find a pastor who is sympathetic to their situation, and have him conduct a ceremony, and show heterosexuals how it is done.

Just don’t try to use state power to legally force me to accept that same-sex marriage is legitimate. I’ll laugh at that as much as at a “peach-apple pie”.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

They would do better to find a pastor who is sympathetic to their situation, and have him conduct a ceremony, and show heterosexuals how it is done.

Just don’t try to use state power to legally force me to accept that same-sex marriage is legitimate. I’ll laugh at that as much as at a “peach-apple pie”.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The point isn’t some meaningless BS ceremony, the point is all the benefits and advantages conferred through government recognition of a “marriage”.

There are 3 options here for equality. And anything less than equality is some backwards bigoted crap. Maybe such things flew in the South in the 50s, but there is no place for “seperate but equal” today (and there never was).

1) Abolish any tax benefits, legal priveleges, and any benefits associated with any kind of personal union. (My choice, but the one that will never happen).

2) Make all couples get “civil unions”, heterosexual and homosexual. No legal definition for “marriage” whatsoever. People can use it however they like.

3) Allow homosexual marriage, complete with all the priveleges it grants to heterosexual couples.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

What’s the point of having a referendum or vote? When the activists don’t get the results they want, they go to court and get it reversed.
I proudly voted for Prop 187 back then only to have the courts invalidate it.
California voted, the courts halted it.
It will continue every time.

lonestar1 on February 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Nom de Boom on February 24, 2012 at 4:47 AM

The fact you have presented a lot of questionable data to draw and support your conclusion (or in this case, you’ve copied and pasted an essay that uses a lot of questionable data to support your conclusions) does not place a burden on anyone of producing a similarly long essay in rebuttal. I could probably produce evidence to nuke some of what you’ve copied and pasted but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that kind of search through the relevant scientific literature and even if I did, the fact I would be presenting it to a person so willing to latch onto and cite bad data leaves me with the sneaking suspicion you’re not really amenable to being persuaded on the issue.

I’m aware the essay you copied has more than three references total. I took each section of your post individually and most sections had two to three references apiece.

I cited one personal anecdote once and if you feel that’s too much to abide then fine, toss it and keep the rest. I did dig into that one point though just a bit so even though I’m not really obligated to provide counter evidence for some of that essay’s dubious claims when I point out its claims are dubious, I made an exception on that one. That essay cites a single study done in 1978 before the AIDS epidemic and it claims that 28% of gay men have over 1,000 sexual partners in their lifetime. The paper cited says 15% have 100 to 250, 17% have 250-500, 17% have 500-1000 and 28% have 1000 or more, or an average of one new sexual partner a week for 20 years. I don’t have that paper in front of me so I don’t know what they counted as a sexual partner to get to that number but if you want something more recent in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels in 1994 (nearly two decades more current than the reference you cite) found the actual number was about 42 over the lifetime of the average homosexual. It’s three times higher than the number among heterosexual men but way short of that laughable 1,000 number. So there’s one for you.

Your being critical of me for including a single anecdote in my response to you and then you trying to use one back at me did produce a smile though so thanks for that. :-)

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If only gay people didn’t exist we wouldn’t have this problem. Damn you Satan!

Mr. Neaux Nonsense on February 24, 2012 at 2:18 PM

If only gay people didn’t exist we wouldn’t have this problem. Damn you Satan!

Mr. Neaux Nonsense on February 24, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Maybe someday you’ll get your wish since leftists love them some baby killing. So if/when homosexuality can be diagnosed prenatally perhaps most, if not all, will be exterminated before birth.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The point isn’t some meaningless BS ceremony…

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I would recommend you stop throwing around the word “bigot” while simultaneously denegrating someone’s deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs.

Marriage is an institution created in the private sector; in Western Civilization, authority over marriage has for centuries been held by the Christian Church. During the middle ages, one could get married by a simple promise to your sweetheart, followed by a romp in the hay. The next day, you went to the church and told the priest, who recorded the marriage. The marriage was legitimate regardless what the state said about it.

The only people who had to get permission to get married were serfs. Nowadays, people take it as a matter of course that one needs the state’s permission to marry. At this time, the homosexual is free from state intervention with regard to “same-sex marriage”. Why muff it up by inviting the state in?

As to the legal and financial ramifications, please read the article that I linked. It’s directed toward Christians, since the author is a pastor, but several of the arguments he makes can apply just as well to same-sex couples.

But again, “same-sex marriage” has as much legitimacy as an “apple pie” that has no apples. I don’t care if same-sex couples refer to themselves as married. I don’t care if they get all the legal benefits the supposed “right” of marriage grants. But whatever they, and a compliant state, says, same-sex couples do not have a real marriage. Because, you know, “marriage” denotes a heterosexual union.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 2:43 PM

The point isn’t some meaningless BS ceremony…

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

One other comment about this statement. The “meaningless BS ceremony” is what marriage is about. Marriage is not a set of visitation rights and tax consequences. Marriage is a solemn vow before God and man to commit one’s self to another (of the opposite gender, of course) for the purposes of companionship and procreation.

State interventions into this “BS ceremony” are the truly superfluous matters with regard to marriage.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Marriage is an institution created in the private sector; in Western Civilization, authority over marriage has for centuries been held by the Christian Church.

And before the church existed?

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Maybe someday you’ll get your wish since leftists love them some baby killing. So if/when homosexuality can be diagnosed prenatally perhaps most, if not all, will be exterminated before birth.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM

You would kill your child if they turned out to be gay? Wow.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 2:55 PM

How do you consummate a gay marriage?
Sonosam on February 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The wedding night fisting?

Sonosam on February 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM

And before the church existed?

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I believe that marriage was directly instituted by the Infinite Creator God. Others may not hold this view, especially if one’s presuppositions tend toward materialistic naturalism, in which case marriage began as a “food for sex” trade-off. In either case, marriage was created apart from the state, and state intrusion into the definition and arrangement of married couples is alien and disruptive.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:24 PM

There are 3 options here for equality. And anything less than equality is some backwards bigoted crap. Maybe such things flew in the South in the 50s, but there is no place for “seperate but equal” today (and there never was).

1) Abolish any tax benefits, legal priveleges, and any benefits associated with any kind of personal union. (My choice, but the one that will never happen).

2) Make all couples get “civil unions”, heterosexual and homosexual. No legal definition for “marriage” whatsoever. People can use it however they like.

3) Allow homosexual marriage, complete with all the priveleges it grants to heterosexual couples.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

“Separate but equal”??? There are homosexual bathrooms? Water fountains? Schools? What a silly comparison.

Marriage has been part of every culture in every part of the world from the beginning. Even in Greece where homosexuality between men and boys was celebrated, marriage was sacrosanct. The reasons? Procreation and inheritance. In most cultures marriage is also a religion ceremony wherein the couple is sanctified in their efforts to procreate. Christian-Judao culture and law used/uses the legal ramifications of marriage to protect women and children. It was not so long ago that most women did stay home with the children and the laws you so denigrate were to protect women if the marriage ended in divorce or death. Until current laws, a woman’s contribution to the union (homemaking, child-rearing) was held worthless by the courts and she and her children were left in poverty.

Also, if a couple earns about equal wages, there is actually a marriage tax penalty and financially, both can be held legally responsible for the financial misdeeds of the other. It ain’t all sweetness and light, legally speaking.

A civil union with appropriate estate planning can do exactly the same thing. Marriage has to do with a lot more than tax law and if gays want that, then they should work for legislation to achieve it. The simple fact of the matter is procreation requires one of each sex, and what you call a BS ceremony is the very essence of why most of us got married. We wanted a family and we made a commitment. What the gay community consider’s BS, we married folk consider sacred.

Portia46 on February 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I believe that marriage was directly instituted by the Infinite Creator God. Others may not hold this view, especially if one’s presuppositions tend toward materialistic naturalism, in which case marriage began as a “food for sex” trade-off. In either case, marriage was created apart from the state, and state intrusion into the definition and arrangement of married couples is alien and disruptive.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Marriage existed long before there was a church and long before any Judeo monotheism. Marriage exists in all cultures regardless of whether they recognized your god or not.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM

If the gov’t should declare that it will no longer recognize Christian marriages, Christians would laugh and laugh, and continued to get legitimately married. The gov’t is an institution based on deceit, theft and violence, and Christians do not need its “approval” to engage in an activity over which the gov’t has no real authority.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Marriage existed long before there was a church and long before any Judeo monotheism. Marriage exists in all cultures regardless of whether they recognized your god or not.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM

As I say, those who subscribe to materialistic naturalism will not find my arguments that God created marriage to be compelling. You miss my point, I think.

Perhaps I should state it more plainly: Government has no business interfering in marriage in any way.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Marriage exists in all cultures regardless of whether they recognized your god or not.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Obviously cavalier973 here missed this part of what you said, Dante.

Thinking Jesus’s dad invented marriage is just idiotic. He imparted the instution of marriage to the Chinese, the Hindus, the Aztecs, the Arabs, the Polynesians, etc, but not the “holy gospel”??? LOL.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Since you like metaphors cavalier973, here’s one for you: Thinking Judeo-Christianity-Islam is responsible for coming up with the idea of marriage is a bit like thinking Marie Calendar came up with the idea of pie.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Portia46 on February 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM

And what do you think of the numerous amounts of married couples that DON’T have kids. Why should they be allowed to remain married but gays can’t get all those perks?

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM

As I say, those who subscribe to materialistic naturalism will not find my arguments that God created marriage to be compelling. You miss my point, I think.

Perhaps I should state it more plainly: Government has no business interfering in marriage in any way.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Nor do those who don’t subscribe to materialistic naturalism.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Since you like metaphors cavalier973, here’s one for you: Thinking Judeo-Christianity-Islam is responsible for coming up with the idea of marriage is a bit like thinking Marie Calendar came up with the idea of pie.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The “Judeo-Christian Religion” didn’t create the institution of marriage; it was established rather by the Infinite Creator God, whom Jews and Christians happen to worship.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM

You would kill your child if they turned out to be gay? Wow.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Did I say that?

Answer me this; if it is true that over 90% of children diagnosed with Down Syndrome prenatally are aborted, what makes you think the same people who make that awful calculation won’t do the same if a child is diagnosed as being homosexual prenatally?

Approximately 70% of children with Down Syndrome are not aborted, so I don’t believe that 90% of homosexual babies would be killed before birth. But considering how many Downs babies are killed before birth after a prenatal diagnosis, don’t be surprised if homosexual babies are treated in the same manner by the those who choose to test for it.

It amazes me how invested leftists are in the great gay marriage “liberation” debate, but refuse to acknowledge the stolen liberty of the unborn and the awful consequences of abortion on demand.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Marriage existed long before there was a church and long before any Judeo monotheism. Marriage exists in all cultures regardless of whether they recognized your god or not.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM

And marriage prior to Christianity was of only one man and one man or one woman and one woman…wait.

The institution of marriage and its purpose almost predates man’s capacity for stupidity.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The point isn’t some meaningless BS ceremony, the point is all the benefits and advantages conferred through government recognition of a “marriage”.

Then stop trying to pull that gay marriage is a small government conservative principle- it isn’t. Marriage is by definition government “in the bedroom.”

melle1228 on February 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Did I say that?

Answer me this; if it is true that over 90% of children diagnosed with Down Syndrome prenatally are aborted, what makes you think the same people who make that awful calculation won’t do the same if a child is diagnosed as being homosexual prenatally?

Approximately 70% of children with Down Syndrome are not aborted, so I don’t believe that 90% of homosexual babies would be killed before birth. But considering how many Downs babies are killed before birth after a prenatal diagnosis, don’t be surprised if homosexual babies are treated in the same manner by the those who choose to test for it.

It amazes me how invested leftists are in the great gay marriage “liberation” debate, but refuse to acknowledge the stolen liberty of the unborn and the awful consequences of abortion on demand.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I’m not going to defend anyone who makes the decision to abort their child.

The pro-choicers on the left probably aren’t all that concerned at the thought of raising a gay child so I don’t see why that would lead to any more abortion, and of those in the pro-life community are really as pro-life as they claim to be then all of those babies should be safe as well even if it’s known they’re going to be gay. If the pro-life community contains a couple hypocrites who aren’t as pro-life as they claim to be then that’s more of a sad commentary on those people as human beings.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Not exactly accurate. They became the second state to legalize gay marriage. Every other state had it imposed upon them by the judiciary of their states. And if this goes to a referendum in Maryland we will be back to only one state legalizing gay marriage.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Vermont, New York, Washington, Maryland. That’s four by legislature.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 4:26 PM

The “Judeo-Christian Religion” didn’t create the institution of marriage; it was established rather by the Infinite Creator God, whom Jews and Christians happen to worship.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Interesting. When exactly did the Infinite Creator God create the institution of marriage? Where did you read that? I would like to learn more of this history you have access to.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM

The pro-choicers on the left probably aren’t all that concerned at the thought of raising a gay child so I don’t see why that would lead to any more abortion…

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I think you are fooling yourself. One of the excuses pro-abortionists use for killing children is that if they don’t think that child would have a good life. Planned Parenthood doesn’t operate in poor districts because they think the rich don’t want abortions. They think they are doing minorities a service by exterminating them. And plenty of bent leftists who convince themselves that the world is out to get gays will do the same under the hypothetical I have described.

They won’t admit they don’t want gay children, which is a natural inclination no matter how tolerant a person considers themselves to be. Parents want grandchildren after all.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Answer me this; if it is true that over 90% of children diagnosed with Down Syndrome prenatally are aborted, what makes you think the same people who make that awful calculation won’t do the same if a child is diagnosed as being homosexual prenatally?

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Gayness isn’t a debilitating defect that requires a lifetime of supervision and expensive caretakers.

Gays are also the wealthiest demographic in the United States. Why would you want to abort a person like that? For the kid’s sake, I would hope they were gay.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 4:36 PM

They won’t admit they don’t want gay children, which is a natural inclination no matter how tolerant a person considers themselves to be. Parents want grandchildren after all.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You really are only speaking for your own hateful self, and you don’t even know it.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Vermont, New York, Washington, Maryland. That’s four by legislature.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Depends on how it is defined. Washington’s law is “all but marriage”. But I do stand corrected regardless.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Are you gay by chance? Because your comments really do not make any logical sense otherwise. If heterosexual parents could choose sexuality prior to birth they would invariably choose heterosexual children. There are exceptions to any rule, but human nature is a general rule.

Those who hold life sacred would not abort their children no matter what their sexuality. I would personally be opposed to even testing for it since nothing could convince me a child should be aborted. Nothing short of choosing between the mother’s life and a child’s life anyways. But those who do choose to test for it, if such a test existed, would most likely choose to abort the child.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM

They won’t admit they don’t want gay children, which is a natural inclination no matter how tolerant a person considers themselves to be. Parents want grandchildren after all.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM

You’re projecting. You don’t want a gay child and so you’re assuming no one else does either. I frankly could care less what the sexual orientation of my children turns out to be. I would hope it’s the same for any loving parent out there.

The notion of a desire for grandchildren being a reason for any parent could think of to kill their own child ranks as one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. Taking the life of another human being, your own child no less, because they won’t turn around and make a major life choice for themselves (i.e.: have children of their own) just to suit your tastes? By that logic parents would equally be justified in aborting a baby that’s found to be heterosexual but has some other genetic issue and is sterile. That is disgusting.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I doubt anyone will even bother reading this post, given that I’m so late to the discussion, but here goes….

The one question I’d like to ask of all who have believe”the government shouldn’t interfere with MY MARRIAGE” or that marriage founded upon a religious bond and should not be defined by the state, answer the following…

If the above argument is one to which you subscribe, did you STILL proceed to be married to your one & only? Or at least plan to, whenever it is that you happen to meet that special someone?

Pardon the pun, but is there anyone who has practiced what they preached on this matter? Name me one couple you know who has been married by their church, but not also applied for a marriage license too.

Liberty 5-3001 on February 24, 2012 at 4:53 PM

If heterosexual male parents could choose sexuality prior to birth they would invariably choose heterosexual male children. There are exceptions to any rule, but human nature is a general rule.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM

As a general rule this is true (you can look it up), but in fact once the thing is conceived, almost all men will accept it whether its a girl or a boy. Yeah, hypothetically they might prefer a boy, but once presented with the fact that its a girl, they can adapt to this fact. I like to think it would be the same for gayz even if you could detect a homo in the womb (which you can’t).

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 4:58 PM

You’re projecting. You don’t want a gay child and so you’re assuming no one else does either. I frankly could care less what the sexual orientation of my children turns out to be. I would hope it’s the same for any loving parent out there

I don’t know why people insist on kidding themselves. I would love my children even if they had no arms and no legs. I still would hope they have arms and legs.

The notion of a desire for grandchildren being a reason for any parent could think of to kill their own child ranks as one of the most selfish things I have ever heard.

I would consider any reason for killing a child to be incredibly selfish.

Taking the life of another human being, your own child no less, because they won’t turn around and make a major life choice for themselves (i.e.: have children of their own) just to suit your tastes? By that logic parents would equally be justified in aborting a baby that’s found to be heterosexual but has some other genetic issue and is sterile. That is disgusting.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Or say, because they have Down Syndrome for example…

We half agree. We agree how disgusting the entire abortion on demand culture is. We disagree about human nature.

Once a person has convinced themselves abortion is a legitimate choice, they will convince themselves that it is a legitimate choice for any reason.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Once a person has convinced themselves abortion is a legitimate choice, they will convince themselves that it is a legitimate choice for any reason.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Your logic is faulty here. If I believe abortion is a legitimate choice for a woman who has been raped, it does not follow that I believe it is legitimate to abort a child because it’ll be red-headed, or because it’s a girl.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Your logic is faulty here. If I believe abortion is a legitimate choice for a woman who has been raped, it does not follow that I believe it is legitimate to abort a child because it’ll be red-headed, or because it’s a girl.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I grant your point. I was referring to abortion on demand though. And the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I would consider any reason for killing a child to be incredibly selfish.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM

*Generally* agree with you, but there are hard edge cases (and I’m not saying this example should be instructive). In my own extended family, there is a young woman who discovered 18 months ago that she has a large, untreatable cranial AVM. She suffered a severe brain hemorrhage just before Christmas and almost died (we were told she wouldn’t survive the night). She has been instructed by her physicians not to get pregnant, as it *significantly* increases the risk of another hemorrhage (blood pressure I guess?). In her case, she has non-selfish reasons to seek an abortion; surely a terminated pregnancy is preferable to making a husband a widower, or leaving other children without a mother.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Sadly, I think believe that a genetic test were possible to determine that your child would be gay some people who indeed would abort the child. Some out of hatred of gays, some because they know that the child would have to face a hostile world……….just read some of the posts on this thread. Thank God that Dick Cheney loves and supports his gay daughter.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

In her case, she has non-selfish reasons to seek an abortion; surely a terminated pregnancy is preferable to making a husband a widower, or leaving other children without a mother.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Life is the first and most important liberty. It trumps all other liberties, but in the case of a pregnancy it can come in conflict with another person’s right to life. Unfortunately such circumstances require one life be chosen over another. In such cases a mother should be the final arbiter.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Sadly, I think believe that a genetic test were possible to determine that your child would be gay some people who indeed would abort the child. Some out of hatred of gays, some because they know that the child would have to face a hostile world……….just read some of the posts on this thread. Thank God that Dick Cheney loves and supports his gay daughter.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I agree with you about the gay-haters. But the part I bolded… too depressing to think anybody would actually think that way.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Your time is (nearly) through, bigots. Look how much opinion has shifted against you in a mere 2 decades. Your totalitarian religious excuses have no weight with anybody outside your own circles of hate-cultivating religious sects.

[=]

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM

That you are totally oblivious to the fact that those pushing the homosexual paradigm are the bigots is really something else.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2012 at 6:50 PM

That you are totally oblivious to the fact that those pushing the homosexual paradigm are the bigots is really something else.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Pushing for equal rights at the expense of religious intolerance is not bigoted no matter how much you wish it were.

You are the type of guy that would claim a minority wanting to be free to gambol around Nazi Germany was bigoted against Nazi ideals. Ridiculous.

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Depends on how it is defined. Washington’s law is “all but marriage”. But I do stand corrected regardless.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 4:42 PM

(“All-but-marriage”) Gay marriage is responsible for the 300+ days of rain here in Seattle. Now, granted, it rained 300+ days each year in Seattle before (“all-but-marriage”) gay marriage, but now that Washington has (“all-but-marriage”) gay marriage, we gotta blame something on it.

Still have our $95,000/year “Bike FairyCzar too, but I dont think he’s married.

Jeddite on February 24, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Jeddite on February 24, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I didn’t realize Washingtonians were so irrational.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Interesting. When exactly did the Infinite Creator God create the institution of marriage? Where did you read that? I would like to learn more of this history you have access to.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM

</blockquote

Clever; but then again, not clever at all. Saying that the "Judeo-Christian God" is only an invention of men, because is an example of begging the question.

It is entirely reasonable that an Infinite Creator God should reveal Himself in a manner and time of His choosing, including through Scripture.

And I will emphasize again, that if one is devoted to materialistic naturalism, then one will not find my arguments compelling. However, I hope that even those who reject the Truth will find some benefit from my arguments, in that they may use them when arguing with Christians who have embraced government-worship, and who therefore think that a violent coercion is a proper path to societal morality.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 7:23 PM

^^^Saying that the “Judeo-Christian God” is only an invention of men, because there is no such person as God, is an example of begging the question.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM

How do you feel about abortion?
NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? As many gay-haters are so fond of reminding everybody, a gay couple isn’t even capable of conceiving in the first place.
Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
Apparently we’re making some progress.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:40 PM

^^^Saying that the “Judeo-Christian God” is only an invention of men, because there is no such person as God, is an example of begging the question.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Cleverness aside: but really, where do you get the notion that the Institution of Marriage was created by the Infinite Creator God? Is that part of the doctrine of whatever brand of Christianity you adhere to? I’m not familiar with a historical claim for this, but I am a bit Bible-rusty these days.

What does that even mean? Surely the Institution of Marriage was created when the very first couple got married. How could it have existed before then? The only semi-sense that I can make of what you’re saying is that you believe that marriage is blessed, and that God smiles kindly upon it.

But the God created the Institution of Marriage thing is incoherent.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 7:53 PM

But the God created the Institution of Marriage thing is incoherent.
zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 7:53 PM

.
What the hang does THAT mean?

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Nom de Boom on February 24, 2012 at 4:47 AM

To buttress my last response to you I did a little more homework.

I found myself in a fully-stocked academic library today and had a couple minutes on my hands to I looked up one of the references cited in the essay you quoted about how astounding the promiscuity of homosexuals is. Reference 29 in the essay you quote is

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp.

The reference omits the page number but I found the data in Table 7 on page 308. The numbers are copied from the source material correctly although there is no methodology given. The numbers you quote were the findings for gay men only; lesbians appear to be significantly less promiscuous. From there if you go on and actually read what the authors wrote (analysis is on page 80something. I neglected to jot it down but the analysis goes in order of the tables of data so if you start sifting through the first hundred pages or so and looking at the references to the tables at the end you can find it yourself in less than a minute). In their analysis of the data the authors included a footnote where they admit that the data set is likely prone to exaggeration. I’ve read a scientific study or two in my time and I have never seen any study where the authors admit their numbers are likely inaccurate at the same time they’re reporting the numbers. Given the fact the authors of your source material are suggesting their own work be taken with a grain of salt, plus its age compared to more contemporary study I cited makes me call either the objectivity or the scholarly worth of the essay you quote into serious question.

You also pullquoted this

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.52

The “52″ at the end of that refers to reference 52 in that essay, which is Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

A few years afterward Robert Hogg, the lead author of that paper the pullquote above was taken from published this in the same International Journal of Epidemiology.

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man’s risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

The full citation for that is Robert S. Hogg et. al. Int. J. Epidemiol. (2001) 30 (6): 1499

So the authors of your original source material are now telling you that their own work was out of date over ten years ago. Yet the guy who wrote what you’re pasting, and you also by extension, is still quoting it.

Lucky for you I’d seen enough after I checked the second reference. Let this be a lesson that having a works cited section does not impart credibility.

I will chalk your mistakes up to ignorance on your part and not a deliberate intention to be deceptive. If you’re not familiar with or don’t have ready access to the original source material then it’s difficult to really check this stuff to make sure it’s correct, especially if what’s been written fits with your personal preconceived notions. Your real gripe is with the guy at the Family Research Council who wrote the poorly-sourced thing you copied and pasted here. He’s got a Ph.D. in Religion from Marquette so if he really wrote a serious dissertation he should know better than this.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 8:03 PM

And I will emphasize again, that if one is devoted to materialistic naturalism, then one will not find my arguments compelling. However, I hope that even those who reject the Truth will find some benefit from my arguments, in that they may use them when arguing with Christians who have embraced government-worship, and who therefore think that a violent coercion is a proper path to societal morality.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 7:23 PM

And I will say again that one doesn’t have to be devoted to materialistic naturalism to not find your argument compelling.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 8:03 PM

So you don’t think homosexual lifestyle shortens life expectancy?

The gays sure had no problem crying for gubmint money to help cure a disease that is 100% preventable

Sonosam on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM

But the God created the Institution of Marriage thing is incoherent.
zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 7:53 PM

.
What the hang does THAT mean?
listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM

It means that one can’t even make an evaluation of the truth of the statement, because it makes no sense at all.

These are coherent assertions:

- God created the earth
- God created man in his image

They may or may not be true, but they are coherent. One understands what is meant by these statements. But what the hang does it mean to say that God created the Institution of Marriage? Did He Himself get married? Did he come up with the idea of marriage? The assertion is incoherent to me, and I suspect it’s generally incoherent, but maybe somebody can explain what is meant.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM

So you don’t think homosexual lifestyle shortens life expectancy?

The gays sure had no problem crying for gubmint money to help cure a disease that is 100% preventable

Sonosam on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I don’t know if being homosexual shortens life expectancy or not. The paper I cited says that the earlier paper by those same authors which had said a 20 year old gay man in Canada wasn’t likely to reach the age of 65 is no longer correct. There’s no more or no less to it than that.

A majority of gay people might not have had a problem with the government spending money on AIDS research probably because most gay people are Democrats and Democrats seem to like it when the government spends money on anything. The government spending money on STD research didn’t begin with AIDS though.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM

And I will say again that one doesn’t have to be devoted to materialistic naturalism to not find your argument compelling.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM

You are, of course, free to believe and assert what you wish.

where do you get the notion that the Institution of Marriage was created by the Infinite Creator God?

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,
5 “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Genesis 2
22. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Genesis 2

18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.”
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper [s]suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM

They may or may not be true, but they are coherent. One understands what is meant by these statements. But what the hang does it mean to say that God created the Institution of Marriage? Did He Himself get married? Did he come up with the idea of marriage? The assertion is incoherent to me, and I suspect it’s generally incoherent, but maybe somebody can explain what is meant.
zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM

First: Gen 2:18-25

Then Mark 10:4-9, the context of which is a discussion about the issue of divorce, which was brought-up to Jesus by the Disciples.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM

.
Man, am I slow. : )

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 8:58 PM

cavalier973, listens2glenn: none of those excerpts have anything to say about God creating the institution of marriage. Zero. Nada. I hope you’re not just trolling me here…

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Being generous, maybe because God created Adam and Eve, somehow that’s a proxy for his creating the institution of marriage? But there’s no mention of Adam & Eve ever having been married, as far as I recollect.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 9:23 PM

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Just so you know I’m thoroughly enjoying watching this back-and-forth despite my being fairly sure it won’t end well.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Being generous, maybe because God created Adam and Eve, somehow that’s a proxy for his creating the institution of marriage? But there’s no mention of Adam & Eve ever having been married, as far as I recollect.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Yes, Adam and Eve were married and, evidently, married by God Himself. Because the Bible from the beginning calls Eve his “wife.”

God also made Eve for Adam because He thought Adam needed a “suitable partner.”

Hope this helps.

Genesis 2:18-25:

The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” . . .

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,

the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.”

this continues in Chapter 3 and into the New Testament. Eve is called Adam’s wife.

To the man he said: “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. . . .

The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.”

Note: This chapter is not a warning to men not to listen to your wives. lol Men should ALWAYS listen to their wives. lol just kidding.

Elisa on February 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Just so you know I’m thoroughly enjoying watching this back-and-forth despite my being fairly sure it won’t end well.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Alchemist, you’re only saying that based upon the 100% historical record of these conversations not ending well. This time, it’s different!

* Not that my pitchfork isn’t within arm’s reach.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Yes, Adam and Eve were married and, evidently, married by God Himself. Because the Bible from the beginning calls Eve his “wife.”

I’d like to see that in the original Hebrew. Not saying that this is the case, but translation over millennia is a sloppy business, and unless we know to the contrary, it could just as easily have been “partner” or “main squeeze” instead of wife.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Yes, Adam and Eve were married and, evidently, married by God Himself. Because the Bible from the beginning calls Eve his “wife.”

I’d like to see that in the original Hebrew. Not saying that this is the case, but translation over millennia is a sloppy business, and unless we know to the contrary, it could just as easily have been “partner” or “main squeeze” instead of wife.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM

I don’t read Hebrew, but I looked it up and where it translates as “wife” there is another Hebrew letter in front of it from when it translates “woman.” I read that there is no Biblical Hebrew word for “wife,” not just with Adam and Eve, but throughout the Old Testament. Yet we all know that there were wives throughout the Old Testament and ancient Jewish and Christian Tradition (including the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament around 200BC) all translate and understand Eve to be Adam’s wife, not simply some woman who he has sex with who was his companion. The Bible is very clear about the status of the various women in it, including who is a wife and who isn’t. There were wives, there were concubines, there were servants that bore them legitimate children, all women the men were responsible for, but only the wives had that special status as being one with the man and the respect as being part of his family. And of course taking another man’s wife or adultery was also very clear in the Bible.

The phrase “throw his cloak over her” meant take her as his wife, he was responsible for the woman from then on, she was his family. Like in the story of Ruth when she became the wife of Boaz. Take someone as a wife was not the same thing as having sex with her or having her as a companion who lives with you. There was much more to it. It is what we call marriage.

So you could translate the Hebrew as “his woman” or “wife.” But “his woman” meant “wife.” My family is from Spain and in Spanish we use the phrase “mi mujer” or “la mujer” much more often than “mi esposa” or “la esposa.” “Mujer” literally translates as “woman,” while “esposa” literally translates as female spouse. Yet everyone knows that when you put a word before woman, like my or his (such as “mi mujer”) it means wife.

Languages are more than letters and isolated words. When used in context they have meanings. Meanings that are not doubted by experts. And no one has ever doubted that Eve was anything other than Adam’s wife, not simply a woman who was his companion.

They were married. That is clear.

Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM

And no one has ever doubted that Eve was anything other than Adam’s wife, not simply a woman who was his companion.

They were married. That is clear.

Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Plenty of people have doubted it. And it certainly is not clear; one would think that such an event would bear commenting upon in the Bible if it had indeed occurred. That the marriage of Adam & Even was not explicitly noted could suggest that it didn’t happen (after all, what’s the point if there were only the two of them walking around?), or that it really wasn’t that noteworthy an event from the perspective of the Bible authors.

zarathustra on February 25, 2012 at 9:16 AM

cavalier973, listens2glenn: none of those excerpts have anything to say about God creating the institution of marriage. Zero. Nada. I hope you’re not just trolling me here…
zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 9:18 PM

.
I’m pretty sure they do. But if it’s not apparent to you, then it really doesn’t matter what I think about it.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Yes, Adam and Eve were married and, evidently, married by God Himself. Because the Bible from the beginning calls Eve his “wife.”
Elisa on February 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM

.
I’d like to see that in the original Hebrew. Not saying that this is the case, but translation over millennia is a sloppy business, and unless we know to the contrary, it could just as easily have been “partner” or “main squeeze” instead of wife.
zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM

.
One thing we do agree on is “translation over millennia is a sloppy business”, but not impossible.

Break-down of original Hebrew for Gen 2:24, and for Gen 2:25.

Worth noting: The original Hebrew words translated to ‘wife’ in the KJV [Gen 2:24-25] are not the same. Hmmmm, plot thickens (maybe).

These online references are NOT a “final proof”, but they are a good start.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I’m pretty sure they do. But if it’s not apparent to you, then it really doesn’t matter what I think about it.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Do you think marriage didn’t exist before Judaism’s monotheism came along? What about in other cultures outside the Middle East and on the other side of the world?

Dante on February 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Yes, Adam and Eve were married and, evidently, married by God Himself. Because the Bible from the beginning calls Eve his “wife.”
Elisa on February 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Elisa, you are correct in stating that Eve is referred to as wife. And it further states, “the man and his wife”.

DDay on February 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM

listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Do you think marriage didn’t exist before Judaism’s monotheism came along? What about in other cultures outside the Middle East and on the other side of the world?
Dante on February 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM

.
The answer is easily ‘yes’, if you reject the Bible as the absolute documentation of the world’s ‘beginnings’ (plural).

Since I believe the Bible IS the absolute documentation of the world’s beginnings, I would then have to define where “Judaism’s monotheism” begins on the Biblical timeline.
Did Judaism’s monotheism begin with Abraham? Or did it begin with Adam? Or somewhere in the middle? Or not until after Abraham?

All of the various, different World cultures began at the Tower of Babel. But ‘institutionalized marriage’ was recognized, and practiced by Noah and Sons, before God approached him about building the Ark.
It came off the Ark with Noah’s family, and another different ‘world’ began from there. (side note: what cultures in today’s world don’t recognize or practice institutional marriage?)
.
On the other hand, if you don’t believe the Bible is the “absolute documentation of the world’s beginnings”, then everything I said above is ‘meaningless, null, and void’ to you.
And that means we’re at an impasse.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Plenty of people have doubted it. And it certainly is not clear; one would think that such an event would bear commenting upon in the Bible if it had indeed occurred. That the marriage of Adam & Even was not explicitly noted could suggest that it didn’t happen (after all, what’s the point if there were only the two of them walking around?), or that it really wasn’t that noteworthy an event from the perspective of the Bible authors.

zarathustra on February 25, 2012 at 9:16 AM

So, let me get this straight. You want to see a wedding ceremony specifically in Genesis to have no doubts that Eve was Adam’s wife? You think that is such an important and necessary thing to include in the Bible or people might not believe it happened?

The fact that the original Biblical Hebrew calls her “his woman” (as opposed to “the woman”) which is translated throughout the entire Old Testament as “wife” for all the wives of the Old Testament, because there is no Biblical Hebrew word “wife” and it is the only way the wives are described in the Old Testament, isn’t enough for you? Just like in modern day Spanish with “mi mujer” and “la mujer de el.”

This was the oral Sacred Jewish Tradition passed down for centuries until it was written down at the time of Moses, when they clearly had the institution of marriage and would understand the difference between a wife and a companion, yet they called Eve his wife, (using the same Hebrew word to describe Moses’ wife.) Throughout Jewish and Christian oral Sacred Tradition Eve was his wife. As Noah, Abraham, etc. all had wives.

No differentiation of Eve, like we see when the Bible speaks of concubines or servants that bore them legitimate children and they were responsible for these women, but they were not considered wives, married, family.

In fact

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 8:54 PM

has already quoted Jesus Himself in Matthew 19 quoting the Genesis passage in question. Jesus (in the original Greek) uses the word “wife” for that passage referring to Eve. Since Jesus is God, I think we can feel safe that He is interpreting and translating the original languages used in the Word of God correctly.

If you don’t believe in God or put any stock in what Jesus said, then why bring up the point in the first place? Why would you care what the Bible said from the beginning about marriage? And if you are a believer in the Bible, then Jesus has given you your answer.

So you want to see (in writing) a wedding ceremony? Well we see God presenting the woman to Adam for his approval as a “suitable partner” and Adam responding verbally accepting her so and then they “become one body.” Sounds a lot like “Do you take this woman to be your wife?” and “I do” and then they are united and “become one body.” Companions do not “become one body.”

Even in secular law, most societies, including ours, have common law wives. A wedding ceremony isn’t necessary to be a wife.

But you find it reasonable to want to see a wedding ceremony (in writing) or you reserve judgment on whether they were married?

If it comforts you in your philosophy to think there is a chance that Adam and Eve weren’t married, I won’t continue to try and dissuade you.

Elisa on February 25, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4