although i hate to say this, i think everything has to come crashing down in this culture war before individuals realize what has been going on. before people try and fail (@ secularism), they will not believe it's wrong.

He forgot famine and drought.

In extolling marriage, and righfully so, he forgot to exclude gays.

Jeff:

Your right. Marriage is so wonderful, everybody should marry anybody.

I'm confused. Why are there convents?

Because sex is a choice, and not a necessity.

Peter,
Why stop at anybody? Why not "Everybody should marry anything"?

Roy:

Indeed, or any number of anybodys or anythings. Wouldn't it be fun to tell all these new marriage-cravers that we give in and they can all marry, but we are abolishing divorce?

Unfortunately, Mr Arnold is adding to the problem that he is trying to solve by making statements like "Sex is also God�s greatest gift to us.". Really? Greater than children? Much of the divorce problem we are having is that people are going into marriage with his mindset, that they will find "the highest and deepest expression of love" in the sex act with their partner, and all will be bliss forever after. If a couple cannot find a deeper sense of meaning beyond sex, the relationship will not last.

True enough, Robert. There are also some pretty high and deep expressions of love that don't involve sex. Father and child, for example.

True enough Robert.

My deepest feelings of love for my wife have not the first thing to do with sex.

Peter:

The author does seem awfully inclusive "Deep down it is this that every person longs for ... the beauty and stability of God�s original order, and the peace of heart and mind that comes from embracing it."

Which is why OJ is so dead set, despite the evidence, on maintaining that homosexuality is merely a choice.

Because as soon as it becomes something innate, then God did it, and arguments against gay marriage collapse faster than an Albanian pyramid scheme.

Which is why the marriage war is completely unecessary.

Robert/Harry/Jeff:

I'm marking this day in red on my calender as the one when I finally agreed with all of you. (I'm pretending I didn't notice Jeff's final conclusion)

Jeff
"collapse faster than Albanian Pyramid scheme"

As a matter of logic, that's not quite true. Granted societal condemnation of Homosexuals will not have as much merit, but denial of marriage rights would be a different matter entirely, because the reasons society would support marriage between heterosexuals would still not apply to homosexuals.

By the way don't go overboard with the "lack of choice" argument since it is regularly employed by schizophrenic murderers, rapist, pedophiles etc as they argue they have irristible impulses or urges. They are declared insane and/or throw in prison. Were they born that way? Did they have any meaningful choice in the matter? Actually I don't think they do in many cases.

H-man:

Good point about the "lack of choice" argument. However, there is are a couple of important things to keep in mind.

Unlike sex, where the morality of the act is wholly bound up in the context, murder is always wrong. So is rape--but consensual, marital sex is OK. Additionally, I think it is fairly easy to distinguish a consenting adult from a victim.

What we are talking about here is the conferrence of certain civil rights upon a particular institution. For example, heterosexual couples may avail themselves of spousal privilege in legal matters, but a homosexual couple may not.

Why is that?

Because the family is the central institution of civilization and we have no interest in debasing it?

The psychologically ill are incapable of meaningful consent.

Jeff;

"Additionally, I think it is fairly easy to distinguish a consenting adult from a victim."

The only serious thing missing from Brothers Judd is the female perspective. Do you realize you have just repeated the mantra of every defense lawyer in rape and sexual assault trials?

I find it very hard to get worked up about homosexuals being denied the right to marry. With the current legal protections granted by the Supreme Court, and their ability to enjoy many of the civil benefits of marriage through contract law, such as visitation rights & inheritance, they can live as couples in a manner which is practically indistinguishable from married couples. They are only being denied the symbolic recognition that their relationship is the equivalent of a marriage.

Andrew Sullivan likes to point out that the situation is no different than the laws against interracial marriage, but this is not so. These laws prevented interracial couples from cohabitating, owning property in common, and denied their children the legitimacy of being born into a married family. These laws were aimed at keeping interracial couples from even existing. Homosexuals cannot have children together, but otherwise can do just about anything else that married couples can do.

I'm also very resistant to changing the meaning of a commonly understood word at the behest of an identity group. Everyone knows what "marriage" means, why are we so willing to change its meaning to satisfy homosexuals? If apple growers felt that they could get a better price for their apples by calling them oranges, would we go along with them? Not to overstate the issue, but didn't Orwell in "1984" warn us about allowing the state to corrupt language to achieve political ends?

More importantly, race is an immutable characteristic while homosexuality is a moral choice.

Homosexuals can have children, Robert. Ever heard of turkey baster babies? They also arrange to make them the old fashioned way.

While I think Orrin's opinions about homosexuality are absurd and contradicted by all experience, I favor conventional marriage for one reason and one only -- children deserve a mom and a pop. Not two moms or any other permutations.

As for what happens to or among the grownups, I don't give a rat's patoot.

I agree completely with Harry.

Problem is, this unnecessary war isn't dealing with what could well be a real problem--same sex parents.

OJ's line of thinking is interesting. Homosexuals have made an incorrect moral choice because of their mental illness, thereby demonstrating they are incapable of meaningful consent. Clearly, this means they should never be able to enter into a contract, or any economic transaction whatsoever, and should spend their lives as wards either of their parents or the state.

Would gay marriage have any effect on your marriage, OJ?

No Harry, I haven't heard of Turkey Baster babies, are they the same as test tube babies or surrogate babies? Yes, I know that they can have children, just not with each other. I agree with you that kids deserve a mom and a pop, specifically their real, biological mom and pop.

A question for you Jeff - would civil unions in lieu of officially sanctioned same sex marriage affect the relationship of same sex couples? What are they really gaining beyond a sense of satisfaction?

Robert, you must not watch daytime TV.

I was talking with a friend about turkey baster babies and she told me how surprised she was when her elderly Japanese mother-in-law, whose English is a little shaky, knew all about it.

"Mom!" she says she said. "How do you know about that?"

"Oprah."

A lesbian who wishes to conceive can do so by obtaining sperm (there's networks to do this in big cities, apparently gay men are preferred donors), and by standing on her head and manipulating a turkey baster, get pregnant. It's a party game.

Harry:

I sure hope she tells the resulting child the stork brought him.

Robert:

I think part of it is they want the same civil benefits that go with civil marriage, and putting the Civil Union (tm) stamp on the relationship would do that just fine.

However, I believe there are some to whom the concept of marriage--till death do us part--is essential. As unessential as it may be, I can't find it in myself to ridicule, or deny, people, who want to make that kind of commitment.

Peter, I can make jokes about it at Brothersjudd.blog, but I consider it child abuse and it ought to be prosecuted.

But where does that leave the kid, who is the innocent victim in everybody's eyes except I guess Orrin's?

Up for adoption. But he's white and upper class so he'll be adopted quickly.

Jeff:

It's not about an institution for them it's about forcing the rest of us to put our imprimatur on their relationships.

Live and let live.

Lots of kids, as you so often point out, consider adoption a kind of punishment, so that doesn't work.

There's times when having THE TRUTH is no help at all.

Jeff:

But you're saying live and let die.

We all die.

Few of us from avoidable diseases associated with fecal contact and not all that many having debased themselves entirely.

OJ:

Few of them from avoidable diseases (other than AIDS). All the gays I know are, on average, as healthy as anyone else.

And they are just as debased as they think they are, which is to say, not at all. Unless your God chose to debase them, but let only you in on the secret.

Jeff:

Read And the Band Played On. You can't come in contact with human feces as often as they do without getting numerous diseases.

They debase themselves. God gave them Free Will and they squandered it.

OJ:

You said die of those diseases. In my relatively broad acquaintance, that just isn't the case. Further, to outward appearances they appear as healthy, on average, as anyone else.

They do not debase themselves. God made them homosexuals; they are living their lives as God intended.

Outward appearances? Is that a pun?

No. Sadly, I'm not nearly that funny.