Quote - >> Oh come now...  you actually call this a REASON why God is how He is? Because of who WE were He acted like this?

I dont think that was Tom's point, actually. If anything, what he's saying is that our particular vision of God is coloured by how we act, not the other way around. During the early, more primitive days of the times described in the OT, God was seen as a reflection of ourselves -- easy to ire, vengeance-driven -- because that's who we needed Him to be, not the other way around.

Pretty close :)

I was thinking along the lines of how early man, while sentient, was pretty unsophisticated, and assuming that the Old Testament is an attempt at a historical record (not all religious folks believe it to be any such thing)? Well, if you're an omniscient being, and you have to get, say, a Babylonian's attention, you do it rough and hard, and in unequivocal terms. Subtlety was not exactly a dominant trait in many early societies (Hell, literacy wasn't even a dominant trait). Now, getting the attention of someone who did more during their childhood than simply get beaten, fend off wild animals, and work their asses off just to stay alive? Well, it's easier to get the more complex ideas across.

/P

Quote - > Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET...   she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

It is a GOOD premise. The "free will" aspect has nothing to do with it at all. If God is truly omniscient, it makes no difference whether it is inanimate bread dough or free-willed humans - he SHOULD know everything BEFORE it happens. That was the point and that premise makes it quite clearly.

Quote - > Quote - The devoutly religious really do not ask the hard questions and the vast majority of the time resort to "We don't understand Gods' Plan."  Uhh...  yeah.

Do you fully understand String Theory, enough to repeatably and reliably prove the concept in a laboratory?

You don't?

Well, I guess String Theory is false then, and the scientists working on it are fools. Best get on with ignoring it and finding something else.

(...and before you say it, note that even the biggest proponents of this physics theory don't fully grasp the thing, and will readily admit as much).

We're not talking String theory here. We're talking about religious people asking the hard questions about their God and their faith. You can't equate the science of String theory with faith. One will or will not be proven by science - the other cannot and is based solely on faith.

Quote - You also make a lot of bad overly-generalistic assumptions - that the "devoutly religious do not ask the hard questions". How on Earth would you know that? ...all of them? What questions would you consider "hard" enough, given that outside of geologic scales of measurement, "hard" is a subjective term?

The "hard questions" deal with all of the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible as well as the changes made conciously and unconciously in the Bible. Most Christians have NO IDEA that the Bible they are reading is inacurrate and many of those believe that it is the inerrant word of God. We know this to be false, yet how many Christians do you know actually KNOW this? And...   if they DO know it, how many choose to ignore it? How many do YOU know who actually delve into it at length. As someone has already pointed out here, people generally believe what their religious leaders tell them - NOT on what they read and/or research.

Quote - It also happens that misinterpretation (either through mistake or by malicious design) occurs with alarming frequency in secular documents as well - see also the series of UN/IPCC reports.

So no, misinterpretation is not a religious thing - it's a human thing. Which is part of what I was trying to say all this time.

I won't argue with that because you're right. However...   the point here WAS that the religious have twisted the words in the Bible to allow them to campaign against same-sex marriage. Feel free to start another thread concerning secular misrepresentations and I'll join in there - most likely agreeing with you as well.

Quote - IOW, I'm really sorry, but atheism does not make one superior, nor does it grant you anything special. You're still as human and frail as the rest of us, and just as statistically prone to our foibles and failings of intellect and wisdom... and just as prone to speaking it as if it were (s'cuse the pun) Gospel. ;)

/P

Uhmmm...   you must be talking about someone else here. I never said I was an athiest and I never said that being an athiest makes one superior. I consider myself an agnostic because I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW if there is or is not a God. No one KNOWS for certain based on any facts. They know for "certain" based only on faith. I have no problems with ANYONE from ANY religion - as long as they do not try to legislate based on their faith. No one should be forced to abide by somone elses faith. And THAT is the sole reason for my being in this thread. As long as the rights of others are not infringed upon - yours, mine or anyone elses - then I see no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. But when they cross that line - such as here with same-sex marriage - that's when I get irritated and step up to the podium. I am not gay nor do I find the prosepct of two men marrying particularly great, but then WHO AM I TO JUDGE? If they are two consenting adults, then they should be allowed to do as they wish. Who is anyone else to judge them that they should NOT be allowed to marry?

And I now step off the soapbox.....  :)

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET...   she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

It is a GOOD premise. The "free will" aspect has nothing to do with it at all.

Actually, it does - there has been a metric ton (or so) of philosophical discussions concerning the tension between being creatures of God but at the same time having the free will to act contrary to His wishes. Your analogy is bad because someone making bread w/o yeast already knows in advance that the bread won't rise (or baking powder, which throws a curve ball into things, no?

A better analogy would that of a parent who warns the kid not to get a cookie from the kitchen, knows full well the kid will get one anyway, and when it happens, the parent scolds the kid with both barrels. Is the parent supposed to be nice about it?

But we can spend the next couple of centuries quibbling over such minutae. May as well start comparing angles and heads of pins for all the good it'd do. ;)

Quote - The "hard questions" deal with all of the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible as well as the changes made conciously and unconciously in the Bible. Most Christians have NO IDEA that the Bible they are reading is inacurrate and many of those believe that it is the inerrant word of God. We know this to be false, yet how many Christians do you know actually KNOW this?

You just answered your own questions.  If someone doesn't know about the existence of inconsistencies, how do you expect that person to question them? Who is this "we" you refer to? Is there a universally agreed-upon and unassailable list of inconsistencies  and errors that we can all point to and say "here, study that"?

It's rather strange to sit and belittle someone for something they're not even supposed to know about, let alone compare to an uncontroversial, universal set of standardized errata?

Quote - And...   if they DO know it, how many choose to ignore it? How many do YOU know who actually delve into it at length.

As for the former, it would depend on how much evidence there is to support the error/inconsistency's existence, and what the proposed correction would be (and how that change would jibe with everything else in the context in which the change sits). It's not as easy to say "there - it's an error! now reconcile your beliefs to it!" when you see what's actually involved in such an endeavor - especially considering the disciplines of etymology, archaeology, language, and theology.

As for the latter, I'd lost count long ago, but I hang out with strange people. :)

Quote - However...   the point here WAS that the religious have twisted the words in the Bible to allow them to campaign against same-sex marriage..

Name the issue, and both sides of it will  have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

Quote - Uhmmm...   you must be talking about someone else here. I never said I was an athiest and I never said that being an athiest makes one superior.

In that case please accept my apology to inferring such.

/P

Quote - Near Death experiences have been recorded, even by those who didn't believe in any God, and changed their life afterwards!

I believe it is The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying  that describes what you see after you die... tunnel, light at the end, feelings of comfort....  all the same things Christian's say they see, but a completely different explanation of what it is.

*quote:I consider myself an agnostic because I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW if there is or is not a God. No one KNOWS for certain based on any facts. They know for "certain" based only on faith. I have no problems with ANYONE from ANY religion - as long as they do not try to legislate based on their faith. No one should be forced to abide by somone elses faith.

I agree wholeheartedly with that and especially with the part I emphasized. There are many moral issues that any society has to deal with whether that would be same sex marriage or abortion, etc. If persons wish to weigh in on these issues based on their religeous beliefs that is their perogative. But to quote scriptures in defense of their opinions and expect that everyone else is supposed to accept them as ultimate arguments directly validated by God is wrong.

I know there a lot of Christians here at Renderosity and I mean no disrespect to your chosen beliefs. But I would suggest that if a Muslim member (or Buddhist, Hindu, Jew etc.) was quoting verse from their own respective spiritual doctrines in support of any social opinion you wouldn't be willing to except those opinions as having any ultimate validity either.

• Rick

Quote - Just like at my husbands job, there is a Gay Pride day there, and this is a government office, yet if he puts anything up that has the work God or Christ on it, they take it down immediately. I don't run around demanding that I be accepted as a Christian, I just am a Christian. So please lighten up on the gay stuff, getting tired of hearing about it.

Not as tired as we are of people telling us our lives don't count and we have no rights. If you're tired of hearing about it, why are you in this thread?

Quote -
I know there a lot of Christians here at Renderosity and I mean no disrespect to your chosen beliefs. But I would suggest that if a Muslim member (or Buddhist, Hindu, Jew etc.) was quoting verse from their own respective spiritual doctrines in support of any social opinion you wouldn't be willing to except those opinions as having any ultimate validity either.

Dunno why not. I've read the Q'uran, and believe it or not, there's a lot of wisdom to be found in there, esp. in the context of the culture and region which it had originated in. Same with Confucianism, Buddhism, Hindu beliefs, you-name-it.

The diff though, is that on matters of belief, an intelligent response is to contain such arguments within just that - belief. Quoting scripture is certainly not empirical evidence at all, but merely a statement of conviction based on... belief. Unprovable, unscientific, personal belief.

But then, objectivity on subjective issues is a bit hard to come by. :)

As far as ancient texts of any kind? They tend to carry a bit of weight with me if there is a general agreement among them on a philosophical subject - mostly because these beliefs and scriptures are based on some pretty common means and methods of how to get by in a human society, forged in a time when things were pretty basic and uncomplicated. Obviously I'm not talking about isolated crap like human sacrifice, but instead more common-sense items like how to get along with one's neighbors, kindness and compassion, loyalty to one's parents, keeping out of situations that could get you into trouble (and back then, killed)...

But then, it's just my opinion - not necessarily yours or anyone else's. If they agree, cool. If they don't, cool.

--

That said, in spite of my own beliefs on the issue (obvious apathy these days, but hey - I don't expect y'all to get passionate about net neutrality, so don't expect me to get all anxious to support gay marriage)... I do have a few devil's advocate questions to pose. Note that this is not a troll, but I would like to see honest answers to the following:

This issue is often framed as a demand for equal rights. That said, can someone show me where a gay man is denied the right to marry any woman he chooses, or a lesbian woman vice-versa?

Okay, obviously there's an argument that any person should have the right to marry anyone else they choose, correct? Fair enough. So what about polygamy? As long as all parties are of age and do so consentually (ruling out the FLDS crap), why can that not be legal by the same concept?

The age of marital consent is (in some states) as young as 14 (Utah, if both parties are minors and all parents agree, otherwise it's 16. I had a pair of students who really wanted to marry each other, asked me about it before they asked their parents, so I looked it up). So how does this figure into the equation?

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?

/P

>> Name the issue, and both sides of it will  have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

There are 637 laws in Leviticus, having to do with everything from the acceptable length of one's hair to what fabrics one should wear to what to do to adulterers when they're caught in flagrente... not to mention the old standbys about not eating shellfish and being gay. Oh, and a few things about how to beat your slaves, if you're interested. That one is a doozy, BTW. If you beat him and he's still alive after three days, that's okay with God (check it out; it's in there, somewhere around chapter 12, IIRC -- it's been a while since seminary, but I think that's right).

Now, we could discuss context for all of them, why they would seem reasonable and right back then and ludicrous and absurd now. For example, in Leviticus it says that if a man dies, his wife must immediately marry his brother.. even if said brother is already married (Hey, what's a little polygamy when it's done in the name of the Lord?). We laugh at that now, but back then in OT times, it was a necessity to keep the family name and lineage alive. (Curiously, if a woman dies, nothing's said about that particular legal situation.) The stuff about shellfish? No doubt because so many had died from eating poorly stored shellfish. Being gay? Because the Hebrews needed a growing population, and homosexuals werent doing their part, as it were.

So context is easy, Tom. What's tougher and harder to let go of is that the context no longer applies. We now know how to store shellfish. We're not so concerned about continuing family names. And we really dont need a growing population, but somehow, out of all 637 Levitical laws, we cling to that one with a tenacity that would strike envy in a dog worrying a towel. Just. That. One.

And why? Because some guy named Paul, who had an identity crisis while on the road, decides he needs to reinforce it in his letter to the Romans. Of course, also in that letter he has some highly interesting things to say about the place of women in the church -- all of which most denominations cheerfully and willfully ignore, because they understand that Paul was of a different time and a different culture. But that doesnt stop them from saying, at the same time, "Look! See? Paul says God says being gay is a sin!"

So. Two verses out of the entire Bible, which speaks more about dietary regulations and haircuts than it does about homosexuality -- but those two verses are the only things the ever devout Christians will cling to in their desperation to keep us underfoot. And the more we point out the context in which those verses arise, the more they doggedly ignore us, then turn around and use those verses as justification for all manner of atrocities, from the legal nonsense we're seeing in California to those fun times during the Inquisition, where gay men, bound together, were used as kindling for the bonfires meant for burning witches -- hence, the charming epithet "faggot".

So there's your context, Tom. It aint pretty, and it ably demonstrates how the RR, like all the arch-conservative religious movements before it, have manipulated and used the Bible to lay claim to a type of most peculiar Christianity, one that is, more often than not, in direct antithesis to what Jesus Himself had to say about such things.

But hey, why let God's Son get in the way when you have the Truth? Or, at least, what you perceive to be the Truth.

And folks wonder why I left the Franciscan Order after two years.

So, as I wrote before, sorry, but no sympathy for those who are all concerned about the social impact of gay marriage. These are the same people who used the Bible to justify slavery and to forbid inter-racial marriage and even to deny women the simple democratic act of casting a vote. And since all those other things have now passed from acceptable society, now they feel it necessary to take care of those uppity gays by quoting scripture that -- in context -- is utterly irrelevant... just as the RR is now.

Now, with all due respect towards good Christians like Marque, sorry but no sympathy there either. No discussion of gay and lesbians is ever complete, it seems, without a handful of self-righteous "christians" telling us to just shut the f*ck up. I thank God that most honest, real Christians arent like them, but it;s sorta like the media at a Gay Pride Parade: they love those drag queens and ignore the accountants.

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?*

I see nothing problematic in any of the situations you describe. If a man wants three wives and four husbands, what difference is it to you? What does what you think even matter? Are you partipating in this marriage? I gather not, so, to be blunt, it's none of your business, is it. If a particular state says the legal age for marriage is 14, seems to me that's a law that's been on the books for quite some time. Yes, when it was written, it had a meaningful context -- maybe not so much now, but no one's gotten around to rewriting it, which suggests the State's just fine and dandy with it. So again, what business is it of yours? Should you decide to marry your girlfriend under these circumstances, would that mean you find your own marriage less valued? Well, frankly, that's your problem, no one else's.

So to answer your question, the slope levels out when folks realize that they should not and do not control the lives and relationships of others. Just as I wouldnt dream of telling you you shouldnt marry your girlfriend, so do you not have the right to tell me I cant hitch up with Mister Right.

Or, to put it another way, I promise I wont dance uninvited at your wedding if you promise not to uninvited picket mine.

Quote - > Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET...   she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Quote - Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

Quote - It is a GOOD premise. The "free will" aspect has nothing to do with it at all.

Actually, it does - there has been a metric ton (or so) of philosophical discussions concerning the tension between being creatures of God but at the same time having the free will to act contrary to His wishes. Your analogy is bad because someone making bread w/o yeast already knows in advance that the bread won't rise (or baking powder, which throws a curve ball into things, no?

A better analogy would that of a parent who warns the kid not to get a cookie from the kitchen, knows full well the kid will get one anyway, and when it happens, the parent scolds the kid with both barrels. Is the parent supposed to be nice about it?

Then you don't quite understand what omnisicent means. It does not matter if we have free will or not - IF GOD IS TRULY OMNISCIENT...  He will know what will happen whether we have free will or not. You seem not willing to accept that omniscient means All Knowing and All Seeing . The premise I presented is quite sound and I stated again (after initially stating it) that it did not matter whether or not free will is involved.

It does not matter if a person who has free will changes his mind today and rides the train and then goes into a store and steals $20. An Omniscient god would know this REGARDLESS of free will since he is an omnisicent God.

If you are saying that free will changes the equation, then you are admitting that God is not omniscient. You can't have it both ways.

And it doesn't matter what He wants. If humans "thwart his will" are you saying that he won't know the outcome? If so, he is not omniscient. If you are saying that he does know the outcome, then there is my point. Again, can't have it both ways.

And while we're on the subject of God...

What kind of God would require that you believe in Him and worship Him? I would say a pretty vain and arrogant god. Consider if YOU had the power to create living creatures from nothing. being a good person, would YOU want your creations to worship you and tell them that they MUST believe in you and if they don't they will be cast into a ppit of hellfire? 

I wouldn't. A small thank you would be sufficient and I would wish them well. I would hope that they would ultimately amount to something and let them exercise their free will. On the other hand...  were I omniscient and knew how my experiement would end..... I might change the ingredients. Like baking a loaf of bread....    :)

I cannot see any way that gay marriage is going to harm me, so hurrah for california. 

As for religion, there are many gods and many religions and I'm sure they all believe theirs is the one true way. I cannot prove who is right and who is wrong, so I say they are all right, believe as you will, or not at all,  in the USA that is supposed to be garuanteed.

Live and let live, other peoples lives are not yours to control. If you feel you must teach someone the error of their ways then teach by example, legislating people into a mold of your concept of the ideal (religious or otherwise) doesn't work they will only rebel.  One example,  Martin Luther and his followers were at one time under sentence of death because they believed differently and look what happened.

Quote -
This issue is often framed as a demand for equal rights. That said, can someone show me where a gay man is denied the right to marry any woman he chooses, or a lesbian woman vice-versa?

I know a gay man who married a lesbian.
they did it to get her son covered by medical insurance (he had good benefits from his job).

Legal? yes, as far as i know.
Was it "right", "moral"? was it what was intended?

*quote: 'Dunno why not. I've read the Q'uran, and believe it or not, there's a lot of wisdom to be found in there, esp. in the context of the culture and region which it had originated in. Same with Confucianism, Buddhism, Hindu beliefs, you-name-it.

Oh no doubt of that and most any system of secular ethics is certainly derived from or at least, strongly influenced by these belief systems for that very reason. The difference though between faith-based morals and reasoned ethics is that the former is considered 'incontestable' because its validity is rooted in the ultimate word of God while the latter can be more flexible and responsive to changed social conditions.

I guess I just don't like the idea of people dialing up their bibles like a rolodex to determine what their opinion should be on current social issues :)

• Rick

Quote - >> Name the issue, and both sides of it will  have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

There are 637 laws in Leviticus...

In the interests of brevity, let's stop right there. Leviticus applied to the ancient tribes of Israel, and were superseded in Christianity (Jesus boiled down the ten Commandments into two, subsequent letters by apostles alter them radically, including such things as a direct repeal of Jewish food laws, etc).

So a Christian quoting Leviticus is kinda silly, you know? Now someone Jewish quoting it would make sense.

Quote - Now, we could discuss context for all of them, why they would seem reasonable and right back then and ludicrous and absurd now.

Indeed - and you know as well as I that later on in the New Testament that nearly all of them had been pretty much altered and/or rescinded, with few exceptions.

Quote - And why? Because some guy named Paul, who had an identity crisis while on the road, decides he needs to reinforce it in his letter to the Romans.

Paul isn't the only gent in the pile though.

Quote - Of course, also in that letter he has some highly interesting things to say about the place of women in the church -- all of which most denominations cheerfully and willfully ignore...

They largely ignore it (IIRC) because even back then it was a huge source of controversy, and a very large number of Christians thought it to be wrong (and since it didn't come from Jesus, it was wide open for debate). Christianity made it upwards into the Roman nobility specifically because of women - female nobility fell for it at first as a fad, then as conviction. Perfect example: Constantine was taught Christianity almost in secret by his mother - better known as St. Helena.

Quote - because they understand that Paul was of a different time and a different culture. But that doesnt stop them from saying, at the same time, "Look! See? Paul says God says being gay is a sin!"

It probably wasn't just Paul saying it, though - Romans converted in large numbers out of disgust with what they saw as the excesses of Roman society. Originally, Roman culture was disciplined and rigid. By the time Christianity showed up, Upper Roman society was packed solid with excesses of all sorts. Homosexuality was looked at as one of them - as a perversion of the Greek ideals (which focused on a higher love between members of the same sex), turned into an example of sexual excess. So I doubt that there was any grumbling of any size at all from early Christians about that one.

This all skips something important though - the concept of loving one's neighbor... no matter what. A Christian may detest the sin, but to remain true to belief, he or she must still love the sinner.

Quote - ...to those fun times during the Inquisition, where gay men, bound together, were used as kindling for the bonfires meant for burning witches...

Err, Gays weren't the only people targeted by such things. Independent-thinking women, intellectuals, innocent men and women who happened to piss off the wrong town magistrate, Jews (who got it worst of all), Muslims who lingered in Spain after the Moroccan Caliph's army was driven out, even a neighbor caught on the wrong end of an argument over property... it's not as if the Pope woke up one morning and said "You know? I think we oughta go after the gays this year!" Hell, if you so much as sneezed in church in Spain back then you were a target.

But then, comparing what happened in one region during the 16th century with what is happening in the 21st? That's kinda stretching things. It certainly doesn't excuse bad behavior, but likening oneself to martyrs and innocents during a 600-year-old period of dystopia doesn't do much for the argument. ;)

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?*

Quote - I see nothing problematic in any of the situations you describe. If a man wants three wives and four husbands, what difference is it to you?

None to me, but it widens a whole lot of loopholes...

>> Leviticus applied to the ancient tribes of Israel, and were superseded in Christianity

Sorry, but many hard core fundamentalists would disagree, insisting that the whole Bible is the Inviolate Word of God (TM). In their 700-Club way of thinking, Levicitus is still part of the Truth, even though all they care about is Just That One Verse and Nothing Else.

Indeed - and you know as well as I that later on in the New Testament that nearly all of them had been pretty much altered and/or rescinded, with few exceptions.*

Again, many "Christians" would disagree. After all, that would suggest that God changes His Mind, which, of course, He never does -- well, to their way of thinking anyway.

>> They largely ignore it (IIRC) because even back then it was a huge source of controversy, and a very large number of Christians thought it to be wrong (and since it didn't come from Jesus, it was wide open for debate).

Not so. The early Christians were not sexual egalitarians, no more than the Jews were. Women could worship, but they could not participate, save in the most subservient of roles: caregivers (not doctors), nurses, maids -- from which we got the concept of nuns, which was purposely designed to remind women participating in the Holy Church exactly what their place was in the Heavenly Hierarchy*.

Err, Gays weren't the only people targeted by such things.*

Of course not. But while we'll look at intellectuals and "independent women" and the rest and shake our heads in disgust at the folly of our distant ancestors, we'll quietly and quaintly remain silent when "sodomites" are mentioned -- something we still have yet to learn, given the controversy over the recent unveiling of the memorial to the gays and lesbians who were murdered in the camps during Nazi Germany. We shall celebrate the deaths of the Jews and the gypsies and the mentally ill and the rest of the folks who died there, but mention the gays and everyone acts shocked that you would have the affront to say anything suggesting those atrocities actually happened.

Have we learned nothing since Paul's time?

Apparently not.

>> It certainly doesn't excuse bad behavior, but likening oneself to martyrs and innocents during a 600-year-old period of dystopia doesn't do much for the argument

See note above. Indeed, we havent learned anything in the past half millenia, just how to cover our tracks better.

Besides, arent we basing our entire religious credo on things that happened two millenia ago, when things were even more dysfunctional? That aint helping the RR's argument much either.

>> None to me, but it widens a whole lot of loopholes.

And straight society will just have to deal with them. We are not responsible for a legal age of marriage at 14; the larger heterosexual society, in its infinite wisdom, decided on that. We are not responsible for the 62% divorce rate; you folks created on that all on your own. We are not responsible for heterosexual polygamy -- that was around and widely accepted long before we raised our heads over the hedge line. Seems to me the loopholes are all of your own making.

Life - Liberty - and the pursuit of happiness.

That should be all that needs to be said.  Unfortunately so many out there think those rights only apply to them or only apply within the guidelines of thier morality code.  If it's not hurting you than it's none of your business.
If religious people are against it due to what the good book says - well then set rules for your church membership, but please stay out of government.

Congratulations from me to all the gays who now have to pay the same damn marriage penalty tax that I do : p

If in the end there truly is a viscious god who wishes to damn you for finding love in your life well then I hope to find myself on the same boat as you. 

Locked.