COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

What we will or should discover in the appeal is that there is no fundamental right for citizens to marry, or constitutional obligation for states to provide them. Marriage is a religious issue, as described in the Bible and that for opposite sex only. People’s committed relationships are nobody else’s business most especially including the government.

So I say, there is nothing stopping people from cohabiting any way they want. Just don’t force me to recognize it legally, if I am a hospital or insurance company. The government must get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage must be privatized. You say your are married? Mazel Tov. You say you are splitting up? Good luck. Leave the rest of us out of it.

What this ruling does is not to grant rights to those denied them, but to deny the rights of everyone else to recognize or not the relationships of others.

The only interest the government has in familial relationships is with the responsibility of natural parents for offspring, whether they are married, in a committed relationship, civil union, or anything else.

Here is some food for thought, for those (Brad) who think that this ruling is proper according to American values. Under this ruling, there is no superiority of non-incestuous couples over incestuous ones. What in the law as seen in this ruling prevents a father and his adult daughter from marrying? More to the point, what would prevent two brothers from marrying as opposed to two cowboys? The “core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States”? Don’t make me laugh. That will last exactly as long as it takes to challenge it.

This ruling is a train wreck. My solution is the only possible one.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/04/10 at 7:48 pm

incest is already illegal.  this doesn’t change that.  and obviously, you do not recognize these relationships (at least in the religious sense, which is what you claim is all that matters, anyhow).  you started off ok ben, but then your argument became a train wreck.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/05/10 at 8:43 pm

We need to start impeaching these activist judges.  It’s funny how they only change the laws for the liberal designated victims in our society.  They’re not going to legalize polygamy even though it is important to Orthodox Mormons.

Comment by PeteMoylan on 8/06/10 at 2:09 am

i dunno, seems to me like polygamy was pretty popular in the bible, even the NT.  so, you can’t be a deacon with two wives?  but then, that’s probably because you’re already too busy, not that there’s anything inherently wrong with it.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/06/10 at 9:59 pm

What I said is that marriage is a religious issue, and not only does that not invalidate my major point but supports the point of those who do not believe that. I.e., no god, no bible, no religion means no marriage either. To repeat myself refuting the judge, “no fundamental right for citizens to marry, or constitutional obligation for states to provide [for such marriages].” If this is understood properly, it invalidates the judge’s ruling on his own reasoning. For the position he represents is internally contradictory. He wants it both ways. If prohibiting gay relations has a religious and no rational basis, then so is marriage religious with no rational basis.

It is true that I along with the vast majority of people in the world understand that humanity is the creation of of a designer infinitely wiser than us, whose will is expressed in the Bible, and who has got it right. Incidentally the Bible does not prohibit gay marriages, just gay relations. The Bible does repeatedly place gay relations in the category of incest and bestiality, and if you think God has it right it is useful to ponder upon why that is. I even think it is possible that God will withdraw protection and express displeasure in violating his law. But that’s just me (and most other people).

At one time, Western law, Christian law, English law etc. was understood to be broadly Bible-based. I understand that many interest groups of which the judge is a member do not acknowledge biblical revelation as a guide, or that U.S. law is informed by that. Fine. Then let’s play that out instead of dying by 1000 cuts. Simply get out of the marriage business. Shred and delete all civil marriage records. Tear up all marriage licenses and certificates. Tear up all laws protecting marriage and regulating divorce. Let every citizen stand on his or her own before the law. For at least forty years there have been no obstacles to people playing house any way they want to. As the wise Proton Soup pointed out, incest is illegal. But it is no more illegal than gay relations or race mixing used to be. And it continues to take place. And prohibitions against it can be challenged using the judge’s ruling and reasoning as a precedent. And incestuous marriage cannot be ruled out in principle. And that too is fine for the judge whether or not he says it today.

If governmental coercion is a problem, that is a two way street. If there is no civil marriage, than most people will marry by their own rules or not at all. To be sure, civil unions in various forms will evolve to handle the financial details. And what we will find out is that it is not marriage at all that gay people want. It is acceptance as normal by the majority of people who know they are not normal. And that is something the government should not be able to force.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/07/10 at 8:18 pm

wise?  hardly.  only enough to know better than to whip out the protection of God argument.

i might agree that it probably is something the majority of gay males, at least, do not really want beyond getting the latest partner on their health care plan.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/07/10 at 8:53 pm

I mainly threw that in to acknowledge that it is the 800 pound gorilla in the issue. God and the Bible are not ever going away, and I won’t pretend that they don’t inform my opinion. I and most people consider this a religious problem, and others don’t. If things work out as I see it it will be anywhere from tragic to disastrous but I do not advocate activism.  I also threw it in to point out that God and the Bible are the source of all civil laws regulating morality including marriage, and on that basis they will be overturned in this country in the current climate. The movement for constitutional amendments is an admission of failure of everything else.

What I do advocate is a last refuge in honesty. Gay marriage is not marriage, and if we cannot prevent people from pretending that it is we can agree to empty the word of any common meaning. We cannot retain the word ‘marriage’ in its past meaning which this legal decision has deemed to be specialized. So rather than say that some people can have marriage and others can’t, let’s say everybody and anybody can have marriage on their own terms. My marriage will be recognized only by those with a common standard to mine, and so will yours and so on. But rather than make up an ‘approved’ list, in no case will marriage be recognized by civil authority. There is no need for it, and it be simpler and more economical for everybody.

Now here is where you arong. “i might agree that it probably is something the majority of gay males, at least, do not really want beyond getting the latest partner on their health care plan.” You are wrong because they already have that. Civil unions are recognized by states and by insurance companies seeking to avoid discrimination charges. It would be trivial to make it all if it is not already. Opponents of gay marriage are all for that for the same reason. Gay activists want that word ‘marriage’ and will not settle for any separate but equal arrangement by another name, and want to force its recognition by punitive law.

My way is a radical libertarian way. Liberate gay people, staright people, religious people, the government and everyone else. I say, give them the word marriage, but don’t force me to say it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/08/10 at 4:24 am

Oh wow, a new kind of identity theft. I don’t think the person did it because (s)he thought that is what you would have posted. It actually happened to me once as well. I am sure it has something to do with the Doug Spink thing, and I think you are wrong there. We could talk about it but you and I both seem to have firm opinions on it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/09/10 at 4:38 am

Sharon - not ignoring you. It turns out this is a very difficult response to compose, certainly not in short form and without context. I don’t want to play some kind of simplistic ping-pong about this. I was agreeing with you about the poster trying to exploit you. Look, you appear to be a perfectly lovely person doing loving and compassionate work. So don’t misunderstand me, although if you do it’s my fault for originally throwing out a quick response.

My disagreement about Doug Spinks is not what you might think. I checked out your site out of curiosity about what prompted that first post, and it seemed to me that the discussions on that topic were what it was referring to. I have never seen anyone of the bestiality community calmly and resonably discussing their lifestyle choices. I fear my computer and my mind have been soiled by exposure to it.

But it’s in the world. On your site you consider that it is absurd to compare homosexuality with incest and bestiality as the Bible does repeatedly. In the last forty or so years it has become a ‘good deed’ to tolerate and accept homosexuality, more via political and cultural activism than scientific. And what struck me and amazed me was that the discussions on your blog were couched in EXACTLY the same terms as the presentations for gay marriage. The loving, the companionship, the well-adjusted positive relationships. I am sure I will be excused for not quoting the posts.

Be that as it may, let me present what it an unconventional viewpoint these days. I belong to that majority segment of the population that is certain - That there is an ultimate conscious and active reality we call ‘God’. In that we consider ourselves realists compelled by a sense of integrity with regard to the truth and its implications for our committments and lifestyles. For that we are labelled mindless needy obsessive fanatic control freaks. Personally, I couldn’t care less what people do and how they enjoy themselves. But as a citizen of humaity I do care about the degredation, dehumanization and pollution of the social environment.

To continue - That God has it right about everything - That the Bible is an expression of God’s preferences and intentions. That God took our ancestor, the King of Beasts, and gave him a promotion to humanity (‘image of God’) as opposed to ‘animality’ with a system of practices and disciplines. It’s all in the mind. That just as God forbade rape, robbery and murder, God (repeatedly) forbade incest, bestiality and homosexuality as a class. Not because of the ‘ewwwww’ factor (these practices are described as commonplace in the advanced societies of the day) but because they conflict with that humanity and degrade it. That any and all of those practices forbidden by God to us are committed by animals without considering them to be crimes, but we must choose . Even you advocate euthenization of animals unalterably imprinted with interspecies conditioning. The only difference is that the Bible advocates euthenizing both species. Whether or not you agree, the case can be made.

So from the spiritual point of view, the word humanity has a more rigorous and specialized meaning. You can call Doug Spinks a lowlife creep. You can diagnose him as a narcisistic psychopath. Hey - any orgsm is a good one, right? And anyone or anything that can be used and exploited deserves it. And if we can eat animals, we can do anything with them, and they enjoy it anyway. And if we can sell pony rides, then we can sell pony rides. And what’s up with this faith-based jazz? - there is plenty of historical precedent for this practice.

Any objection to calling Spinks ‘soulless’? I thought not. A walking, talking, driving, computing beast.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/13/10 at 1:51 pm

Hi Ben,
Thank you for your well thought out response.
I do have to say this:  I am not a religious person.  I understand that there are those who are, and that is fine with me.  I don’t judge people based on color, race, religion, or who they choose to sleep with - as long as BOTH partners are willing and capable of making the intelligent choice.

For me, homosexuality falls into the category of two people making a choice with whom they would like to sleep with (re: have sex with).  This subject makes me think of interracial relationships and the issues those had ‘back in the day’.

My blog was about Doug Spink, and his criminal behavior.  Yes, he was into bestiality - that is what his latest arrest was for.  I lambasted him and ended up having someone pretend to be me in a number of forums - religious rantings against gay marriage, stories of my supposed “first time” with my dog on beasty forums, etc. (see the polarity of those?), stories of my supposed drug and alcohol abuse on psychology boards, bulimia, etc.  I went about to remove *any and all posts* that were made by this person purporting to be me.  I did not make those posts, and they did not reflect my beliefs or opinions.  Bottom line.

On my blog, there were some people who *commented* who preferred having sex with animals.  I conversed with those willing to be honest in a bid to understand them better.  I do not agree with bestiality.  The main reason for this is that animals do not have the intelligence to make that decision for themselves (consent).

Your comment “Even you advocate euthenization of animals unalterably imprinted with interspecies conditioning.” is a bit misleading.  I advocate euthenization of animals who are (a) unable to be *retrained* (as in, they can not be trained to behave properly around humans) and (b) are at risk of hurting innocent victims (imagine a rottweiler or horse mounting an unsuspecting person - that’s not going to end well for the HUMAN).

You say “And what struck me and amazed me was that the discussions on your blog were couched in EXACTLY the same terms as the presentations for gay marriage. The loving, the companionship, the well-adjusted positive relationships.”  The *comments* posted by a few people did couch the practice of bestiality in the same manner as was done regarding gay marriage - I agree.  If you read the responses in general to those comments though, you’ll see that we *don’t* agree that it is a similar issue.  The reason, again, is that animals do not consent to sex with humans.  They are *trained* to have sex with humans.  This is not right. 

On average, each and every person who “promotes” bestiality and zoophilia use the same “arguments”.  They argue they’re not hurting the animals.  They argue that it will eventually be accepted the same as homosexual relationships.  They argue that some animals “want” to have sex with them (ignoring the training involved for them to act that way).  I don’t agree with any of these arguments.  I, and many others, feel that bestiality is NOT anything like homosexuality, but is more along the lines of pedophilia (but don’t assume I believe them to be of similar implications).  The reason for this is that the perpetrators of both pedophilia and bestiality “groom” their victims, and profess to love and care for their victims.  And their victims, whether they say “YES” or “NO”, are still abused.

Bottom line.

Comment by TheRealCherieCalgary on 9/06/10 at 8:30 am

Thank you as well. My response was to your question (since deleted but it was approximately how do I disagree with you about Spink). In your case, I think it has something to do with the exploitation of animals and spoiling them for more conventional human association. My point in this blog as seen in the earlier responses is that it is part of the larger issue of the very definition of humanity and human values and behavior. If the definition of humanity is that we are top alpha dogs, then Spink is perfectly fine in what he does. Our judgments about his behavior would be artificial. When animals are in a friendly mood then they may allow for mutual consent in a relationship, but not necessarily. Let’s face it, animals are not mostly considerate. For animals there is no right and wrong, including our personal species. But your language on this topic is judgmental, i.e. ‘trained to behave properly’, ‘this is not right’.

I didn’t invent the association between homosexuality and bestiality (and incest). None of us would have thought of it independantly. It is in the Bible, and if I wanted to purely have a discussion on the validity of the Bible or the existence of God I wouldn’t personally start with sexual discipline, but it is one place. In the Bible these particular issues are necessarily not personal but social. There is no discussion in the Bible about the effects on one’s immortal soul and whatnot, but on the character of the society that indulges in those and related practices, using examples of such societies. You may wish to experiment with a rule like ‘consenting adults’ as a yardstick, but as we have been saying it doesn’t hold water when you get to incest. In that light, you may well say that neither homosexuality nor incest should be judged by others, and while I am not going to look for them I feel sure that there are blogs and websites singing the praises of incestuous fulfillment. If not, we have repeatedly seen bizarre news items on the topic which I will not try to reproduce here.

But that path does lead me to your major point,which is that *training* does not equate to consent. I contend that homosexuals are overwhelmingly introduced ( “groomed” and seduced by love and caring) to the practice at a fluid and vulnerable age and stage, before what you would call the age of responsibility and consent by older homosexuals who were in turn introduced etc. “And their victims, whether they say “YES” or “NO”, are still abused”. And if not personally so introduced, influenced from childhood by mass cultural indocrination harping on the pleasures and hipness and ok-ness and acceptance and tolerance and ultimately institutionalization of this lifestyle choice. In what way is that not *training*? There is your link between bestiality and pedophilia and homosexuality, involving the ‘consent’ issue. We know that victims of pedophilia too (in spite of intense intervention for those lucky enough to get it) are often (to use your language) unable to be retrained or even to be inhibited from hurting innocent victims. Although the Prop 8 opponents present themselves as consenting adults, I believe if one subtracts those groomed and trained from pre-adulthood by cynical and sociopathic elders the number would be tiny indeed.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/06/10 at 6:28 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories