Monday, December 05, 2005

On Marriage

My sweetheart and I got married two summers ago. In many ways, it was a traditional ceremony. Our families and friends joined us from all over the world to celebrate. We took a vow to love, honor, and cherish each other till death do us part, and our mothers wept with joy. With a minister presiding, we made an exchange of gold rings, followed by dinner for over 100 people at a beautiful restaurant, with a cake, dancing, and champagne toasts.

But in one obvious way our wedding was a non-traditional event: My beloved is a bright, softspoken, handsome science teacher named Keith...

Keith and I didn't get married to commit a pioneering act of civil disobedience, to "redefine marriage" as President Bush claimed during his campaign, or to outrage the religious right. We took our vows because getting hitched seemed like the sane next step of our commitment. We figured the best way to defend the sanctity of marriage was to have one and live up to the promises we made to one another.

--Steve Silberman, Our Traditional Non-Traditional Wedding

15 comments:

Stephen (aka Q) said...

Congratulations, Steve and Keith.
Q

Laura said...

This whole anti-gay marriage stuff just baffles me. You hear the backpeddling and doublespeak of those against it and you have to just laugh.

--It's against God. Technically so are all other religions - so why let anyone but Christians get married?

--It threatens the sanctity of marriage. How so? Two people vowing to spend the rest of their lives loving and supporting one another threatens marriage? I'd think Brittney Spears is a greater threat to marriage.

Robbie said...

I'm jealous of them, and happy for them too.

(I could go for love)

JDHURF said...

That’s fantastic news, although it’s been two summers – congratulations!
May I ask what state this was done in? Does the state recognize the union? I know there are a few states that do and I celebrate the stance these states have been willing to take in an ever increasing homophobic religious right domineering political force (the religious right’s influence will wane and dissipate, as we already see signs of).
Homosexuality is a civil rights issue and in the end will overcome any and all obstacles just as every civil rights issue has done in the past, racial equality, women’s equality, etc.
Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted and understood by scientific America and the youth, it is seen as taboo in high school or college to be considered homophobic; this will only increase until homophobia is a tired minority. Everyone should be fighting for and championing ‘gay rights’ battles and victories whenever possible, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I explore the blogosphere and engage in disagreement and discourse when there is opposition to my beliefs and values and only when the opposition presents an argument worth my time. Unfortunately the majority of the time I’m defending Secular humanism, homosexuality, evolution, and science in general. Every time I encounter opposition to every single one of these topics I find the opposing individual intolerably ignorant upon the very subject they oppose; I don’t mean ignorant as in stupid or dumb, but as having a lack of knowledge pertaining to the subject. Over and over again I find myself defining what these things really are and having the opposition concede in larger or lesser degrees.
Homosexuality is NOT a ‘choice’ or a mere ‘lifestyle’, it is a natural sexual persuasion that an individual is born with, it is biological not merely sociological or psychological, and modern science has illustrated this over and over again.
Once again Jewish Atheist, congradulations!

Jewish Atheist said...

JDHURF, read the post more carefully. :) It wasn't me who got married.

JDHURF said...

Well that’s embarrassing. Sorry about the confusion, I thought that the footnote at the bottom wasn’t the author of the text I was reading but a link to more reading on the subject. I do stand behind my post though, except for the congratulations!!

JDHURF said...

Well that’s embarrassing. Sorry about the confusion, I thought that the footnote at the bottom wasn’t the author of the text I was reading but a link to more reading on the subject. I do stand behind my post though, except for the congratulations!!

oracle25 said...

From a purely physical standpoint doesn't the very nature of the male and female body tell you that homosexuality is unnatural? in time I believe that homosexuality will come to be recognized as a mental disease often brought about by the absence of a strong male roll model in a young boys life. This is shown by the fact that as the divorce rate goes up so does the number of homosexual men and women.

Jewish Atheist said...

From a purely physical standpoint doesn't the very nature of the male and female body tell you that homosexuality is unnatural?

What does "unnatural" mean? Homosexuality happens in nature, with people and with other animals, so how could it possibly be "unnatural?"

This is shown by the fact that as the divorce rate goes up so does the number of homosexual men and women.

As the divorce rate goes up, there are perhaps more OUT homosexual men and women. Both reflect a relaxation of societal pressure towards "traditional" marriage.

oracle25 said...

a) Webster defines unnatural as: "Contrary to, or at variance with, nature; abnormal; strange", abnormal is something that brakes natural law, homosexuality by it's very nature defies the purpose sexuality, namely: to reproduce. By that logic doesn't homosexuality defy evolution? I mean, if survival of the fittest is put into play then shouldn't male and female be instinctively attracted to one another through their natural desire to reproduce?

b) While it is true that traditional marriage has been under severe attack, I can not imagine how anyone could believe this is a good thing. Children without both parents, putting kids through court because the parents hate each other so much, and generally all around ruined family's, boy what progress for the American society!

P.S. The only homosexual animals that I am aware of are some Penguins in a zoo somewhere, which could be described as an aberration sinse I don't believe it has been viewed before.

Jewish Atheist said...

a) Webster defines unnatural as: "Contrary to, or at variance with, nature; abnormal; strange",

Well, it can't be contrary to nature since it happens in nature. "Abnormal" is relative. Obviously, most people are straight, so in that sense homosexuality is abnormal, but then so is left-handedness. "Strange?" That's in the eye of the beholder.

By that logic doesn't homosexuality defy evolution? I mean, if survival of the fittest is put into play then shouldn't male and female be instinctively attracted to one another through their natural desire to reproduce?

That's a good question that's been asked many times before, with some interesting answers. For example, even assuming homosexuality is 100% genetic (which it's not) it is almost definitely not a single-gene trait. Therefore, somebody could have some of the genes for homosexuality without being a homosexual. It's quite possible that having some, but not all, the "homosexual" genes is evolutionarily beneficial, sort of like being a sickle-cell carrier (but not someone with the full disease) is beneficial in that it prevents malaria. You can research it yourself if you're really interested.

While it is true that traditional marriage has been under severe attack, I can not imagine how anyone could believe this is a good thing.

I very much agree with you that it's tragic that divorce is so high, especially in families with children. I don't see how that relates to gay marriage though. For the same reason you don't like divorce, you should like gay marriage -- it creates more stable homes. You have to understand that families with gay parents already exist. Letting them get legally married would confer the same benefits that it does to straight people. Banning gay marriage won't stop people from being gay or having families, it'll just stop them from being married.

The only homosexual animals that I am aware of are some Penguins in a zoo somewhere, which could be described as an aberration sinse I don't believe it has been viewed before.

You're wrong -- here's a National Geographic article that discusses homosexual birds and monkeys.

Shlomo said...

Everybody likes to have something to rub up against once in while. That's no surprise. Touch is a huge part of mammmalian health and development. Only humans seem to think there is something immoral about rubbing up against the 'wrong' thing.

Not every touch has to be for love, procreation, or survival. Sometimes that touching just makes our day better or forms a better bond with another human being.

Enough said.

oracle25 said...

Fine, fair enough, but again this goes against your precious Evolution. Animals should not want to have relations with the same sex because it is not beneficial to there survival.

And if Evolution is true then wouldn't it make sense that humans would have a higher degree of knowledge pertaining to right and wrong?

Jewish Atheist said...

Fine, fair enough, but again this goes against your precious Evolution. Animals should not want to have relations with the same sex because it is not beneficial to there survival.

I already answered this in my comment: "That's a good question that's been asked many times before, with some interesting answers. For example, even assuming homosexuality is 100% genetic (which it's not) it is almost definitely not a single-gene trait. Therefore, somebody could have some of the genes for homosexuality without being a homosexual. It's quite possible that having some, but not all, the "homosexual" genes is evolutionarily beneficial, sort of like being a sickle-cell carrier (but not someone with the full disease) is beneficial in that it prevents malaria. You can research it yourself if you're really interested."

And if Evolution is true then wouldn't it make sense that humans would have a higher degree of knowledge pertaining to right and wrong?

I don't understand this question. What's one have to do with the other?

oracle25 said...

sl aronoviz said:"Only humans seem to think there is something immoral about rubbing up against the 'wrong' thing"

My comment was in response to that, what I believe he was saying is that animals do not see anything wrong with homosexuality so why should we?, my response was that according to evolution and creationism humans should have a greater understanding of right and wrong then monkey because we have higher intelligence.