Ghost of a flea

One can be morally consistent in preferring monogamy. But the legal arguments used up here leave no defence against polygamy. (Not that I'm all that opposed, anyway, provided that we enact stricter laws about forced marriage and raise the age of consent to marriage.)

As for the rest of Steyn's article -- secularism has beaten Christianity as a governing philosophy. Once it turns its focus to Islam, it'll beat it too.

One of my ongoing frustrations is the notion that Christians oppose gay marriage. Many people sincerely describing themselves as Christian are opposed, of course, but many, many Christians are supporters.

In any case, I fail to see why the opposition or support of any religious group should trump the rights, or indeed the entitlements, of everybody else. I believe it falls to those wishing to impose their own factional religious or ideological perspective on the rest of us to provide an argument that is more convincing than a particular reading of their particular sacred scrolls (be they the Koran, one or another version of the Bible or the collected writings of Karl Marx).

Oh, Professor Flea. Won't you just marry me? And we'll live happily ever after.

Aside from your boyfriend there is my cat allergy problem to consider. I love cats but they do not love me (though their furry evil attention once they have realized the allergy issue would suggest otherwise).

And that was my second proposal from the blogosphere today, btw!

I'm going to do something about this for my blog in awhile, and try to get both you and the Aciddaughter to link to it as a response to posts of yours. Very briefly, this issue is confounding rights (in the American sense) with entitlements, and this is something that conservatives must oppose. Also, these "Christians" you're talking about are basically a bunch of damn Episcoplalians. Christians, by definition, must oppose gay marriage in some sense, if only semantic.

Respectfully, Christians need do no such thing. The Roman Church used to conduct same-sex blessings for one thing. For another, if you decide Anglicans - and plenty of other Christians - are not Christian simply becuase they interpret scripture differently there is no room for a conversation. This is the first and last time I will publish any comment that "damns" a religious denomination. I will not have Episcopalians denigrated here any more than I would allow anti-semitic or anti-Catholic remarks.

To me the merits of gay marriage are obvious while the decision of some Christians to selectively read scripture in search of things to finger-point about while ignoring the core of Christ's teachings is baffling. That said, I understand many disagree with me.

The question, once again, is why your particular reading of whatever scripture you hold sacred should be made public policy. I have yet to hear a single coherent answer to this question beyond the bald assertion of the truth of a particular faith and untruth of every other. Well, billions of people disagree with you, millions of them are your fellow citizens and somehow we all have to get along with each other. This is not a debate that will be solved in my comments section and I am closing comments on this post. Please feel free to link to this post if you wish to make further arguments elsewhere and please do send me the link so I can consider your arguments for myself.