can this really be true! someone please read this article to Julaine Appling, ideally while pieing her Anita Bryant style

With worldwide travel and instant transcontinental communication at your fingertips, the ability for churches to shelter their members is impossible. When a church wants to offer an opinion, there are a million counterpoints available online. Perhaps religion is not becoming less important, but less magical/supernatural.

Wow, what a poorly written article. Someone needs a lesson in persuasive writing.

Sam, I encourage you to think about why our government gives benefits to those who decide to live with one sexual partner their whole lives. Think long and hard about this. It’s about children. It’s about the future of the nation. It’s not about being against gay marriage, it’s actually understanding what marriage is—where people come from. This is common sense. If this makes me uneducated, then I’d be flattered with the title.

Luke Syse syse@wisc.edu

“Think of the children!”

Nice persuasive argument there, Luke Syse.

Luke! I agree! It’s not at all about being against gay marriage, it’s about… children! A happy and committed gay couple adopting and raising children is- well I’ll just ignore those people like you did, for the sake of the argument!

The government should enforce our shared rational ideals of having “one sexual partner”. Sex before marriage should be a felony! Divorce should be illegal! Straight marriages that don’t produce children should be ILLEGAL! Oh and I looove being ignorant too.

Luke, it does make you uneducated. Considering planet earth is nearing its carrying capacity, I highly doubt we should be worrying about not having enough children producing ‘families’. If this ban is really what you say it’s about, then it sounds ideal, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We have gay people that have every right to create a family of their own. What really bothers me is that people assume that its always better for children to grow up in a broken family than one with two loving gay parents. (think adoption) If we won’t allow gay marriage for the sake of children and families not being the ‘traditional’ family, then i certainly hope we go back to the middle ages and not allow divorce or womens rights. I mean, for the sake of the family!!!! Clearly illogical, call it what you want, but you are hiding underneath the veil of familiarity. Worry about your own kids, your own family. and LASTLY, kids who grow up with gay parents, wouldn’t be stigmatized if society wiped that fear away.

Yes, we should think about the children. Do we really want them to grow up in a society that promotes reason, equality and tolerance? This is absolutely absurd.

this is a great article—very poignant and you have a great voice. i especially enjoy the Canada line, and your willingness to be honest about the bigotry in religion these days, and not walking on eggshells so as not to offend anyone. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE OF THAT in the world so keep it up!

oh, and Luke Syse, PLENTY of gay people live their whole lives with only one partner. an educated person would know this. you are not educated in any sense of the word, and you shouldn’t be flattered. it doesn’t go very well with your skin tone.

Syse, wow, that’s one of the funniest comments I ever read on the BH site. You sure nailed just how those haters twist truth and logic. See ya at Club 5 tonight?

“…gives benefits to those who decide to live with one sexual partner their whole lives.”

Or benefits to children born out of wedlock or to people married and divorced multiple times… of course this is not about morals! It’s about making more taxpayers and army grunts. (the same reasons churches promote the same issue: more tithers in the pews).

It doesn’t make you uneducated, it makes you a biggot. I think a child being raised in a loving gay marriage is a thousand times better than one being raised in an abuse heterosexual one. One man and one woman does not have a monopoly on morality. Grow up.

To Luke Syse:

Honestly, you’re argument is completely flawed. First of all, just because a couple is of the same sex DOES NOT mean that they won’t spend their lives together. And seriously, there’s a 50% divorce rate for straight couples. So it’s about the children, huh? Who says that children are any better off with a straight couple than a gay couple? According to studies, there is no difference. There are so many unwanted children in this world and incredible overpopulation. Increased adoption by gay and straight couples would give unwanted children a safe and healthy home environment. You’re argument is honestly the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Just admit that you’re a prejudiced bigot, instead of hiding your twisted views behind some flawed rationale about “bettering America.” People like you make me sick. You ARE uneducated, and you could also use a good lesson in what “common sense” is, because you obviously don’t have any.

Congratulations Sam! You have successfully offended 3 out of every 4 Wisconsinites (luckily I’m educated enough to be able to do simple fractions) purely based off religious affiliation….who’s the bigot now?

“We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and RESPECTFUL. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.”

Thank you Badger Herald for setting an example and showing me a truely “respectful” opinion article. I guess I’ll just have to keep my “bigoted”, “uneducated”, “homophobic”, slave book worshipping, opinions to myself. It’s nothing personal.:)

Roberta Hill rchill@wisc.edu

First of all, it’s not 3 out of 4 Wisconsonites because we don’t have 100 percent turnout, we have about fifty percent. Secondly, if you believe this just because the majority of people do, you don’t really think for yoursel do you?

Luke didn’t say “think about THE children,” he said “think about children.” Luke has no issues with anyone’s quality of life, he’s focused on quantity of life. I’m not sure, however, how a bunch of poor, unloved children is good for the future of the country. Maybe Luke can tell us how “more + poor” make an ideal country. We just need more trailer parks, right?

“The fool says in his heart there is no God!” Written by a 19 year old who one day will look back on this poorly written illogical work and find himself completely ashamed. His theory that the increase in a lack of belief in God is equated to a more educated society is a jaw dropping argument that causes one to question the writer’s I.Q. Obviously, the study of history is no longer required for a degree in higher education at UW.
However, the other absurdities put forth by the writer is shockingly shallow. Might I suggest that the writer should consider that if sex is no longer a characteristic of marriage, what is so magical about the number “2”. If two adult men, who are committed in a loving relationship, should be permitted to call that a marriage, who are you to suggest that THREE adult men in the same status should be denied the same right? If equal protection is defined as providing marriage rights to same sex couples, then the right to practice one’s religion free from interference will also apply to the Arab national who wants to immigrant his other three wives from Saudi Arabia. Contrary to popular belief, there is a far better legal argument to support polygamy, which has it basis in both history and is legal in 22 countries, then there has ever been for gay marriage.
If two men can marry, certainly equal protection includes and encompasses other forms of marriage, especially under one’s 1st Amendment right to practice one’s religion. You see, this has nothing to do with marriage at all…it is, rather, a concerted attempt to destroy marriage as an institution by which society has formed it family units. Today, illegitimacy is now at 38 percent of all births. 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. Once you lower the standard of any institution, it becomes meaningless. Much like the Wisconsin diploma that you now seek… It is, however, most fascinating to me that nearly 75 percent of the population could be so labeled by the writer as callously as he does, without him ever considering that one should practice what he preaches. Maybe the writer might spend, oh say, 1 minute considering how his own POV is amazingly bigoted. To say it in a language you might understand, given that you are only 19…Pot, meet Kettle!

Thanks for all the comments. Why does our government even care about marriage then? That is meant to be an honest question. Why does the State make it a legal contract?

Didn’t mean to offend anyone, I was just offering my opinion.

—Luke

Because society decided to ascribe marriage legal benefits, Im not really sure that the gov. should care about marriage but as long as marriage is a legal contract by all rights religion should stay out of it.

“The ban, which passed in 2006, was carried to victory on a tide of homophobic sentiment and framed through the whimsical lens of preserving Wisconsin’s families.”

Sam, you tactics are questionable and your opening paragraph is filled with assumptions that are passed on through social constructs. Have you taken time out to talk to those who hold different moral standards than yourself? Not only have you done a poor and tasteless job in writing this article, you have also done a poor and tasteless job in doing what you (and many others) ask of Christians around the world; that being a tolerable person. Assumptions only lead to misconstrued words and thoughts, which lead to the dimise of unity that our nation has yet to fully reach.

To assume that those who vote against gay marriage are all homophobic is quite bold of you, young Sam. To be honest with you, I am opposed to the notion of laws that promote/allow gay marriage, for many reasons (that if approached in a tactful manner I would be delighted to disclose those reasons, but being that I am writing on the comment page of he badger herald I would guess otherwise). Now simply b/c I am against gay marriage does not make me a “homophobe;” in fact I have plenty of lesbian and gay friends and family members that I treat no different than my closest church going friends. So would you call me a “homophobe?”

Just because I do not agree with the acts associated with being gay does not mean I shut off encounter with all members of the LGBT community. To do so would mean to truly go against what I stand for. Who am I to judge the actions of a LGBT individual to be less moral than a friend who drinks his/her life away? I condone neither lifestyle, but I do not condone the person. And that, young Sam, is where your ignorance and intolerant mind-set went wrong.

Dear Sam,

This is one of the best articles that has ever been in the BH. It is now posted on the wall of my room. Keep up the awesome work!

Jon

More educated = less religious? Really? I know many “educated” religious and non-religious people. I also know “uneducated” religious AND non-religious people. Trust me: I know a lot of atheists from northern Wisconsin who are conservative. On the flip side, I also know some religious liberals. This article doesn’t make sense at all.

Also, to all the commentors: bigotry falls on all sides of the political spectrum, not just the “conservative” or “religious.” Be careful when you call people bigots, because you might just be hopping on the bigotry train yourself.

Luke, did u know rates of powder cocaine are higher among whites? We don’t want white people to push their drugs onto their children do we? I guess whites shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

Christianity is NOT the worship of the Bible.

The government shouldn’t even recognize marriage because it is religious. The state should only recognize a union between people and if they want to get married, that is something they should do in their church. This way, homosexual couples would be able to share the 1800 state and federal marriage benefits that straight couples enjoy and churches wouldn’t have to marry homosexuals if they didn’t want to even though they ought to. Over the past few years, evidence has been pointing to homosexuality being biological and not a choice as many Christians would like to believe. So, could a Christian please explain to me why Christians use their “superior” morality to justify discrimintaion against homosexuals?

Sam, i can tell you are obviously fishing for controversy, so i will be brief. Not only do you show a basic lack of understanding of the issue, you offer arguments that i could find on any blog or message board. How about offering something new and innovative instead of the same old tired rant against christians. Oh, and for the record, I am a Christian, I voted against the ban, and i will be out in the last week of march campaigning for domestic partner benefits. Is your frightfully small worldview spinning yet?

“Why does our government even care about marriage then? That is meant to be an honest question. Why does the State make it a legal contract?”

Your previous logic might have been a bit flawed, but this line of thought is dead on. Don’t let gays get married, stop letting straight people get married. There is no reason that the necessary aspects of marriage can’t be handled another way (hospital visitation rights, power of estate after death, guardianship of children etc.)

What benefit does the state have by recognizing a union? What motive does the government have? Christianity does not discriminate, it recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman—the two items needed for offspring. The state recognizes this—and gives them benefits. Pretty simple.

To Anonymous @ 8:12 am:

The benefit of the state is providing equal rights for its citizens. Christianity does not discriminate? That’s the biggest joke I’ve ever heard. You almost made me laugh. The fact that Christianity only recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman IS discrimination in itself. You can’t say that Christianity only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman for offspring. If a straight couple didn’t want children, no Christian would say they shouldn’t marry! You’re just providing an excuse for your closeminded bigotry. It makes me sad that people like you follow the twisted morals of Christianity, which only leads to prejudice, bigotry, hate, and discrimination.

@ 812 If marriage were purely for procreation reasons then marriage where children are not intended, are impossible due to infertility (whether sterility or because people are older) would not be allowed. To others, while I have definite disagreements with the tactics Sam uses in this, the statistic that shows that religiosity has an inverse correlation with education and intelligence is pretty well known. OF course there are exceptions, but there is a definite trend.

I’m sorry to hear how offensive this article was to me. I read the BH every day, but an UNEDUCATED direct attack on my religion was not appreciated. Christianity is not the root of all our problems and differences, sin IS. Our country has replaced religion with materialism…and wonders why we find ourselves turning to alcohol, drugs, etc., including Christians. I hope in the future that opinion articles will explore both sides of the issue, not just be an attack.

To @ 3:32: You said “Today, illegitimacy is now at 38 percent of all births. 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce.” And you try to defend the upholding of the institution of marriage as one man one woman? Obviously it’s not working out so well right now, is it? You kind of shoot yourself in the foot with your statement. How can it be worth ‘preserving’ (as those against gay marriage call it) if the institution is already destroyed? Obviously, the study of reason and logic is no longer required for a degree at UW.

Anonymous @ 10:25 AM—

In case you didn’t know, an opinion article is supposed to state an opinion, NOT express both sides of the issue. that’s the reason it’s called an “opinion.”

Oh, the days we live in. Common sense makes you a bigot, and the only truth is—there is no truth. A generation of minds founded on a fallacy.

I agree, yes an editorial is an opinion, but the Badger Herald should have higher standards, especially from the head of the editorial section

I would like to comment on the statement in the article “worshipping a book that endorses slavery” Yes, the Bible uses the word “slavery” around 200 times. The Bible also uses the word “worship” around 180 times. My point is that we all worship something and we are all slaves to what we choose to worship. We may choose to worship money, power, beauty, being right, being respected, our job, a person in our lives, having a lot of stuff or not having a lot of stuff, a big house, winning, knowledge, being “Green”, being thin, sports etc. If we’re honest with ourselves as we look at what we spend most of our time thinking about, that’s what we worship and that’s where we put our energy to support or serve.

A true follower of Christ chooses to worship Christ and therefore be a slave to Him and representative of what He lives and died for. Granted, this is a process with a learning curve and we don’t do it all right and we hurt people in the process. I would encourage you to read Jesus’ words in the Bible and see for yourself what He stands for and then make a decision about Him and whether slavery is always bad or not. Too often people will make decisons about the Bible based on what people tell them about what the Bible says versus first hand knowledge of reading the entire Bible in context and deciding for themselves.

Jan Johnston

Why shouldn’t relgious organizations pay taxes? I have to pay more taxes to make up for the church tax exemptions.