by LauraLoo
Not sure how Babylonia Aivaz (the bride) and her building (the other bride?) will consummate this ‘gay’ marriage in Seattle.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8RFQJl9NkQ[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: WLS890AM Chicago]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m vaguely recalling an episode of PeeWee Herman’s Playhouse I watched decades ago where PeeWee declares, “I love this fruit salad!” Someone taunts, “Why don’t you marry it, then?” and they procede to put a veil on the salad and conduct a wedding.
This is the equivalent. Sad that we knew it was a joke then, but apparently Babylonia (her given name?) does not realize she has become the joke.
Gotta love all the statements that begin with, “I don’t understand…” Really? LOL. My question is did you register for gifts, and where?
2nd question: How do you tell if a building is male or female?
This is what happens when we as a society completely forget what marriage is.
How does a building consent to marriage? Is there an age of consent for buildings – could someone thus not marry the new luxury high-rise buildings she mentions – too young?
@Alexandra
“Is there an age of consent for buildings”
I googled that, surprisingly there was no answer…
Not sure if I should give her UP or DOWN twinkles. Hmmmm.
While machines typically are considered “female”, I don’t think carpenters and architects extend the metaphor. But I wonder if that makes the other bride transgendered or not.
There is just too much silliness going on here to address.
Honestly. I avoid calling people who are anti-gay marriage bigoted, as a rule, because I don’t like to put people in a box and I don’t think it furthers discussion to name call. But honestly, this is mean and rude, and yes it’s bigoted. To take an issue like gay marriage that some people find very important to them and mock it, yeah, not at all okay. I know that a lot of you find things like the Darwin fish and the Flying Spaghetti Monster rude and bigoted because it mocks your faith, why is it okay to do with another issue that someone else finds important. Not at all okay.
This girl is not “all there”. Not sure if she’s a former mental patient or not, but she makes no sense, she can’t even think what she’s trying to say.
Jack~ Who’s being bigoted? And how?
“This is what happens when we as a society completely forget what marriage is.”
That kind of stuff. Even if it’s a joke, it ain’t funny. It’s not okay to post some kooky political stunt and use it to make digs at people who love each other and want the right to marry. Even if you don’t think they should have that right, there is much to be said about sensitivity and tact towards the people you disagree with.
I do think the ability to consent, and indeed – to have any such desire in the first place – should weigh on this.
Huh? I thought the video was completely making a mockery of marriage, and that’s what I was reacting to.
Jack, the desire to marry a building, while rare, is not new, nor is this the only case. As this is a documented medical (psychological) reality, to call this woman kooky could be considered highy insensitive of you. Some would say bigoted.
Maybe if you knew someone who felt they were in a romantic relationship with a building you’d understand more. Maybe studying this issue would help you not to call this woman kooky, etc.
Why is it ok for you to limit marriage by a definition, and not for others? An honest question the woman in the story might ask of you.
“Why is it ok for you to limit marriage by a definition, and not for others?”
Why is it ok for us to limit anything by a definition? For example, we generally limit “cat” by a definition. If I took a frying pan and called it a cat — metaphorical meanings aside — how should sane people react?
It’s ok for us to limit things to definitions because we humans have the capacity to *think*. The less we limit things to definitions, the less we actually think — and, in fact, the more we relinquish our humanity and become like trees or turnips. As Chesterton put it:
“When [a man] drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.”
MaryAnn: Why is it ok for you to limit marriage by a definition, and not for others?
MaryAnn, that “OK or not” is in the eye of the beholder.
I will say, that even before we get to inter-personal relationships, the concept of “raw” ownership would come into it – i.e, Person X wanting to “marry” building A is going to have a serious problem if Person Y owns said building.
To take an issue like gay marriage that some people find very important to them and mock it, yeah, not at all okay.
The sacrament of marriage is very important to me and my husband. Not okay to call me homophobic if I disagree with you’re wanting to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is between one man and one women.
Me and my husband were talking with a teen recently who went on and on about gays having the right to marry. ”If two men love each other, they should be allowed to marry,” he argued. I then said, “What do you think about if three men want to get married.”
The teen said, “That’s just gross.”
Ok, seriously, WHEN have I EVER called you homophobic, or anyone else for that matter? I personally don’t think simply being against gay marriage or thinking homosexuality is a sin is homophobic. I do think it is bigoted to MOCK gay people wanting to get married, or comparing their desire to marry to pedophiles wanting to marry children. Or whatever. Disagree, but a bit of respect for the people you are disagreeing with would be cool.
Praxedes: “The teen said, “That’s just gross.” ‘
Yep – in the eye of the beholder.
The bigotry toss goes both ways there. I could say that because people are trying to change MY sacramental marriage and REDEFINE it into a genderless concept against my wishes that it is they who are the BIGOTS.
Kris, don’t think people are trying to redefine your marriage.
Kris, you need to be really specific for Doug. I changed it for you:
I could say that because people are trying to change sacramental marriage between one man and one woman and REDEFINE it into a genderless concept against those who are in a sacramental marriage that it is they who are the BIGOTS.
Kris.. the analogy might work if, you know, I actually call or think people who oppose gay marriage are automatically bigots. I don’t. If you actually read what I was calling rude, it was the mocking. Not the belief.
Doug would be correct.
Kris, don’t think people are trying to redefine your marriage.
This statement is not mocking?
Why do you assume the women in the video is mocking anyone?
Anybody can say *anything.*
Listening to a lot of people in the 1950s, 1960s, even into the 1970s (if not later) – you’d have thought the world was coming to an end because of inter-racial dating and that some people of different colors were getting married (horror of horrors).
It takes a while for this type of deal to die down, and die out, and no doubt the between-same-sexes thing is the same.
Rage on and go nuts about buildings, etc., but the “between-consenting-people” thing ain’t gonna go away.
It’s not the video that is mocking, the little I actually could watch on my stupid phone. It’s the attitude that it’s analogous to two gay people who want to marry each other. “Snicker snicker, those silly gays want to marry. That’s like this lady who wants to marry her house.” That’s rude. Y’all have better arguments against gay marriage than making fun and ridiculous slippery slope type of stuff.
That comment Doug made just sounded like him being his usual over-literal self, lol. ;)
Da jackster: That comment Doug made just sounded like him being his usual over-literal self, lol.
Hee hee :)
As opposed to the usual vastly-less-than-literal-enormously-subjective pro-lifer comments, well, yeah….. ;)
There is a big difference between what is true for some of us, depending on our own subjective beliefs, and what is true for all of us.
The lady in the video actually called it a “gay marriage.” It all just appears to be a bunch of histrionics to me.
And slippery slopes are real. Not this one, I’ll give you that. But “slippery slope stuff” is valid and is about foreseeing the consequences of decisions.
BTW, Doug, in my state they are trying to redefine marriage.
Kris, did your state try and ban inter-racial marriages, too?
Time goes by (and the abortion debate is a very real one) but the objections to gay marriage aren’t going to carry the day, in the end.
To which end are you referring, Doug?
Kris, “the end” where it’s going to end up, same as for inter-racial dating, marriage, etc.
Any and all BS aside, whether abortion – including to a point in gestation – should be illegal – is certainly an issue in the US, and IMO it’s a “real” one over the long-term, i.e. there are lots of people on both sides and it’s a matter of personal belief (or at least it can be stated like that) and I’m not sure where it’s going to end up.
Contrast that with the “ban gay marriage” sentiment, which comes (quite a bit) from the prejudices of a very few writers in the distant past. As an observer of American culture I acknowledge that the legality of abortion is a real question at this point, but I do not see the “gay marriage” issue as the same, i.e. it may take a while, but in the end state laws banning it will be struck down per the Constitution. My opinion.
Apparently this is the kind of community activist that Obama “organized”.
JackBorch says:
It’s not the video that is mocking, the little I actually could watch on my stupid phone. It’s the attitude that it’s analogous to two gay people who want to marry each other. “Snicker snicker, those silly gays want to marry. That’s like this lady who wants to marry her house.”
Since you don’t think the video is mocking gay marriage, and you quoted my statement as an example of “bigoted” rudeness, I can only assume you thought I was mocking gay marriage? Other than the fact that she says “gay” marriage in the video, I didn’t think the video had anything to do with gay marriage. Apparently you didn’t think so either. So how is my statement “This is what happens when we as a society completely forget what marriage is” mocking gay marriage?
There’s ample evidence that we as a society have completely forgotten what marriage is. Marriage is anything but a lifetime commitment to love and fidelity. We have 50% of marriages ending in divorce. It’s estimated that 30-60% of married people have affairs. Popular culture treats marriage like a joke.
Have you heard the catchy little Bruno Mars song that my teens just love?
It’s a beautiful night
We’re looking for something dumb to do
Hey baby
I think I wanna marry you
If we wake up and you
Wanna break up, that’s cool
No, I won’t blame you
It was fun, girl
Kim Kardashian divorces after 72 days of marriage?
Anyone remember Brittany Spears’ 55 hour “marriage”?
I don’t watch much television so maybe I’m missing something, but is there ANY show that features a couple in a HEALTHY marriage?
And then we have this ridiculous video. The idea that the “love” a person feels for a neighborhood or a building is in any way analogous to marriage is beyond offensive.
Doug, I always giggle at the interracial marriage comparison. It might work for some Americans, but for all Catholics I know the idea is ridiculous. We have a looooong tradition of intermarrying. Looking at my diocese and parish, and my famiy trees for that matter, you’d see all or many races and combinations. Go to Rome and survey Catholics attending Mass. It’s the most diverse group you might ever see.
The comparison just doesn’t work- interracial marriage is nothing new or unheardof.
Interracial marriage bans were about keeping the races separate. Marriage has always been about bringing the two halves of humanity together.
As soon as I saw this, two words, a song actually, came to mind….http://youtu.be/-5EmnQp3V48
Her plan is absurd…and the “ordained clergy” should have advised her from a deeper pool of legal, spiritual and historical understand of marriage.
Other options could have been suggested, like petitioning for historical preservation, filed for the protection of a 104 year old building.
I think one thing we can agree on is this woman is staunchly in favor of Cocoa Puffs.
MaryAnn: Doug, I always giggle at the interracial marriage comparison. It might work for some Americans, but for all Catholics I know the idea is ridiculous. We have a looooong tradition of intermarrying. Looking at my diocese and parish, and my famiy trees for that matter, you’d see all or many races and combinations. Go to Rome and survey Catholics attending Mass. It’s the most diverse group you might ever see.
The comparison just doesn’t work- interracial marriage is nothing new or unheard of.
Interracial marriage bans were about keeping the races separate. Marriage has always been about bringing the two halves of humanity together.
MaryAnn, I agree on the Catholics in Rome and indeed – in much of the world. I lived in Youngstown, Ohio, in the 1960’s and into the 70’s, and there the Catholic community was quite insular and monolithically white.
I have no doubt that some Catholics and others never got too freaked out about inter-racial marriage, but there was still a ton of whining and moaning and hand-wringing, etc. In the end I think the uproar over gay marriage will die down too.
“Bringing two halves of humanity together” – it sounds like a religious take on things, to me. As far as a social union, why would that necessarily apply? I can certainly see a given church not marrying two given people, but as far as being able to have the status of “married” in society, I think in the end it’s a done deal for gay people.
Jacqueline: I think one thing we can agree on is this woman is staunchly in favor of Cocoa Puffs.
Ahahahahaaaa!! :)
“ As far as a social union, why would that necessarily apply? I can certainly see a given church not marrying two given people, but as far as being able to have the status of “married” in society, I think in the end it’s a done deal for gay people.”
Part of the reason I am not for “gay marriage” per say (not that I really care if it were completely legalized, it’s really no skin off my nose), I think that marriage itself, straight or gay, shouldn’t be done by the state. The state should issue civil unions for legal and social purposes to straight/gay/whatever couples, non-discriminatory, and then the churches can choose which couples they want to give their religious rites of marriage to. It seems like a workable solution that for some reason has a lot of resistance from both sides, not sure why.
Sorry, Lrning, I must have read more into your comment than what you were saying. It’s a touchy subject.
This is why I love Seattle. Keep it weird guys!
And for anyone who thinks this is a statement about gay marriage – did you even watch the video? Damn, it’s like the Internet is making you stupid.