That pretty much sums up his basic assumptions, and oretty much explains anything he might say.

So how would I, or anyone else, determine that sex = married couples based on the lovely married elderly in my midst?

I’m still scratching my head on that one. Perhaps I should just let it go.

Does the ceremony in Sider’s world end with “And now, finally, you may f**k the bride!

Actually, you’re close. “Kiss the bride” is both literal and a euphemism. Physical intimacy – which for much of history included such lesser acts such as kissing – was prohibited between unmarried people.

Also…what some are failing to recognize is that Sider is not talking about random older people you may run across while dining out of town. He’s discussing older people within the community. Those whom the younger people know, and whom they are aware of both their living situation and their marriage status.

This is not, in my opinion, where Sider goes wrong in his assumptions. (and yes, a posting is still brewing)

I’ve had to read that section several times before it made anything close to sense.

And I’m still not sure it does.

When I look at an elderly couple, or ANY couple for that matter, I don’t assume they’re having sex. I also don’t assume they’re not having sex. I don’t really concern myself with other people’s sex lives.

Unless one knows whether or not a couple is having sex AND their marital status, how does one have any affect on the other from an “encouraging a viewpoint” status?

Does Sider live in a world where everyone goes on and on about their sex lives constantly while flashing marriage licenses or empty ring fingers?

In layman’s terms he’s saying
“we let old people get married so that young people will think that having sex is something for married people.”

But what’s implied, in layman’s terms is this:

“because elderly people talk frequently about both their sex lives and marital status we let elderly people marry so that young people will think that having sex is something for married people.”

I’m seriously not understanding the connection between old folks getting married and young people thinking sex is for married people.
Does the ceremony in Sider’s world end with “And now, finally, you may f**k the bride!

The Swedish Supreme Court freed the Pastor, not the European Court, though they did state that the EC would likely free him if the case went there.

Still, he is a despicable man.

“I tried reading [The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage], to be honest, but only got about halfway through before the author’s incredibly obtuse writing style became too much…”

In general the best way to read it is to skim it until you reach something that looks meaty.

But if you want the “good” parts of this unpleasant essay that Ron Sider quoted from so happily in his article, do this:

Read from the start of the first pdf page through the first full paragraph of the second page, and two sentences into the following paragraph. This nonsense is the paradigm she builds her essay on.

Then, skip down to pdf page 6 and read the subsection titled Generation and Death. (The punchline is in the last paragraph.) This is the ugly part.

Then, continue into the next section, and read down to the end of the last full paragraph of the next page (pdf pg 9). This is the loathsome part.

From there I’d recommend reading all the way to the end, but if you’re impatient, read the first full paragraph of pdf page 11 and the paragraph after it. Then read the last couple sentences on pdf page 13 to the end of that paragraph. Here Susan M. Shell’s real feelings show through, and they aren’t pretty.

Shannon, thank you for the help on special formatting. :)

But then there’s something like this: the American Center for Law and Justice’s Jordan Sekulow (who is the son of the head of the group) has come out in support of DADT repeal. ACLJ is the creation of Pat Robertson who wanted to form a conservative counter-weight to the ACLU. Here is the DADT piece:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religious-right-now/2010/12/no_dadt_no_problem.html

The ACLJ pre-dates the now-familiar Alliance Defense Fund. Unlike the ADF, the ACLJ actually has good lawyers. The father, Jay Sekulow, has argued before SCOTUS a number of times and won a very important case involving the intersection of free exercise and free speech.

This is a perhaps the first good sign that maybe things are changing. Although NOM seems to have come out in favor of repeal via a tweet some months ago, one could dismiss that as tactical posturing. ACLJ, by contrast, has no selfish reason to support repeal. On the contrary, it is nearly certain to incur the kind of wrath that Dr. Warren Throckmorton has experienced, and that Scott Brown is now experiencing. In other words, this appears to be a principled act by a long-time adversary.