Do you actually believe two adults making a decision you obviously do not agree with is somehow the same as having sex with a turkey? Or that "forcing" people to marry is a step down from Puritan decisions to execute gay people instead? If so, exactly how is this view different from the puritan government of Iran?

And on a not unrelated note: Those Puritan fathers were radically intolerant of religious minorities too.

Finally, I am opposed to turkey-sex.

(I actually sprayed my computer as I typed that last sentence. So I guess your joke got through after all!)

I am not 100% sure you are serious, but I will be happy to clarify my position.

I don't have any problem with gay relationships and support civil marriage with all the rights and responsibilities therein. Yet that doesn't mean I don't have concerns about going too fast and ignoring the history of Western Civilization that has well more than favored the union of one man and one woman and which has served us so well for so long for reasons which may not be superficially obvious but seem imbedded in our culture. Therefore, while I recognize that society should recognize a shift that has happened organically, I do not scorn as some sort of Nazi the people who oppose it. They have a point worth listening to, and I'm concerned by the Massachusetts Courts trying to say that just calling it a "Civil Union" isn't enough -- it has to be "marriage" and completely equivalent in all respects to male-female unions. I also accept that there is a logical slippery-slope that could very well lead to recognition of multi-spousal relationships or even the inter-species variety (hey, whatever makes ya feel good...).

The best explanation of my feeling in this regard is the essay by Jane Galt I linked to in . It's really excellent.

I'm certainly not advocating the intolerance (or bizarro-actions) of the Puritans! I'm scorning it (and hopefully enough centuries have passed that we can have a bit of fun at poor young Granger's expense without appearing callous). Yet, yes, I also feel the modern Leftist "Puritans" who also seem to know what the perfect society should look like and are willing to use the courts to enforce it on everyone are deserving of some scorn, or at least some mockery, too.

An interesting side note: Another thing from the book that I thought was interesting was the fact that the Plymouth founders did not perform a religious marriage ceremony, it was purely a civil matter. Then again, they "knew," without having to have it spelled out for them, what marriage was, and what is was for -- as did John Adams, who wrote the Massachusetts Constitution. They were also much more in tune with the complex and delicate interplay of the functions of society that we today greatly take for granted and tinker with far too easily.

Finally, I do not believe you should oppose turkey-sex out of hand -- you simply have to buy the turkey dinner first.