| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Do You Support Gay Marriage? |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 07:22 AM |
| Do you support Gay marriage? Why or why not? |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 07:26 AM |
| In my case I support it whole heartedly. I mean so long as they don't interfere in my right why should I say they can't do what makes them happy? And where in the Constitution does it give congress the power to write marriage laws? And being the states have agreed to the terms of the Constitution when joining the union or signing the document where do they get the power to deprive a gay couple from seeking their own happiness? In my honest opinion government has no power to control who can and who can't get married that is a private matter for the couple. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jan-2004, 08:03 AM |
| This is a clear case of behavior between consenting adults being outside of ANYBODY else's business. Some folks have so little life that they insist on trying to mind everybody else's business....Maybe they think that marriage between ONLY men and women is one of those ABSOLUTE truths... |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 08:07 AM |
| That's the problem I see with religion them thinking they can set the moral tones for the rest of the world like everyone should be just as pushy as religion is (Note I am talking of religion as a whole no one idividual being stated here though I know of some who could be there own religion being their quite pushy and no it's nobody in the forum just a couple people I know). But you never hear an ateist saying of you're gay you can't get married. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 21-Jan-2004, 09:20 AM |
| I support it because I think the same tax-level rules and advantages should also be available to same sex couples... If religious institutions don't want to offer their services (marriage) to same sex couples that's their thing but at least on the legal side there should be NO disadvantages for same sex couples if compared to heterosexual couples. |
| Posted by: MDF3530 21-Jan-2004, 09:42 AM |
| I support gay & lesbian marriages too. If Adam wants to marry Steve rather than Eve, that's his business and I respect him for that. |
| Posted by: RavenWing 21-Jan-2004, 12:40 PM |
| I fully support same-sex marriages. One of my best friends is in a commited relationship, and may as well be married. What bothers him is if something happens to him, his biological family will be able to call the shots and his partner will not legally be able to have a say with anything. |
| Posted by: oldraven 21-Jan-2004, 12:49 PM |
| Yes, to an extent. I think it should be a legal institution, before the state, and those present. As far as being a part of the religious marriage, by a priest/minister in a Holy house of worship before God, I don't think this can ever happen. You would be requiring that religion to CHANGE its creed. You can't do that without compromising the entire belief system. So yes, in the worlds' eyes. But not in Gods'. But, since most gay people aren't too worried about Gods' aproval, this shouldn't matter.  |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 21-Jan-2004, 01:12 PM |
| I don't think that's true.. a good friend of mine is a devoted catholic and gay. He does have alot of problems with his own inner conflict, he doesn't want to give up his faith but neither does he want to be pretending to be something he isn't. It's quite a dilemma for him. |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 01:35 PM |
| Well not to long ago there was a Gay that was given a higher status in the church and he was openly Gay I didn't follow story to much but he succeeded even in the church to be openly gay and remain and in fact gain a higher status. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 21-Jan-2004, 02:01 PM |
| you mean that bishop of the anglican church? what a controversy that caused.. i didn't quite understand it but well... :/ |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 02:12 PM |
| Sounds like the one. |
| Posted by: oldraven 21-Jan-2004, 02:14 PM | ||
That's why I said most. I knew someone would 'know a guy/girl'.  I'm sure it IS causing quite a conflict in his life. I'm also sure most of us wish we could change just one little thing about our religion to get it to fit our lifestyles. But we can't. A creed like that is an absolute, and should remain that way. Otherwise, what's the point. Your friend will ultimately have to make the choice. Religion, or live as a Gay man. No one said being a Christian was easy. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 21-Jan-2004, 02:18 PM |
thank goodness I am not  I don't have to think about that dilemma then...I do pity him in a way because basically his religion says he should do something other than he wants. Na, but what I really want to see is a change in society. The longer people talk around it them more baw's they produce.. It makes me sick if people start proclaiming that homosexuality is a mental illness or that you can catch it by sitting on the same seat in the bus etc... *rolls eyes* What religion says about that, I couldn't care less. I think religion should not forbid happiness. |
| Posted by: oldraven 21-Jan-2004, 02:41 PM |
| And, assuming that Church actually WAS seperate from State, there should be no issue of making same sex marriages legal. We here in Canada are currently going through this as well. And our former Prime Minister said that as a Catholic, it was a very hard decision to make, but as the Prime Minister, he supports legal gay marriage. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 21-Jan-2004, 03:22 PM |
| I think every state in europe goes or went through that... and of course the dutch started it... |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 21-Jan-2004, 03:30 PM |
| What 2 people do within their own privacy is none of my business. But I do not support it. It is not Natural.  Enough said from me. |
| Posted by: Swanny 21-Jan-2004, 04:50 PM | ||
Excellent point, well stated. Thus far the only argument made in opposition to same sex marriage is that it is considered "immoral". The 'consistency' rule of logic would require that in order to enjoy freedom of religion one must also grant others freedom from religion. Swanny |
| Posted by: oldraven 21-Jan-2004, 05:12 PM |
| You got it, Swanny. And this willingness to let it go would sure help end the trend of hating Christianity. |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 05:21 PM | ||
Well I would agree but would limit it to religion. Notice how it seems at least for the most part religious groups that are opposed to it? |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 21-Jan-2004, 05:28 PM | ||||
As far as I am concerned, Religion has nothing to do with this. |
| Posted by: oldraven 21-Jan-2004, 05:40 PM |
| That's because religions were formed in a time where it was important to continue makin babies, for a society to thrive. or maybe I'm just full of hot air. |
| Posted by: scottish2 21-Jan-2004, 08:09 PM | ||||||
Somehow I don't think you would see a lot of Atheists running around yelling ban gay marriages.  |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 21-Jan-2004, 08:58 PM | ||
You think man still needs to survive? As far as that goes, I am not really sure that I agree with marriages. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jan-2004, 09:16 PM | ||
I agree completely. Religion should be about becoming happy, not telling people what the should or should not do.  |
| Posted by: scottish2 22-Jan-2004, 05:54 AM | ||||
Also how many wars have been fought in the name of religion. I think that is why I am most curious about Asian religions I mean for the most part you don't hear of a Buddist Monk running around fighting their competitors like you had with wars like the Crusades. And personally I can't stand how it has to be the churches way or the highway so that is why I chose not to be invoved in the blind leading the blind. And group that says I can't do something that makes me happy can as far as I am concerned go the way of the Dodo since when can one group force another to their beliefs in order to partake? I means it's been happening for eons I know but that doesn't make it right. |
| Posted by: oldraven 22-Jan-2004, 09:21 AM |
| Don't blame religious wars on the religion itself. Blame it on the fanatic leaders who hide behind their religion. The Crusades were fought in the name of God, but I can guarantee that war is not an acceptable form of spreading the word, as far as the religion itself is concerned. |
| Posted by: scottish2 22-Jan-2004, 09:27 AM |
| I didn't blame religion as religion by and of itself is harmless I did however say in the NAME OF RELIGION. |
| Posted by: peckery 22-Jan-2004, 10:19 PM |
It is fine by me, but don't call it marriage. Marriage is between man anda woman. Call it a partnership, give them all the benefits of marriage (Ins., taxes etc) but sweet tap dancing Jesus, don't call it marriage.  |
| Posted by: Keltic 22-Jan-2004, 10:47 PM | ||
Atheists don't usually have an organized "Atheist" group and therefore, they wouldn't have a large collective voice. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 22-Jan-2004, 11:38 PM |
| Um.......... well I hesitated coming into this forum as I do not like to debate and not as inteligent as you all are. But I must say that I am a Christian and I will admit that because of my beliefs in the Bible I do not believe in gay marriages. If they want to live as partners and raise children then that is their business, but marriage was instituted by God and I just don't agree with the "marriage" thing at all with gays. And yeah! A lot of wars have been started in the name of Christ, but like oldraven said. Those are the fanatics! BTW, even though I am a Christian, I am not a Bible thumper! Those are my beliefs and I choose not to push myself on anyone. But you asked the question, Scottish 2 and I answered my opinion and participated in the poll  Oh my! This is my first post in the politics forum! Very scarey for me! |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 23-Jan-2004, 12:21 AM | ||
Celtic Rose, I think you survived it just fine. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 07:36 AM | ||
I don't think many gays would argue with that. I don't think it's the name but the benifits that go along with being together. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 07:38 AM | ||
You still don't hear even individual aethists running around yelling ban gay marriages. At least I have never met one to date. It always seems to be religious groups at the forefront of this debate on the opposing side that is. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 07:57 AM | ||
Well you survived it. Was going to respond with the question of you have the right to believe as you do but what right gives you the right to push your views onto others but you answered it right in saying you don't push your views onto others. Which is the right answer by the way. And even religion doesn't have a right to force their views onto others it isn't a right for anyone religious or non religious to push their views onto others and that's why I get upset at lobbist groups who try and have a law made the effects other groups of people like the religious groups pushing for a ban on gay marriages or for this matter abortion. Where do they get this right? Answer is it's not a right at all for them to have something banned that they don't approve of cause the law won't effect the ones pushing it. It effects another group of individuals whom the group pushing it on doesn't agree with. That is effective trying to force their views on the opposite party by effectively banning the way their chose to live or act. As I have stated if the (well for the sake of argument) gay party wants to live together and get partnered then that is their choice and what right does religion or any other person have to get involved in their personal lives and say they can't get partnered . None cause people don't have a right to try and conform society to their views. Everyone is different and has a right yes a right to seak happiness in their own way and so long as them seaking happiness doesn't infringe on anothers rights then no one has a right to try and prevent them from seaking happiness in the way they chose.An example of a person seaking the wrong type and illegal type of happiness would be the murderer. He takes anothers life depriving that person of the right to life and hence gives up his right to happiness because he deprive another person of their right to life. But two consenting adults be they Man~Man or Woman~Woman have a right to seak happiness together if they wish and government doesn't have a right to say they can't get partnered or joined or for this matter even married. Government does not have this power in the Constitution and I feels is illegally ussurping a power they don't have. If anyone knows of the section where congress can legislativly control marriage I am all eyes and ears. Here I will even help you out http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html See Cletic I think you survived I'm not a harsh leader. It's all about getting people to think. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 23-Jan-2004, 08:05 AM | ||
Celtic Rose, That is what he tells all First Timers. He gets you all drawn in and then POW, just like Batman.  |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 08:14 AM |
| Now now you know I am a nice leader. I haven't censored anyones views and let you all share your views on things. I just post the opposing (sometimes) view that's all. |
| Posted by: Elspeth 23-Jan-2004, 08:31 AM | ||
Since when are there 'right' answers? Isn't that what you keep accusing conseratives and Christians as being guilty of? Sounds to me like the 'right' answer is whatever answer agrees with your perspective. |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Jan-2004, 08:33 AM |
| Scottish is indeed a good leader, leading people to think. Many people find this to be painful, like using muscles that they don't use very often. To make the pain go away, try using it more..... |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 08:49 AM | ||||
My view has always been regarding rights that no one has a right to infringe or try to deprive any other person of their rights. Religious people don't have a right to force their views and morals onto others just as gays don't have a right to force their views and morals onto religious folk. So religious folk can feel that being gay is wrong but they don't have a right to push their views onto gays and ban their life style (unsure how to really consider this as some say it's a choice and others say their born that way so unsure as it may and maynot be a chosen lifestyle ) All I am say is yes you have a right to believe as you do but you don't have a right to force others to believe as you do. If people come to you and want to believe as you do that's their choice but no one has the right to force another to their views. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 08:51 AM | ||
It's like the old phrase it takes less muscles to smile but how many people smile regularly? And thanks maisky I try. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 23-Jan-2004, 02:56 PM |
| mmh.. onto Richards exclamation on it being Unnatural.. why does it exist then??? Anyway.. I do not care what Religion says about Marriage, because I do not think Marriage was instituted by God. It was instituted by those who carried his "word" about. Anyway, the concept of marriage is far older than Christianity, people have been forming life-long bonds for a while now. I'm not overly fond of the concept that people HAVE to marry to be eligible to certain rights. Example: I want my boyfriend to have the same rights on our child (in case we ever break up) as I have, but after the legislation at the moment this is not possible without marrying. In my eyes he should have the very same rights, if not more than me because he will be the one that looks after it while I am in college. Anyway, what I criticise is that people (not all but alot) call themselves Christians and with that see it as if they can impress their views onto everyone/thing and if it's the other way round they feel attacked and insulted. Marriage is only a word, but an important one because it's meaning states that 2 partners enter a life-long bond (well, in the ideal case). Why that should there be a difference when it is 2 males/females that enter this bond or a mixed-sex couple. If the church does not accept this, the only thing that can be forbidden to them is enter that bond in the sense as the church see's it. Marriage per sé is not the thing people do in the church but the overall meaning for it. Anyway: I think this discussion should not involve and church-views simply because it is about legalising it. In Germany it is possible by now and there are many happy gay couples that could legalise their relationship and enter that symbolic bond. And I think that is what this should be about, making people happy that want to take this step and making them equal to the status mixed sex couples have in the legal system. |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 03:37 PM |
| Aon, you can't cut religion out of the equation, because it's at the heart of the whole issue. It shouldn't be, but it is. The issue is the definition of marriage, which was made by the church and is now carried over as part of the law. It's just that the laws haven't changed to reflect a separate Church and State. As a side note, the religion is older than Christianity. Much older. That's just the most recent chapter. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 23-Jan-2004, 03:44 PM |
| well, the reason I took religion out of that is because "marriage" is a lifelong bond. Birds to it as well *shrugs* Anyway, tell me another word for that and I'm fine with that. But a life long bond can't be sanctioned by anyone, it is a choice. If you do it yourself or others do it for you is another question. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 03:52 PM |
I agree with Aon on this (go figure  ) As i pointed out in another thread I can just as easily get married in from of a judge or a ships captain and neither of these is a religious ceramony preforded by a pastor/reverend of what have you. And these while they maybe civil services are still considered being married. People don't say they got joined by the ships captain they say they were married by the ships captain. Marriage is just a word and I don't feel religion has any legal claim to a word. |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 04:02 PM |
| No, they can't lay claim to it. They just originaly defined it. And like I said, if a gay couple wants to be married by a judge, or a ships captain, (which may go into that whole gay navy issue), that's perfectly fine by me. It just shouldn't be done with a religious ceremony. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 23-Jan-2004, 04:13 PM |
| I have had many male gay friends in my life time. We always knew what the other believed and yet it never was an issue in our friendship. I loved them like they were my brothers. As I had stated, my Chrisian beliefs are mine and do not push them on anyone else. My neice is gay. She grew up in a very strong Christian family and of course the family was very upset when she told us. However, I have NEVER imposed my beliefs on her. I am sure she knows what they are anyway, so why harp on her. Instead I show her the same love and respect that I always have. If she were to get married to another woman, would I agree? No. But is it my business? NO Just because of my beliefs, I do not feel it is my right to tell anyone what to do. But if they ask me, I will express my opinion. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 04:25 PM | ||
Well not talking naval ships captains here don't even want to open that can of worms. And never said it had to be a religious ceamony but since churches don't have legal claim to the word marriage then gays should have a right to call it marriage if they wish. |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 04:27 PM |
| Well said, Rose. Same here. I have several gay friends, best friends in fact, and they've always known where I stand. Of course, I used to be a lot more conservative than I am now. He only asked me once what I thought of it. I told him the truth. I don't aprove. He got upset, but I told him that it doesn't change the way I feel about him, or the way I treat him, so there was never any issue again after that. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 04:28 PM | ||
Well as I said your right to have and even share your views with those interested (opbviously threads like this make those responding interested ) but it's good to see you don't push your views onto others like you could with your Neice. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 23-Jan-2004, 04:34 PM |
| Thanks everyone..........whew!!!!!! So far I am surviving in here. |
| Posted by: Shadows 23-Jan-2004, 04:35 PM |
| NO!! Male and female have the purpose of pro-creating, gay couples can not do this! Nature defines this law not man! I am not homophobic, many friends are gay and we have this discussion often. Love can be defined in many ways, but sex acts between 2 members of the same sex are in no way normal in my own opinion. If one wants to commit to one partener of the same sex for a lifetime then fine but I do not think it can be called a mariage... unless the posibiliy exists of offspring. Live life as you see it , but do not make it law that all must accept it. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 23-Jan-2004, 04:37 PM |
| I never said any of yous is pushing their views, I just know too many that do. And that definitly put me off the whole religion thing. But I disagree with you oldraven, the church did not originally define it.. If they did: how do Hindu's marry? Or Buddhists? Or others that are not originally christian? marriage is the word that means entering/being in a lifelong bond. And that fact is not defined by Religion/God but by the actual fact that people live together and share life after having entered such a bond. |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 05:12 PM |
| Miri, I realise you're close to the issue, but that doesn't warrant selctive reading. You're not hearing what I'm saying, your reading the words and getting your own version. Let's make this a bit clearer. Marriage, in the legal sense, which is what we're talking about here today, was defined by the church in the time where the state was joined with the church. This is true in my country and in yours, or at least where you are now. I'm not saying the Christian church invented the joining of man and wife. But the term that is used in the legal system was penned by the church originaly. In muslim countries, the law is still joined with their faith, and their laws with regard to same sex marriage is the same. A man and a woman. This is the way it was defined when religion had everything to do with the legal system. Now that it's not, in our countries, the word should be redefined. |
| Posted by: Swanny 23-Jan-2004, 05:33 PM | ||
Why does the word need to be redefined? Let the word rest within those religious institutions that coined it. Instead of redefining marriage, which will obviously create angst and oppostion, why not allow same-sex couples who enjoy lifelong bonds of love and commitment define their relationship using a different term? I do think that "Civil Union" would be more widely accepted than "marriage" to describe the relationship. The important thing is to ensure that these couples derive all the LEGAL benefits that are today granted only to those in traditional marriages. Swanny |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 05:36 PM |
| But they have no legal claim to any word otherwise you would not see the hunters bible or the fishmans bible or anything else. Words are just words and no one group can lay claim to a word and prevent other groups from using it. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 05:40 PM | ||
I agree just trying to make it clear no group can lay claim to a word unless it is somehow a trademark or something and I don't see any trademarks by the word marriage |
| Posted by: Shadows 23-Jan-2004, 05:49 PM |
| I agree that no word can be claimed, but natural order is just that... if you want to be a union in a thing that by most standards is considered un-natural then you must bear the reprocussions and discust of those who do not have the same feelings. If all you want is common rights to health care, etc. as a couple then that is different, but do not try to make it seem a way of nature because it is not. All power to those who fight for this right, but it still will never make it right in my book. Again just my humble opinion. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 23-Jan-2004, 05:55 PM |
| well, okay, the problem seems to be that one side see's marriage as something utterly religious, the other side see's it as something that's a word. So far so good. Oldraven, do not accuse me of selective reading, I read all posts and I read all posts in the same way. But I sometimes mess things up or I don't understand them the right way. But you did say it was defined by the church and I say no. People have entered a bond before and they probably will go on doing that. I do see the role of church in history and I acknowledge it. Anyways: The church defines a rite that is done IN the church. I do not know how it is handled in Canada but in Germany it is still called marriage when you go to the nearest town-house and get married, but it does not involve the same rites. It just changes your status as a couple - and that does not have anything to do with the church rites. The basic thing at the town-house is done like this: Clerk asks if you really want to get married, you say yes, sign a your new name under a document which states your legal rights as a couple and you go out and you're married. If you do that as same sex couple or not is your own thing. The basic definition of marriage is, at least over here and I state it again: Entering a life-long bond which has you officially sharing your life with your partner. Shadows: I ask it again, if it is not natural, why does homosexuality exist? EDIT: I forgot to add that the town-clerk also tells you about all the legal stuff that's involved in it... ANOTHER EDIT: Civil Union is a good word for it, I'm going to use that from now on, although it stays, in my mind at least, the same thing |
| Posted by: Shadows 23-Jan-2004, 06:18 PM | ||
If I could anwser that Aon I would be a rich man! If it is your ( all inclusive, not your personal ) cup of tea, then go for it ! I have many homsexual friends that can't explain that either, but they do wonder why!?! I am not sitting in judgement of anyone , just saying don't make something that the majority feels is wrong an issue to be over come in a nite or even an decade. The books of most major religions do not support such things, not saying it is right or wrong , but I do tend to agree. Only the answer in the end times will tell how this debate will end. |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 06:20 PM |
| Well seem we all agree religion can't lay claim to the word marriage cause it is just a word. So if they can't lay claim to the word they can't also deprive another group of people from using it. unless they have ownership of the word they can't control who uses it. last I knew nobody owns the word marriage. Now I am not saying religion has to be forced to marry gays but since they don't own the word marriage they can't deprive anyone else from using it. Also just a side note remember folks we are an international community here and not everyone is going to read the post the same way. Even myself sometimes I have to reread a post to understand the users meaning and especially where we have English from both sides of the pond not every word has the same meaning like bonnet for hood (of car) so please be patient and just ask users if that is what they meant. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 23-Jan-2004, 07:28 PM |
| shadows, I don't think it's right nor wrong as well, I mean, it's their cup of tea as you said =) But it does exist and I doubt people get to it by infection or something, so I deduce out of this that it is natural for some to feel affiliated to men rather than women and the other way around.. (edits: in the same way as others find members of the opposite sex far more attractive...) I can certainly say that I find a women's body aesthetically far more pleasing than a man's body, even though a good man's body is very nice as well. It doesn't make me gay, I just think like that in the aesthetical side of the whole thing. When it comes to more basic joys I do prefer men to women  |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 07:30 PM | ||
Which is my point. Redefining the word would open the doors for others to use it to fit their situation. It's a legal term, not a religious one, so it should be defined from the perspective of a secular government. Miri, dont' get upset. I'm not. The reason I made that whole post was to make it more clear what I was trying to say, because I know English is your second language and sometimes a scentence to me means something slightly different to you. Don't worry, I'm not harping on you.I'll try to say it again. When I said they defined the legal term, I mean when the legal system was set up church and state were in cahoots. So, when the legal term for marriage was defined it was done so from the perspective of the church. I'm not saying they created marriage, they just had an influence on what it meant in legal terms. I hope that one made sense, because you still think I'm saying the Church created marriage. Well, hopefully not now. *gasp-pant*  And I'm spent |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 07:41 PM |
| But married is just the joiing of 2 items or people. For instance I can say I married this peice of metal to another peice of metal this just means I joined one peice to the other. It is religion that has been trying to redefine the word to mean male and female when i fact marriage is the joining of to items or people. And I just looked up this definition in 3 different dictionaries and one has no gender asigned one has gender but in the sense of taking a wife or husband but this is vague cause it doesn't say a wife taking a husband or a husband taking a wife and gay people do consider themselves to be one or the other so fits right in and then the 3rd definition does say man and woman. All 3 are of varying age dictionaries meaning ones not to old and the other 2 are older. But as I stated above all marrying is is the joining of two items or people and the gender is irrelevent when using this word. And in my view it has been religion forcing the view on what marriage is but as can be seen by this whole issue not everyone agrees with how religion tries to define a word that isn't theirs to begin with. |
| Posted by: Shadows 23-Jan-2004, 07:42 PM | ||
That is the crust of the bisquit!!! Is it a genetic thing, social ( did mommy/daddy scare the hell out of jimmy/jasmine? ) or is it an anomoly of nature? Most religions call it an abomination, is it a manifestation of our current society ( homosexuality in the current numbers is a modern thing ), or has it been so closeted up over the centuries that it has been over looked as an issue until now? I neither condone nor condem such feelings, but do see how the lines of battle can be drawn over this issue. |
| Posted by: Shadows 23-Jan-2004, 07:46 PM |
| Side bar counceler: Aon I too preferr the female body to the male, so if I say so would you hold it aginst me ?.... LOL!!!! DOn't get in an uproar fellow members that was in jest!!! |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 23-Jan-2004, 08:03 PM |
| *lol* I wouldn't hold it against anybody... *grins* us females.. we were gifted by nature *whistles innocently* I wouldn't go as far to say it's genetic or anomaly, I never pondered about that anyway... maybe it is, but it would still be natural.. I'm quite sure that there have been cavemen that lusted after other men rather than women and the other way round. Even under other animals it's known. I have a friend who breeds budgies and she's got a pair of "married" females.. they would never breed with males, they just shared that life long relationship. And males are readily available in her house (budgie ones that is!). I think I've watched a documentary about "gay" mammals some time ago. But I can't recall the name.. Anyway, it's not only humans. hehe, Adam, I got your point, but I disagree because today it isn't that way anymore. People see marriage differently and the church bit is for most only the romatic part... Anyway, have fun yous, see you tomorrow! *bedtime in Scotland* |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 08:12 PM | ||
S2, I see what you did. You looked in a generic dictionary. But we're not talking in generic terms. I know that the issue here is that in our legal system, marriage is defined as the legal joining of a man and a woman as lifetime companions. Now, that's not exactly it, but I know that is the main idea. The whole uproar here is in getting the legal definition of marriage to disregard the man and woman part so it works for alternative lifestyles. You have to look at how your government defines marriage, not Websters or Britanica. Maybe it's different in your countries, but since all of our governments are formed from the same source, I wouldn't be surprised if you find they all say the same thing.
You can't disagree..........because that's exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time. The term IS defined that way, but it shouldn't be anymore. |
| Posted by: Shadows 23-Jan-2004, 08:30 PM |
| How did that song back in the sixties go??? :: "Lord why am I so misunderstood?" Sometimes I think I must be from mars... I say the same thing as most of you and I get chastized; what gives? I am only making a point of difference that many percieve as correct. I do say that don't I ? |
| Posted by: scottish2 23-Jan-2004, 08:43 PM |
| Maybe it's the way you say it? Try saying it a differnt way I had to do this on another list I am on cause someone didn't understand the first time I said it. |
| Posted by: oldraven 23-Jan-2004, 10:11 PM | ||
Damn. Sorry Shadows, I was replying to S2's post where he looked up the dictionary definition of marriage. You're name was the first one to reach the keyboard man. Sorry, again. And for the record, I wasn't chastising anyone. I wasn't even disagreeing with S2. I was pointing out a difference. Guys, it takes a lot to actually get me mad, and I'll let you know when that is. I certainly don't get upset over topics that have no effect on me............... selfish as that sonds. Anywho, Sorry again for the mixup. You must have thought you made a post when you blacked out. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 23-Jan-2004, 10:15 PM | ||||
I believe I have the answer for it. Any Animal involved with Homosexuality is Mentally Disturbed. This is only my opinion. As far as marriages, there are other species of animals that mates for life with only one other. The main purpose of marriage for the human being species, in my understanding, was to stop the spread of sexual transmitted diseases. |
| Posted by: oldraven 24-Jan-2004, 01:25 AM |
| Wow Richard, close your mind a little more. If that's a tone of bitterness I'm feeling, then you're getting dangerously close to trolling. If you have something to say, say it and make a point. Don't just toss insults out. That doesn't help you make a case, now does it? |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 02:10 AM | ||
Yea, my mind may be closed to this subject, but I am only stating how I feel. I am really getting tired of all these Liberalists telling me how I am suppose to accept everything they want. Hey, if they want to be gay, then so be it. This does not mean that I have to accept their decision. This is not any different than someone of another Religion telling me that I have to believe as they do. First of all, I don't, nor do I have any plans to. So if this is bitterness, then YES, I am bitter. Second of all I do not rudely insult others because if I did, then I would not be any better as a person. But common sense tells me if a person does thing in their life that contradicts the natural ways of live and feels that they are in the right, then something inside of me tells me that there is something wrong with them. I said in the beginning of this that I was only going to comment here one time only. but some how I got sucked up into this. I have yet to see anywhere in here explaining to me why I should accept their way of life. This does not mean that if a gay person asked me for help that I would not help them, because I would. But this does not mean that I have to support the way they believe and this also goes for anything else that I am against. I am a person with an mind set and I plan to keep it that way. My apologies for getting on my soap box. But again I say that Homosexuality is not NATURAL! |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 05:57 AM | ||
First off I have to say I agree with Oldraven here lets not call names
I mean you don't agree fine but that doesn't make someone mentally disturbed just because they have an opposing view point or practice then you. OK now onto the response to your second post. First off if you read back I have never said through out this entire thread that you should accept their lifestyle but I have also said repeatedly that no body including you and even the government has any power to prevent 2 same sex consenting adults from getting married and receiveing the benifits of this marriage. They have a RIGHT to pursue happiness and together pursue happiness if they chose to do so just as a man and a woman chose to pursue a lifetime of happiness together. And I am using this term marriage on purpose cause as most seem to agree so far is religion can't lay a claim to a simple word. So if they can't lay claim to a word they also can't control it, they can't say who can or cannot use this word it is just a word and nothing more and definitions are always being changed as we evolve otherwise you would not see multiple subsections of a word. Words grow to have more then 1 meaning. As for legal definiti0ons I repeat my unanswered question fro my 3rd to last post on the first page of this thread <hr> If anyone knows of the section where congress can legislativly control marriage I am all eyes and ears. Here I will even help you out http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html <hr> No government (at least in the US) has the right to tell a citizen they can't pursue happiness in their chosen manor so long as that pursuit does not infrige or take away anothers right. Problem is majority rule has given thiem this right and it is still a right they don't have the power to do because it would be taking away or infringeing on an individuals right to ppursue happiness. |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 06:04 AM | ||
Hi Oldraven I went back and edited the name in your last post to point to me instead of Shadows as I know you have been having troubles with the delete button not showing up so was not sure if edit was also being effected. So I went back and edited it from shadows to me to avoid confusion. And read my post above for the reply. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 06:34 AM |
| Scottish 2, Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Subject was "Do You Support Gay Marriage" not whether or not the Government has any say so in this. As far as Mentally Disturbed, who knows, I may be a total loony. It is still my opinion that people who enjoys sexual activities where S & M, Beastiality, or other such acts cannot be all here. If a person who enjoys personal pain such as burns, whippings plus who knows what all else there is out there. Are you going to tell me that something is not quite right in Denmark? To me these are all unnatural acts. The only other thing in Nature the intentional sets themselves on fire is Moths, but there again, they do not realize that they are doing that. They are only flying towards a light which is instinctive to them.Last of all, where in here did I call anyone Names? If being called a Liberialist is a Name, then I am sorry. But I thought that Liberialist enjoyed being called that. |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 06:48 AM |
| That maybe the title but we have a discussion going here on this topic and it has been brought up in part by me that there is no legal grounds for it to be banned and so far that question remains unanswered. As for the name calling I agreed with Oldraven. Calling those you disagree with "Mentally Disturbed" isn't right if it was right I could be saying that to a number of those in here cause they have an opposing view but I don't drop to that level here. Humans are animals as well just a different for of animal but we are none the less mamals. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 07:00 AM |
| I am not saying that it should be banned. I am just saying that I do not support it. And I am still lost on this Name calling thing. Just because someone does not agree with my point of view does not mean that they are Mentally Disturbed.But are you telling me that if someone wants to set themself on fire, that they have the right and is not Mentally Disturbed? And this is because of their rights to pursue happiness? |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jan-2004, 07:21 AM | ||
i.e. ALL REPUBLICANS!! |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jan-2004, 07:25 AM | ||
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! HE IS FOAMING AT THE MOUTH AGAIN!!!  |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 07:29 AM | ||
Part of that post was in response to Old Ravens post. And hey if setting themselves on fire floats their boat hey who am I to stand in their way. Will I do that no but hey that's their thing not mine. Am I going to label them mentally disturbed? No why what does it serve to call or lable someone something? Whose to say we're not the mentally disturbed being and we should be setting ourselves on fire Just because you don't do something someone else does doesn't make the opposite side mentally disturbed. Just makes them different. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 07:48 AM | ||
Then tell me. What would it take in your opinion for a person to be labeled "Mentally Distrubed". I would really like to know. And Maisky, for information that you are probably unaware of, I am Neither Republican or Democrat as a matter of fact, any Political Party. |
| Posted by: valpal 59 24-Jan-2004, 07:49 AM |
| I voted yes in the poll. My brother is gay and has been with the same person for 12 years. I don't agree with his way of life, but I love him and that is his choice to make, not mine. To me "getting married" is making a commitment to another person for the rest of your life and legalizing that commitment. If they want to make this commitment, then go for it. It doesn't have to be called "marriage". You can call it anything you want. Just show respect for their commitment. As for the religion part of it, I cannot say for I am one lost puppy. Just my very small opinion. |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 07:54 AM | ||
Not being all knowing I can't properly be a judge to what is right and wrong cause who knows it might just be me whose really wrong. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 08:11 AM |
| I want it to be known for the Record that in no way am I trying to sell my Morals onto anyone else. That is not my resposibility. Nor is it anyone else's resposibility to sell me on their Morals. As far as the use of "Mentally Disturbed" may have been an overkill of my intent and that I will appologize for. As far as having Respect for others beliefs. I respect all living things whether animal, plant or rock. Some would even argue about this, but I really don't care. But I do not like being told that I am in the wrong for the way I feel when I am not harming others. And I am going to let it go from there. |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 08:26 AM |
| I never said you were wrong for how you feel that is you. But for instance the word marriage nobody owns exclusive right to this word so no one has a right to dictate who can or cannot use it. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 09:19 AM |
| In Accordance With "Webster's New World College Dictionary Third Edition" the definition of Marriage is as follows: mar-riage (mar'ij) n. [[ME mariage < OFr < marier: see MARRY]] 1 the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2 the act of marrying; wedding 3 the rite or form used in marrying 4 any close or intimate union 5 the king and queen of a suit, esp. as a meld in pinochle. mar-ry (mar'e) vt. -ried, -ry-ing [[ME marien < OFr < marier < L maritare < maritus, a husband, married, prob. < IE base *meri, young wife, akin to *meryo, young man > Sans marya-, man, young man, suitor]] 1 a) to join as husband and wife; unite in wedlock b) to join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife 2 to take as husband or wife; take in marriage 3 to join closely or intimately; unite--vi. 1 to get married; take a husband or wife 2 to enter into a close or intimate relationship; unite --marry off to give in marriage [they married off the last of their children] --mar'ri-er n. Hopefully this will help on what a Marriage is. |
| Posted by: Shadows 24-Jan-2004, 09:41 AM | ||
Well it seems the post that affected my question was aimed at you and not me after all, maybe you need to follow your advice also.  |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 09:52 AM | ||||
???  If you're talking about the post by Old Raven he corrected his error. He did aim it at me just used wrong name which I corrected for him as he's been having troubles with some buttons not showing up for him. |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 09:54 AM | ||
And as I pointed out a lot of gay couples get married with one playing the role of husband (IE the bread winner) and the other plays the roel of the wife (IE the homeaker) so and would like to see the link to these definitions if there is a link. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jan-2004, 10:05 AM |
| I HATE it when Sir Richard is reasonable in the political forum so that I can't pick on him!! |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jan-2004, 10:06 AM |
| Sir Richard Bercot may respect all things, but I have it on good authority that he has it IN for trout! |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 24-Jan-2004, 11:10 AM | ||||
Scottish 2, This was not taken from link. This was taken directly from my own personal Dictionary. Maisky, I do not know your source of information but I return all those little Trout back to Mama. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jan-2004, 04:42 PM | ||
If you would catch some BIGGER ones you might change your story..... |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 24-Jan-2004, 05:18 PM | ||
| ooh 'scuse me but: bloody hell, can't you people once wait for me? I'll post reply later, busy reading... But Richard: I quote you:
I think it means exactly that you have to accept their decision because it does not involve you, only their own "pusuit of happiness". You have to accept their decisions because it is theirs to make in first place. To SM & Bestiality... For every person that likes exactly that there is a counterpart. I live in a very open environment and one of my cousins works in the "oldest business" and in the place she works nobody is forced to do what they don't like. If you want to receive pain, there will be a counterpart as well as the other way round. I don't think it's sick, because there are people that like it. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 24-Jan-2004, 05:33 PM |
| Well, I think I challenge the husband/wife definition of you, Dave, because today not even every marriage works out like the "ideal" case... if I marry, does it mean I am the husband and my BF is the wife (because he will stay at home and I go to college and then working)... What about families where both partners a working and they equally share household? Anyway: I think nobody here get's grilled for his/her views because they are their own. All we do is discuss that... And: I don't think something like "Mentally Disturbed" actually exists. yes, there are those that are mentally disabled, but they are not disturbed. Everybody non-conform with society would be branded if we start calling someone who likes it a wee bit different "mentally disturbed". I don't mean that as attack again but as a general viewpoint on that. As for my own case, I like it different, but that is a thing between me and my BF. What I do in my own bedroom is nobody's concern. If someone rather sleeps with men, same case. Nobody protests if a slave/dominatrice couple weds, so why protesting when a woman/woman, man/man couple weds... |
| Posted by: CelticRose 24-Jan-2004, 07:24 PM |
| Aon, then what you call a serial killer then? Mentally disturbed or mentally disabled?. I know this is off topic, but since you mentioned that you didn't think there were "mentally disturbed" people, I just wanted your opinion. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 24-Jan-2004, 07:26 PM |
| Oh, I forgot to add pedophiles too! Mentally disturbed versus mentally disabled? I personally think that both serial killers and pedophiles are mentally disturbed! IMHO. |
| Posted by: scottish2 24-Jan-2004, 08:15 PM | ||||
Well I was just saying what I have seen. And like I explained earlier there are always several contexts of the same word in this case and each has it's place. For instance in Richard's first definition subpart 4 it states
Now who would argue that gay people are not close and intimate? And this is but one sub definition of the word marriage. |
| Posted by: andylucy 25-Jan-2004, 12:05 AM |
| Geez, you take a 4 day vacation to go see the Chieftains, and this great debate breaks out! I voted no (big surprise, huh?), but primarily because of the wording. If it had asked if I am in favor of civil unions for gays, I would have voted yes, because I do not agree with depriving gays of their human dignity. But marriage, with all due respect to our revered and esteemed moderator, is between a man and a woman. This is amplified by natural law, as a man and a woman can procreate. Gays cannot. That's it, as far as I am concerned. Incidentally, sterile men/women are not allowed the sacrament of marriage, either, for the same reason. It is a natural impediment to marriage. Do I dislike gays? No. Do I approve of their sexual inclinations? No. I can love the sinner, but hate the sin. By the way, Mirri, you stated that "...a good friend of mine is a devoted catholic and gay." I am sorry, but if he is a practicing homosexual, he ain't a devoted Catholic. He is in a state of mortal sin and has removed himself from the sacraments. That is not just my view, it is the position of the Catholic Church. I can give you the citations of Church documents if you wish. As far as gays being upset that the word "marriage" is being withheld from their use, I don't understand that. If they want recognition of the legal status of their union, more power to them. But marriage is a sacrament, just as is the Eucharist. I do not feel it to be right for someone to take a sacrament and desacralize it. The sacraments belong to those who believe. For those who don't, that is your decision, just toddle along and leave those of us who do believe to celebrate these gifts. By the way, for those who might object to the interjection of religion into this, I vote my conscience, which is formed by my faith. They are inseperable. At least to me. I make no claims as to its relevance to anyone else. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: oldraven 25-Jan-2004, 01:41 AM | ||
Thank you Richard. This is the only thing that you said that had bothered me. |
| Posted by: scottish2 25-Jan-2004, 05:45 AM | ||
Heck you need to read back in this thread if you haven't as it's been in and out of religion all through out And as I have pointed out even if a man and woman get joined by a ships captain or judge it is still considered a marriage in the eyes of the law at least so if the legal view upholds their marriage then religious views is somewhat irrelevent since in the eyes of the law even their union is considered a marriage even without religious services. And what about Christians. I know I have been to several weddings growing up and none partake of anything during the ceramony only things they eat is the cake in the face LOL So are they married obviously they are as well. See Chaloic ceramonies are only relevent to Chatholics but this does not mean that other groups have their own version of getting married as it is just a word and nothing more. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 25-Jan-2004, 10:31 AM | ||
Catholic view in all honor but I guess there is alot homosexual people that are religious and catholic and are forced to go through this dilemma because they don't know what to do. Herding your sheep is one thing but herding them into a potential danger for their souls I think is quite another. I do not see why catholicism has anything to do with someone's sexuality.. Why marrying if someone finds the lying with a woman repulsive? Nothing children-like can come out of that I think, only a repressed soul that cannot find a way out of the situation... =/ As for the mass murderer & pedophile Rose, look into their history. I don't think they are mentally disturbed. A pedophile will never find anything wrong with what they are doing because they think differently. I do not want to excuse this but it has to do with their upbringing, with their surroundings and the society around them. No mentally disturbance but the way they developed. As an artist you maybe use your art as an outlet, I use my singing and my writing (ooh, how many ppl I killed off in my stories, and I felt very satisfied by this). What about those who can't let it out in that way? As I said: I am not excusing this, but I don't believe in mentally disturbances because if we call someone mentally dsturbed it usually is because we can't understand. And how can we change things when we can't understand? |
| Posted by: CelticRose 25-Jan-2004, 03:45 PM | ||
I hear what you are saying, Aon! Good that we can learn from each other,eh? Different points of view are good, me thinks! |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 25-Jan-2004, 03:54 PM |
| me too, that's why I like this particular part of the forum so much =) I don't mind different views as long as both sides acknowledge it.. Andy and I have that (almost a tradition) way of disagreeing... |
| Posted by: scottish2 25-Jan-2004, 04:06 PM |
| My case it's Swanny and me who seem to disagree but amazingly it looks thogh unsure that we actually agree in this thread but could be wrong as he reply doesn't really indicate for or against but seems to lean for but I could be wrong |
| Posted by: CelticRose 25-Jan-2004, 04:17 PM |
| I think as long as both parties agree to disagree, that makes it fine in my eyes. That's what makes us unique in that we all have different opinions and should be able to share them without judgement and redicule. It would be boring if we all agreed on everything, don't you think? We' have nothing to talk about! |
| Posted by: scottish2 25-Jan-2004, 04:20 PM |
| Well I think for the most part I think we agree more then disagree. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 25-Jan-2004, 04:33 PM | ||
I think so too! Very good discussion, Scottish2! |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 25-Jan-2004, 04:49 PM |
| agreeing doesn't make it a good discussion.. but I love disagreeing.. even in an academical sense... what divides andy and me is catholicism I think |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Jan-2004, 08:31 PM | ||
I'm Irish, so I reserve the right to disagree with EVERYBODY!!! |
| Posted by: scottish2 25-Jan-2004, 08:41 PM |
| And see Celtic I told you you wouldn't stay out of the ruckess for long It's to much fun being in the thick of it all |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 25-Jan-2004, 10:34 PM | ||
This was thick? I just thought it was a game of Tag! |
| Posted by: CelticRose 25-Jan-2004, 10:41 PM | ||
And I am half Italian and we all know how ornery Italians can be!  |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 25-Jan-2004, 10:45 PM | ||
Then what has happened to me? I have yet to find and Italian in my blood and I am referred to as Sir Richard the Ornery. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 26-Jan-2004, 01:01 AM |
| Hey Richard! You're "Fiery Brown" that's what ye are! |
| Posted by: CelticRose 26-Jan-2004, 01:06 AM | ||
Aon! Catholocism is another issue in and of itself. I used to be Catholic and left it to become a Protestant to the horror of my family!  A good Italian girl does not leave the Catholic church! And you're right, agreeing doesn't always make it a good discussion! |
| Posted by: andylucy 26-Jan-2004, 03:01 AM | ||||
Well, not just Catholicism, but that is a BIG part of it. But, hey, if we all agreed all the time, how boring would it be?
Hey! What do you know? I used to be a Protestant and left it to become a Catholic to the horror of my family! A good Southern boy does not leave the Baptist church! Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: CelticRose 26-Jan-2004, 03:12 AM |
 Andylucy! too funny! Both our ancestors are probably rolling in their graves! |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:15 AM | ||
Catholics though are but only one relgion and they don't make religious rules or laws (not sure what to consider them) that cover everyone they cover just Catholics. I mean if they want to say that the use of the word marriage is for religious us only that's fine but that covers just catholics. It's like the US can't write laws that govern the UK or Japan or any other country cause it's outside it's jurisdiction. That's why I am so set in my thinking on the word marriage cause as an atheist I could really care less what religion thinks |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 06:22 AM | ||
Yea, but do you care what the People think? |
| Posted by: andylucy 26-Jan-2004, 06:25 AM | ||||
Yep. That's right. Of course, I feel it to be the most correct one, else I wouldn't have become Catholic. But to each his own.
And as a Catholic, an atheistic opinion has no effect whatsoever on my mindset (especially on what I feel to be a matter of faith and morals), and probably never will. (Although there is always that outside chance ) To each his own.Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:32 AM | ||
As it pertains to religion no I really don't cause I am not religious and have no interest in what the catholic church teaches or thinks on this matter. |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:37 AM | ||||
And that's your right to believe as you want.
Which is what I have been saying. See As an atheist I could careless really what the Catholic or Baptist or other churches think on the word Marriage cause I don't follow their religion and don't follow with their beliefs. So since I don't care about what a specific religion has to say no religion can say I can't use something when I could careless what they think in the first place. They don't have religious jurisdiction over my non catholic butt. They don't have a right to tell me what I can or can't use. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 06:39 AM |
| What ever happened to the old rule that the majority rules and not the minority? |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 06:42 AM |
| Oh, and by the way, I am not Catholic, heck I am not even a Christian. But the last I knew, Majority Rules. |
| Posted by: andylucy 26-Jan-2004, 06:42 AM | ||
But it doesn't just pertain to religion with some of us. My political philosophy is defined by my faith. I cannot split the two, and wouldn't if I could. It is just depressing to people of faith to be told that our opinions are valueless because we base them on something that others deem to be trivial.  Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:42 AM |
| In this matter Majority rule is wrong because religious folk can't force their views onto others, it's called freedom of religion and in some case freedom from religion if the persons atheist. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 06:44 AM | ||
Andy, I agree full heartily. |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:45 AM | ||
But see you don't have a right to push your religious views legally because then it would be infringing on my religious views that is why we have a separation of church and state to prevent one religion from pushing laws that say for instance that everyone much be catholic cause that would interfere with my right to chose my own religion or lack there of. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 06:49 AM | ||
So let me get this straight. If 20 people say that they want to play Baseball and you want to play Football. Then we all play Football because someone may be Catholic or any other Religion? What has that got to do with the price of Tea in China? |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:55 AM |
| No the 20 people play baseball and one plays football unl;ess maybe 21 decide instead to play basketball but we aren't talking fun and games here we're talking one group trying to dictate how others live their own personal lives. If I was gay it's none of the catholic churchs business what I call my relationship with my partner (IF I WAS GAY I AM NOT for example only) They can believe as they want but they don't have a right to force their views onto me or anyone else otherwise they are trambling my right to believe as I do. If I am not Catholic I could careless what the Catholic church thinks of this mater cause I don't share their beliefs neccessarily. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 07:03 AM |
| This is why we have so many of these Stupid Laws. All in the name of "Well Someone Stepped on My Foot." I can care less if someone is gay or not. I just do not like being told that I have to accept it.  I know that this subject is about Marriage, but you do not like being told to accept your way of thinking any more than you like anyone else telling you to accept their way of thinking. |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 07:09 AM |
| Never said you had to accept it but why should the Gay aethist couple be forced to accept the churches views as well? It's a 2 way street. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 07:15 AM |
| And my views are what? as a matter of fact, who cares? I really do not see what all the Hub-bub is about this. 1. Is there any Law stating that they are not allowed to be gay? 2. Is there any Law stating that they are not allowed to live together? 3. Are both suppose to pay their Taxes (Not trying to start something here on that subject)? 4. Is there any Law stopping them from writing a Will in case of the other passes? What is the Problem? |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 07:33 AM | ||||||
Put yourself in teh Atheists mond just for a second and you will see what I mean. How would you like it if I pushed a law saying you had to be an aethist for one day a week. Would you like this? No you wouldn't cause that is my choice of in this case non religion not your choice. That would be me pushing my choice of religious views onto you violating your right to believe as you do.
OK now these I have asked several times and so far no answers. Where is government even given the power to legislatively control marriage? I have asked this several times and no replies as of yet. As for laws though since the questions were raised. 1. not sure as I don't know the laws of every state. 2. Same answer. 3. well being they can't get married in most states they don't receive the same benifits a married couple gets. 4. if it was this simple there would be no case but as I understand it the family can contest the will and win since most states don't recognize gay marriages or relationships per say so the family can usually win as I understand it. But even hospitals for instance won't release info to the gay partner unless tha patient gives permission and if that patiens in a coma???
I think I have made it clear this morning that religious views and beliefs are just that religious views and beliefs and don't effect those that do not partake in that religion. And those views can never effect others outside that religion cause then at least here in the US that religion is infringing on the individuals right to believe as they do in regards to this. If for instance the catholic church tried to push their views on a baptist that is trying to infringe on the baptists right to follow the views of his/her religion. And in my view majority rule is wrong cause how do you really know the majority agrees with you? 300 million people (nearly) and how do you know that 50.000000000000000000000000000001% agree with you? Unless there is a vote by more then the members of congress you don't know and never will know and even with the vote there is always a question on it as can be seen with the last election circus. |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 07:53 AM |
| In fact here are some facts relating to Gay relationships per state Some are PDF so you need acrobat reader. http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/marriagemap.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/adoptionmap.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/civilrightsmap.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/domesticviolencelawsmap.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/hatecrimeslawsmap.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/secondparentadoptionmap.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/sodomymap0603.pdf http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/sodomymap0603.pdf |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 07:57 AM |
| WARNING I have had 2 nights of sleep now after 2 days of not any so I am in a good mood to debate. Aside from that. First of all, I don't have to imagine what it is like to be Atheist. I am a non Christian and I still have to listen to all the Christians about it. Second, as far as the wills goes, it doesn't make any difference if there was a will or not, speaking from experience. When my Wife and her Sister lost everything that was in their Father's Will to another woman he had married later on for a few short years. She infact took everything and my Wife and her Sister could not even get any of their Family Heirlooms. He did have a Will too with my Wife as the Executor, but was told by our Lawyer that it was nullified due to the new marriage. In as far as any Law that does not involve any Religious Conviction. Are you saying that the only Lawmakers that would be allowed have to be Atheist? |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 08:05 AM | ||
I never said that but they don't have a right to push their religious views into law because those religious views obviously are not the views of everyone else. The laws have to be appplied fairly to all and when a law says that one class is protected by the law while the other is discrimnated against by this law it can't have any force. I mean lets say a law was passed that stated that we all have to be catholics. Obviously those that are already catholics this law doesn't effect since they are already doing this but those that are non catholics it then applies to and forces them to have to give up their religion. See this is why we have a separation of church and state that way we do not end up with state ordered religion like you have in some countries. And since there is a separation of church and state laws in my view can't deal with religious aspects. Like a good example is the pledge case. I support the court because in my view government never had a right to endorse that there is a god because that does not represent every person. but this is a separate topic so keep replies to a minimum on this or start a new thread replies are fine just don't want to mix the threads up |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 08:18 AM |
| Suppose that an Atheist was against such a Marriage Law (or what ever you want to call it) with Gays? |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 08:25 AM |
| Like I said show me where congress can legislatively control marriage. I don't see this in the Constitution. But lets say it hypothetically. If an aethist was against it so what that's his/her views and he/she doesn't have the right baring one group of people the same right the rest have. That's called discrimination. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 08:32 AM |
| I do not think that the Government has any right what so ever when it comes to Any Kind of Marriage. It even upsets me when someone is not considered Married unless they were married by someone who is licensed for it. Is that not having the Government interferring? |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 08:41 AM |
| Exactly and personally I feel even religion should not be worrying about marriage except as how it applies to their own religion I mean if two aethists want to get married it's none of religions concern for people that do not follow their (Religions) beliefs. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 08:52 AM |
| Depressed now, I was wanting a good debate and now I can't even disagree with your last statement. |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 09:30 AM |
| Sorry |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 10:03 AM | ||
I will forgive you this time but don't let it happen again! |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 10:06 AM |
| Well when you think of it in common sense ther's no argument. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 10:13 AM | ||
I do remember something in one of the Amendment stating that Common Sense is not permitted because it just made to much sense. |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 10:29 AM |
| Yeah can't have Thomas Paines theories flying around least we forget his pamphlet Common Sense. |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Jan-2004, 05:54 PM | ||
OH my GOSH!!! Sir Richard and Scottish agreeing in the political forum!! Is the world coming to an end!!!? |
| Posted by: scottish2 26-Jan-2004, 06:04 PM |
| Hey we surprise ourselves sometimes |
| Posted by: andylucy 26-Jan-2004, 11:27 PM |
| Hey, statistically it's just going to have to happen eventually. I mean, Mirri and I actually agreed on TWO things just the other day. I was shocked! Andy |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 26-Jan-2004, 11:37 PM | ||
Two things in the same day? Very Shocking Indeed! |
| Posted by: scottish2 27-Jan-2004, 05:07 AM |
| Well was just saying this to Kevsen how amazingly I think we all agree more then we disagree if not it's really close and mostly on the hot topics that are always split that we only disagree but hey I can even get you to have to agree when it comes down to it. |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 27-Jan-2004, 07:24 AM | ||
Now to me, that sounds like a Challenge. |
| Posted by: scottish2 27-Jan-2004, 07:26 AM |
| Well don't want you to be depressed again |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 27-Jan-2004, 07:28 AM | ||
Thank You. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 27-Jan-2004, 03:23 PM |
| don't you like challenges, Richard? btw, I gave up on reading up.. every time I issued a comment the following night it went 4 pages on... ARRRRRGGGGHHHHLLllllll....... |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 27-Jan-2004, 03:35 PM | ||
On the Contrary Aon, Scottish 2 commented something that I couldn't disagree with and this time I was really ready and waiting on him. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 27-Jan-2004, 04:28 PM |
| *lol* ooh I know that problem.. <I've been trying to pick a fight with my bf since days and can't decide what for.... *hmmm* |
| Posted by: scottish2 28-Jan-2004, 07:56 AM |
| Sorry again |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 28-Jan-2004, 09:04 AM | ||
I'll bet you are. |
| Posted by: scottish2 28-Jan-2004, 09:06 AM |
| |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 29-Jan-2004, 08:43 PM |
| I am of the mind that tax laws that benefit strait married couples infringe on the rights of singles and gays. Just replace the word married with white in the tax code, it is the same thing. I also believe that gays should be allowed to make and partnership they want to with all of the benefits of marrige. A few months ago a friend sent me an e-mail poll by the American Family Association the offered 1. I support full gay marrige 2. I support gay marrige no name chang 3. I don't support gay marrige they promised to take the results to DC and tell the world what the people think about gay marrige until they lost 508,000 votes 60% chose 1. 7.9% chose 2. The AFA claimed that the poll was hijacked by groups of gays therefore not an accurate picture and they would not contribute to bad info being put out. I remember when I was a kid and I saw a horse "show a little love" to this cow I was embarassed by the poor confused horse but I sure wasn't going to try and stop them. Just remember it takes all kinds. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 30-Jan-2004, 08:36 AM |
| well, I think the AFA can claim alot... personally I don't think the poll was hijacked by anybody but alot of people told others about it by e-mail. What they vote is their own thing... |
| Posted by: Randy 30-Jan-2004, 08:44 AM |
| I fully support Gay marrage I heard a story on the radio about a guy in intensive care who was with another guy for 25 years and his father who threw him out of his house for being gay got to make medical decisions for him. If they were married his husband would be able to make these decisions for him. |
| Posted by: scottish2 01-Feb-2004, 09:34 AM |
| And this is why I say Gays need to have the same benifits as straight people. It's none of the fathers business if the gay son wants to have a gay partner. I mean if it was a girlfriend he'd never have done this in fcat he'd probably be hugging her. Not saying he has to hug the gay partner but he has no right to throw him out of anywhere when it is only the gay son who can do that. It's not the fathers home to do anything with. |
| Posted by: maisky 05-Feb-2004, 07:33 AM | ||
I'm with you on this one birddog...Biggotry is ugly, whatever form it takes and however it is disguised. We all have our prejudices: I am deeply prejudiced against biggots!! |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 05-Feb-2004, 01:08 PM |
| mmh.. I saw something on telly that in Michigan (or was it Minnesota? Or Missouri?? aaargh ) that a court ruled that gay couples can enter a civil union (aka matrimony aka marriage ) from soon on. I was half asleep so I don't really remember all of it. |
| Posted by: Highlander 06-Feb-2004, 08:43 AM |
| I believe the question was,"do you support gay marriages"? My answer to that is no, I do not. While I believe in the rights for all people, and if they choose to become partners in life and not with the opposite sex, then they choose to "live outside " what society finds acceptable. They should have no special "rights" afforded them just because they are gay, nor should they have any rights taken away from them for the same reason. There are many things our Constitution says about our rights and many things that are implied by the founding fathers concerning faith and religious freedoms. The government has no right to decide this issue but the churches DO. Where do Gays get off claiming rights violations because they are no allowed to marry, where do they get off trying to force the State and or federal governments to allow their marriages, under what rights do they claim "special" rights over everyone else just because they are gay. If gays wish to marry then they must first have the laws changed, to allow marriage between same sex couples, but do not do it by claiming some special right that does not exist. The legal definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the propose of pro-creation in the eyes of god. Is this definition arcane, maybe but it what it is, a definition accepted by the people of not only America but most of the countries of the world. So if Gays wish to marry then do it according to the laws of our country and do not try to claim special rights, or that these non-existing rights are being violated, then get them changed, it's their right to challenge the validity of any law, but it is not their right to expect special treatment under a right that legally does not exist. "The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice ... We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions] ... It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law ... proven by the volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of utterances that this is a Christian nation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of this same truth." the great commentator on American law, Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of New York |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 06-Feb-2004, 01:52 PM |
| To be true, okay Christianity shaped the world as it is (and I do NOT mean it entirely in a positive way!) but in a world as it is today we should be able to live and let live and a comment above is in my eyes discriminating minorities because not everybody is Christian even though the laws may be based on the morality of that culture. |
| Posted by: Highlander 06-Feb-2004, 10:20 PM |
| Ah, but Aon, it is what our country was founded upon, christianity right or wrong. If something is right in your eyes but wrong in the eyes of society, then who is right? Societies where form for two reasons I believe, protection and civility, so when you have a society there must be rules that all must abide by for that society to survive, so whether gay marriages are right to some but wrong to others it will be up to society to either accept or reject these unions, once that decision is rendered then and only then will this issue be put to bed. It is not the governments place to decide but it is societies place, not only our place but our duty, and what society decides will influence both gays and straight people for many years to come. Being from the sixties generation it is not "power to the government" it it "power to the people" let society decide. |
| Posted by: maisky 07-Feb-2004, 09:30 AM | ||
I beg to differ, sir. The US was based on freedom of religion, NOT christianity. Many of the earliest settlers came here to escape repressive christian regeimes in Europe. |
| Posted by: Highlander 07-Feb-2004, 10:56 AM |
| The early settlers where seeking many things, freedom of religion, freedom of excess taxation, but the foundation of our country was based on one thing and that was christinanity.... "It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Patrick Henry "... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." "National prosperity can neither be obtained nor preserved without the favor of Providence." John Jay first Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court "The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice ... We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions] ... It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law ... proven by the volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of utterances that this is a Christian nation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of this same truth." Chancellor Kent the great commentator on American law, Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of New York "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation (State or National) because this is a religious people ... this is a Christian nation." United Sates Supreme Court - 1892 |
| Posted by: maisky 07-Feb-2004, 01:31 PM |
It would appear that our opinions on this subject will not converge.  |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 07-Feb-2004, 05:47 PM |
hehe, I also beg to differ, I am not American  I have not said that Christianity doesn't play a role in history.. no, I'm too much into history as to just discard that fact and I said above that our morals today are based on Christian morals. Whatever people say, in my eyes it is still discriminating others, non-christians. With all that over-PC-ness around isn't it quite hypocritical in my eyes when you go and tell everybody "Christian nation if you like it or not". Today is not the days of the first settlers. |
| Posted by: maisky 07-Feb-2004, 06:23 PM |
Fortunately our forefathers (not the foremothers fault  ) saw fit to make a careful separation of church and state and to insure that the rights of minorities were protected. I am sure that in due course the US supreme court will decide the issue of this thread, as provided for in the constitution. No matter how strongly a majority (or minority) religeous group feels about the point, they can not circumvent the rights of minorities.   |
| Posted by: Highlander 08-Feb-2004, 03:35 AM |
Ah, Maisky and Aon, once again we part company on opinion. Our fore-Fathers never had the intension of separating State from Church, in fact it was just the opposite. With this countries founding upon Christianity religious principals played a most important part of our development as a young country. What the founding father intended with the separations of church and state doctrine was simple, the United State would support no church over that of another. This was done so that no single church could become the powerhouse that the Church of England had become. The separation of church and state in todays America has become bastardized to the extent that the government can accept or support no religion whats so ever, despite our being founded of the principles of christianity.  And the debate continues, just as the fore fathers intended... |
| Posted by: maisky 08-Feb-2004, 04:22 PM | ||
They may have had no idea how important the separation would become, with relatively few people of other religions around at the time. It was a matter of protecting the minorities from the church of england and the catholic church at the start. Now however, the US has become a melting pot of different religeous traditions, making it protection of all others from the majority amalgam of different christian sects. It works. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 09-Feb-2004, 01:23 PM |
| mmh I think you are making a slight mistake there Highlander, Church doesn't quite equal Christianity. You can have a Christian state but the Church itself doesn't have anything to do with that. If you see it like that the "not choosing one church over another" makes more sense I think. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 14-Feb-2004, 08:45 AM |
| well that's what i found on yahoo just a minute ago: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&cid=519&ncid=716 |
| Posted by: Annabelle 16-Feb-2004, 01:00 AM |
| I'm pretty torn to the Gay Marriage subject. I've got a lot of friends who are Gay in my industry. They are wonderful people. I don't have a problem with their life choices if what they do doesn't hurt me. It's private and their choice. The other side of the coin is the continuation of homosexuality, drug users and multiple sex partners jeapordizes others as HIV transmittal becomes higher the more it's passed to others. HIV mutates every 90 days. This is one of the reason's that NIH (National Institute of Health) Bethesda, Md has a problem coming up with a cure. When we have a sudden operation we all run a risk no matter how well the blood is typed, checked and screened for a chance of transmittal. This is the reason I have such mixed emotions concerning this subject. I don't believe morality discussion is important for the here and now. Neither am I worthy to be the judge and jury. Annabelle |
| Posted by: scottish2 16-Feb-2004, 05:36 AM | ||
These are not just gay issues they pertain as well to hetrosexual couples as well. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 16-Feb-2004, 05:56 AM |
| I would agree with you too, Scottish 2! These are issues that pertain to everyone, regarding race, sexual preference, etc. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 16-Feb-2004, 12:05 PM |
| I agree... it's not only homosexuals that catch HIV. In Düsseldorf there was a huge scandal about infected blood conserves and that the donors have not been checked. The HI Virus can be slowed down considerably. It is a long process and it envolves alot of very expensive medicaments. But HIV doesn't really have anything to do with the fact of if homosexual people can marry or not. Second I think that a moral discussion is very important because it makes people not only see their own small view to the whole issue. We are not a fully "qualified" ethical comission but we have the right to discuss those issues and we should do because it adds to the greater understanding. |
| Posted by: maisky 16-Feb-2004, 05:29 PM | ||
Well said, milady! |
| Posted by: Annabelle 16-Feb-2004, 06:59 PM |
| As we were discussing the "Gay Issue" I did not include to the discussion of heterosexual relationships as that was not the subject matter. Sorry, should have realized that would surface. It's sad when anyone gets Hepititis C or becomes infected with HIV. I've nursed those with both diseases and the wasting away of a human life is depressingly sad. Aids is not HIV. They are two seperate things. Inferon is used to control Hepititis C and helps when caught in the beginning of the disease. What troubles me the most is the rapant spread of a disease you may innocently contract NO Matter what your sexual preferance is. Annabelle |
| Posted by: maisky 17-Feb-2004, 07:35 AM | ||
Doesn't marriage fall into that catagory? A social disease that's hard to treat? |
| Posted by: shamalama 17-Feb-2004, 01:57 PM |
| I fully support the legal institution of marriage for any consenting legal-age adults. When you say "legal" you're talking about a binding business contract, one in which property, financial, and health rights are conjoined. You are NOT destroying 2000 years of a faith. So many people, especially here in the southern USA, are so very afraid of gays. To them: gay = drugs = promiscuity = disease = pedophilia. I have never understood the supposed connection. |
| Posted by: maisky 17-Feb-2004, 02:00 PM | ||
We ARE talking about "good ol' boys" here, so what is not to understand? |
| Posted by: Annabelle 17-Feb-2004, 02:41 PM |
| That "Good Ole Boy" stuff works everywhere, it's alive and well in the northern states just as well. People are the same no matter where you live. Good and Bad are everywhere. Lliberal and conservative. Just people trying to get thru life. People are naturally afraid of AIDS-HIV and they react accordingly with good reasons. Annabelle |
| Posted by: oldraven 17-Feb-2004, 02:47 PM | ||
As they should be. Fear of HIV is one thing, blaming it on the gay population is quite another. |
| Posted by: Annabelle 17-Feb-2004, 03:13 PM |
| The Gay community is not totally responsible for this rampant problem. I would never blame any one problem totally on one person. Life is Grey, not Black and white. A |
| Posted by: Celticpride 17-Feb-2004, 03:26 PM |
| Legal unions between individuals should have the same binding effect as Marriage and if someone wants to engage in a Union then they should be allowed to do so. Marriage is looked upon as a sacramental joining in a religious union and most religious denominations except for a few who have completely spun off into space define marriage as the union between male and female. The gay community would be better off putting their efforts into making civil unions on the same level as a religious Marriage in the eyes of the legal community instead of trying to force the acceptance of gay marriage. This is not a gay or stright issue it is a legal issue. |
| Posted by: scottish2 17-Feb-2004, 03:31 PM |
| As I pointed out earlier in this thread though is religion does not have ownership of the word marriage so they can't control who uses this word. I mean maybe they can in their own churches but if say 2 gay Atheists want to get marriaged the church has no right to push their views onto the 2 gay atheists. |
| Posted by: oldraven 17-Feb-2004, 03:43 PM | ||
All of this looks reeeealy familiar. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 17-Feb-2004, 04:48 PM |
| hehehe... I think we should all be afraid of HIV and let it be the reason to use proper protection... it has nothing to do with being gay or not. celticpride: read the conversation in it's full.. "the word marriage" issue was up before |
| Posted by: Richard Bercot 17-Feb-2004, 05:39 PM | ||
I can vouch for that because I posted a Webster's Dictionary Definition of it. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 17-Feb-2004, 06:45 PM |
| hehehe |
| Posted by: Highlander 18-Feb-2004, 10:07 AM |
| Well whether or not the Gays have "rights" is irrelevant. If you are christian and follow christian teachings and principals there is only on answer to the marriage question for gays and that is NO. The bible says in no uncertain terms what a marriage union is and between whom. CelticPride says that it is not a marriage rights issue but one of civil law, even with that I cannot agree because under Gods laws gays are an abomination to his creation. Aon this is where the Founding Father based their christian principles from, the Bible, not a single church organization. |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Feb-2004, 10:29 AM | ||
Even this is oversimplified. It depends on which Christian sect you are refering to. The different sects can't even agree on what day of the week is the Sabbath, let alone more complex issues.  |
| Posted by: RavenWing 18-Feb-2004, 11:28 AM | ||||
If that is the case, then how do you account for the United Church of Christ as well as the Presbyterian church?
"God's laws" and Civil law are not interchangeable. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 18-Feb-2004, 11:38 AM |
| ooh Highlander! it's not irrelevant since your constitution states everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness! Íf gay or not, I don't care but you violate your own constitution (is it the 3rd point? I don't know anymore) when you say they don't have rights. Maybe the american nation was built on Christian morality but it is still a secular state, which means church doesn't have anything to say about legal rights for anybody. |
| Posted by: shamalama 18-Feb-2004, 01:17 PM |
| For better or worse America's founding fathers saw fit to make America a free country, not a Christian one. America is a democratic republic, not a theocracy. Our laws are designed to control bad behavior, not outline a faith. And, as a Christian, I like it much better that way. I really get irritated when someone, especially the government, tells me how I have to believe. Must be my Scottish-Protestant ancestry. |
| Posted by: Aon_Daonna 18-Feb-2004, 01:23 PM |
| nope.. in scotland the catholics were the prosecuted ones.. look at the Morníngside Riots in (I think) the 30's... Catriona could probably tell you more about that. In prussia the catholics were prosecuted as well... Edit: I was going to try and find and post a link but I can't find anything.... |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Feb-2004, 07:51 AM |
| Here is the latest twist in this issue from theonion.com http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1 |
| Posted by: shamalama 02-Mar-2004, 10:04 AM |
| Now let's look at a political twist to all of this: What does democracy mean if any headstrong minority can violate the laws passed by a majority and enshrined in centuries of legal precedents? Some headstrong minorities have taken to the streets and some have violated the rule of law in the very courts of law, while wearing their judicial robes. In San Francisco, a mayor is openly defying state law, and both the judges and the state attorney general are too scared to do anything, for fear of angering homosexual voters. Gay marriage is an issue solely because a few headstrong judges in Massachusetts and an opportunistic mayor in San Francisco decided that they were above the law. Even in two ultra-liberal states like California and Massachusetts, the voters do not want gay marriage. To those for whom their own goals over-ride everything else, this just means that the voters and the law must be disregarded. But if those on the left feel free to violate the law, why not those on the right? And where does that lead? Is it OK, as long as "you know that you're right", to do as you please? Gay marriage is not a local issue but a national issue because maintaining the rule of law -- or what is left of it -- is a national issue of historic importance if we are not to see America degenerate into the world's largest banana republic, or worse. The time is long overdue to start impeaching judges who think their job is to veto laws they don't like or condone lawlessness that they agree with. The time is also long overdue to re-examine lifetime appointments of judges, which allows them to act like little tin gods, at the expense of our freedom and the country's elected government. |
| Posted by: maisky 02-Mar-2004, 11:58 AM |
| [QUOTE=shamalama,Mar 2 2004, 11:04 AM] Now let's look at a political twist to all of this: What does democracy mean if any headstrong minority can violate the laws passed by a majority and enshrined in centuries of legal precedents? At one point, slavery fit this definition. Sir, I agree with your conclusion about reviewing the concept of lifetime appointments for judges. There is very little oversite of judicial behavior. I agree that protecting our individual liberties is VERY important. For your other points, "Even in two ultra-liberal states like California and Massachusetts, the voters do not want gay marriage. " The last polls I saw showed the public to be about evenly split on the issue, nationally. Since when is Mass. a liberal state? It has public servants that are pretty much across the spectrum. As for California, I dare you to call Arnold a liberal to his face.  |
| Posted by: shamalama 02-Mar-2004, 12:52 PM | ||
| Political twist, vol. 2 Then you have the Official Platform of the Libertarian Party:
But is "consensual sexual activity" a Pandora's Box that, once opened, would lead to a wide-ranging interpretation? Man-man, man-woman-man, man-man-woman-woman, etc. Or is this simply an example of "I want my morals upheld by law while throwing yours to the wind"?  |
| Posted by: tsargent62 02-Mar-2004, 01:10 PM |
| While I do agree that the Mayor of San Fransisco is in violation of the law, I applaud his bravery in bringing this issue to the foreground. I'm one of those unusual conservatives to believes banning gay marriage is a violation of the tenets of the separation of church and state. I abhor the government determining what is moral and what is not. Those who oppose gay marriage don't understand it, therefore they oppose it. This is the same thing that the Mormons went through when law makers realized they were practicing polygamy. They didn't approve of it, so they outlawed it. Congress decided to regulate an entire religeon's behavior. Again, they violated the separation of church and state. Laws should be about protecting people, regulating industries (at a minimum level), providing for education and many other things. Not determining what is moral. |
| Posted by: maisky 02-Mar-2004, 05:24 PM |
| I have to agree with tsargent on this. What business is it of anyone but the couple involved, be they man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, dog/cat, dog/dog.......... |
| Posted by: shamalama 03-Mar-2004, 08:00 AM | ||
Hear, hear! Well said my friend. If gays are allowed to marry, exactly what liberties or rights have I lost? - None. I don't like anarchy, and blatent violations of local law can become a bad situation. The efforts need to be in changing the law, not flaunting it, else this could backfire into a Constitutional amendment against it. |
| Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2004, 12:06 PM | ||||
 It's NO FUN when you guys say things that I agree with..... |
| Posted by: tsargent62 03-Mar-2004, 12:44 PM |
Poor, poor Maisky. OK, I wouldn't want to you to be unhappy. Just go the the Media Bias thread. I gave you something to chew on there.  |
| Posted by: maisky 03-Mar-2004, 03:13 PM | ||
Thank you for your concern. I'm glad there are things we can still disagree about. |
