| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Bush Fighting Gay Marriage |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 06-Jun-2006, 10:50 AM |
| So this week Bush and conservatives in congress have brought up the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage once again. There are many questions this brings up. Do we need a ban on gay marriage added to the constitution? Should it be up to the States to decide? Is this the right time to even be bringing this issue up with the war continuing, homeless people on the streets, and all the other problems this country is facing? Should gay people be allowed to get married? Why or why not? Personally I see no reason why gay marriage should be banned. As marriage is a state matter, I also don't believe the federal government needs to get involved. This is deffinately not the time to be bringing up this issue any way. Maybe once all the life threatening problems such as terrorism, the homeless, poverty, the war, etc have been resolved, maybe then this would be an important issue for the government to look into. Thoughts? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 06-Jun-2006, 10:57 AM |
| It is wrongheaded on the level of content (about on a level of intelligence with the idea of "curing" mutants, which is a pretty thinly cloaked analogy for it), arse-backwards in terms of priorities of need, and as you point out it should not even be an issue for federal legislation. Frankly I think the benighted man is desperate to leave some kind of a mark or legacy. What a miserable and inhumane effort to have one's administration remembered for. |
| Posted by: ShadowDarkFyre 06-Jun-2006, 11:53 AM |
| The worst of it is, it leave a door open that shouldn't be. How long before soemone says that interracial marriage is against the law. Or marriage between two people of different classes is against the law. It's not the government's business to determine this. <plink, plonk> Just my $.02... |
| Posted by: McKenna 06-Jun-2006, 12:24 PM |
| Whenever they bring up the gay marriage thing, its just serving as a distraction to all of the major things they are doing wrong: the war, the environment, the economy, etc. What I don't get is, since the right wing is so concerned with outlawing abortion why they wouldn't want happily married gay couples taking on all those unwanted babies? If I were in orphan and had to choose btw a living in a trailer park with a hetero couple that is doing drugs and beating each other up or two rich and successful lesbian moms that could send me to music and art lessons, well...not a tough decision there! |
| Posted by: Dugadelphia 06-Jun-2006, 02:33 PM |
| I think it is dangerous to add (any) discrimination to the Constitution since the document is largely a statement of freedoms and rights. As for timing, this is simply an attempt to revisit a very successful strategy employed during the presidential election; namely to spur to action the political right to support this issue and thereby vote in the upcoming midterms with the aim of shoring up the Republican Congress. |
| Posted by: ShadowDarkFyre 06-Jun-2006, 03:56 PM |
| Agreed. (shakes his head) It's going to be nothing but problems if it goes through... |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Jun-2006, 07:07 PM |
| Why don't we just put it to a national vote? We'll see how everyone feels nation wide. If it's voted in or voted down, then the people have spoken and weather you like it or not, it would be there to stay. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 06-Jun-2006, 09:21 PM |
| Agreed, and while we are at it let's put INCOME TAX to the vote and see how THAT fares? |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 07-Jun-2006, 07:23 AM | ||
LOLOL! Now that one would be voted out REAL QUICKI! |
| Posted by: Senara 07-Jun-2006, 07:45 AM |
| The rite of marriage has been performed for centuries between couples that either found each other and were willing to commit to a lifetime together or arranged by their families to honor the same committment. Why is it then that our national leaders want to create a world where it is illegal to make such a committment to a person of the same sex? Because some book that has some "religious" value says it's a sin? Or is it because it would reduce the amount of children being born, therefore reducing the future tax base? Or is it simply because they think they can because it's just "icky" to think about. I'm sorry but we are all grown ups here. We may not like the idea, but it is not for us to dictate who can and can not be wed. Adding a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage only introduces distrust and negativity into a document that was supposed to help provided "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all." Just because a person is gay doesn't make them a secondary citizen. It doesn't make them any less human, hold any less emotion, or dream less of a future they could possibly have. If such an admendment was ratified and accepted what would be next? An amendment for all Muslim citizens to wear patches on their arms, or move them all to a reservation in the desert? Would urban/rap/hiphop radio stations be shut down because their music incites gang violence and illegal drug sales? Would we add an amendment that requires people to work 50 hr weeks and they must start at the age of 12? Likely not but it demonstrates the same single-mindedness that the President is demonstrating on this subject. I just don't see it feasible to restrict same-sex marriages. There are many other problems that are much more severe that need fixing before we add another amendment to the Constitution. P.S. I'll hop on that No more Income Tax wagon too. I think I've paid more than my fair share this year. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Jun-2006, 08:32 AM | ||
Interracial marriage, or even interracial sexual interaction, did used to be against the law. The rationale was that it was "unnatural, and therefore against God's or Nature's intentions." Specious arguments like "you don't see blackbirds mating with bluejays, do you?" used to be quite common, and not only below the Mason-Dixon line. BTW: There was an interesting talk last night on NPR's "On Point" about the issues crossover regarding civil rights, between interracial marriage and gay marriage. So -- on with the responsible investigation of the premise that marriage lies exclusively within the province of heterosexuality. Google on Stephanie Coontz for yourselves, to look at an analysis of marriage historically. Here's some articles of hers: http://stephaniecoontz.com/articles/ And a quote from her: Coontz: It's not so much that I agree as it is that I think for once he has understated the case. James Dobson says that allowing gays and lesbians marriage threatens to end marriage and family as we have known it for 5,000 years. I usually disagree with people who make catastrophic claims, but I think in this case Dobson is understating the case. Marriage and the family as we've known it has already been decisively overturned. Where I continue to disagree with him is that it is heterosexuals who changed marriage and gays and lesbians are simply responding to that change. It was heterosexuals who said marriage does not have to be about procreation. It was heterosexuals who pioneered the reproductive revolution that allowed infertile people to have kids. It was heterosexuals who gave you a choice whether to marry. And it was heterosexuals who said we don't have to organize marriage around rigid gender roles; men and women can construct what roles they want to play, or they can play equal roles. Once you've gotten rid of the idea that it has to be for procreation, that is has to be between two people who can physically reproduce, and that you must have kids if you can, and that one has to play the male role and one the female role, then many of the arguments for denying marriage to gays and lesbians go out the door. http://citypages.com/databank/26/1280/article13408.asp Here's one link that makes a good opener: http://www.alternet.org/story/23400/ Has anybody seen the Indiana bill that was being considered last fall, about "unauthorized reproduction"? Gotta be married to make a baby, or it's a criminal offense, is the gist of it. Now, where does that leave women who are not allowed to form partnerships and marry because they are lesbians? Do we doubt that that's part of the reasoning? (Or is it just because we want to increase the number of that delightful social institution called the "shotgun wedding"?  )Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse." According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court. see link for full article: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/3/213554/300 Now, this was withdrawn, but I don't think it's an isolated case, or that it will not rear its head again in some revised form. Maybe in the arena of what kinds of procedures will be covered with insurance, and who is eligible. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051006/NEWS02/510060442/1008 |
| Posted by: j Padraig moore 07-Jun-2006, 11:01 AM |
| With much trepidation I am entering this fray... As a Christian, I understand the reasoning behind this "ban gay marriages" movement. The way I understand it, the logic is that the union of non-heterosexuals is an affront to God's law (The Bible does have many verses relating to homosexuality). By allowing gay marriages, we would allow this immorality (or sin if you would) to flourish. Now if we were to apply this same reasoning to other issues of "sin", we should consider the following: 1. Poverty. I personally find it heinous that people, especially in this country can live in abject poverty. 2. Pornography. This can be traced as the root of all sorts of evil. Read the story of Ted Bundy and see what role porn had in his slide into being a serial killer. 3. Greed. Need I say more. These are just a couple of things that one can call sin. But... Do you hear an outcry for Constitutional amendments to combat them? No. I guess the point I want to make is that I think this whole issue of gay marriage is a diversion. A diversion from other, more serious issues. War... Political Corruption... Economy woes... The list could go on. Gay marriage is called a threat to the family. How? I agree with the comments in stormeil's post. The family as we knew it is already different. And honestly, I've seen some hetero-families that are nowhere near what God wants in a family. I've said enough. Hope it made sense. |
| Posted by: McKenna 07-Jun-2006, 11:14 AM |
| If marriage = man + woman, then marriage = babies. Babies = More Soldiers to send to war! :-( |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Jun-2006, 11:17 AM |
| Yes, McKenna, especially if you have qualms about gays or supporters of gays in the military. I would be genuinely grateful if some knowlegeable person here would attempt a point by point map between what God wants from a family spiritually and what the adults and children in a family need, physically and psychologically. I am not playing the devil's advocate for the hell of it here (though I'm not above that sometimes). I am beginning to believe this is a far too fuzzy assumption of what we think should be self evident but isn't, and it's a recipe for disaster if there isn't a lot clearer and more specific set of terms understood mutually between the partisan members of this potentially national debate. |
| Posted by: ontrose1969 07-Jun-2006, 11:21 AM |
| Okay... here is my two cents on the issue. I personally believe it is not for the government to decide who can and can't get married. Second, it is crossing the line into religion and here in America there is supposed to be a definite separation between church and state. Often there is not... but I am all for the separation of church and state. So I'm neither for nor against it. It is a personal choice. Period. Again, just my own $.02. |
| Posted by: j Padraig moore 07-Jun-2006, 11:25 AM | ||
ontrose - one thing that scares the heck outta me is there are religous leaders in my neck of the woods that want the seperation of church and state gone!! They literally do want a theocracy. |
| Posted by: ontrose1969 07-Jun-2006, 11:34 AM | ||
Now that is a very scary thought. Now I'll probably ruffle a few feathers with this comment, but... I can see no good that has come from the Catholic church having so much power (especially in politics) over the last two thousand years... most, not all but most wars in the last two thousand years have been religious in their start. That is a scary thing. |
| Posted by: Swanny 07-Jun-2006, 03:16 PM |
| Ontrose, the Catholics are not alone in their predeliction toward violence, abusive and unnatural relationships, and many other sins. That seems to be a common trait shared among all organized religions. Another common trait is the necessity to either force others to adhere to one's own beliefs or suffer harm upon them. I've learned long, long ago that the phrases "good Christian", "good Baptist", "good Muslim", or "good whatever (fill in the blank)" is more often than not an oxymoron, and I would suggest that if folks spent more time trying to correct their own faults rather than trying to control the lives of others that the world would be a far more pleasant and much less contentious place to live. Swanny |
| Posted by: Shadows 07-Jun-2006, 03:25 PM |
| Well said Swanny! |
| Posted by: Antwn 07-Jun-2006, 06:45 PM | ||
Actually it is. Aside from its personal, spiritual or emotional aspects, marriage is a contract which is legally binding. You have to go to court to sever it. Guess who makes laws. Regardless of whether one approves of gay marriage or not, marriage as a legal institution, and applications to laws it affects, have been decided by government - including taxes, social security, real estate, insurance, inheritance, child rearing and custody etc. some of which are governmental programs or taxed by the government. Although a constitutional amendment is the feds attempt to solidify centralized control on this issue, government at some level will decide what's legal and not as is their job as our representatives. Of course since you have a voice in who your specific representative is, you may express your discontent through correspondence and/or the ballot box. If you don't think its the government's business to determine the purview of marriage as a legal institution in a representative democracy, whose business is it? If you say the people, then do the people decide via their representatives, the courts, popular vote, state or federal level? In other words, which aspect of government would you have represent and/or implement the wishes of the people on this issue? Government's business. |
| Posted by: jedibowers 07-Jun-2006, 08:55 PM |
| I think there should be a federal ban on gay marriage. Several states have either passed this type of law or put it up for a popular vote and it gets a great majority of the votes. Then the courts get involved and sometimes toss out the law, which is against what most of the people of the state. In this age, some state issues are becoming federal issues. For example, when San Fran was letting gays get married, there were people from all over the country going to San Fran to get married and then returning home. Thus forcing their home state to reconize their marriage. Same thing happens with people going to Vegas to get married. Since people are going across state lines to get married, it now becomes a federal issue. A lot of states are trying to pass bans on gay marriage, in a way to get things done before the federal government gets it done. |
| Posted by: ontrose1969 07-Jun-2006, 09:45 PM | ||
Hiya Swanny, I know it is not just Catholics who have a predeliction toward violence. (NOTE: I am not talking about your average Catholic who does or does not attend church. I am talking about the leaders of the church(s) as far back as the Council of Nicea. Even before that...) I guess the point I was trying to make was that "Religion" as a whole has been the cause for the vast majority of wars that this world has had. In truth, religious wars go back in time as far back as there was written history. I want to appologize for any offence I might have given to any Catholics that read my posts on this topic. None was meant as far as personal choice of religion goes. Okay... enough political/religion stuff from me! As you can tell, I have some definate viewpoints on them.  |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-Jun-2006, 09:22 AM |
| This is a government issue, but frankly I don't think anyone, even the majority of people, have a right to tell gays they can't get married. There was a time when the majority of people in this country thought slavery was alright, then they thought segregation was ok. Just because the majority of people agree doesn't make them right or just. And people, banning gays from getting married isn't going to stop them from being gay. It's not like homosexuality will disappear overnight just because the majority of people let it be known that this particular minority group isn't tolerated. Please tell me how allowing gays to marry DIRECTLY harms anyone else. I don't care about the immoral issue of "Well, it's immoral, and letting them get married somehow in a round about way means it's ok for them to be gay, even though it isn't because God said so." Show me how allowing homosexual couples to become legally married will somehow harm this country economically, or harm others physically, etc. |
| Posted by: McKenna 08-Jun-2006, 12:08 PM |
| Has anyone noticed this? There seems to be a tendency of the religious right to become verrrrrrry obssessed with anything having to do with sex. Why should anyone care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors? I dont really care. But the religious right is extremely concerned with it when it comes to homosexuals....and even lately the Right to Life folks have been on this propaganda trip saying that (even hetero/married) couples using birth control are immoral, breeding "animosity towards the potential child that COULD be born" just by using birth control. Why are these perverts spending so much time obsessing over what the rest of us are doing in our private lives? |
| Posted by: jedibowers 08-Jun-2006, 12:26 PM | ||
Where are you seeing the birth control stuff? I know Catholics have always looked down on any form of birth control, but I have not heard anyone else say that birth control is bad. I don't think don't care if to gay people have sex. I believe it is wrong, but I'm not for any law that says that they can not have sex. I would like to see a law that keeps marriage between just a man and wife. We have laws that say that you can not be married to two people at the same time, but have not heard of anyone trying to get that thrown out or overturned. If two people want to live together that is up to them, but marriage has always been between a man and a women. We are just trying to keep it that way. It is only in the last few years that gays have been trying to get married, or at least that it has come out into the spot light. |
| Posted by: Senara 08-Jun-2006, 12:50 PM | ||
They've been trying for a good 10-15 years to get legislation passed to allow it, but do you know why they want to have the same ability to marry? They want the same benefits you share with your wife. A family of their own, someone they trust to carry on for them after they pass on, someone to share expenses with, someone to share their heart, soul, hopes and dreams with. And there is no way for them to do so legally at this point because such legal issues at this time requires a marriage certificate to gain the same respect and legal rights that you and your spouse share. You're just hearing about it now because it's finally the newest political buzz. So what is it that makes you so much better than a gay couple? Why is it that only a man and a woman can marry? Why leave it so general as only a man and woman and not be more specific about who can marry who? Black/White/Male/Bi/Female/Hetero/Lesbo/Rich/Poor/Disabled/Non-Religious it shouldn't matter. Such legislation is only going to purposely introduce discrimination into a document where it doesn't belong. I've heard too many excuses that only a man and a woman can raise a child properly. That's [insert favorite derogatory statement here]. There are just as many studies proving the Leave It To Beaver factor wrong. There are stories every night on the news about children being sent off to Child Services because their mothers and fathers beat/torture/rape/neglect them. Do you hear the same story every night about gay couples with children? I certainly don't. I also hear stories about how Aunts and Uncles, and Grandmothers, and older siblings are taking care of families these days and more times often than not these children are growing up in stable family situations. They are loved, they have food, they have a roof over their head. They may not have a PS2, an IPod, a portable DVD player, and a gamer's dream laptop, but they have what really matters. Someone that loves them and will protect them. So the excuse that it's a better family unit will not fly with me. We never lived in nor will live in the "perfect society" that everyone's trying to push this nation towards. There are too many different flavors in the melting pot these days to make everyone taste the same. But I really want to know the honest answer. Why is it that a man marrying a woman is better definiton of marriage rather than two individuals (either hetero or gay) that love and want to take care of each other? |
| Posted by: McKenna 08-Jun-2006, 12:51 PM |
| Hi I don't want to steer the topic away from Gay Marriage into birth control, but if you google a little bit you'll find plenty of articles covering this (recent?) trend to portray birth control as immoral. With all due respect to your opinion about gay marriage, why do you feel it should be only btw a man and a woman? Simply from a biblical text standpoint? Or just "makes sense to you personally that way"? (I can understand that but should that mean it is outlawed?) We all know there is plenty of mistranslated and out of date content in the bible if you're looking at it from that POV. Or if you are worried about what gay marriage would do to our population, don't we already have an overpopulation problem as it is? And it doesn't make society overall descend into immorality (another argument I've heard)...hetero folks are already pretty sinful in their own right. I just want to understand why anyone would care about gay marriage when it doesn't affect anything one way or another. I'm just a raging but willing to listen liberal. :-) I'm not even sure if I'll ever marry myself. I actually think if all people consent and are of legal age they should also be able to be polygamous. How's that for nutz? :-) |
| Posted by: jedibowers 08-Jun-2006, 01:46 PM |
| I try to look at most things by using logic. I'll admit that I'm a Christian but I try not to base everything from the Bible. Mainly, because people get turned off by it. Now logically speaking, gay couples are not suppost to happen. Sex is to be pleasurable but also to make babies. Now two guys or two women having sex might be pleasurable, but it is not logical and can not make babies. Babies normally breastfeed, now being a guy, I'm not sure if breast normally produce milk all the time or just after giving birth. But no guy would be able to breastfeed a baby. I now you might come back and say that they can get around it by using a bottle, true, but that is not how we are built. So logically, a man would marry a woman, have sex, produce a baby and then the woman would breastfeed until it was old enough to eat solid food. That is how things work and it makes sense. I have not looked at how countries that have allowed gay marriages have changed. So I have no idea on how it will affect the country. But in this country, gay marriage has not been allowed until recently and that is due to judges ruling from the bench. I think Bush and the Republicans are trying to keep marriage the way it has been. They are not trying to change anything. At least that is how I see it. |
| Posted by: Senara 08-Jun-2006, 02:20 PM |
okay...I can see the point of early physical mechanics...besides a woman was only created to birth and nurture future generations.  That may still work in some fifth world countries today, unfortunately here in the US we have advanced enough that we no longer are limited to that way of sustaining the species. There are very few children in modern societies that are breast fed. Most the milk is pumped and fed to the child through a bottle so the woman only serves as a factory when you use your definition of what a woman's role is. (btw breast milk starts typically a couple weeks prior to birth. It's a hormone setting, so if enough estrogen was pumped into a dude it could be possible for them to lactate is my understanding...ladies can correct me if you so wish.) So what would happen in your world if a woman died in child birth and all that was left to care for it was the male? Would the child starve (factory is closed down) or would the man feed it formula (a viable substitution)? Would the child be severely harmed for the rest of it's life because it was bottle-fed? More than likely not. There are many healthy children that were/are fed formula and not breast milk. So that arguement can not fully stand on it's own. There are thousands of children born every year that are abandoned/adopted/orphaned around the world. Why do we not allow the care for them instead of focusing on legislating the breeding uses of heterosexual couples? Judges are allowing same-sex marriages in some states because they INTERPRET the laws created by legislators. It's up to the legislators to provide clear and complete legislation without bias and discrimination so that the judges know exactly what was intended and therefore can determine legal or illegal. In the states that currently have same sex marriages I would guess that the Judges ruled that the legislation showed discrimination or lack of definition. They then based decisions on other laws passed in that state and found the discrimination this group of citizenry received illegal, thereby, making same-sex marriages legal for those states. I would also think that there is much more to marriage than just making babies and sex (which is much more than just pleasure but emotional connection as well). So my logic tells me there's more to the story no one's wanting to tell. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-Jun-2006, 02:21 PM |
| Two things. First I'll address the "That's the way it has always been" argument. If we lived our lives by this rule we would not be where we are today. For instance, women were never allowed the vote, blacks were slaves, the mentally ill were tortured, there was no due process of law, anyone considered a witch was burned, being accused of being a communist was enough to get you in trouble with the government, etc. None of these things is considered right today, or even lawful. So, unless we are going to go back to the darkages and live as people lived before, the argument of "It's wrong because it's always been this other way before," doesn't fly. Second, logic? There are a lot of illogical things when it comes to affairs of the heart. In fact, it used to be considered illogical for people to choose their own spouses. But also by this standard, it would be illogical for barren women to get married, for impotent men to get married, for the elderly to get married, for the poor to get married, for women whose children cannot handle breast milk to get married, etc. It is also illogical to allow children with genetic defects to be born. I say take your ancient talk and your logic and keep it to yourself. If you don't want people telling you who you can and cannot marry, or how you can and cannot raise a child, then keep your own nose out of others business. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-Jun-2006, 02:26 PM |
| Hers'a funny thing I saw in an e-mail related to this topic: 28 reasons to ban gay marriage: 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people. 3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed. 5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state. 9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter. 10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not. 11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts. 12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don’t know what comes next, we should never change our laws. 13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like suburban malls and tupperware parties. 15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before. 16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption. 17. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them. 18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality. 19. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up going to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them. 20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society. 21. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue. 22. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires states to recognize each other's institutions. 23. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse. 24. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants, such as convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez who married a woman while on Death Row. 25. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it. 26. The country can't afford to provide benefits for married gay couples. That's why Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married. 27. Gay couples do not deserve marriage because, if everyone on earth limited themselves to same-sex sexual behavior, humanity would soon be extinct. Based on the same concern, we also deny marriage rights to the biologically childless and to those who have borne only one child. (We are also considering denying marriage rights to those who have borne three or more children, because if everyone copied them, the world population would shoot through the roof.) 28. Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman. The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese, sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came around and invented the family unit. |
| Posted by: jumbleberry_pie 08-Jun-2006, 03:35 PM | ||
Not to get off too far off topic but I just wanted to back up Senara: men can lactate and breastfeed if given hormones. I studied anthropology in college, and this was a favorite topic of discussion in classes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation can also be a side affect of some medical treatments and in some species, both the males and females breastfeed their young. BTW, I've really enjoyed reading all the opinions in this thread. I live in Washington, DC and generally get burned out on political discussion rather quickly... but you guys are such a smart fabulous bunch of people! To add a lighthearted note to the discussion, here's a link to a clip from the Daily Show where Jon Stewart puts the smack-down on a anti- gay marriage dude. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=70273 |
| Posted by: McKenna 08-Jun-2006, 04:05 PM | ||
So is that all that marriage is for...making babies? What if you are a women unable to give birth....or one like me who plans to adopt? Does that mean that my right to marriage is forfeit? Again, just trying to understand and not attack at all. You shouldn't have to "admit" your Christian. Good for you! I know plenty of good Christians... They are getting a bad rap due to the nutballs out there that mainstream media covers. Again all the emphasis on SEX. Who cares? Sex is a physical gift God gave to us but its not the be all/end all definition of everything about us. Eventually it doesn't even so much importance really anymore, esp with some who has been in a partnership for many years like myself. What is really important is the spiritual bond btw the couple and what they contribute to society. Don't you think? |
| Posted by: jedibowers 08-Jun-2006, 04:17 PM | ||
Nope getting married and not having babies or not being able to does not forfeit your right. I wish you luck in your plans to adopt. I hope that it goes smoothly. I know a couple that can not have children and tried to adopt and then the mother changed her mind around the time of the birth. I'm proud that I'm a Christian. Yes we do get a bad rap due to some nut jobs that call themselves Christians. |
| Posted by: jedibowers 08-Jun-2006, 04:33 PM | ||
First the laws that you pointed out like women could not vote and black slaves in the South are laws made up by men. I'm talking about the law of Nature and that men are to marry women and not men to men or women to women. Historically, slavery was not wrong. I'm not talking about the slavery that happened in America, because that was wrong! Slavery was used to repay a debt to someone. If someone loaned you money and you could not pay it back, you would become their slave until you worked off your debt. Some cultures had debtor's prisons to have the people work off their debt. In the south, some might have started this way as a way to pay for their crossing to America, but they were never freed from their slavery after the debt was paid. If you read about the writers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Indpendence, you will realize that they only thought of marriage as between a man and a woman. So they never thought that they would have to specify such a thing. They all believed in Nature's Law. So now it is far left liberal judges that are saying that the Constitution is not specific and over turning laws set by states. |
| Posted by: McKenna 08-Jun-2006, 04:51 PM |
| Hi Jedi--still not sure where you're comin' from on the gay marriage thing, but feels like its kinda pointless to pursue. It sounds like its just your personal preference since your biological and historical references don't hold up. If this is the opinion you have on it so I respect that. I just don't see it as affecting our society in a biological or moral sense to really matter. I am not frustrated by people who disagree with me, but rather with the failure to properly convince me. As for polticians motivated to do something about it legally, that's obviously motivated by getting more votes from a fearful constituency. Side Note: For about 20 years now I've been having people "wish me luck" and "warning me that I could change my mind about adoption" or "adopted kids can be tricky". I find that really odd??? Ever since I was a little kid I had a calling in my heart telling me to do it one day. Anyway its sorta off topic adieu, m |
| Posted by: Senara 08-Jun-2006, 04:56 PM | ||
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't Nature's Law only refer to the reproduction of the species. Marriage, Hand-fastings and other similar rituals are legal and religious acts that have nothing to do with nature and reproduction at all. It's convenient that men and women make babies...that's nature...any man and any woman can basically complete this task. X +Y = Baby. Marriage is a way of saying that you are to take another person into your family unit and treat them as one of your own kin and as an equal to yourself in the family structure. It's nothing more than a legal transaction. Has nothing to do with propagation of the species. The writers of the Constitution also lived in a society where women were burned at the stake for "witchcraft", homosexuality existed and was just not talked about (because ladies and gentlemen never discuss such things), and slaves were taken from one country and deposited here to work for no wage and no way to work towards their freedom. What you reference for others that "slaved" for a boat fair to the US is technically indentured servancy. Once their debt was paid they were released from their indenture and were then able to purchase land, vote, and enjoy the rights of any one else of that time period. African American Slaves had to wait several decades before they were granted the same rights as indentured servants were back in the drafting days of the Constitution. There's quite a bit of difference between the two. |
| Posted by: jedibowers 08-Jun-2006, 05:20 PM |
| Senara, just for clearification, witch burning was about 100 years before the Declaration of Independence. Salem witch trials were around 1664, if my memory serves me right, or somewhere around that time. 1776 was when we declared our Independence. |
| Posted by: Senara 08-Jun-2006, 05:23 PM |
| jedibowers...to further clarify...the practice continued in several areas of the country into the early 1900's...publicly or secretly it still occured not just in Salem. okay so any one else wanna tell me why two dudes or to gals can't enter into a legal agreement called marriage? |
| Posted by: ShadowDarkFyre 08-Jun-2006, 05:28 PM | ||
First off, applauds to Lady Senara. It could nto have been said any better than that. so what follows is just my .02 cents. One: not that it rules who I am, especially since I wasnae' around when the travesty that was American slavery occured, but take it from a Black man: what Senara says is correct. There is a wide gulf between forced slavery and indentured servitude. You need to straighten out your terminology, and I say that with no malice. Because that "historically-correct slavery" you talk about kept "black and colored people" from being treated like equal human beings in this country for nearly 80 percent of the 20th Century. Indentured servitude doesnae' cause that ripple effect, so to speak. Secondly, no matter what the writers of the Constitution thought, they penned it to be a living document. And like all living things, it is to grow for the better. Not stagnate or turn the people it was written for against one another. I would rather think that we've had enough of that in this world. Nature's Law is procreation. Believe me, as the Eternal set it, there's plenty of that going on, so donnae' worry. Where gay marriage is concerned, I'll tell you one and all, I neither agree with nor support homosexuality. I'll make no bones about it. However, one's sexuality is one's own business. Not mine. Not yours. Not the governments. That, like your chosen faith, is between you and whatever deities you serve. And as such, should ever and always remain that way. Anyone who chooses to follow the route that this amendment would put us towards violates the one precious gift the Eternal gave us all when He created Existence: free will. To love violates no law. People need to learn to mind their own business, and leave the private lives of others be: regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, faith or what have you. What this amendment will leave open if passed is a way for people to discriminate, as was said earlier. This kind of law causes a ripple effect. Consider the "tidal waves" that will come if it is passed. It's not needed. Simple as that. |
| Posted by: Swanny 08-Jun-2006, 05:48 PM | ||
Thanks for pointing this out. It simply vexes me that those who consider free will to be such an important spiritual concept do their level best to pass laws that limit our ability to make our own decisions on the most important of life's issues. Swanny |
| Posted by: McKenna 08-Jun-2006, 05:50 PM | ||
Very well put. :-) Let us not forget that the writers of the Constitution were Enlightenment Era thinkers. We need to be enlightened ourselves! |
| Posted by: marti64 08-Jun-2006, 05:50 PM |
| If I were cohabitating with a person of the same sex(which I am not) I would not want anyone telling me that I did not have the right to spend the rest of my life with this person. I know many homosexual couples that are hapily together, a few who have gotten married under the new laws in Massachusetts and California. I think that these individuals are much happier than many of the heterosexual couples that I know... I think that the people should vote, too, and then the powers that be will see how important this so-called "Democracy" of ours really is!!! Marti |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 08-Jun-2006, 06:42 PM |
| Here's a cultural angle ya'all might not know about. The Plains Tribes recognized homosexuality as something that happened. The individual (Known as a Berdache') was not only NOT looked down upon, but HONORED as having both the male spirit and the female spirit. Berdache's were often honored as composers of the best songs, for doing the best bead and quill work and sewing. They were ALSO allowed to marry as they saw fit! And this was NO BIG DEAL until Christians stuck their noses into that which was NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS! But then I guess that they were just "primatives" that didn't know any better! |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 08-Jun-2006, 07:41 PM |
| The christians that is! |
| Posted by: Cordelia 08-Jun-2006, 08:50 PM |
| You can all shout me down, but my opinion is this. I have pretty strong opinions about this, and here are my reasons. A Christian expert stated: "Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does." Being gay IS the way you are made. Doing the sexual act IS the sinful part. The Bible does not condone this, and it is explicitly laid down in Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2. 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve. God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so. Quote from a website: 1. The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality. 2. The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7 3. Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model. No harm? Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8 Effect on others Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient. 'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6). You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin. Nobody else's business? Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior. 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13). Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority. Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament. Equally valid? Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion. 'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27). The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV). Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and... 'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5). "While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual. Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10 It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'. Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11 However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation. Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all. Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned. Punishment The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25). Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future. "...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Hope However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners. 'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice. Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13 Conclusion As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis. |
| Posted by: emerald-eyedwanderer 08-Jun-2006, 09:36 PM |
But then not everyone is religious and believes that laws should be made by what the bible tells us. Just for an example, I am not religious, I do not believe in the bible. So in a 'free' country am I to be told who I can or cannot marry because the president is a religious man? Or because a certain group of people think they know what is best for me? I thought there was that whole seperation of state and church thing... you know make our own decisions based on our own beliefs...  But there is always going to be discrimination in the world. Just happens to be the gay community at this moment in American news. |
| Posted by: Cordelia 08-Jun-2006, 09:47 PM |
| [I]DARN!![/] You know, whether you believe it or not, God DID make you, and although you have free will, you ought to know that there ARE divine rules in this world! |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 08-Jun-2006, 10:02 PM |
| The rules of the universe are the ONLY rules that governany of us. The bible is a collection of writings by MEN, compiled by MEN, translated by MEN, RE-translated by MEN (Because they didn't like the way the last group of MEN put it). There is far too much of MAN and far too little of God in the bible to take it seriously. Had my people killed the first "Black Robes" that came to them, and KEPT killing them, they would be MUCH better off today. They did FAR more damage with the bible than the Blue Coats with their rifles. |
| Posted by: Cordelia 08-Jun-2006, 10:15 PM |
| And what are the rules of the universe? |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 08-Jun-2006, 10:28 PM |
| Gravity, something will ALWAYS seek to fill a vacuum,water will seek it's own level, the sun is the source of all life, etc. Surley at your age these don't need to be explained. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 08-Jun-2006, 11:11 PM |
| After reading the replies to this topic, I see that the overwhelming majority of the opinions here are based on emotion, regardless of which side of the issue the person falls (with just a wee few exceptions). Antwn's was the one post that stood out from the crowd, as it addressed so much of the outcry of the proponents to gay marriage-- "what gives anyone the right to tell people who they can and cannot marry." The answer was exactly right. Marriage is a legal institution. We the people elect representatives to write law. So yes, the legislative branch of government has more than a right to pass marriage law (including controversial gender issues) but also an obligation to do so as circumstance requires it. Whoa, open door for racial input!!! Actually, no. There is nothing pressing the legislature to write race laws for marriage, so it's not an issue for us at this time. Do gays really want this issue to be decided by "the people?" I doubt it seriously. During the 2004 elections, this issue was brought before the people in 5 states, and struck down in 5 states (liberal ones too!) so there's no reason anyone who wishes to see the day gay marriage is nationally legal would want it to come to a popular vote. Honestly, seeing the persistence of those who fight for homosexuals rights, I can't imagine a ban on gay marriage silencing them anyway. Now for my personal view. I have little experience observing gay people, so my opinions are not necessarily dependable. There is a lesbian couple living across the street from me. They have been there for 8 years, although I do not know how long they have been a couple. I love them dearly. One of the ladies is likely only recently gay, since she has a 19 year old daughter and is around 46 years old. My neighbors never show affection in my presence, so I have never had to deal with the reality that would drive home for me. I would consider my experience with my neighbors to be a very good one. Before this, I lived in Asheville North Carolina for 7 years. The homosexual population there is tremendous. My observations there were entirely different from the one here. I saw an extremely high level of promiscuity among the gay men I worked around, even among those who had live-in lovers. I had several gay men hit on me even though they knew I was married--it seemed inconsequential to them. Almost all of my experiences around gay people in NC were unsettling. Regardless of these though, I have opinions. I find homosexuality repugnant. Being around gay men, especially the highly effeminate ones, makes me want to vomit. Even my neighbors, if I saw them holding each other and being even remotely intimate, I would be sufficiently grossed out to not want to be around them.......ever. I can't help how I feel, nor do I want to. So personally, I hope gay marriage NEVER becomes endorsed by our government. |
| Posted by: Swanny 08-Jun-2006, 11:42 PM |
| At the moment we are discussing about whether gay marriage should be endorsed by the government, but rather whether it should be outlawed by the government via a constitutional ammendment. They are two entirely different things, in my mind anyway. Here's a poor analogy. Smoking tobacco is neither endorsed nor outlawed, but smoking marijuana is outlawed. Thus far I haven't heard of any sort of major social movement to endorse homosexuality, only a religion-driven movement to outlaw it. As far as I'm concerned every single person in this great Nation is entitled to practice their own religion as they see fit, but no one has the right to force others to do so. Swanny |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 09-Jun-2006, 12:11 AM | ||
I gotcha Swanny........ever eager to set a person straight. Fine, I'll rephrase.  "So personally, I hope gay marriage is banned by constitutional amendment." The opinion is still the same, and the attitude is still unapologetic. |
| Posted by: Sonee 09-Jun-2006, 12:36 AM | ||
Now you are trying to say that your beliefs superceed everyone else's "whether they believe it or not." Because YOU believe in God and because YOU believe that the Bible is his "devine rules" for us to live by, then it must be true and we ALL must believe it like it or not. That is incredibly selfish and, unforturnately, a common theme professed by many Christians. It's actually kind of insulting. I can also see the reaction many Christians will/are having to Dogshirts post. " the Bible may have been written by men but it was INSPIRED by God. They were writing it on his behalf." How do you all know that? Because the book itself says so? Because the people who actually wrote the words lived in the time that Jesus did so they should know? Kind of flimsy reasoning if you ask me. It rather frightens me that the people running this country are allowing their belief in a book to shade their decisions. I haven't read it but didn't Mein Kompf (sp) say that anyone other than white Christians were evil abominations against God and should be eliminated? Since a book said so does that make it true? If homosexuality is something a person is born with doesn't that mean that your God made them too? Why would he "create" someone he then would tell you was wrong? Did he make a mistake? It's my understanding that he isn't capable of making "mistakes". So then being homosexual can't be a mistake, right? Jedi made the point that the writers of the Constitution and Dec. of Indep. thought of marriage as between a man and a woman, as did everyone else, so it didn't need clarified. When Thomas Jefferson penned the original Dec. of Indep. he in absolutely no way included blacks or women when he said "all men are created equal". He felt it was understood that it was only land holding white men who were created equal to the English land holding white men they were rebelling against. Do you think if he were writing that very document today he would have felt differently? Don't you think he would have included blacks and women? If the founding father's made that "mistake" in their documents isn't possible that they could have made another? And, just for the record, Jefferson never intended this document to be a governing document. It's only purpose was to let the King of England know that they no longer wanted to be under his rule and why. When it comes to discussion of this type of hot button issue i.e. homosexuality, abortion, etc, Christians always point to the Bible and say "it's wrong because this BOOK says it wrong and God wrote this BOOK, end of subject." Again, not everyone believes in God or the Bible so that implies that a Christians opinion and/or beliefs are the only one's that count. I personally believe in a higher being as I see no other way, really, for us all to have gotten here. However, I think the Bible is nothing more than a man-made book designed to elevate certain people, specifically men, into positions of power and scare everyone else with hellfire and damnation so they bow to that power. According to your Bible women have no voice. Anything they want to say should be filtered through their fathers, husbands, brothers in that order. They can have no position in the church and their husbands word is law. Any Christian woman who is posting in the forum is going against the Bible because you aren't allowed to publically voice your opinions. If you follow your book that is. Pretty convenient that Christians can pick and choose what parts of the bible they follow and what parts they don't but somone who chooses to follow none of it is just plain wrong and needs to be "saved". To sum up my rather lengthy post (sorry, wasn't intentional!) the bible isn't, to me, a valid source for changing laws as not everyone believes it's the word of God. If you Christians want to use it to base your opinions on, more power to ya, but don't foist those opinions on the rest of the world as absolute fact. Also, to the statement that homosexuality promotes disease,: do hetro's then, not get anal herepes, hepititus B, or any of the other things you listed? It's my understanding that sexually transmitted diseases know no gender or sexual orientation. Any form of promiscuous sex could result in any of these diseases. Blood transfusions have been known to spread diseases so, should outlaw them too? To each his own, and live and let live. |
| Posted by: Senara 09-Jun-2006, 07:44 AM |
| I really am enjoying the discussion on this subject. A lot of differing opionions and some valid points to every post. Just reading what was posted last night/early this morning and I come back to two basic principles. 1. Marriage is a religious/spiritual certified oath that forms a bond between two individuals. It is a ceremony performed by an elder and witnessed by friends and family. It is a signature on a "license" to submit to the governing body to legally say these two individuals will now share their lives together. 2. This nation has too many religious to allow only one to control what laws and rules are drafted. Unfortunately since the dawn of time our history and laws have been determined by the male half of the species. They drew pictures on cave walls, they deciphered the writings on the walls, they translated the drawings to a new language, and re-translated and re-translated until we have what we know today. Man's Law. Not Woman's Law, not Nature's Law. Man's Law. That's what this world has lived by for Ages. Even still our government is run under Man's Law...the women in congress are only there because they believe in Man's Law. Sad to say but in so many ways true. The Christian God, the Arab God, the Gods and Godesses of Greece/Egypt/and other ancient civilizations are no better than any of their other "Holy" counterparts. They were all worshiped by their followers in the same way using similar rituals. It is only that one group of followers is nosey enough that they have to jump into everyone's lives and for some reason save them from something. If you want to ban gay marriage from your religious order fine do so. That is your religious ceremony. Perform it however you wish. Legally, that little piece of paper, should not be denied to any American no matter who they decide to marry. |
| Posted by: celticpatterson 09-Jun-2006, 08:22 AM |
| TO SOME ,THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.FOR MYSELF-AS iam A CHRISTIAN FOREMOST.I BELIEVE IT COUNTS.I dont AGREE WITH BUSH,ABOUT ANYTHING. BUT, AGAIN IAM CONCERNED,ABOUT THIS WHOLE SITUATION. EITHER WAY FOR OR AGAINST,LEGAL MATTERS-ACCORDING TO THE LAW-MUST BE ADDRESSED! SO FOR OR AGAINST WE ALL ARE GOING TO HEAR IT!! AND IT'S NOT JUST BUSH. BUT, BOTH SIDES HAVE AGENDA. MY KIDS ARE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,THEY NOW ARE BEING PUSHED TO READ CARTOON BOOKS STATING THAT, IT'S OK GO KISS,(FRENCH KISS) SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!! NOBODY!!-SHOULD INFLUENCE THE KIDS ABOUT SEXUALITY. EVERY ONE HAS THEIR OWN BELIEFS!! NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO PUT ANYBODY DOWN, GAY OR NOT. IAM A CHRISTIAN!! EITHER WAY I LIKE EVERYONE, HAS THE RIGHT TO FIGHT AND/OR EXPRESS OUR FEELINGS. I SERVED IN THE MARINES, AND I'LL EXPRESS MY FEELINGS.........MY TAKE BECAUSE OF MY BELIEF I KNOW WHAT ,THE BIBLE STATES-THRU HOLY SCRIPTURE ABOUT GAYS. BUT, SOME CHRISTIANS FORGET THAT TO GOD,ALL SIN IS JUST AS BAD, AS OTHER SIN. NO ONE IS PERFECT...... MICHAEL PATTERSON |
| Posted by: Cordelia 09-Jun-2006, 08:35 AM | ||
WRONG! Before God taught us, no one married. They only lived together. Did you ever hear of cavemen marrying? NO. Marriage was instituted by God, and therefore, absolutely NOT a legal institution. |
| Posted by: Cordelia 09-Jun-2006, 08:39 AM | ||
If God made someone a homosexual, that is their cross to bear in life. No one is forcing them to marry a woman, but do NOT marry at all. Unfortunately, they tend to seek the easy way out to express their 'individuality'. And it is not insulting of me to say that my beliefs superceed all others. My religion is based on divine institution, which all others can NOT claim. Of course its doctrines superceed all others. That does NOT mean however, that I am forcing you. I am merely saying what is Right and what is Wrong. |
| Posted by: Cordelia 09-Jun-2006, 08:41 AM | ||
I know. I was being sarcastic/sardonic. Surely at your age, I don't need to explain this to you! |
| Posted by: Senara 09-Jun-2006, 10:11 AM | ||||
By who's god, when and how? There have been marriage ceremonies performed by various cultures that don't beleive in your GOD. So their marriages were not valid? What about those marriages of heterosexual couples that don't beleive in your GOD do they not exist? Do they not have legal rights to estates and medical decisons of their spouses? Marriage was instituted by HUMANS....GOD was just a good guy/gal whom you beleive in. If marriage is not a "legal institution" why do couples pay for and sign onto a Marriage license? The church does not require this. They could write it in a book and be done with it. It doesn't need to be filed with the state government if it's not a "legal institution".
I hear every arguement that God creates in his own image. Then that means God is also homosexual because he creates them. HE also is spiteful and wishes homosexuals not to marry because HE doesn't want people to be just like HIM and have everything HE has. Is that what you're saying here. That's what it sounds like to me. It's human nature to look for easy solutions, the faster the better these days. You even seek the easy way out by hiding behind your religious teachings and accept them as fact rather than open your focus on what is right and wrong. It is EXTREMELY INSULTING of you to say that your BELIEF SUPERCEEDS ALL OTHERS. Your belief is your belief. While you have every right to it, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force your thoughts, beliefs, rituals, ways of life on me or any other breathing, thinking, living, human being. What you are saying is what is right and what is wrong based on your religious belief. Not based in factual law. Religious right and wrong is always biased to some degree and shows no acceptance for others viewpoints or others beliefs. I will not be forced to believe that gay marraige is wrong until someone can tell me why without putting any religious spin on the whole damn thing. I want solid hard proof that it will not work legally. Keep RELIGION out of it! |
| Posted by: jumbleberry_pie 09-Jun-2006, 10:15 AM | ||
Well put! Ah...the Bible, that strange collection of documents that have caused so much joy and suffering. I respect and appreciate your opinions Cordelia, but I'd just like to point out that not all Christians interpret the Bible (or Christianity) as condemning of homosexuality, only a minority of Christians believe that the Bible is literally the word of God, and an even smaller number of Christians support using the Bible as a basis for determining American policy. The funny thing about the Bible is, since it was written an interpreted by so many different people over such a long period of time, a reader can find and/or interpret multiple passages to support just about anything from the abomination of eating shellfish to rightness of slavery (both referenced more often in the Bible than homosexuality). We could have a long discussion about what the Bible and Christianity does or doesn't say about gay marraige, but why bother when so many Christians have already done it for us http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/gay_marriage.html, and http://www.bryanadamsblog.com/docs/BiblicalJustHomosex.pdf, and http://www.freeingthespirit.org/Homosexuality%26Bible.htm, and http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what my religious opinion is, or yours, or the writers of the Constitution (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm). We are not a theocracy, and personal or religious disklike or squeamishness should not be a basis for public policy. Past attempts to codify one religion's dogma into law have not worked (prohibition, miscegenation, limiting women's rights to own property etc) because trying to control the personal behavior of others is a big waste of time. of course, this is just my 2 cents. |
| Posted by: emerald-eyedwanderer 09-Jun-2006, 10:23 AM | ||
People often confuse their opinions with 'facts'. That's where the trouble lies. I try to be openminded, which is part of the reason I am not religious. But that's why this is such an important topic, because Bush and others that think his way ARE trying to force us by law. And if God gave us free will who are you to take it away with laws? It's not very respectful to the people who are not Christians. Therefore I could never agree with the religion. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 09-Jun-2006, 11:05 AM |
| You know, I've been reading through this whole topic thread, and it just makes me sad. The venom and hate directed towards the gay community here makes no since to me, especially from Christians. Throughout history Christians have been persecuted, jailed, killed, tortured, and humiliated for their beliefs. Christians fled their homes and countries to form this country we live in due to this persecution of their beliefs. And even though the bible says Judge not lest ye be judged and Jesus told the mob "Let he amoung you without sin throw the first stone", many use the bible as a weapon against those who go against what they believe to be Right. Imagine for a moment if the government were to outlaw religion. To say that the only law is the law of the government, and religion is unnecessary and dnagerous. Think about experiences you've had wehre people saw the cross you wore or th Bible you carried and sneered at you in disgust. Think about all the times people have verbally abused you for your beliefs in your god, have told you to take your beliefs behind closed doors, and have been disgusted with you for your faith. No one forces anyone, ANYONE, to be gay. I agree that it is a choice in some sense, because someone who is gay could choose to try to be straight. They could choose to try and not engage in gay behavior. But why should they have to? They should no more be forced to try to not be gay than Christians should be forced to try to be atheists. If you don't like people openly being gay in the street, holding same sex hands or kissing someone of the same sex, do what I do when I see a heterosexual couple making out. Look away. If you don't like a gay guy hitting on you, do what most women do every single day of their lives (sometimes multiple times daily) and ignore it or walk away. I bet that women have to put up with a lot more crap from straight men hitting on them in lewd or disgusting ways then anyone has to owrry about from a gay person. Also the bible says that Judgment is up to God. Not people. here on Earth we do not have the right to judge our fellow man for what they choose to do with their lives. If being gay IS such a horrible sin, then homosexuals will have to face Gods judgement, just like the rest of us. Finally, SIN does not equal LAW. The seven deadly sins, the big seven, most of these are not equaled in our laws. If they were, goodbye fast food, ice cream, and overweight people. Goodbye lazy people without jobs. Goodbye multibillionaires or even millionaires. Goodbye nudie magazines, strip clubs, and you can pretty much wipe out vegas. As for the children thing, why are there children who come out of abusive families who aren't themselves abusive? Why are their children who become abusers who never were? Why do smart kids come from dumb parents and vice versa? Why to gay people come from straight family models? Oh, and marriage isn't a natural thing. It's something that came about to secure inheritances. And it's been around a lot longer than the bible. If you want to live by Nature's Laws there are a few areas of unspoiled land still left in the US. I say have fun camping, but I like living with cell phones, computers, and the other Unnatural aspects of life. Oh, and that whole thing about the gay community being promiscuous? That's an age thing, not a gay thing. Virgins who wait till they are married are hard to come by anymore. Oh, and straight marriages have a big problem with the man and woman going to someone elses bed from what I've heard too. And you can get STDs from straight sex just as easliy as gay sex. You can also get infections and other nasty things going on. So, I gues the most important point is, don't wait for God to protect you. Make sure you carry and use condoms people. ::smile |
| Posted by: j Padraig moore 09-Jun-2006, 11:13 AM |
| Another thought from me on this... For myself, I am not too keen on the idea of gay marriage, but I don't see it as the downfall of our civilization if it occurs. My fear is that if a ban gay marriage amendment is passed, what is next? Here in Ohio there has been some noise about banning gay adoptions (that is, allowing gays to adopt children). If that is the next target, what comes after? Identifying and banning gays from teaching? How about kicking them out of the workplace? What of the don't ask/don't tell policy of the military? I am afraid this would just snowball into wholesale discrimination. It's a tough call... |
| Posted by: Cordelia 09-Jun-2006, 12:13 PM | ||
There is no venom directed at gays from me! (And I'm not a Christian. I'm a Catholic.) Yes, judgement is up to God. And God explicitly says that homosexual acts are sins. I am not judging them. I don't go around seeing gays and pointing at them physically/mentally and chanting 'Loser, Jerk' or whatever. I do know though, that it is wrong. And it irks me that they do not want to admit it. Goodbye nudie magazines, strip clubs and vegas? Wonderful! The world would be a better place if it were more innocent. And believe me you, cavemen did not have need to secure any inheritances. They didn't have any. Marriage is a natural thing. So, homosexual and heterosexual sex can both contract diseases. Know what the difference is? Heterosexual disease is often contracted when people live loose, philandering and lacivious lives. Homosexual disease happens because our bodies were not made for that. |
| Posted by: Rowan 09-Jun-2006, 12:47 PM |
| Hello everyone, Can I put in my two bits? I just want to say that the way Cordelia puts it is a little too black and white and harsh. I am not a theologian but I am a Catholic and my piece is this: While I don't condone what homosexuals do or agree with the people who side with them, it is not my place to lecture them on what is right or wrong. We are all grown and what we believe in has been firmly planted in our minds and souls. But I do want to say this; God is not homosexual, and He did not create homosexuals in His Image. He created man in His Image- meaning we can think for ourselves, and we have a free will. I know God is not homosexual because He created Adam and Eve. One man and one woman in the beginning of time. Had He meant for same sexes to be married, He would have created either two men or two women. As for God being spiteful - take for example a hunchback or a very small person - God created them not for spite but to show the rest of us the possibilites of what could have happened to us in the womb. It makes us aware of what could have gone wrong but didn't, and teaches us to be grateful and more aware. It should make us kinder and more understanding to those more unfortunate than us and to treat them with the same respect we would like others to show us if we were in their shoes. The same with homosexuals. We don't have to hate them, we don't have to propagate their way of life or thinking. Just respect them and treat them like a normal person. After all they are human, its just that their hormones have gone haywire. It is not the person or persons' fault. But I do have this to say to some homosexuals - I would like them to respect the straight people as well. Don't try to change them into gays or lesbians. You believe that you have a right to your beliefs, well so do the straight people. As for those who are straight and for those who side with the homosexuals-all I can say is let it drop. You all could argue to the end of time and the bottom line is the same. You will all believe in whatever you believe no matter what proof is put in front of you. You will always be poking holes in each other's arguments. Just stand back, pray for each other, live and let live, and if you know someone who is homosexual or straight leave them be and enjoy being friends. Just like there are so many different types of grasses, plants, and flowers - so it is with people. Everyone has a different soul, a different body, a different color, different beliefs, and different backgrounds. We are all God's children so we should help each other, not kill each other off because we are more superior, or more right, or more whatever. No one is perfect. We are all flawed. I'm sure someone will find something wrong with what I have just said. But we all have opinions and are free to them. God gave us free will and unlike us humans, He doesn't strike you down for coming out and giving vent to your opinions. At the end of time, when He comes back-everyone's doubts will be erased, we will understand why God did what He did and, yes, we will also be rewarded and punished as we deserve. Thank you for taking the time to read this. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 09-Jun-2006, 12:51 PM | ||
I don't defferintiate Christians from Catholics. I could have said "People who believe and worship The Holy Bible that has and Old Testament, and New Testament, and talks about Jesus," but to me anyone who believes in the Bible that talks about Jesus is a Christian. I'm sorry if that's offensive to the Catholics out there, but it jsut seems easier to me than mentioning all those faiths by name. Secondly, I wasn't specifically targeting you Cordelia. I was being more general and meant to include "anyone who holds hate or disgust towards homosexuals, especially christians who do so". If you are saying that a person who is gay needs to behave in a manner that you approve of by law, then you are judging that person. You are judging that behavior to warrant being made illegal and you are judging the person ingaging in that activity as unlawful. I do not believe that laws in this country should be made simply because someone doesn't agree with the behavior. Notice I am saying simply, as in that is the only reason. There has yet to be made a non moral or religious reason for banning gay marriage. There's been a lot of talk about it being disgusting, or ungodly, etc. However, this is not the criteria used to make laws in this country. If it was, we would be a theocracy. I don't know that cavemen had marriage certificates. I don't even really know that cavemen had laws. I'm not even aware of caveman sexual practices. I haven't read any studies showing cavemen didn't engage in homosexual activities, so I can't discoust the possibility that early man engaged in homosexual relationships. I also don't know of studies discounting homosexual marriage practices of cavemen. I haven't studied ancient human marriage practices, but I do know for a fact that they weren't based on anything in the Bible. Nor were ancient chinese or egyptian models of marriage. However, that is neither here nr there because the model of marriage has changed. We now have divorce, adultery isn't punishable by death, woman aren't sold into marriage, and although marriages are arranged, they are not the sole marriage model in the US. Religion should not be an issue here. Whether or not any church conducts a relgious marriage ceremony for gays is not at issue. Were homosexual marriages to be legalized, churchs could refuse to acknowledge or perform the marriage ceremony. The issue is a legal one, not a religous one. And no one is saying anyone has to like gays getting married. However, just like people cannot be denied their religous beliefs, gays should not be denied legal marriage. If anyone doesn't like it, just think about the fact that the only reason we are even allowed to talk about this is the freedoms we have in the country. And just remember that it wasn't so long ago that people couldn't choose who they married themselves. Just because people don't like or agree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal. There are a lot of people who don't like the Holy Bible or wht it says. Should reading the Bible be illegal? Should religous marriages be made illegal and only civil ceremonies conducted by a Judge be allowed by law? |
| Posted by: Rowan 09-Jun-2006, 01:17 PM |
| That's true- if everything were to be based on legalities- you could illegalize the entire world. We wouldn't be able to do a thing. Come to think of it this argument is getting to be humorous. Like I said- Live and let live. Why not turn our brains to more important matters. Like helping the homeless, the starving, the unemployed. These people need our attention and help but we aren't giving it to them. Instead, we indulge in petty arguments while the rest of the world out there is suffering from lack of food, jobs, and homes. Desperate parents in Africa give their children away thinking that the children are going to get work. Instead, the children are being sold as prostitutes for the rich people. How sick can this world get!? Everything going on now, even homosexuality, has been going on since time immemorial. What we can do right now, is do what we can to make this world a better place for ourselves, our children, and also each other. |
| Posted by: Rowan 09-Jun-2006, 01:23 PM |
| To emerald-eyedwanderer: No offense, but I am a Catholic, yet I too try to be open-minded. Even a non-religious person can be very narrow-minded. I've met some who are so fixed they'd get in a rage with you over the smallest thing. But yes its sadly true, some religious people are so close-minded and that's a sad thing. It makes the Church seem like an ogre, a dragon, instead of the loving Mother the way God ordained her to be. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 09-Jun-2006, 04:06 PM | ||
Is that right? Hmmmm. I believe it is men in this country that govern marriage. They create policy and procedure for its license (there's a key word) and spell out the benefits and penalties for marriage. Use semantics all you wish, marriage in our modern age is a human issue, and is one that need not be entered into with any endorsement of the church. Or have you never heard of a marriage conducted by a Magistrate or Notary Public. There are many non-religious people authorized by governments to conduct marriage. In ancient biblical times, the ceremonial part of marriage was little more than a romp in a tent. I think you probably know that. For many people, that is all that is required to become married in the eyes of God. It could be true. But for our society's sake, the government sets up law. Since you are so adamant that marriage is not a legal institution, please tell the class how it is we have marriage law. |
| Posted by: ShadowDarkFyre 09-Jun-2006, 04:12 PM | ||
I stand with Rowan on this. she speaks exactly what is on my mind. She speaks wisely and true. I think that the entire thread should end on just that. If we're wise, we would do so. |
| Posted by: ontrose1969 09-Jun-2006, 04:17 PM |
| You know... way back when, before there was a world wide web... I used to be on several BBSs (Bulletin Board Service) and there were two topics guaranteed to inflame 9 out of ten people. Religion and politics. I used to have fun by making one little political or religious comment and then watch the entire chat room explode. Now though, it doesn't seem like as much fun as it did 20 years ago. |
| Posted by: ontrose1969 09-Jun-2006, 04:35 PM |
| I also think that this thread should end before tempers start to rise and things are said that shouldn't be said. I forgot to add that to my last post... |
| Posted by: Cordelia 09-Jun-2006, 04:55 PM |
| Oh, Rowan, sister dear, you are a true diplomat! I salute you and thank you. You are right. I guess I was too grating. I hope you all will accept my apologies for being so discordant. |
| Posted by: emerald-eyedwanderer 09-Jun-2006, 05:06 PM | ||
Sorry I didn't mean to make it sound that you couldn't be both, one of my heros was Mother Teresa. And I respect your live and let live statement very much. And I understand the value of religion even though I don't agree with a lot of it, it's just sad when I hear it being used to further discrimination. |
| Posted by: emerald-eyedwanderer 09-Jun-2006, 05:16 PM | ||
ha ha ha, so true, good point |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 09-Jun-2006, 05:21 PM |
I see no reason to end this as long as we all remain civil.  |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 09-Jun-2006, 06:42 PM | ||
Hear hear! |
| Posted by: Antwn 09-Jun-2006, 06:45 PM | ||
Laws are always made because people don't agree with a behavior aren't they? To make a decision concerning legality requires making a judgement, often a moral one. Although moral choice doesn't require religion necessarily as its requisite standard, it does require both a standard and a choice, and they are made because "someone" doesn't agree with a behavior, and disgreement or even disgust is the reason - murder, rape, theft, assault etc. Correct me if I'm wrong Celtic, but I don't think your complaint is that laws are made because someone doesn't agree with a behavior, but that you don't agree that this specific behavior warrants legal restriction and disagree with the religious justifications that are sometimes given for those restrictions. I have some questions of my own. What's so great about homosexual behavior that it warrants legalized marriage and the social entrenchment that institution would give it? The argument that I've heard most is that its a matter of human rights. Yet I wonder if that argument isn't disingenuous. Is human rights a smoke screen for social investiture and consecration? What standard for social infrastructure will we choose? I'm not interested how consenting adults have sex in private, but that's not what we're being asked to accept. If the definition of a marriage is an individual human right, then why can't a man marry his horse? Why isn't a woman and her houseplant a marriage? Under what circumstances does the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want become irresponsible? Well there are many. What will our future be if we are willing to create it so inadvertently? Shouldn't more consideration be brought to bear than that? How can such choices be made independently of moral considerations? Even "what's good for the greatest number" assumes a moral standard of good. How can decisions which have collective effect be proported as solely individual? The question is not whether homosexual behavior is illegal since a recent supreme court ruling made it basically unprosecutable between consenting adults, yet the social institution of marriage legitimizes it at a different, powerful and perhaps irreversible level. I'm not asking why shouldn't it be so, but why should it? Why are those who are opposed to it always asked to justify their position rather than those who want it? Shouldn't advocates of decisions which have social impact be asked to justify why they should be enacted? Shouldn't better reasons be offered than flippant ones like "everyone should be able to do what they want"? Seems like this issue has generated more posts and passions than most on this board, which is an interesting occurrance itself. Thanks for reading some of the questions I've been mulling over. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 09-Jun-2006, 07:15 PM |
| Let me throw out a thought that one of the guys on my crew came up with the other day. "Sure let them marry, why should only straights be miserable?" |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 09-Jun-2006, 08:29 PM | ||
Alrighty...I'll try and answer these questions from my point of view. Laws are not usually made because people don't agree with the behavior. I could see the argument being made for so called victimless crimes (prostitution, drugs, and other "vice" crimes"). However, the ones you mentioned have other elements to them that go beyond simply moral disagreement or disgust. Rape, murder, theft, assault, etc all have elements all involve doing something to another without their consent. They also involve harm to another. They involve elements of avoiding chaos. They are also behaviors that are forced upon someone else by another. Gay marriage doesn't involve any of these elements. I say you are wrong in your assessment of my opinion in that laws are not simply made because people disagree with the behavior. I do agree that I do not believe this behavior warrants legal restriction. I do not disagree with the religious justifications so much as I do not believe they are adquate to warrant making this behavior illegal. There is nothing "Great" about homosexual behavior. What is so "Great" about heterosexual behavior that it warrants legalized marriage? Wouldn't it be enough to have spiritual marriage without the State being involved? I really don't see what people have to accept either. My behavior is not changed based on whether or not other people get married. Nor is my life affected. In fact, the only community I see being affected by gay marriage is gays. I have yet to be convinced of what danger gay marriage holds for people. I only see people who think it is wrong. The argument of why can't a person marry an animal or a plant or other inanimate objects is unnecessary. Gay marriage involves the union of two consenting adults. All these other things can neither sign legal documents or have legal standing. Besides that, the slippery slope argument isn't really valid. It can go either way. I mean, if gay marriage isn't made legal, what's to stop the government making other unions illegal based on class, race, education, etc? The issue is not poligamy or marriage to animals, it is gay marriage. The what's good for the greater number argument doesn't fit either. Blacks and hispanics were a racial minority and it didn't really do much better for the majoirty of americans to abolish slavery or segregation. However, it was considered necessary at the time and the majority today would be appaled if these practices were brought back...at least I would hope so. I'm sorry to say this, but being gay is not a reversable condition. It isn't a disease to be cured. The main reasons I see that gays wish to be married are to experience the same benefits that other married couples recieve. Discounted insurance, shared insurance between married individuals, having your spouse be responsible for life decisions should you be incapacitated, filing joint taxes, and any other number of benefits that come from a legal marriage. Finally, this is the biggest distinction between both sides that I see. Those who wish to see gay marriage made illegal are trying to take certain rights and priviledges away from a group of people based on the lifestyle those people live. This lifestyle is a choice between consenting adults that has no direct ill effect on others around them. It is also been shown in most cases to not be a choice but a way a person is born. A gay person could no more choose not to be gay than someone born hunchback or otherwise deformed. Those who wish to see gay marriage legalized wish to see an act only recognized by the government and the law. They are not asking individuals to agree with the behavior or approve anymore than interracial marriages. They are also wishing to see an act be legalized that does no harm to anyone and doesn't involve anyone who is not consenting. It only effects the two people involved in the wedding and allows them to enjoy the benefits of sharing their life with another humanbeing legally rather than have their relationship be veiwed as less valid than another couple's. Legalizing gay marriage takes nothing away from anybody else. Those are my answers. |
| Posted by: Sonee 09-Jun-2006, 11:13 PM |
| To begin I have to agree with CC. The answer to the "why SHOULD they not why SHOULDN'T they" question is more a matter of benifits than legal precedence. They want what all couples want. They want to know that their significant other is taken care of and that they will be taken care of back. In most medical situations the next of kin makes the decisions for a patient not able to make any themselves. Generally it is your partner, no matter what gender, that you tell you medical preferences to, they're usually the ones who know your wishes. Homosexual couples aren't allowed that right and the decisions are left to a more "appropriate" next of kin no matter how much or little they know of the patients wishes. What about insurance policies? If the patient dies the partner can not collect that money. Who does it go to? A different "family member" who perhaps doesn't agree with homosexuality and therefore refuses to give anything to the partner or help them out in any way? When did homosexuals become less than human? All they want is what every other human wants, nothing more, nothing less: the chance to take care of those they love. I really don't see why it is even an issue. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle but you can't make it illegal just because you don't like it. Christians preach against pre-marital sex as well. Are you going to try and make THAT illegal next? It goes against your Gods book so it will have to be. We should also bring back stoning for adultary, because that's what they did in your bible. I really don't think that religion has any place in this discussion or any of the kind because not everyone believes in the bible or the same religion. Just because YOU believe in it doesn't make you right and me wrong. I think the bible is just a man-made book with no more weight than the latest Nora Roberts novel. You think it holds the keys to heaven and the rules for human existance. But see, those are just opinions, not facts. You can no more prove that the bible is the key to heaven (if it even exists!) than I can prove it's not. I also wanted to comment on the whole Christian persecution thing being the reason "americans" left England in the first place. Through my studies this last semester I found that the real reason they left was because they didn't think that the Church of Englan was "pure" enough, hence the term Puritan being applied to them. They felt that the Church was being a bit to lax in their theology and wanted to "clean it up". Women were not allowed any voice and were not to speak in church at all, for any reason whatsoever, they were to follow the rule of their husbans no matter what because he ALWAYS had the families best Christian interests at heart, and just about everything a person had they were to give to the church. There was no room for error in the Puritan community and even the slightest, smallest, teeniest of infraction would get you exiled at best and killed at worst. The entire trip across the water they were regailed of how they were God's chosen people, that they, and ONLY they knew what was right. They truly believed, when they got here and saw the Indians already here, that God had put them here specifically to be slaves to the Puritans. Whenever they fought with the Indians and won with little or not injuries or losses to their numbers it was God showing them, and the world, how chosen they were and everyone else was not. If they lost, God was telling them that they were in danger of losing that chosen status if they didn't become better christians. They weren't persecuted, they were fanatics who wanted to rule the world under the guise of God and his "word". They were VERY fond of quoting bible passages that backed up their point no matter how far they had to reach. What it boils down to is this: since religion is a FAITH thing and not a FACT thing it should have absolutely no bearing on politics. P.S. sorry...I rambled again!!! I'll try harder next time, honest I will!  |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Jun-2006, 10:35 AM | ||||
This is true, and honestly I have no idea why so many people feel the need to interject religion into this discussion. There have been many interesting comments on this topic, but once again I am compelled to agree with Antwn. The gay marriage issue will most definitely be decided on the moral and ethical beliefs of the legislators, regardless of how it is eventually spun. And, like Antwn said:
The collective of atheists (non-religious if you will) in the legislative body of government will also have their say. There will undoubtedly be--of these non-religious--a voice against gay marriage (or a yes against a ban if you prefer). Are we all to assume that any voice against gay marriage is based on religious belief? Lastly, a comment was made earlier, and one I have heard over and over, that people are born gay. Well if you study child psychology, people are born with a proclivity to be a lot of things. There is a natural tendency for children to lie, steal, hurt, or even kill. These are natural behaviors to an extent. Simply saying a person was born gay does not make homosexuality normal or socially acceptable. That is where parenting comes in. Like it or not, parents are largely responsible for correcting the wrong behavior of their children, and some of this correction comes about as a result of the child's observations rather than actual tutelage. But is this supposed to be the fatal blow to homosexuality? No. It is to express that behavior, including sexual behavior, is often taught. I personally teach my children that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. I was also taught this. When we leave it up to our children to decide everything for themselves, there is no telling how they will turn out. Even when you teach a child that stealing is wrong, you will never know that one day they might not decide to steal a car. The point is, assigning the "born that way" title to homosexuals is not enough to make gay marriage a "right." By the way Sonee, have you ever done any research on revisionist history? |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 10-Jun-2006, 12:27 PM |
| http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/marriage defines the word "marriage": 1. State of being husband and wife http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary defines the word "marriage": 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law There are also some other definitions associated with the word (but the ones concerning Gay or Same-Sex marriage are of recent vintage and, in my opinion, the result of fringe elements in society trying to gain (force) acceptance by altering our common language and therefore the debate through "Political Correctness"). The two definitions I listed above are, and have been, the accepted definition of "marriage" in the USA, and most of the western world, for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. My personal opinion of government involvement in the institution of marriage is that there should be none; Federal, State, County, Local, whatever... still none. Most marriage and divorce laws in the various states are highly gender biased (toward the female) and represent a major government infringement in the rights of their citizens. The only logical argument that I can see for government involvement in "marriage" is the fact that heterosexual couples, where the female partner is of child bearing age, can, and do, produce offspring. Since you can't "abort" the little "crumb-snatchers" after they're born I can see where the government (ie: the community) might have some input in insuring that, in the event of the dissolution of the marriage, that the children be cared for by the parents and don't become wards of the state (after all, isn't every thing we do suppose to be "for the Children"). In matters of property those issues should be decided by any legal documents agreed to by the parties before/during the union or by common law, the same as in any other property dispute. Since the chances of that happening are "slim and none" we are left with the fact that the legal term "marriage" is not going to go away. This brings us back to the argument at hand. Should "marriage" (the legal definition) be defined as marriage between a man and a women, and the Constitution amended to state the same? Contrary to the way this debate is leaning in this thread the vast majority of voters, when given the opportunity to vote, agree with President. I guess if you believe in a world where judges make the law, not the elected representatives of the people, then you are probably against a Constitutional Amendment. If you are like me and have a hard time accepting that some un-elected people dressed in black robes can dictate to State legislatures what laws they'll pass (Massachusetts) or strike down the peoples vote on a State Constitutional Amendment (Iowa) so as to impose their personal or political opinions on all of us then you are for this amendment being sent to the states for ratification (or rejection) just as a matter of principal. MacE PS: Following the example of my kinsman Shadows in various other threads in this forum, "This is all I am going to say in this thread" (to whichever smartty-pants that thought it; Yes, I promise!  ). |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Jun-2006, 01:53 PM |
| Your only contribution Steve was a good one. Well said! |
| Posted by: Sonee 11-Jun-2006, 08:31 AM |
| By the way Sonee, have you ever done any research on revisionist history? My field of study is History. When I am finished with school I will have a Phd in History (admitidly my area of interest is midievil history with a focus on Ireland and Scotland, but I have to learn about History in general as well.) As to revisionist history, in what manner are you asking the question? Are you suggesting that I am rewriting history to further my own ends or that I am rewriting it with more accurate information? I can assure you that my information is accurate. It is derived from documents and correspondance from the original settlers, both from the Mayflower and also the Arbella which arrived on these shores in 1630. I also studied accounts by decendants of these settlers such as Increase Mather, Cotton Mathers son. Again, what is the purpose of the question? I have a question to pose myself. It is to anyone who can, or will answer. Are there still states that recognize common law marraige? Could a homosexual couple invoke that law? I don't know exactly what it's wording is, or if it even has any "official" wording, but most states that DO recognize common law also grant the benifits of "legal marraige" to both partners in this type of arrangement. Could that be a "solution" to this problem? |
| Posted by: Swanny 11-Jun-2006, 09:17 AM | ||
Yes, there are still states that recognize common law marriages, but the ones I am familiar with do not grant all benefits of a legal marriage to such couples. For example, a common law couple can not jointly file their tax returns, health insurance to a common law spouse is usually not allowed (Alaska is an exception that applies directly to homosexual couples), a common law marriage does not serve as grounds to deny welfare benefits to the female (most welfare is in the form of aid to dependant children). Interestingly, not all marriages between a man and woman are recognized in all States. While there is a federal law on the books, originating in the 19th century, requiring the federal government to recognize Indian marriages as legally binding the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not recognize a traditional Creek Indian marriage, but requires a Creek couple to also be married in "proper", legal white man fashion in order to qualify for benefits typical of Eurocentric marriages such as health insurance coverage, rights of inheritance, &c. So in a nut shell, invoking the common law will do little or nothing to provide a solution to the issue at hand. I belief that a provision allowing the formation of civil union contracts would do so, while preserving the alleged "sanctity" of traditional marriage. Not only would it solve the so called "gay marriage" issue, but also the situation my very traditional Creek friends encountered in Kentucky. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Jun-2006, 10:35 AM | ||
Are those my only choices? Gee, I didn't think I was asking either of them. The only reason I ask (and how you found yourself as the focal point of my question, I'll never know) is that I have always been fascinated when new history surfaces to make old history obsolete. I understand that this is a valid part of historical research, but at the same time I don't believe it always is accurate, or even based on facts. I would be interested in reading more about what you posted if there's something on the internet you could point me to. |
| Posted by: Sonee 11-Jun-2006, 10:07 PM |
| In light of the fact that your question was specifically directed to me, by name, I took it that I, or at least my post, was the focus of the question. If I was wrong than I apologize, but since the question was posed to me I answered. I was not familiar with the term 'revisionist history' so I looked it up. Those are the two definitions I found. One was a legitimate 'changing' of historical fact based on new evidence being found and the other suggested a twisting of facts to hide or ignore negative things (think holocost denial). Since I had no way to judge the feeling behind the question I asked for clarification. I didn't want to take offense if none was intended If that upset you then again, I apologize. The information I posted was taken from documents, letters, etc. written by the Puritans/Pilgrims themselves as well as information from letters written by Thomas Jefferson after the Declaration had been signed and a copy of the original Dec. that he wrote before it was altered to become what we know today. I also read documents from others in Jeffersons time regarding the wording of the Dec. as it applied to the Slavery and Women's Right's issues. I read them in books so I don't know if there are copies online or not. If you give me a bit of time I would be happy to look into it for you. Swanny--Thank you for the clarification. I haven't had the time to look into this idea myself yet and was hoping that someone with more knowledge than myself could at least give me the basics!! To be quite honest I don't understand why civil union contracts CAN'T work. Like you, I see it as a solution that SHOULD satisfy all sides. The religious groups don't have to let their godly ceremony be "sullied" with the UNgodly homosexual, and the homosexuals would get all the "marraige" benifits they have been denied to date. Where is the drawback? |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 01:46 AM | ||
Absolutely no apology is necessary. I want to discuss this further, so I will leave this thread alone so as not to change the direction of it, and will start on titled "Early America." Please look it over and add your thoughts. Thanks. |
| Posted by: greenldydragon 12-Jun-2006, 11:17 AM |
| This is just a quick add in by me. I think that if a church is willing to marry homosexuals, then the government has not right to say they can't or that it isn't legal. It could fall under the argument of religious freedom really. I do know that the American apiscapilian (tell me if I spelled that wrong, I prob. did) was excommunicated by the Pope for performing gay marriages..so if the church will do it, why does the government need to be involved? |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 11:53 AM | ||
If one sect of Christian faith is performing gay marriage, and yet another (think papacy) is condemning it, then there is no endorsement by the church. There are plenty of churches out there that condone a lot of different behavior and actions. This is no mandate to our legislature. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Jun-2006, 01:34 PM | ||
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism, 1709 Mind if I ship this excerpt from your post around to a few colleagues? It's an unusually richly expressed example of the kind of argument it is.You can use this logic and these methods to extinguish almost any behavior you can identify and isolate -- including laughter and love itself, if such is your social agenda. I've never heard anything so specious and so sad in my life. Has anyone addressed the question "Why is a civil union not a marriage?" Many people hold out the consolation that laws defining a legally declared civil partnership can be created that will give the partners virtually all the rights available under marriage. And yet this route is not acceptable to many gays seeking to be married. It is not merely a lesser expression of the entity to be formed; it is not the same at all. Marriage creates a kinship unit called a "family". There are two basic kinds of kinship ties: birth, which has no choice involved, and marriage, which is kinship by choice. The fact that "next of kin" in case of emergency will show preference to a man's spouse of five years over a mother or father of forty years illustrates the power of the element of choice. Family and kinship are not essentially legal entities, but they are social and moral ones, and no less important for that. Probably more important. When you OK gay partnerships as legal entities but nix gay marriage, therefore, it is not a mere quibble over terms and the attendant rights. You are making a judgement a priori that a gay couple is not fit or appropriate to form the bond that is universally and across cultures deemed to be the foundation of human society: kinship by choice or selection (not necessarily the bride's of course ) . And I don't think you can support that premise unless you make reference to a higher authority of some kind, which is why the argument inevitably sinks to a bunch of code words for a value system that is presented as universal or in some way "natural" or ordained, where in fact that presumption can't really be supported. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 07:57 PM | ||||
Yes, you certainly may share this with anyone you wish. Of course as long as you share it with only your colleagues, I expect nothing less from them than complete concurrence to your views. By the way, what part of my quote was specious? All of it, just a line or two? Please do tell.
Gay marriages, civil unions, even homosexuality itself fall into that gray area of what society views as acceptable or normal. Whether any of us like it or not, that is how our society works. We have determined that certain activities are illegal, regardless of whether or not they are injurious to any party. The legal age of consent is one. Laws against bestiality is another. We set these laws and become to view violations against them to be more than criminal, but unnatural, immoral, socially unacceptable, etc. I always am amused when people gasp in horrific disbelief to hear someone so bold as to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality. The reality of it is that many more people share this view than not. Otherwise gay marriage would be a commonality. And while I'm on the stump, I'll share my opinion of why the issue is being so hotly debated nationwide. Their's is not a cause for equality, or to share in the fountain from which the married heterosexual crowd drinks. No, they are attempting to forever change public perception; to become more than accepted---to become appreciated or even lauded for their sexual inclination. They long for the day when virtually no one would feel the pressing need to regurgitate at the sight of two men kissing in public. I think that can be clearly evidenced by the examples of gays who insist upon constantly revealing their sexual orientation. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Jun-2006, 08:41 PM |
| 1. Pretty much all of what I excerpted is specious, on the basis of the fundamental comparison. 2. You didn't compare homosexuality with bestiality, you compared it with some innate "natural tendency" of children to lie, steal, and hurt others. Not that it's comparable to bestiality either. But your vision of human nature is getting desperate. I'd like to question the credentials of the person you've been studying psychology with -- if it's someone else and not yourself. So. There really are places in this country where a man that calls himself a Christian can carry such virulent, open homophobia with pride, and claim that he is in the majority, at least in his locale, and furthermore that he is "amused" at the protest of people who disagree not with his opinion per se, but his lack of all critical perspective. Tell me -- what in God's or anybody else's name would you do if one of your boys came out? Shoot him? Disown him? Or have him committed for a cure? But no -- you are certain that your amazing parenting has obviated all concern in that direction. You really believe that's what it's about, don't you? Oh, yes -- NEVER show flagrant heterosexual displays of affection in public again. I've heard that sheep find it hard to keep from regurgitating at the spectacle. (Well now -- CelticRadio comes through again. They are actually playing Tartan Terror's "Scotland's Depraved" with all the sheep references, at 10:35 PM EST. Check it for yourself. Would you like it stricken from the playlist?) |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 12-Jun-2006, 09:13 PM |
| It's been said that my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of someone else's nose. If that is right, then the end of someone's arm is as far their need to worry about what someone else is doing goes. If it does not DIRECTLY affect you, then quit worrying about it, or GET A JOB, because you OBVIOUSLY have too much time on your hands to worry about something that is REALLY none of you concern! I have enough going on in my life to spend time on two guys or gals kissing, holding hands or whatever! It comes down to the FACT that is NOBODY'S business but theirs, no IFS, ANDS, or BUTS! |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 09:30 PM | ||||
| Are you saying that children do not possess an innate natural tendency to lie, steal, or hurt others? If so, you obviously know little, scratch that, nothing about children. Please tell me you don't teach your students that these are exclusively learned behaviors.
And there it is. The old stand-by. If you find homosexuality anything but glamorous, you are instantly labeled homophobic. Fine, if that's your answer. I also will accept the other label of intolerant if it pleases you.
If one of my boys came out of what? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Jun-2006, 10:45 PM | ||
Well, see, there's the old standby of your own. Make it an exclusively black and white issue and throw it back at the other person as if that's what they intended in the first place. It's not very effective. I am not negating the natural presence of aggression in children --- or in yourself, for that matter, or me -- but that you are lumping the same-sex preference, by a specious comparison, in with unacceptable innate childhood behaviors that you feel have to be socialized into non-existence. The comparison is of non-comparable things, and it isn't valid. (That aggression needs to be socialized out of a child so that it never arises is also not the case.) I would say that a man who makes even an oblique and poorly-specified reference to the urge to puke if two men are observed kissing publicly is homophobic, yes. Actually, there are passages in Mein Kampf that have much the same disorganized and paranoid tone as this passage of yours: "Their's is not a cause for equality, or to share in the fountain from which the married heterosexual crowd drinks. No, they are attempting to forever change public perception; to become more than accepted---to become appreciated or even lauded for their sexual inclination. They long for the day when virtually no one would feel the pressing need to regurgitate at the sight of two men kissing in public. I think that can be clearly evidenced by the examples of gays who insist upon constantly revealing their sexual orientation." You are speaking as if the country's diverse homosexual population were a united front with a common agenda. Cover it all with a monolithic "they," then ramble on about what "they" intend to foist on the unsuspecting straight population. Then, of course, if you convince the population that a group is attempting to pull off a deception like that, you give yourself license to go on the defensive, or even some pre-emptive preventive campaign. That's crude propaganda technique. Unfortunately, as Hitler discovered, it is often effective to the uncritical who give up their individuation and act like sheep. Oh -- sheep. Maybe that's the source of the fear. People who think and act like sheep might well make jumpy, erroneous assumptions about bestiality.I think you know what "coming out" means. But all right -- if one of your boys were to reveal to you that he is a homosexual, how would you then proceed to hurt him (perhaps thinking you were helping), instead of accepting him? |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 13-Jun-2006, 09:48 AM |
| Comparing homosexual activity to statutory rape and bestiality is interesting, although there is a huge difference. Stutory rape involves acts between two people where one CANNOT consent. A minor cannot consent, by law, to sex. A minor cannot enter into a marriage contract, depending on the state of course, without parental consent. Bestiality is sex with an animal. If you don't see there being a difference between sex with an animal or a child and marriage between two consenting adults, then I don't see much hope for discussion. I still don't see anything other than a morally ambiguous agrmuent against Gay marriage. It's an opinon, not based on fact, but simply based on personal preference, which has nothing to do with the issue. No one is saying you have to like gay's getting married. No one is saying you even have to accept it. But it is wrong to deny them the right to marriage jsut because of what they are. And going to the strict definition? Please. Our country has changed what marriage means throughout the years and laws regarding marriage so it isn't as if this is a cut in stone idea. If you don't like watching homosexuals kiss, then don't watch. I really don't understand why people are so adament about denying gay people the right to marry. Have we really not moved beyond these petty issues of what humans have the right to be full members of society and which ones don't deserve equal attention? But, I suppose it's more important to make sure the queers don't get the same rights as the straights than it is to solve the education problems, the economic problems, the war problems, or really any other problem in the US. |
| Posted by: Sonee 13-Jun-2006, 10:19 AM |
Hear, Hear CC!! I think you hit the nail on the head!  As far as I can tell the only reason that people object to homosexuals getting married, or even EXISTING, is because it is 'icky'. But at the same time I have yet to meet a man who would honestly object to watching two women. Many think it's very erotic. Granted they wouldn't encourage it, but they also wouldn't put a stop to it!! Not with any kind of force anyway, depending on who was watching them watch. There are still places in this world where a girl of 12 or 13 is forcably married off to a much older, sometimes abusive, man to increase her families position in the community and/or wealth. She isn't a 'consenting' party but yet she is given no choice and no say in the matter. As it's between a man and a woman does that then make it right? That IS the definition of marraige after all, at least the one definition. As CC said, the laws have changed much over the years. In Jefferson's time blacks were not considered to be human, or at least enough DIFFERENT from white men that they weren't covered by the same laws, including marraige. White men were allowed to sleep with their black slaves because, well, they had urges, but it was unacceptable to marry one. And any black man who had sex with a white woman, whether consentual or not, was killed. To be touched by a black man made one unclean and sullied their character. We smartened up about that and now inter-racial relationships are not illegal. Some still look down on them but there isn't any LAWS saying there wrong. If we can learn to 'tolerate' that why not homosexual marraige? Unless, as CC intimates, they aren't REALLY humans? |
| Posted by: McKenna 13-Jun-2006, 12:17 PM | ||
But the majority of people do not vote at all. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Jun-2006, 01:15 PM |
| You're right, acushla. And that has to change. Maybe if everyone in this discussion e-mailed a link to this thread to all their contacts and lists and let it spread out, it would shake up some of the complacency. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Jun-2006, 03:06 PM |
| Lynn, I cannot tell you at this moment in time what I would do. Pray for strength is a given. You seem to believe that because I see homosexuality as something wrong that somehow I wish to do harm to homosexuals. That is an incredible reach that I am now going to completely ignore. Something you will always have trouble with in your attempts to be taken seriously is your concept of diversity. Love all, accept all, unless they don't celebrate gayness, then plaster them with labels for all the world to see. Believe me, I get it. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 13-Jun-2006, 03:25 PM |
| SCShamrock...no one is asking anyone to celebrate gays. No one is asking anyone to make out with a man. No one is asking for a National Queer Day where the gays take over the streets. No one is even asking for straights to involve themselves in the gay community. This isn't a question of how will the straight majority be affected. Frankly, it doesn't affect the straight community at all. This is about extending rights to a minority group that they do not currently have. It is already illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. It has been found that to do so is against the constitution of the united states of america. How is not allowing gay's the right to marry different? How is this NOT discrimination? How is thsi constitutional? I mean, that is the judicial branch's job after all, at least from what I learned in school. The Judicial Branch interprets the constitution and if Congress or the Executive branch of government tries to pass a law that is unconstitutional, the judicial branch can strike it down. Is that not correct? Why do those against gay marriage feel as if the whole world will turn gay the minute homosexual marriage is lawfull? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Jun-2006, 04:13 PM | ||
What if I told you that praying for strength in that situation was only appropriate if it were for strength to truly let go of your own erroneous assumptions, not strength to bear the burden of a somehow compromised child? I don't think you want to do harm to anyone, but that doesn't mean that you don't do harm. When you propagate an erroneous and judgmental vision of someone (in any way -- by internet postings, by teaching your children, at town meetings, any way at all) you harm them and you constrict their possibilities for a good, productive, rewarding life as equal members of the community. And that's whether or not they even hear it directly from you. About forming family with marriage -- kinship bonds -- there are people who sit on the margins of their birth-and-marriage families for lots of reasons. Some gay people experience this, but they are surely not the only ones. So anyone in this situation may seek to do a very healthy, natural and well-adjusted thing: they try to make their own kinship bonds. Y'all remember that poem by Robert Frost, "The Death of the Hired Man"? The conversation between a farmer and his wife, when the old hired hand comes back to their farm to die? It's worth a complete read, I guess: http://www.bartleby.com/118/3.html But the lines I'm thinking of especially are: “Warren,” she said, “he has come home to die: You needn’t be afraid he’ll leave you this time.” “Home,” he mocked gently. “Yes, what else but home? It all depends on what you mean by home. Of course he’s nothing to us, any more Than was the hound that came a stranger to us Out of the woods, worn out upon the trail.” “Home is the place where, when you have to go there, They have to take you in.” “I should have called it Something you somehow haven’t to deserve.” Either way -- the man's definition or his wife's -- legal contracts don't get you that. Conventional marriage and birth kinship don't necessarily either, but it's that mutual responsibility whether the real inclination or whole heart is there or not, that's at the heart of family values, not specifics of ethical or moral behavior. That is what a gay or lesbian couple is looking for with a life commitment, like anyone else. I don't know how it could be otherwise, since they've been socialized in a culture saturated with those expectations like everyone else has. So when you have people who are willingly and mutually responsible and interdependent over the long term, you have the bedrock condition. The presence or absence of sex, or how it is carried out, is not trivial, but it's not at the base. Whether the family is constructed so as to nurture children is far from trivial but also not at the base, or we would be dissolving childless marriages, or they would fall apart by themselves with little or no grief or trouble, like leaves falling off a tree. But the people in childless marriages choose to continue the truly important thing -- to carry on the mutuality of home. I don't even have to mention the heterosexual couples who have a house and biological offspring but don't really have any mutuality or sense of responsibility for the long term -- that's been talked about enough, and it neither proves nor disproves a thing. There is kinship and marriage potential in anyone who has the capacity for long term, bonded interdependence. That's the family value we're afraid to lose in this country, and very rightly. Assuming that people who choose partners of the same sex don't have the capacity for this society-building and strengthening family model isn't just incorrect, it's terribly wasteful. |
| Posted by: Shadows 13-Jun-2006, 04:26 PM |
| Man on man, woman on woman, it is not in the laws of nature! You are going to bring up how animals will appear to mate with others of their own kind... that is not sexual, but a method of asserting dominance and control, it has nothing to do with the laws of mating. I have been called a liberal here on these boards, but I do not have liberal feelings about this issue. Sex is for procreation between a man and a woman... it was adam and eve, not adam and steve.... But to answer the initial question.... NO! we do not need to have an admendmnet to our constitution! |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Jun-2006, 10:41 PM | ||||||||
CC, Respectfully, I appreciate you comments. At least you have the decency to address me about the issue, and not my person. I cannot say the same for everyone. Read my posts, and other's replies to me, and you will see that largely I share my opinion of homosexuality, how the homosexual crowd is attempting to force a change in these opinions on a grander scale, and how our government has already set precedent in creating marriage law. This, of course, has brought about a barrage of labels and insults which reveals the truth of the situation. There is no acceptable answer response to homosexuality except support or indifference. To be otherwise instantly awards the dissenter with brands of social backwardness. I found this statement of yours particularly interesting:
I disagree. There are volumes of kids books that glamorize the homosexual lifestyle. One such book you may have heard about, titled "King and King" stirred quite a controversy. This book takes specific aim at grade school age children. It is just one weapon in the arsenal of indoctrination in public schools, and no one can convince me otherwise. I'll try to answer some of your other questions.
The proposed constitutional amendment, unless I've missed something along the way, is not to deny gay's the right to marry, but rather to define what marriage is. It is not discriminatory, it is the way our legal system works. The internal revenue system expects us to report all income. In order to justify these requirements, they must define the word income (we could do quite a lengthy thread on this topic alone:) ). And again, many of our laws have a moral foundation. I mention bestiality because the laws against it do not protect any consenting human, but rather animals who, by their very nature, cannot show their consent. The fact that we kill and eat animals, in my mind anyway, nullifies any notion of the intent to protect the animal population from injury. It is, in fact, a law based on a moral standard. And rightfully so. Granted, more people find bestiality immoral than they do homosexuality. However, we're not speaking in terms of numbers or percentages. By the way, I draw the comparison to bestiality and pedophilia because they are both outlawed, applying a moral standard, and based on the nature of the offense which is sexual. So how is this constitutional? That is moot point, because that is what the amendment process is for.
I'm sure lots of people think this way. I do not, so I can't honestly answer that. What I will say is that I know homosexuality to be wrong, and I do not believe our nation should be giving it the seal of approval. |
| Posted by: McKenna 14-Jun-2006, 12:10 AM | ||
Hi there--with all due respect, the Mayans had the institution of marriage long before the Christians came up with it. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one that comes to mind right now. Again I respect your opinion and feelings, but you need to do more research. |
| Posted by: McKenna 14-Jun-2006, 12:22 AM |
| I HAVE AN IDEA! Can we solve this issue by allowing gay folks to marry and have all the same legal rights that go with getting married, but call it null and void on a religious level? Could they be "legally married" but not "religiously married" since that seems to be the major thing in question...whether the Bible supports this? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Jun-2006, 08:14 AM | ||
It does look like it would take some of the heat out of the debate. The problem with it is that gays have no less of a range of spiritual expression than the rest of the population -- that is, some are fairly secular, some have no affiliation or sense of spiritual need at all, and some are deeply religious, and across many traditions. So if their tradition has a spiritual component in the way marriage is defined, it is going to be in their expectations and wishes. This is an anthropological view: http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm that illustrates McKenna's observation that some form of lasting and socially recognized bonding that creates kinship affines (marriage) has been around almost as long as there have been humans recognizable as such. The whole article is worth looking at, but I was struck by this in particular: Indeed the only feature of marriages that is apparently universal is that they will create affinal (in-law) relationships, or alliances, a fact that Lévi-Strauss and others considered to lie behind the origin of human marriage. But even here, affinal relationships are themselves quite varied in their nature and importance across societies. Thus, in terms of child legitimacy, sex of spouses, sexual activity, residence and so on, what we see around the world in terms of marriage is most notable for its variation. As far as relying on dictionary definitions -- Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary does have the definition as being between a man and a woman, but the new online American Heritage (!) Dictionary contains the following: mar·riage NOUN: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The state of being married; wedlock. A common-law marriage. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. A wedding. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose). Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle. Dictionaries follow common practice and use, they do not precede it or mandate it. Relying on a dictionary either to prove or disprove this point is therefore a backward-looking strategy -- it only demonstrates "by definition," as it were, what has been, not what is or will be. But the AH dictionary entry seems to suggest that marriage between people of the same sex has taken hold enough in the popular sense of things to merit inclusion. Here is the end of the article I linked above. I think it wraps this particular perspective neatly: From an anthropological perspective that focuses on the whole of humanity, what same-sex couples seeking legal marriage in the US are trying to do is not to redefine marriage. They are seeking legal recognition in the US for doing what people around the world have always done, that is to construct marriage for themselves. This commentary reflects the broadest human context from the discipline of world cultural anthropology. Those who prefer to adhere to the context of American law and biblical precept are certainly entitled to do so, but I think they must, in all honesty and fairness, acknowledge that it is a relative and not an absolute stance. |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Jun-2006, 08:28 AM |
| Stoirmeil, the only mistake I see in your argument is that you are introducing facts and reason into what is basically, at least on the part of some of the overzealous religous types, a purely emotional issue. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Jun-2006, 08:46 AM | ||
You want to be careful, my man. I've already been whomped with the ad hominem wet hanky once in this thread. But really, what you are bringing up is an issue that has more than academic relevance. We tend to use "stereotype" and "prejudice" interchangeably in colloquial terms, but they are psychologically distinct. A stereotype may be positive, negative, or neutral, and is based on lack of information or familiarity. It's not that hard to change a stereotype, with learning. A prejudice, by contrast, is invariably negative, and does not yield to rational argument, information, or evidence that it is erroneous. The most likely explanation that has been advanced is that there is some emotional investment in not relinquishing the position, usually based on perceived threat of loss (including material possessions, rights and privileges, social approval, turf, or dominance). |
| Posted by: jedibowers 14-Jun-2006, 09:38 AM | ||
There you might be wrong. The person is talking about the first couple, Adam and Eve. They would have been before the Mayan's and all other races. But if we are talking about "Christians", after Christ's resurrection, then you might be right. But I think the previsious person was talking about God and the beginning of time. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Jun-2006, 09:42 AM |
| You must be aware that theology and scientific inquiry don't mesh here, and the fundamentalist viewpoint is not the majority (and not only in this thread). You may be witnessing sincerely to your faith, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the existence of Adam and Eve, particularly with regard to fixing an exact date of such existence for comparison purposes, has little place in a discussion having to do with the legal rights of millions in a modern, legally secular society, especially when we are talking constitutional amendments. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 14-Jun-2006, 10:25 AM |
| All I have left to say on this issue is that I think it will be interesting to see how this issue evolves over the next few years. |
| Posted by: McKenna 15-Jun-2006, 03:09 PM | ||
Well, if you believe in Adam and Eve and the "first couple" concept I would venture to conclude you have a fundamentalist/biblical POV on matters in life. With all due respect, I'm sorry but I can't roll with you down that avenue. Whatever the case may be, we simply cannot prescibe laws by going with one fundamentalist religious viewpoint that is certainly not the majority. I think it is human nature to want to find some kind of dogma or construct for life. That is why the bible/religion is so popular. Life is basically totally absurd--why are we dealt the hand we are dealt? None of it makes sense. it is much more frightening (and exhausting) to keep an open mind and maintain a constant state of wonder and education at the mystery of life instead of quoting lines from the Bible to solve everything. (not saying that is necessarily what Jedi is doing but many other do). |
| Posted by: MDF3530 15-Jun-2006, 04:04 PM |
| Hello all!!! Been awhile since I checked into this forum. Now, about Bush's proposed amendment banning gay marriage. This is an election year. It is obvious that Bush wants to keep control of both houses of Congress so they can continue to rubber stamp his war. He was pandering to the right wing base using his reliable "3G" strategy: Gays, Guns & God. I am not gay myself. However, I do know some who are. I want them to have the same rights as I do, to get married, raise a family and be able to provide for them. |
| Posted by: Antwn 16-Jun-2006, 04:49 PM | ||
To pick from a smorgasbord of anthropological examples which correspond to a pre-existing bias, which Prof. Stone seems to have done, ignores the most pertinent issue, that its in the current social context that this issue is being debated and decided. Although she can provide anthropological evidence that suggests a tenuous definition of marriage, that doesn't mean that particular construct is considered ill defined now. She makes the comment that gay marriage is not seeking to redefine the institution, yet the debate revolves around that very issue regardless of intent. She has picked various examples where the attitudes of indigenous peoples support her contention and ignored those that do not. In her defense, its unlikely the intent was to provide a broadbased expose on all forms of indigenous couplings (no pun intended), yet Rousseau-like utopianism towards native sexuality is not only just a portion of the anthropological history pertaining to sexual expression, its of questionable relevance to the current social context in which the issue is being debated and will do little to assuage modern concerns in my opinion. If its a question of perception, then modern perceptions are most pertinent because they are the ones around which incendiary debates have ignited. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 16-Jun-2006, 05:07 PM | ||||
I wonder if everyone who knows my style can read my statements/questions without automatically thinking me to be sarcastic. One can only hope. I strongly question the ability of same-sex couples to raise children without their sexual orientation having a profound influence on the child's sexual identity during those very vulnerable and formative years of development. I've tried to research this, and have found such a mix of opinion that it's difficult to gauge any consensus view. I did find one article that echoes my uneducated thoughts:
http://www.saltshakers.org.au/pdf/235163_HOMOSEXUALITY_-_SAME-SEX.pdf Of course this doesn't prove anything. However, regardless of the fact that plenty of heterosexual couples do a lousy job parenting, I can't imagine a child raised by homosexuals not having to face a world of stigmas and identity problems stemming from the daily influence of their same-sex parents. And I do know that this article only reflects my viewpoint, but I leave it to those who feel homosexuality to be as normal as heterosexuality to provide the counter point. P.S. I have also had difficulty locating any support and recovery program for those coming out of heterosexuality. Hmmmm. |
| Posted by: McKenna 16-Jun-2006, 05:52 PM |
| Well my boyfriend's mother divorced his dad and now she has a female partner. It has only been traumatizing from the standpoint of how (conservative) society views the situation. Otherwise, the family has come to accept it. I can personally attest that he has no homosexual tendencies....BELIEVE me... I think there are awful and traumatizing parents for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual orientation...are we going to pass all kinds of laws to prevent people who are alcoholics from marrying, for example. Or the whole example you give about how the subject of the study, the son, didn't have a male figure with which to indentify and was messed up as a result. If that's really how it went down it is indeed a shame. my female cousins have a lot of emotional problems because their dad left their mom for another woman. But there is no law preventing my Aunt from raising them on her own. Perhaps she's not "as good" as "two parents", but she did a damn good job from what I can see. Life comes with a lot of crummy realities...is this a reason to bring the law in to interfere? And some people are raised by crappy parents and turn out great or vice versa. Your argument does not hold enough power for me to be convinced. Again, if I had to choose btw 2 hetero parents that beat each other up, shot drugs and lived in a trailer park or two rich lesbians that would out me through the best schools and art and music lessons, I wouldn't think twice about who I'd pick! Some people stink because of WHO they REALLY are, not who they sleep with. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 16-Jun-2006, 06:15 PM |
| McKenna, I appreciate your sentiment, but your post is exactly what I was hoping to avoid. Since the subject does revolve around gay marriage, and then the thought of child-rearing was introduced by Mike, I am interested in the philosophy of others concerning same-sex couple's ability to raise well rounded children, not whether gay marriage should be banned because of it. The question is, do competent heterosexual couples stand a better chance of raising children without unnecessary social and emotional complications than do homosexual couples. By the way, the lesbian couple that lives next door to me do not have children they raise, but one of them is a mother and grandmother...her youngest child about age 22. I think she divorce her husband 7 years ago, so her sexual identity was probably well decided before she learned her mother was gay. I don't think that's a good example from which to draw any conclusion because I think the scenario should be the couple that raises the child from infancy or toddler age. JMO. |
| Posted by: CelticCoalition 19-Jun-2006, 02:35 PM |
| Since it looks like we are on another topic, I'll chime in again. Perhaps this shoudl be moved to a different thread...but I'll just answer here. First of all there are a TON of support groups for those "coming out of heterosexuality". It just kinda depends on what exactly you are talking about. There are support groups for homosexuals to deal with living in a heterosexual world. They also hep support homosexuals deal with the issues that come with coming out to their heterosexual families. If you are talking about support groups in general for kids in heterosexual families, there are support groups for kids from broken homes, abusive homes, groups for those raped or molested by their parents, from families with drug or alcohol problems...etc. I also don't quite understand what you mean by well rounded child rearing. What exactly defines well rounded? If part of the defintion of well rounded means "has a male father and female mother raising them" then there really isn't a way to show that this is unnecessary. However, I believe there is enough evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that the traditional model of the male and female parents doesn't fit in today's world. There are single parent families, families where the child has two, three, or even four different sets of parents as they grow up. There are children that are raised by aunts, uncles, or grandparents. Do these children have problems? Yes. Do they always grow up well adjusted? No. But if heterosexual couples who stay together their whole lives do not have a %100 performance rating of raising well adjusted, or well rounded kids, then we can't expect homosexuals to have %100 rating. There are many things that parents can do that will create problems for their children as the grow up. Interracial couples, those with poor economic standing, children of cops, children of therapists, children with red hair, children whose parents don't buy them the coolest clothes...all these kids can have problems from their peers and even adults as they grow up. There is also the question of what is unnecessary social and emmotional complications. Parents get divorced, move their children from state to state constantly, and all this isn't legislated by law. The fact is: children have very little control over their lives or who their parents are. I believe that a homosexual couple will have just as good a chance of raising a well adjusted child than any of these other non-traditional model family structures. |
| Posted by: Sonee 20-Jun-2006, 08:45 AM |
| Again I have to agree with CC. There are as many screwed up kids coming from heterosexual couples as there are from homosexual ones. More, in fact because gays aren't allowed to raise children in proliferation as straights are. I do believe that children need a strong male figure and a strong female figure in their lives to be 'well-rounded', but I don't think that parents are the only ones who can provide this. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, close friends, they all count toward that figure. A person doesn't have to actually LIVE with a child to be an influence on them. I do think that perhaps children of homosexual couples have a slight disadvantage as there aren't that many heterosexual people who are close friends with gay couples and many of those couples don't have the family support they need from their own parents and siblings. This leaves the child with primarily homosexual role models and very litte to no heterosexual ones and I think that could affect the way the child looks at him/herself and their relationship to the world in general. I think all children need exposure to the different 'roles' of society because, whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, they're all out there and they will remain out there no matter how many laws you make. And, unless you plan on locking your children up in a cage all their lives they ARE going to come into contact with portions of these different 'roles' and need to know how to react and INTERact with them without prejudiced ignorance. |
| Posted by: Celtic cat 22-Jun-2006, 12:49 PM |
| I really thought that I posted already on this topic but guess not. Anyhow, my mother and her "partner" have been together since I was three. I am grateful for the switch in some ways. I am actually closer to my dad because of the distance. We talked alot over the phone. I know my dad better and have been given male advice my entire life from him. My mother on the other hand is neither very feminine nor masculine. She is normal but doesn't really give out good fatherly advice bc she is a chick and can't really give good womanly advice because she has this cloud over her eyes that says all guys are bad. My mother's "partner" on the other hand taught me all the things women know. I'm not being sexist but she taught me how to clean, very well, fold laundry, paint my nails, and later put on make-up. She always did my hair and picked out my school clothes when I was little. My mom played catch with me, took me fishing, and taught me how to change a tire. So you see, I was given a mother figure in "the other mother" and a fatherly figure in my mother and my dad is basically just my best friend. I love them all. But point being...when I'm not happy w/ the way I was raised it has nothing to do w/ sexes. I just don't ,and didn't, like the way they as adults handle situations. They never really agree on much, and they fought alot when I was growing up. But that seems irrelevant to me because plenty of strait parents fight. So as a bonifide example feel free to debate me. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 22-Jun-2006, 12:56 PM |
| Thanks for this, Celtic Cat. Your post makes a necessary point: when you talk about the people who raised you, you are talking neither about their genders nor their sexual preferences. You are talking about complicated, whole individuals, with strengths and weaknesses, and about your love for them and theirs for you. You are people in the world for each other. We fail to thrive, we are less than we could have been and we die without that. It is far less important whom it came from, if it's good, than just having it. Somebody must have done something right, because it seems you came out with a lot of concern and ethical sense and compassion. |
| Posted by: Celtic cat 23-Jun-2006, 01:07 PM |
| Thank you, my "family" is the group that taught me to be open minded. Those other attributes from my family have been nurtured by my boyfriend as well. |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Jun-2006, 09:22 PM |
| How many people see this as a smoke screen? It diverts our attention from erosion of our civil liberties? |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jun-2006, 04:49 AM | ||
Celtic Cat, you are a breath of fresh air in this forum. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Jun-2006, 02:21 PM | ||
Oh, yeah, the fact that it's a bone of contention at this particular time isn't fooling anyone. But it's still an issue in its own right, and apparently one that's yet to be resolved to a manageable consensus. |
| Posted by: McKenna 28-Jun-2006, 02:51 PM | ||
absolutely so true Maisky--you reminded me to not waste any more time on this topic. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Aug-2006, 11:42 AM |
| For any who are still interested in this debate -- I posted a link to this week's "Speaking of Faith" radio program, which ran a thought-provoking, pro and con theological discussion this week on this topic, whichever side you stand on -- in the "Speaking of Faith" thread in the Religion and Philosophy forum. |
| Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 02:45 PM | ||||||||
Hell no.
Hell no. Remember what a swell job the "States Rights" folks did with racial segregation?
For Republicans apparently so; with midterm elections fast approaching, they sure as hell can't run on their record of success, so they need scapegoats they can publicly flay to rally the less evolved to their cause. As a matter of fact, things are so bad, they feel the need for two scapegoats; gays and illegal immigrants.
That would depend upon what kind of marriage we're talking about; the ecclesiastical sacrament, or the civil contractual relationship. Pursuant to the 1st Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (italics mine). Historically, in this country religions have been accorded great leeway in being as bigoted and backward as they want to be, so it's up to them to determine to whom they extend or withhold the sacrament of marriage. Unless I'm a member of their sect, it's really none of my business. The flip side of that coin; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", suggests that the government has no right to legislate morality based upon the Bible, and there is no valid psychosocial research to suggest a compelling State interest in denying the de jure benefits of civil marriage to gays and lesbians (actually the inverse is true; there is considerable research to suggest just such a compelling State interest in promoting stable long-term nurturing relationships among adults regardless of sexual preference). Ipso facto, pursuant to the 14th Amendment gays and lesbians should be accorded equal protection under the law, and allowed all of the benefits which accrue to heterosexual married couples, not merely some half-baked "separate but equal" civil union. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 07-Aug-2006, 10:38 PM |
| And this thing about "Demeaning or Diminishing" marriage if gays are allowed to marry is crap! My marriage is strong and secure enough that nothing will change if two guys (or gals) are allowed to marry each other. If others think it will, then perhaps they should re-examine their relationship. $0.02 |
| Posted by: John Clements 08-Aug-2006, 07:59 AM |
| I think all marriages should be gay. |