Same-sex marriage ruling this morning [Archive]

question fear

Nov 18, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
It will be a very sad day if our legislature does not act. The judiciary has no business legislating from the bench, there job is to intrepret. It seems that on this they ar forcing the hands of the legislature. They have 180 days to act. I plan on calling my representative. They must remember that an election occurs in November. The winds are changing in this state.

um...two things. one, the supreme court did not legislate from the bench. they were asked to determine whether a particular law discriminated based on the constitution of massachusetts. the sc said it did, and gave a deadline for compliance with that civil liberty. if the supreme court had been legislating from the bench, there would have been marriage licenses issued. Since the law of marriage already exists in massachusetts, it required the court to determine why it was against the civil liberties of a minority group to stop same-sex marriage.
two, the legislature has been ordered to correct a civil injustice. if they do not comply, it will not simply go away. this si not like the clean elections precedent where the legislature could afford to not pass a law. while there may be tremendous conservative pressure, they need to pass a same-sex marriage law, and about damn time too.
besides, you want to talk elections? consider how many people in the city of boston are happy today, who are not going to forget who supports them....consider that the conservative side is not the only one with mobilized email and weblists, who can also call legislators. When you grow up believing you won't be able to get married, and someone dangles that possibility in front of you, you don't back down. And i highly doubt the queer rights movement will do so...we're going to win.
Sorry, just needed to lay that out there.
--carly

Grimace

Nov 18, 2003, 04:02 PM

I'm still unclear as to why others care about two same-sex people being married. Even if it is morally or ethically wrong, but doesn't have any impact on hetero-marriages - what's the big deal? Isn't the "contract with God" only the business of three parties (the couple + God)??

Maybe I just don't understand why we are imparting divine judgement on others - how is that our place?

radhak

Nov 18, 2003, 04:39 PM

Dros

Nov 18, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by radhak
but otherwise to your question, EXACTLY RIGHT! why anybody should be against two people marrying, is beyond any sane person's comprehension. how does it affect anybody else that those two happen to be of the same gender? because some religious tenets say so? what if my religious tenets say that eating meat is a sin? should i pass judgement on others, even if their eating habits don't affect me at all? think of the implications...

Plenty of vegetarians will pass judgement on meat eaters. If you think it is wrong to kill animals for food, it may be hard to not think less of people that do. And I should add, plenty of vegetarians also do not care what others eat.

I don't think people that are against same-sex marriages are insane. They think of marriage as a primarily religious institution. Their religion says (to them) that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. So to allow same-sex marriage is to, in part, condone that behavior.

I can't say that thought process is completely logical, but I will say not insane.

rainman::|:|

Nov 18, 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by carletonmusic
I'm still unclear as to why others care about two same-sex people being married. Even if it is morally or ethically wrong, but doesn't have any impact on hetero-marriages - what's the big deal? Isn't the "contract with God" only the business of three parties (the couple + God)??

Maybe I just don't understand why we are imparting divine judgement on others - how is that our place?

actually i was hoping they'd make more laws based on religion... like, eat grasshopers not pork, beat your children as a matter of regularity, the return of slavery, the decimation of entire cultures, the mass collection of dead peoples' foreskins, etc. In fact, i happen to have a list of all marriage laws that should be enacted, based on the bible--

-No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.
-No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32)
-No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
-No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27)
-No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
-No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28)
-No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
-No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossions 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Tutus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).
-No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman's menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)
-No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
-No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).

I think we need to amend the constitution. Don't want to be hypocrites (I hear Jesus hated that)... Who agrees?

:)
pnw

railthinner

Nov 18, 2003, 05:25 PM

Here's an answer to the courts quandry:

All "marriages" should be "civil unions" -- gay or straight -- where the govt. is concerned. Either that or the concept of marriage and civil union as recognized by the state should be banished entirely. If you want to get married before your church and family, so be it. What's the state have to do with it?

toaster_oven

Nov 18, 2003, 06:54 PM

to me, the main arguments against gay marriage has everything to do with the religious institution of marriage. the reason the Mass court ruled against the ban on same-sex marriage is that the state only recognizes civil marriage (i.e. defined by some kind of government registration- NOT religious marriage). a religious institution can marry whoever they want, but the couple still has to gain a license from the state government - a separate entity.

the whole problem stems from the conflict between the legal definition of "marriage" and the cultural definition of "marriage." since, according to state and federal legislation, people who are married are granted special rights (and restrictions) as opposed to those couples who choose to be unmarried. The argument here is that same-sex couples are denied the same rights as opposite-sex couples - which, if i am not mistaken, may be in violation of the 14th amendment of the federal constitution. The massachusetts constitution affords a greater set of rights to people of differing sexual orientation (same-sex couples can adopt in Massachusetts, there are anti-discrimination laws based on sexual-orientation, etc...) - therefore a ban on same-sex marriage, according to the ruling, is against these other provisions in the state constitution.

The cultural definition of marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman. because our legal system is set up to protect the rights of minorities (all people include a minority of the people), we often have legal conflicts with so-called cultural norms - for example, not so long ago, women were not allowed to vote, interracial marriage was illegal, segregation, slavery, etc... these were all considered cultural norms at their particular time, meaning a majority of the population believed that these were mandated by some higher authority (God, history, etc...) than the government.

rainman::|:|

Nov 18, 2003, 08:11 PM

evidently none of the religious right wants to comment on my earlier post. it's all fine and easy to say "gays shouldn't have rights", but it's a bit harder to say "a rapist and his victim are required to marry"... and it's pretty hard to explain why only certain parts of the bible should be enforced.

this is, of course, completely ignoring the "separation of church and state" factor, since religious-rightists do not believe that government and religion should be separate. apparently they don't remember when other religions controlled various governments... when that happens to christians, it's called oppression. in contrast, trying to remove christianity from the government is persecution. amazingly enough, both times christians are the victims. strange...

pnw

question fear

Nov 18, 2003, 08:19 PM

well, i definitely dont fall under the religious right heading, but i thought your list was screamingly funny and dead-on.
sadly, im on your side, so theres no argument.
-carly

Dros

Nov 18, 2003, 09:01 PM

It does seem like we're all pretty much "preaching to the choir" here. But the list was funny.

insidedanshead

Nov 18, 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by macphisto
Because it is morally and ethically wrong.

And I would watch who you are calling "close minded church going idiots." It seems as though you are rather close minded yourself, not seeing both sides of the coin.

... based on who's standards? Yours? some book you live bys?

tazo

Nov 18, 2003, 09:46 PM

*sigh*

It is a sad sad day in the US.

vniow

Nov 18, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by tazo
*sigh*

It is a sad sad day in the US. Yeah, equal rights must be too much to ask for I guess......

Stelliform

Nov 18, 2003, 09:53 PM

....

Dros

Nov 18, 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by tazo
*sigh*

It is a sad sad day in the US.

Are you upset with the increased power wielded by the judicial branch?

rainman::|:|

Nov 18, 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Dros
Are you upset with the increased power wielded by the judicial branch?

no, i think he's upset because there's becoming one less minority that it's acceptable to be intolerant of.

someone should point out that it's still open season on arabs...

pnw

tazo

Nov 18, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by vniow
Yeah, equal rights must be too much to ask for I guess......

Unequal rights more like it.

no, i think he's upset because there's becoming one less minority that it's acceptable to be intolerant of.

someone should point out that it's still open season on arabs...

Hey no one seems to give a **** that it has been open season on the Jews for hundreds of years. But than again we are only supposed to care about the non-white minorities.

Hey Paul, are you aware of this case in Hawaii, in which a non-hawaiian individual was told they could not go to a school? Based solely on their race? Kinda interesting no? It is just one mroe testament to the idea that it's not ok to discriminate against anyone but caucasians and such.

rainman::|:|

Nov 18, 2003, 11:45 PM

ohh, okay, intolerance excuses intolerance. i see how that works. well, until i can get married, i'll pick one nonwhite per day to discriminate against, to make things fair. i can ignore the lack of civil rights, the nonwhite can have the extra attention they deserve, and no one says anything about the jews.

and, incidentally, gays are predominately white in america. i don't quite know where you were coming from with that part...

pnw

leet1

Nov 18, 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
and, incidentally, gays are predominately white in america.

:rolleyes: Where did you pull that fact out of?

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 12:07 AM

i was not talking about the race of gay people.

what i am getting at is the hypocrisy in the US, which allows the discrimination against the majority, as long as the desires of minorities are appeased. Such as the straight teen not being allowed to go to an all gay school. An all gay school? I wont even go into my views on the ludicriousy of such an idea...

leet1

Nov 19, 2003, 12:11 AM

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 12:16 AM

That it does. And the very fact that most do not think it does suck, is a testament to the fact that it does.

pivo6

Nov 19, 2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by tazo
i was not talking about the race of gay people.

what i am getting at is the hypocrisy in the US, which allows the discrimination against the majority, as long as the desires of minorities are appeased. Such as the straight teen not being allowed to go to an all gay school. An all gay school? I wont even go into my views on the ludicriousy of such an idea...

I'm not sure how allowing gay marriages would infringe on my rights. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just allowing you to explain your point to me. I may agree or disagree.

Let's assume that I'm of the majority, of what..who knows.

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 12:21 AM

In theory, gay marriage does not infringe on your rights as of now. However if the supreme court continues to legistlate from the bench, than who knows to what extent this type of behavior shall go.

pivo6

Nov 19, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by tazo
In theory, gay marriage does not infringe on your rights as of now. However if the supreme court continues to legistlate from the bench, than who knows to what extent this type of behavior shall go.

You haven't convinced me yet. You earlier mentioned that the majority was getting discriminated against, then you say that my rights haven't been affected. Should I be worried about something that may or may not happen in the future?

As someone mentioned earlier, the SC od Mass. only ruled on the constitutionality of a law. They then told the legislature to correct it.

Actually gay marriage and "this type of behavior" doesn't affect my rights in theory or in practice.

rainman::|:|

Nov 19, 2003, 01:00 AM

first off, gay people make up a pretty steady 10% of any ethnic group, and whites have the largest group in the USA-- so 10% of the largest compared with 10% of the others.

secondly, there is no such thing as an all-gay school. there is one with the prerequisite that students feel unsafe in their current environment... and it is mostly gay, but there are other groups as well.

affirmative action is an attempt to fix a serious problem, and should be seen as such. their hearts are in the right place. but it just doesn't work. no one's asking it to in this case.

lastly, as to this legislating from the bench. the court had a case (actually 7) come up in front of them, where one solution was to go against the law, and one was to go against the constitution. they found a place where law and constitution overlapped, and as any high court in history has ever done, declared a law unconstitutional. simply put, the legislators failed to create a law that complied with rights granted by their own constitution. so if anything, the court was not pre-emptively legislating, it was pointing out that legislators did not do their job.

a court's ability to declare a law unconstitutional when it is validly so is part of the basic checks and balances that this country has used for 200 years.

pnw

vniow

Nov 19, 2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by a scared little boy
Unequal rights more like it.

I still fail to see how allowing gays to marry leads to having unequal rights among the American people. And don't you go off on one of your incoherent poor discriminated against Jewish white straight male rants again, you and I both know that you have never offered any support or evidence for those little outbursts and probably never will because those claims go unsubstantiated because you can't stand to see someone different than yourself holding power over you.

This was a good day and I'll be damned if I let someone like you try to bring it down.

Good night.

QCassidy352

Nov 19, 2003, 02:26 AM

ok, that article wasn't clear, IMO, so I hope someone has a better grasp of the ruling than I do.

Did the court order the legislature to restructure the laws to allow gay marriage? Or did it just say that it was unconstitutional to (preemptively) *ban* gay marriage?

voicegy

Nov 19, 2003, 03:19 AM

Yay to the decision. 'bout time.

In a few years' time, we may begin to see the divorce rate actually drop, when homosexual marriages are pooled into the mix.;)

question fear

Nov 19, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
ok, that article wasn't clear, IMO, so I hope someone has a better grasp of the ruling than I do.

Did the court order the legislature to restructure the laws to allow gay marriage? Or did it just say that it was unconstitutional to (preemptively) *ban* gay marriage?

they ordered the legislature to restructure the law.
the only way to stop that restructure would be to get a stay based on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but since that was defeated already, it makes it a less than desirable option-the court would be less likely to grant the stay and the legislature is less likely to vote for it.
most likely they will act.
and romney will veto it.
and the legislature will override him.
-carly

hvfsl

Nov 19, 2003, 08:47 AM

I dont really have any problem with gay people, but if gay people want to get married, they should call it something else. Marrage is about the joining of man and women, that is its meaning.

Thats my only problem with it. Maybe they could call it 'joining' or something.

pivo6

Nov 19, 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by hvfsl
I dont really have any problem with gay people, but if gay people want to get married, they should call it something else. Marrage is about the joining of man and women, that is its meaning.

Thats my only problem with it. Maybe they could call it 'joining' or something.

Your only problem is semantics??:confused: :confused:

What does it matter what it's called. A union between two consenting adults is a marriage in my book.

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel

secondly, there is no such thing as an all-gay school. there is one with the prerequisite that students feel unsafe in their current environment... and it is mostly gay, but there are other groups as well.

pnw

You're grossly misinformed Paul ; there is, or atleast was, an all gay school, a publically funded, public school in NY, in which straight individuals were barred from attending.

Here are some links:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030728-095838-5101r.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/08/14/gay.school.ap/
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030728-095838-5101r.htm

Now what do you think Paul? Is it just ok to discriminate against the majority?

Originally written by Scared little girl
I still fail to see how allowing gays to marry leads to having unequal rights among the American people. And don't you go off on one of your incoherent poor discriminated against Jewish white straight male rants again, you and I both know that you have never offered any support or evidence for those little outbursts and probably never will because those claims go unsubstantiated because you can't stand to see someone different than yourself holding power over you.

This was a good day and I'll be damned if I let someone like you try to bring it down.

Good night.

It is a well-known fact that the American, and Foreign media chooses to overlook stories involving Jews being anihiliated by foreign entities. Like when a synagogue in Turkey was blown up, killing I believe 20-30 Jews, the American media instead focused on a suicide bomber in Pakistan. Why? Color of their skin -- simple as that.

And veronica, I hope you will be more mature next time you quote me, for there is no reason to act like that if you don't know what to say :o

pivo6

Nov 19, 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by tazo
You're grossly misinformed Paul ; there is, or atleast was, an all gay school, a publically funded, public school in NY, in which straight individuals were barred from attending.

Now what do you think Paul? Is it just ok to discriminate against the majority?

I'll answer that one.

Discrimination against anyone is horrible and shouldn't be tolerated. That said, I fail to see how your example has anything to do with the Mass SC decision or allowing gay marriages in general. Can you explain?

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 09:27 AM

It doesnt have anything to do with same sex marriages per se, it all goes back to the unequal rights thing I originally posted. To which PNW orriginally responded.

I also feel discrimination is wrong, I fail to see why PNW does not.

-tazo

pivo6

Nov 19, 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by tazo
It doesnt have anything to do with same sex marriages per se, it all goes back to the unequal rights thing I originally posted. To which PNW orriginally responded.

I also feel discrimination is wrong, I fail to see why PNW does not.

-tazo

I understand that, BUT how do you get unequal rights from gay marriages?

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I think it really is a seperate topic from the one this thread is about. Just my thoughts.

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 09:36 AM

Pivo6,

you are probably right about this being for another thread...

I feel that giving gays marriage rights in essence, is not unequal rights, however I question what is next? You know? Giving illegal aliens who dont even live in the US, all the same rights as people living in the US? oh...we have already done that

vniow

Nov 19, 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by tazo
And veronica, I hope you will be more mature next time you quote me, for there is no reason to act like that if you don't know what to say :o

Oh I know exactly what to say, I don't do anything here on accident. Your little poor white boy rants have no place in this thread, this is about gay marriage and civil rights. If you wish to rant on how much straight white male Jews are discriminated against, do it elseware but I bet you'll get the same response.

I feel that giving gays marriage rights in essence, is not unequal rights,

Really?

origianally posted by you in regards to gay marriage:
Unequal rights more like it.

tazo

Nov 19, 2003, 09:44 AM

Veronica, I just explained what I meant about unequal rights...read my post again.

And would you please stop with the poor white boy ************. You want to call me an asshole? Call me an asshole. But dont feign being nice on my account -- call em like ya see em.

mactastic

Nov 19, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by tazo
Veronica, I just explained what I meant about unequal rights...read my post again.

And would you please stop with the poor white boy ************. You want to call me an asshole? Call me an asshole. But dont feign being nice on my account -- call em like ya see em.

You sure never miss an opportunity to tell us all how oppressed your poor little white jewish @$$ is. Admit it, you don't like gays.

Oh and by the way, you do know there is a Jewish Defense League right? And the Anti-Defamation League too? And the Simon Wiesenthal Center? I know how much you despise groups aimed at helping a specific people like the NAACP, but I'm sure you have no problems with the JDL. And Jews are a minority, and I thought you were all wound up about the oppression of the majority by the minority? Now you want to get would up about a minority being oppressed, but only the minority you choose. Jews are ok to support but gays aren't. Nice anti-gay sentiment.

Go ahead and have your next little "poor oppressed white jew" rant now.:p

LethalWolfe

Nov 19, 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by pivo6
Your only problem is semantics??:confused: :confused:

What does it matter what it's called. A union between two consenting adults is a marriage in my book.

I thought marriage refered to a religious based union, where as a civil union refered to a non-religious based union?

Lethal

mactastic

Nov 19, 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I thought marriage refered to a religious based union, where as a civil union refered to a non-religious based union?

Lethal

Nope. I have a marriage license from the state of California, yet was not married in a traditional religious ceremony. The church doesn't have to recognize my marriage, but the state sure does. Maybe the solution is for those opposed on religious grounds to change what they call marriage to "religious boy-girl coupling" or something like that if it bugs them for the state to be issuing non-religious "marriage" certificates.

QCassidy352

Nov 19, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by question fear
they ordered the legislature to restructure the law.
the only way to stop that restructure would be to get a stay based on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but since that was defeated already, it makes it a less than desirable option-the court would be less likely to grant the stay and the legislature is less likely to vote for it.
most likely they will act.
and romney will veto it.
and the legislature will override him.
-carly

Hold on. If there's a consitutional ammendment, it's out of the court's hands. They would be legally obligated to grant a stay in such a case, and failure to do so would almost certainly constitute an impeachable offense.

In the absense of a consitutional ammendment, the legislature is legally bound to abide by the court's ruling (unless we want to go back to Andrew Jackson and his "John Marshall has made his decision - now let him enforce it").

I guess my point is that I don't see where anyone has any choice here. The court has said that unless the law is altered to allow gay marriage, it violates the MA constitution. Unless they want the total breakdown of government as we know it, Romney and the legislature are both bound to abide by that decision (unless they can get a consitutional ammendment). They don't get to "choose" whether they obey the consitution.

mactastic

Nov 19, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
Hold on. If there's a consitutional ammendment, it's out of the court's hands. They would be legally obligated to grant a stay in such a case, and failure to do so would almost certainly constitute an impeachable offense.

In the absense of a consitutional ammendment, the legislature is legally bound to abide by the court's ruling (unless we want to go back to Andrew Jackson and his "John Marshall has made his decision - now let him enforce it").

I guess my point is that I don't see where anyone has any choice here. The court has said that unless the law is altered to allow gay marriage, it violates the MA constitution. Unless they want the total breakdown of government as we know it, Romney and the legislature are both bound to abide by that decision (unless they can get a consitutional ammendment). They don't get to "choose" whether they obey the consitution.

But Romney can score points with his political base by vetoing any legislation that permits gay marriage, even if he knows it will ultimately pass over his veto.

You are correct about there being no choice here though. Unless the Mass. constitution is amended soon (highly unlikely) the courts will force the state to issue the licenses. That was one of their options yesterday, but they stopped short of ordering that. They would obviously like to see the legislature codify this rather than doing it from the bench, but the made it very clear that if the legislature fails to act that they will.

LethalWolfe

Nov 19, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
Nope. I have a marriage license from the state of California, yet was not married in a traditional religious ceremony. The church doesn't have to recognize my marriage, but the state sure does. Maybe the solution is for those opposed on religious grounds to change what they call marriage to "religious boy-girl coupling" or something like that if it bugs them for the state to be issuing non-religious "marriage" certificates.

Hmmm. I wasn't aware of that. What is a civil union then? Or is it just another name for a marriage? If it is, does where/why the term originated?

Lethal

QCassidy352

Nov 19, 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by tazo
I feel that giving gays marriage rights in essence, is not unequal rights, however I question what is next? You know? Giving illegal aliens who dont even live in the US, all the same rights as people living in the US? oh...we have already done that

Even with your example, how is anyone being discriminated against? You could argue that giving illegal aliens who don't live in the US (how are they "illegal aliens" if they don't live here, btw?) the rights of US citizens is stupid. You could argue it's illogical. You could argue that it's beyond the authority of the US government.

But how on earth are you going to argue that it is discriminatory? It brings more people up to the same level of rights as other people. Who is being discriminated against?

mactastic

Nov 19, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Hmmm. I wasn't aware of that. What is a civil union then? Or is it just another name for a marriage? If it is, does where/why the term originated?

Lethal

Civil Union is the term applied to a gay marriage to make it pallatable to the general public AFAIK.

Marriage, to me anyway, is a commitment between two legal, consenting adults regardless or race, religion, sexual orientation, class, hair color, shoe size, or any other distinguishing characteristic.

anonymous161

Nov 19, 2003, 12:04 PM

The issue here is not a civil declaration of the desire to love, honor, and obey. It is not the desire to build a family. It is simply about justification. Homosexuals want to justify (and in some cases exhalt) there own personal desires. A noble cause I suppose, but then again everyone wants to do exactly what they want in life and have everyone else be okay with it. What rights do homosexuals feel they are being denied? Marriage isn't a right. A privilege maybe, but certainly not a right. They state does not have to supply you the means and partner to marry. The only difference in being married and being not married amounts to a few tax breaks at best. There are all kinds of tax breaks that not every person is eligible for, and people don't go around saying their rights have been infringed upon because they have to pay more taxes than someone else. In most cases single people can adopt, and in the cases where they can't that is its own issue. If you want to get technical, homosexuals have the exact same "rights" as any other person where marriage is concerned: any one person can marry any other one person of the opposite sex as long as that person is not already married and is of sound mind. Gays may not like it, but they have the same rights. To grant a legal homosexual "union" would be adding another right, not enforcing an existing one. Once that right is granted, why not remove the not currently married part, because logically 3 people together could make each other happier than just 2 right? Why not 4, or 5? Why shouldn't a parent be allowed to marry an offspring, provided they produce no children? They arguement is really no different. The institution of marriage really holds no legal necessity in government. There is no civil purpose for it. The purpose of marriage is an emotional one. It is a spiritual one. It is a religious one. It exists to promote the healthy union of a man and woman to build a family upon, so that morally society can stand. Morality is necessary because man is not a machine, he is not logical and therefore cannot be governed completely by laws. Believe me when I say that homosexuals, nor any other persons, should be discriminated before the law. The anti-sodomy laws geared to persecute homosexuals should either be stricken from the books or be enforced upon the heterosexual members of communities as well. But to say that marriage is a right is a fallacy. To embrace and nuture homosexuality is also a mistake. Historically, cultures that gave into their every desire, even the unnatural desires, fell into ruins. The Greeks fell, the Romans fell. An embrace of homosexual desires was not the cause of this, but there is a correlation. Everyone has a cross to bare, so to speak. Everyone is born with aspects of themselves that they can't change. Everyone has things that they wish they could do without guilt and everyone wants to be justified. Because you want it doesn't make it right. I can't help but feel that homosexual marriage is just a justification of lifestyle.

LethalWolfe

Nov 19, 2003, 12:12 PM

mactastic

Nov 19, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by tazo
It is a well-known fact that the American, and Foreign media chooses to overlook stories involving Jews being anihiliated by foreign entities. Like when a synagogue in Turkey was blown up, killing I believe 20-30 Jews, the American media instead focused on a suicide bomber in Pakistan. Why? Color of their skin -- simple as that.

Now that's either a straight up lie, or you are grossly misinformed. First off, if you are refering to Saturday's bombing in Turkey only 6 of the dead were Jews. 19 of the dead were Muslim. So the American media, if they ignored anything which they didn't, was oppressing Muslims by "overlooking" the event. I know that kind of evidence won't change your mind, but I can't let you throw out lies like that and expect to get away with it.

Secondly, that incident was widely reported on TV, the web, and newspapers. I suspect you didn't bother to look at any of those sources before you made that ludacris claim. Only CNN broke the story in the middle of the night (our time) when it happened, neither FOX nor MSNBC cut in to their reruns to report the breaking news, but by morning it was all over the news.

Here. I'll even support what I say.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/19/turkey.explosion/index.html)
Two trucks packed with homemade explosives detonated outside the synagogues, killing six Jews and 19 Muslims, including the two bombers.

Oh by the way, when was the last time the American media ignored a suicide attack against Jews in Israel? Every time there is one, I sure hear about it.

Dros

Nov 19, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by anonymous161
The issue here is not a civil declaration of the desire to love, honor, and obey. It is not the desire to build a family. It is simply about justification. Homosexuals want to justify (and in some cases exhalt) there own personal desires. A noble cause I suppose, but then again everyone wants to do exactly what they want in life and have everyone else be okay with it. What rights do homosexuals feel they are being denied? Marriage isn't a right. A privilege maybe, but certainly not a right. They state does not have to supply you the means and partner to marry. The only difference in being married and being not married amounts to a few tax breaks at best.
...
If you want to get technical, homosexuals have the exact same "rights" as any other person where marriage is concerned: any one person can marry any other one person of the opposite sex as long as that person is not already married and is of sound mind. Gays may not like it, but they have the same rights. To grant a legal homosexual "union" would be adding another right, not enforcing an existing one.
...
The purpose of marriage is an emotional one. It is a spiritual one. It is a religious one. It exists to promote the healthy union of a man and woman to build a family upon, so that morally society can stand. Morality is necessary because man is not a machine, he is not logical and therefore cannot be governed completely by laws.
...
Historically, cultures that gave into their every desire, even the unnatural desires, fell into ruins. The Greeks fell, the Romans fell. An embrace of homosexual desires was not the cause of this, but there is a correlation. Everyone has a cross to bare, so to speak. Everyone is born with aspects of themselves that they can't change. Everyone has things that they wish they could do without guilt and everyone wants to be justified. Because you want it doesn't make it right. I can't help but feel that homosexual marriage is just a justification of lifestyle.

Marriage confers more than a few tax breaks. Currently, same sex couples are denied status as next of kin for hospital visits, medical decisions and funeral decisions, workplace spousal benefits such as pension plans and Social Security, child custody and visitaion rights, automatic inheritance rights and joint insurance policies for homes, health or autos.

I think the rest of your note reinforces why I think these civil benefits should be conferred on any couple using a legal term separate from marriage. People can then get "married" with whatever faith based restrictions they care to endure in their religious institution, and the government should be blind to that status.

You say marriage is not a right, but a privilege. But then you say granting marriage to same-sex couples would be giving them an extra right. One of those statements is wrong.

As for the falling into ruin. I suppose you would have learned that lesson from all the fornicating frauds that have called themselves Christian evangelists in the past decade. But granting the ability for two people to recognize a commitment to each other seems a positive thing.

mactastic

Nov 19, 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by anonymous161
Homosexuals want to justify (and in some cases exhalt) there own personal desires.

So do Christian conservatives. So why should you get to "exhalt" your views over theirs? Are you better than a homosexual?

voicegy

Nov 19, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by anonymous161
[...]To grant a legal homosexual "union" would be adding another right, not enforcing an existing one. Once that right is granted, why not remove the not currently married part, because logically 3 people together could make each other happier than just 2 right? Why not 4, or 5? Why shouldn't a parent be allowed to marry an offspring, provided they produce no children? [...] There is no civil purpose for it. The purpose of marriage is an emotional one. It is a spiritual one. It is a religious one. It exists to promote the healthy union of a man and woman to build a family upon, so that morally society can stand. [...] To embrace and nuture homosexuality is also a mistake. Historically, cultures that gave into their every desire, even the unnatural desires, fell into ruins. The Greeks fell, the Romans fell. An embrace of homosexual desires was not the cause of this, but there is a correlation.[...]. I can't help but feel that homosexual marriage is just a justification of lifestyle.

Today's headlines are filled with the results of those "healthy union[s] of [men and women] to build a family upon, so that morally society can stand"...divorce rates higher than ever, children being killed by their own parents, husbands who flee their wives and leave behind hungry mouths to feed...oh, yeah.

I sincerely hope that this conversation can remain civil, as many posts regarding Gay and Lesbian issues have in the past, so it won't be wastelanded. Jews, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and everyone else...let's keep the focus. So far, a very spirited and informative discussion, and I appreciate things being kept on a somewhat even keel, despite a few choice swear words which I regret seeing in a forum that, if we all met in the same room one day in person, would, I'm sure, not be uttered because, after all, we all belong to the same "church" here...the church of Apple.;)

However, the above remarks opined by anonymous move me to speak.

Frankly, I tire of the old saw of "the impending downfall of civilization as we know it" being trotted out as the last gasp attempt to keep any homosexual rights issues from seeing the light of day. This "lifestyle", as you call it, (a term that is fear based and meant to imply some kind of wicked, unnatural "choice" made by immoral, wild beasts) is not; it is, as science is beginning to reveal, a biological construct. I've always felt that way.

If one were to pick up any heterosexually-based "sex rag" from a 50 cent street corner vending machine, one would be exposed to "lifestyles" that would make anyone gasp. Yes, of course there are sub-cultures within both the hetero- and homosexual community that consist of all sorts of fetishes and goofball desires, but so often those fetishes are lumped into the homosexual community at large as a way to sway the eyes of the general public away from what is happening in their own moral, upstanding urban bedrooms. "Lifestyles" indeed.

Here's another correlation I really despise...the "fact" that if marriage between two members of the same sex becomes a reality, the "chicken little" argument that "who KNOWS what will happen next?!? Would 12 people be able to marry each other? Could I marry my own son?! Can I marry my horse?! The horror!!" How DARE anyone imply or believe that if I were given the legal option to marry a male human being that my act would open the door to National Enquirer screaming headlines of such reckless fantasy? Please.
:rolleyes:

This is not about "embracing and nurturing" homosexuality (another fear-based term) - I, for one, have a hard time understanding how one "nurtures" a sexual orientation anyway. If the correlation is making sure that your son gets G.I. Joe and race cars for Christmas, or your daughter gets dolls and Easy-Bake Ovens, let me tell you that I loved my Hot Wheels, play army, dump truck, football toys as a kid. Gee, what went wrong?!

The very idea that the downfall of great civilizations came about via a "correlation" connected to "[an embracement] of homosexual desires" brings up an interesting specter: in essence, what that implies is that God was perfectly ok with the raping, pillage, wars, torture, social unrest, enslavement, destruction, empire building and all the other things that runaway, powerful civilizations engaged in to get to be super powers...but finally decided to smite the entire construct because the soldiers "decided" to make love, not war.

Again, the old argument that the very existence of homosexuality, let alone the open tolerance ("tolerance"...there's another one...I don't ask you to "tolerate" me...what if I don't wish to "tolerate" you?) and acceptance of the very idea of human beings of the same sex being given the same legal standings in their "unions" or what-have-you as having ANY correlation to the "ultimate downfall of civilization" is one of the most, if not THE most, "intolerable" arguments made against any homosexual rights issues. We are at the bottom of the totem pole. We follow a long line of similar arguments made against many people of color, different religions, different ethnic groups. At one time, the Jews were considered the downfall of Germany, the Irish immigrants were considered the downfall of the US, along with, later on, the rights being considered for African Americans.

The culture at large has no one left to "blame." (or to be fearful of) Homosexuality is the last on the list. All cultures, all races, all religious backgrounds and beliefs can live in the same country, and the country has grown stronger for it. No one would ever conceive today to begin to even THINK to blame one race or one religion in this country as "the beginning of the end" for the American "lifestyle." We're over that. Who is left? What group is now posing the next great threat to our moral, upstanding citizenry, our very way of life? What group is now out there, asking for, even demanding, the same rights in the eyes of the law and the land, as the great majority? It is the homosexuals...poised on the brink of bringing about their ultimate desire...to seduce our children, bring down our civilization, wreak havoc on the social fabric of society.

I don't know about you, but I see PLENTY of evidence this is happening with or without the day arriving that a pair of men or a pair of women can stand in the church of their choice and say "I do."

(As always, with respect AND love for the differing opinions of my fellow posters, both pro and con...and remember, we all have this in common, at least...MacWorld, January 2004!:D )

Raid

Nov 19, 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by anonymous161
The issue here is not a civil declaration of the desire to love, honor, and obey. It is not the desire to build a family. It is simply about justification. Homosexuals want to justify (and in some cases exhalt) there own personal desires. A noble cause I suppose, but then again everyone wants to do exactly what they want in life and have everyone else be okay with it. Sorry I'm going to do a little snip here and there, as your post was rather long. But I think that you do have a point, but it stops short. It's not about justification, or making people 'ok with it' it's about getting the society you live in to accept the fact that those kind of relationships are just as valid as anybody elses. Many hetero couples do things that you or I may not be ok with or 'in to', but it doesn't make their relationship any less valid.

What rights do homosexuals feel they are being denied? Marriage isn't a right. A privilege maybe, but certainly not a right. They state does not have to supply you the means and partner to marry. Simply put, they are not free to do something that causes no harm to outside individuals. If marriage is a privilege, the question should be "Why are they denied that privilege?"

The only difference in being married and being not married amounts to a few tax breaks at best. They want to get married because they belive in the institution of marriage, they want to feel that their relationship is valid, tax breaks were set up as a means to support the institution of marriage.

If you want to get technical, homosexuals have the exact same "rights" as any other person where marriage is concerned...To grant a legal homosexual "union" would be adding another right, not enforcing an existing one. Sorry to word police here, but you said marriage wasn't a right, but a privilege. Thus allowing them to marry would be applying the privilege equally.

Once that right is granted, why not remove the not currently married part, because logically 3 people together could make each other happier than just 2 right? Why not 4, or 5? Why shouldn't a parent be allowed to marry an offspring, provided they produce no children? They arguement is really no different. Good point, but again I think it stops short, having mutliple wives, or husbands is acceptable in some cultures. But here the arguement changes because the 'privilege' of marriage starts to impact on more than just the couple. For your example, legislated birth control isn't very effective :) and the genetic defects that would arise from a parent offspring union would impact the life of that child, and the society that had to care for it.

The purpose of marriage is an emotional one. It is a spiritual one. It is a religious one. It exists to promote the healthy union of a man and woman to build a family upon, so that morally society can stand. But aren't homosexuals emotional, spiritual, and/or religious? Are their reasons for marriage more or less valid than a hetro couple? Is a society that imposes beliefs and denies privileges to those that have no malicious intent towards the populus, moral?

Morality is necessary because man is not a machine, he is not logical and therefore cannot be governed completely by laws. Believe me when I say that homosexuals, nor any other persons, should be discriminated before the law. ... To embrace and nuture homosexuality is also a mistake. Historically, cultures that gave into their every desire, even the unnatural desires, fell into ruins. Without getting to much in to philosophical debates of the nature of morality. What is moral for me may not be moral for you, and I see you can agree with that to an extent. However, you seem to put homosexuality as a immoral desire equal to eating a dozen Krispy Kreme donut's out of gluttony. But from what my gay friends have told me, it's in their nature to be attracted that way, it's natural for them. Many did deny themselves of these feelings, and had very severe concequeces from that denial. The mistake was denying who they are. If unchecked wanton 'unnatural' desire will bring about the down fall of modern society, then don't turn on your cable TV, or type in 'girls' in a search engine. You'll never want to leave your house! Societies crumble because they fail to change with the times.

radhak

Nov 19, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by anonymous161
...
The only difference in being married and being not married amounts to a few tax breaks at best.
...

wow, what a rant, with so little sense to it.

i found only a minor issue worth commenting on. a legally-accepted marriage is not just about tax breaks. it is a long list of rights that are accepted as a matter of fact by the rest of population, and Dros has listed quite a bit of them above. And these are what provokes me to keep responding to inanities like yours. i am not gay, nor is anybody in my close circle. (actually, i cannot claim to know any homosexual personally).

but i am married, and have a loving family. and i cannot imagine living with a loved one and knowing that if she were to be involved in an auto-accident tomorrow, i would not be able to make any medical decision for her. if she did not have any other kin, it would mean that she would be just as badly off as any homeless person, an impersonal doctor deciding for her. and the same applies for decisions after/if she dies in the hospital. or, if i die, all my social security or pension plans would come to nought, not benefiting the one person i love while i live. can you imagine all that?

to add insult to injury, two such partners would pay more to be insured medically, in the car or at home to begin with!

i can ignore a 16 year old child rant and rave in these forums against homosexuality, because he does not know any better. but i cannot believe that adults, whether god-fearing, religious or not, would want to go out of their way to keep their fellow beings hurting. civilizations don't fall because of diverse sexual practices. they do when people forget what 'civilization' means.

voicegy

Nov 19, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by radhak
...i am married, and have a loving family. [...] civilizations don't fall because of diverse sexual practices. they do when people forget what 'civilization' means.

<shaking your hand> Thank you, fellow being. I wish you and your family continued health and happiness. Your words are deeply appreciated and respected.

IJ Reilly

Nov 19, 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Civil Union is the term applied to a gay marriage to make it pallatable to the general public AFAIK.

Marriage, to me anyway, is a commitment between two legal, consenting adults regardless or race, religion, sexual orientation, class, hair color, shoe size, or any other distinguishing characteristic.

Civil union is (or could be) the legal rights and obligations of marriage without the emotional, religious and political baggage. If religious groups feel the need to to defend the institution (or the word) of marriage, then that's fine with me, so long as they allow consenting adults to enter into private contracts of their own choosing free from government interference. Still, I find that the same people who are opposed to "gay marriage" are also opposed to "civil union," which suggests to me that the desire to actively discriminate against gays is really the intention, not the "protection of the institution of marriage."

jonapete2001

Nov 19, 2003, 07:55 PM

Why do gays "need" to be called maried. Why is a civil union not good enough. Gays can not get married any where in the united states. In Vermont they can have a civil union, in mass, the court has effectively legeslated from the bench. A marriage is defined as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ". THis is not a violation of civil liberties. Gay people have the same rights as strait people. If a gay man wants to marry a woman then he can. No one is asking the gay man if he is gay. gays have every right to marry, because marriage is the coupling of oposite sexes.
Marriage is about building a family and having children(if possible). I know many gay people(one is my brother) if they wanted to have a civil union then I would not mind.
The benifits of being married are special rights granted to those who provide a service to society. Oposite sex marriage provides benefits to society(children, families) that a Same sex marraige would not.

gay marraige=no
civil union= yes

radhak

Nov 19, 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by voicegy
<shaking your hand> Thank you, fellow being. I wish you and your family continued health and happiness. Your words are deeply appreciated and respected.

you are welcome :cool:
and i appreciate that.

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why do gays "need" to be called maried. Why is a civil union not good enough. Gays can not get married any where in the united states. In Vermont they can have a civil union, in mass, the court has effectively legeslated from the bench. A marriage is defined as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ". THis is not a violation of civil liberties. Gay people have the same rights as strait people. If a gay man wants to marry a woman then he can. No one is asking the gay man if he is gay. gays have every right to marry, because marriage is the coupling of oposite sexes.
Marriage is about building a family and having children(if possible). I know many gay people(one is my brother) if they wanted to have a civil union then I would not mind.
The benifits of being married are special rights granted to those who provide a service to society. Oposite sex marriage provides benefits to society(children, families) that a Same sex marraige would not.

gay marraige=no
civil union= yes

well, that's what we have been talking about. i am sure nobody cares about that particular word if any other word had the same legal connotation. so if your 'civil union = yes' means 'civil union = legal union between any two persons' then the argument is over, i guess. but you are not willing to concede that, are you?

of course we might still have somebody come up and say, 'you get this (say, a lower home insurance rate) only if you are married', and that might be yet another fight....:rolleyes:

Ugg

Nov 19, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Marriage is about building a family and having children(if possible). I know many gay people(one is my brother) if they wanted to have a civil union then I would not mind.
The benifits of being married are special rights granted to those who provide a service to society. Oposite sex marriage provides benefits to society(children, families) that a Same sex marraige would not.

gay marraige=no
civil union= yes

It would be interesting to see how many married couples today are choosing NOT to have children. If a straight couple marries outside of the church in a civil ceremony and choose before hand to not have children should they be allowed to call themselves "married"? According to your logic they shouldn't. Why the double standard?

Germany very strictly regulates the act of marriage. The first ceremony is conducted by a civil servant and there are no religious trappings present. If a couple professes no religion then that is that, they are under the eyes of German law, married. Should they profess a religion and want their union to be recognized by a church, then they need to go through the whole thing again with all the trappings in a church. Should a couple get married only in a church, their union will not be recognized by the govt.

In my mind, this is an ideal solution for all involved. Marriage has come to mean a lot of things to a lot of people but from a legally binding standpoint it is only the governments blessing that makes it valid. Who cares if a church is involved or if this church or that temple doesn't want to marry two people! The church has no place in a government contract and I thought that was made clear in the Constitution.

Special rights are inherently anethma in this country and if they are special, then they should only apply to couples that have children and raise them to maturity. Those that choose not to have children should not enjoy the priveleges of marriage.

For a long time I thought the struggle for equal recognition under the law for same sex couples should avoid the word marriage, because it is so loaded with significance. Now I say full steam ahead and whoever doesn't like it, well, too bad.

jonapete2001

Nov 19, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by radhak
you are welcome :cool:
and i appreciate that.

well, that's what we have been talking about. i am sure nobody cares about that particular word if any other word had the same legal connotation. so if your 'civil union = yes' means 'civil union = legal union between any two persons' then the argument is over, i guess. but you are not willing to concede that, are you?

of course we might still have somebody come up and say, 'you get this (say, a lower home insurance rate) only if you are married', and that might be yet another fight....:rolleyes:

I would say that a civil union would be a legal union between 2 people of the same sex. It would include inheritance rights,and next of kin rights and property rights but not tax breaks or insurance benifits and stuff like that. The civil union would recognise that 2 people that love each other and have made a comitment. In the event of the 2 parties wanting to break the comitment they have to get something like a divorice.

And also, just because some people do not have children when they are married does not mean that teh overall reason for marriage is not to have children. I will grant that some things in society do need to change and maybe this is one of them. One might also say that gays can adopt children. This is not right either. Children come from man+woman their for should only be given to men and woman unions. (now this truely is natural).

Civil Unions would be a good thing for many gay couples
Same Sex Marriage would open a whole new can of worms.

Ugg

Nov 19, 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
And also, just because some people do not have children when they are married does not mean that teh overall reason for marriage is not to have children. I will grant that some things in society do need to change and maybe this is one of them. One might also say that gays can adopt children. This is not right either. Children come from man+woman their for should only be given to men and woman unions. (now this truely is natural).

To say that only straight people or people in marriages can raise children is ludicrous. What about all those fatherless households with a grandmother present or vice versa. The 50s version of family, the infamous "nuclear family" is one of the most limiting and destructive definitions ever. Families over time have consisted of many members of no blood relation, some of only one sex, many with multiple generations, etc, etc. The whole defense of family idea is stupid. What is the govt. going to do? Legislate what is or is not family? Come on, the world is changing and it is time to recognize that same sex unions, whether sexual or not have brought up one heck of a lot of children without causing undue harm to the family.

What is your definition of family and why should the government be compelled to defend it when there has never been and will never be any one encompassing definition.

question fear

Nov 19, 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Children come from man+woman their for should only be given to men and woman unions. (now this truely is natural).

Civil Unions would be a good thing for many gay couples
Same Sex Marriage would open a whole new can of worms.

1) Does that mean adopted kids are the product of immoral families?
2) Funny, everyone thought interracial marriage would kill the moral fabric of society too...and it hasn't happened yet.

What strikes me during this whole thread is how people seem so concerned about how same-sex marriage will affect them...but my question is, Why? No one is asking you to marry gay. (props to Jon Stewart for that joke.)
This is an issue of inequality...it is an issue of intolerance, and it is an issue of civil rights.
So really, it doesnt affect anyone except the minority who seeks the civil right.
Ergo, the only people who should care this much are gay. *interpret that as you will.*

-Carly

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2003, 11:11 PM

Here's an idea:

throw out the whole idea of a government-recognised "marriage." The gov't can "marry" no one.

Replace it with a government-recognised "civil union" or contract or whatever. Most people will still call it marriage; the only difference will be in name and scope.

Then let everyone run off to their respective churches and get "married" (or not).[/idea]

Notice I did not have to discriminate against anyone in my above idea. There was no separate description for gay and straight and no need for one.

In my faith, marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. However, if two people are married by the state but not in the sacrament, they are not married in the eyes of God. Even as a staunch Catholic, gay government marriage can therefore be okay, because it's not going to happen in my faith and therefore not going to violate my religious point of view. And who am I to dictate what other faiths will have their God recognise as holy matrimony?

For all those who've opposed (and even some who are half supportive) the idea, replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage" in your statements against it and see what's wrong with your line of reasoning. If it were switched around and coming out of someone else's mouth, you'd likely brand them a bigoted racist.

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2003, 11:19 PM

I'll do one for y'all:

Originally posted by jonapete2001, edited by pseudobrit
I would say that a civil union would be a legal union between 2 people of different races. It would include inheritance rights,and next of kin rights and property rights but not tax breaks or insurance benifits and stuff like that. The civil union would recognise that 2 people that love each other and have made a comitment. In the event of the 2 parties wanting to break the comitment they have to get something like a divorice.

And also, just because some people do not have children when they are married does not mean that teh overall reason for marriage is not to have children. I will grant that some things in society do need to change and maybe this is one of them. One might also say that interracial couples can have children. This is not right either. Children come from same race+same race their for should only be given to same race unions. (now this truely is natural).

Civil Unions would be a good thing for many interracial couples
Interracial Marriage would open a whole new can of worms.

How's that sound?

question fear

Nov 19, 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit

For all those who've opposed (and even some who are half supportive) the idea, replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage" in your statements against it and see what's wrong with your line of reasoning. If it were switched around and coming out of someone else's mouth, you'd likely brand them a bigoted racist.

absolutely positively completely utterly true...can be used in many situations, but this one is just so blatantly true.

btw, your idea about government unions is a good one...i wrote a paper a loooong time ago for a politics class on it...its too bad i lost the paper.
unfortunately for the concept of civil marriage, the culture has tied so much of the marriage ceremony to a spiritual/religious one that its still very difficult to separate them without causing a bigger culture shock than gay marriage, imho.
bah.
in lighter news, my best friend keeps calling and asking if i'm married yet...it reminds me there is a good (but very far-sweat pours cartoonishly out of brow at the thought of marriage at this point) light at the end of this long and ardous tunnel.
--carly

Dros

Nov 19, 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Here's an idea:

throw out the whole idea of a government-recognised "marriage." The gov't can "marry" no one.

Replace it with a government-recognised "civil union" or contract or whatever. Most people will still call it marriage; the only difference will be in name and scope.

Then let everyone run off to their respective churches and get "married" (or not).[/idea]

hehe... you're just the 5th person to come up with that idea so far in this thread, I think. :p

Originally posted by someone else

Children come from man+woman their for should only be given to men and woman unions. (now this truely is natural).

Is it natural for children waiting to be adopted to languish in orphanages or foster homes? Is "natural" always right? A pack of wolves is natural, but I wouldn't want them for a neighbor.

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Dros
hehe... you're just the 5th person to come up with that idea so far in this thread, I think. :p

This thread exploded and I didn't get to read through much more than the last page or two.

It's okay though, it simply means 4 other people have also correctly identified the only wise and just solution to this problem.

;)

jonapete2001

Nov 20, 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by question fear
1) Does that mean adopted kids are the product of immoral families?
2) Funny, everyone thought interracial marriage would kill the moral fabric of society too...and it hasn't happened yet.

What strikes me during this whole thread is how people seem so concerned about how same-sex marriage will affect them...but my question is, Why? No one is asking you to marry gay. (props to Jon Stewart for that joke.)
This is an issue of inequality...it is an issue of intolerance, and it is an issue of civil rights.
So really, it doesnt affect anyone except the minority who seeks the civil right.
Ergo, the only people who should care this much are gay. *interpret that as you will.*

-Carly

I did not mention morality. And no adoptive kids are not part of immorality. You must realise that even adoptive kids were a product of a man and a woman.
And the arguement that the only people that should care are gay does not hold any wait. That is like arguing that only people that were victims of a crime would be allowed to sit on a jury. It is a soicietal and cultural issue. Al of society should be involved when deciding.

vniow

Nov 20, 2003, 02:15 AM

If my getting married to another woman somehow affects yours in any way, then the foundation in which it was built on must not have been very strong to begin with.

Sayhey

Nov 20, 2003, 03:59 AM

A toast from San Francisco to the good people of Massachusetts and especially to the brave and clear sighted justices of their State Supreme Court!

I think there will be a lot of San Franciscans vacationing in Boston this summer. The local justices of the peace should be prepared for a surge in business.

It is a victory for all people when changes toward the recognition of the common humanity and equality of everyone is won. As such, it should not be something that causes fear in anyone. I realize that the Falwells, Robertsons, and Bushs of this nation will stoke the flames of fear and hatred, but when more folks see their neighbors living lives that they have enjoyed and the earth doesn't spin out of its orbit, then maybe we can heal a little as a nation.

As to the legal maneuvers, this is just the opening battle on this issue in the courts, but it still should be celebrated. The Massachusetts State Constitution cannot be changed in short order (it takes two consecutive legislative sessions and a statewide vote) so a State repeal could not happen before 2006 or so. By that time let's hope some of the other states can catch up to Massachusetts.

Now I'm wondering what our new "pro-gay rights" Governor in California will do when married couples come back from Boston and demand recognition of their marriages? What will he say at a National Republican Convention when a campaign of hate toward gay people is launched in order to scare people into voting for Bush? And will the "Log Cabin" Republicans finally decide to leave a party that makes shoving them back into the closet and accepting second class status a rallying cry?

This is going to get heated as the next year unfolds. I, for one, had wished this had happen in a non-election year, but it was going to be a battle whenever it happened, just like every other civil rights advance has been. I just hope there are enough members of the Senate and the House to prevent the horrible scar a "Defense of Marriage" amendment would be to the Constitution. Hang on to your hats and put on your wading boots for the coming storm of sanctimonious demagoguery coming from the right-wing zealots!

Anyway, once again, a toast to this new step that has been so long in coming.

question fear

Nov 20, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I did not mention morality. And no adoptive kids are not part of immorality. You must realise that even adoptive kids were a product of a man and a woman.
And the arguement that the only people that should care are gay does not hold any wait. That is like arguing that only people that were victims of a crime would be allowed to sit on a jury. It is a soicietal and cultural issue. Al of society should be involved when deciding.

i apologize if i put words in your mouth, that was not my intention.
However, victims of crime are different than same-sex marriage. Crime affects everyone, whereas same-sex marriage ONLY affects those who choose to get married. This is a private classification the state confers onto people who make a certain commitment. Who i choose to spend my life with and commit to does not affect your life in any way. Thats why i was saying gay people are the ones who should care.
As for this being a societal and cultural issue, this is true. But as pseudobrit and so many others have pointed out, just being a social issue does not grant the majority the right to withhold rights from the minority (ala interracial marriage). Just because something makes you upset does not mean I should not have the right to do it, especially since the effect on your life is negligible at worst.
As for adopted kids being the product of a "natural" union between a man and a woman, does that mean its ok for same-sex couples to adopt, since the kid is "natural"? And wouldn't it make the kid's life better if his or her parents were married?
No matter how upset everyone gets over this, it comes down to NIMBY. Not in my backyard. If its a civil union its not in your metaphorical yard (marriage). But once you have to share that term with someone else, you're terrified it dilutes your "property value" which is ridiculous.
--Carly

radhak

Nov 20, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
It would include inheritance rights,and next of kin rights and property rights but not tax breaks or insurance benifits and stuff like that.

sigh! back to square one. so now you want to pick and chose at random which right you would grant and which not? i agree, it must feel pretty good to play god and be magnanimous about doling out such goodwill.

Children come from man+woman their for should only be given to men and woman unions. (now this truely is natural).

word of advice. don't bring in 'natural' (as in a gift of nature) too much into such a debate, might prove counter-productive to your point . marriage is not truly natural. sex, cohabitation and family are natural. and homosexuality is definitely natural, while i don't want to hijack this thread by starting on whether the bible or even religion is.

Same Sex Marriage would open a whole new can of worms.
no, the can of worms is long open. you are just ignoring it.

this thread has gone long enough. lets start something new ;)

mactastic

Nov 20, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by question fear
Ergo, the only people who should care this much are gay. *interpret that as you will.*

Not entirely true, some of us breeders are very much on your side. Last time I checked I was still straight, but I do have enough gay and lesbian friends that I feel very strongly about the issue. Plus the basic issue of equal protection under the law seems very clear to me here, and that there has been a grave injustice done for many, many years to a group that by all accounts amounts to about 10% of our population.

Where is that link that was floating around showing that homophobic straights were more aroused by gay porn than non-homophobic straights?:D

question fear

Nov 20, 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
Not entirely true, some of us breeders are very much on your side. Last time I checked I was still straight, but I do have enough gay and lesbian friends that I feel very strongly about the issue. Plus the basic issue of equal protection under the law seems very clear to me here, and that there has been a grave injustice done for many, many years to a group that by all accounts amounts to about 10% of our population.

Where is that link that was floating around showing that homophobic straights were more aroused by gay porn than non-homophobic straights?:D

thats actually what i was referencing...when i said that i was thinking that most of the "breeders" jumping in were arguing fairly rationally, so i wasnt even considering that segment of the posters in that comment. apologies to anyone who misunderstood.

but yes, the last part of your post is where i was going with that statement about homophobia and repressed desire...i remember the study, but it was in a class a while back, so i dont remember who did it.

Taft

Nov 20, 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by tazo
You're grossly misinformed Paul ; there is, or atleast was, an all gay school, a publically funded, public school in NY, in which straight individuals were barred from attending.

Here are some links:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030728-095838-5101r.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/08/14/gay.school.ap/
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030728-095838-5101r.htm

You are grossly misinformed...or, at least, didn't read the articles you posted. None of the artcles you linked to make it clear whether straight students would be barred from the school. There is a lawsuit in progress, but the school's officials have said that heterosexual students can, in fact, attend. Your links clearly indicate this.

Also, there are schools for troubled teens, for mentally handicapped students, for violent offenders, for "gifted" students, etc., etc. Could a non-gifted student get into a gifted school? Could a non-violent offender get into a violent offender school?

And whoever said that this was offtopic was right on the mark. You have said that you are afraid this ruling might lead to further rulings which are unconstitutional. On what basis do you make this statement?

This ruling was simply about the definition of marriage under Mass. law. It isn't a case of legislating from the bench. The justices were asked to interpret the law and judge its constitutionality. It in no way opens the door for unconsitutional "legislation from the bench" or promotes the "homosexual agenda."

When you start making statements like this, your prejudice is exposed. You are basically saying, "don't give those homosexuals an inch, or they are going to take a mile and harm society in the process." You say this knowing full well that this case is solely about whether a particular law is discriminating against a group of people.

We can argue about the supposed opression of the caucasion male elsewhere, but it has nothing to do with this case or giving homosexual "life partners" the same benifits under law as their heterosexual equivilents.

Taft

Taft

Nov 20, 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
A marriage is defined as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ".

Who defined marriage as such?

A church? A group of people? If so, it doesn't matter even a little bit in this conversation. The only thing that matters is what state law says on the subject, considering that is where all marriage laws in this country are currently written.

The justices were not legislating from the from the bench in this case. This is a cop-out statement increasingly used by conservative advocates who don't like the fact that morality laws without constitutional backing are being shut down by the courts.

The justices in this case said that Mass. law concerning marriages does not bar gay people from being married. The justices did not write a new law, they simply interpreted the law on the books and found that it did not apply exclusively to a heterosexual couple. They even gave the legislature 180 to patch the "loophole" if they are so inclined.

What you call "legislating from the bench" is really interpreting the law, which is what justices are supposed to do in our system of government.

Taft

pdham

Nov 20, 2003, 12:41 PM

QUOTE]Originally posted by paulwhannel

-No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32)
[/QUOTE]

VERSE: but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

You are definitely correct on this one the bible does teach that divorce is a sin and unless the spouse is cheating on you, it is a form of adultery, hence, no one else should willing marry into an adulteress relationship. This may be against popular culture, but fully supporting marriage and discouraging the divorces that tare families (mine included) apart doesn’t seem like that evil of a position.

Originally posted by paulwhannel

-No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15)

VERSE: The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives….As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.

Hmm.. if you actually read the verse you will see that it doesn’t at all say that widows shouldn’t marry. It does say (I didn’t include this part because of space) that widows over 60 with a family would be better served serving God for the remained of their days. But it clearly says that to live a more Godly life, because we are all human and tempted by sin, that young widows should remarry and have children.

Originally posted by paulwhannel

-No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27)

VERSES: then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while (Numners 25:6-8) 2They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. (1 kings 11:2) After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness." (Ezra 9:1-2) Nehemiah Chap 13 talks about the same thing

First off this isn’t a question of races. Israelite and Midianites were both Middle Eastern. The reason why the Lord said he forbid them to marry was that Israelites were his chosen people, and the Midianites were trying to convert them to paganism. Skin color or ethnicity has nothing to do with what is said here, it is a matter of the spiritual and real war that often was going on between the too peoples. Also Salomon was a blessed king of God, more of a reason to not want him to marry into the pagan religion. Read Judges for more info. In the end all these verses talk about the intermarrying between the chosen people of God and the people that were trying to tear down Israel’s religion. Not about race.

Verse: Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into (Numbers 36:3)

This verse, as do the other 7 you mentioned deal with the idea of inheritance. Like I mentioned before the 12 tribes of Israel, while friendly, were each given an inheritance through one of the “big names” (i.e. Isaac, Jacob, etc) of the OT. Their covenant with God was to grow their nations. So these verses are just saying don’t go and lose some of the inheritance that was covenanted with God by giving in through marriage to another tribe that had also made a covenant with God. Again, nothing to do with race.

Originally posted by paulwhannel

-No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

True. No person that was truly a Christian that had given their life to God and faith in Christ should marry someone that isn’t as passionate about living their life for God. Although if you come to Christ during a marriage it is not a sin to be married to someone who hasn’t.

Originally posted by paulwhannel

-No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28)

VERSE: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It is true that as Jesus said, adultery is not just a physical action. However, one of the gifts of marriage is that it can free you from the temptation that lust brings. Therefore, it does not say you can’t marry if you have lustful thoughts for people outside of marriage. (Read 1st Corinthians for more info) This is not the same instance as someone being married and then divorced, because ot Christians divorce doesn’t mean you are free of the covenent of marriage with God, that is why it says you shouldn’t remarry after divorce. But in this case, as Corinthians says, if you can’t control your temptations, you should get married: 1 Cor. 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

MORE IN NEXT POST

pdham

Nov 20, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel

You are right about his one as well. The interesting thing about this idea is that it is never mentioned in the NT even though there are many more passages dealing with marriage. The best explanation I have is that it returns to the idea of the inheritance and covenant with the 12 tribes of Israel. In the OT God works through genealogical lines of people, and these families made covenants with the Lord that are suppose to last for generations. This coupled with the fact that marrying the brother of a dead husband was the cultural tradition inside and outside the church makes me believe that it was taught in order to ensure the continuing of the family blood lines God was working through. And because of Christ their was no need for the use of family blood lines anymore, hence this teachings absence in the NT.

Originally posted by paulwhannel
[B
-No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossions 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Tutus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).

I wont quote all of these versus, but I am sure they contain the worked submissive or some variation there of, hence your point. The Greek word for submissive is “hupotasso.” It means a volunteering attitude of giving in, cooperation, and helping to share the burden. Notice the use of words like voluntary and share. Using the word submissive ot submit is a terrible translation, if you study the context and original greek/Hebrew for these verses you will see that it is trying to give a picture of a joint endeavor of man and wife. However, it is true that the man is suppose to be the spiritual head of the house. It is also true that the man is suppose to serve the women with a heart of unconditional love. Way to many verses dealing with that to list here.

Originally posted by paulwhannel
-No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman's menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)

These are definitely strange versus. The first one you listed and the last one just speak to the fact that sex during a women’s period is shall we say, slightly messy. “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.” The second one is more perplexing and I haven’t and study on the subject with which to give you an answer. If I do get one I will let you know.

Originally posted by paulwhannel

This one is tuff because of the clouded word translation. In the NASB version (probably the most accurate English translation) the word is not rape but seize. “If any man should seize a women…” the Hebrew word for seize is Taphas, which means to handle. So it is very unclear to scholars if this is referring to rape or not. If it is than you have a legitimate point. IF not it is referring to the idea that if you have sex outside of marriage you should marry the person you sleep with.

The second part is much more clear cut:

VERSE: If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

What do you do when you are raped? Scream for help. They are using the fact that the women didn’t scream for help as evidence that the sex was consensual.

Originally posted by paulwhannel
[B]
-No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).

All these versus refer to a quarelsom / ill-tempered / basically mean woman. If you know the Bible you know that in many places it says Love thy neighbor. In fat Jesus calls t one of the two most important commands. So, these versus are saying that a true Christian that follows God shouldn’t marry someone who doesn’t have a heart for their fellow man.

Thanks or reading this and challenging me to do some research. If you have any other questions please ask.

Taft

Nov 20, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by pdham

...

I appreciate what you are trying to do. But I have two points to counter your posts.

First, many people believe that because the Bible is so full of inconsistencies that it cannot be followed to the word. In fact, most people today would never even try. Other people simply believe that the bible is a nice collection of lessons to be learned, but is not God's word. My point? That even true Christians often don't believe that the Bible is God's word.

Second, even though you tried to "take the edge" off of what those passages really meant, many of those lessons still come off as unenlightened, racist, and misogynistic. You are making an interpretation of the text. Other people interpret it differently. People like myself interpret it as meaning something far more sinister than you.

Taft

pdham

Nov 20, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Taft
I appreciate what you are trying to do. But I have two points to counter your posts.

First, many people believe that because the Bible is so full of inconsistencies that it cannot be followed to the word. In fact, most people today would never even try. Other people simply believe that the bible is a nice collection of lessons to be learned, but is not God's word. My point? That even true Christians often don't believe that the Bible is God's word.

Second, even though you tried to "take the edge" off of what those passages really meant, many of those lessons still come off as unenlightened, racist, and misogynistic. You are making an interpretation of the text. Other people interpret it differently. People like myself interpret it as meaning something far more sinister than you.

Taft

Please give me an inconsistency. This has been said so many times, but in all my research I have yet to see someone actually give an inconsistency that follows all the way to the original text. Inconsistencies in modern English translations, absolutely, but not in the ancient Hebrew, Greek or Aramic.

If someone calls themselves a Christian and doesnt believe that the Bible is God's word, they are not a true Christian. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but you can't say I beleive that christ died for my sins, but the book that talks about it is inaccurate.

I am not making an interpertation, I am using all the passages in the Bible, together with the history of the time and the authors to bring into a bigger picture where these versus stand in relation to the whole body of the bible. If all you do is remove one passage and say it means something, but have never studied the Bible, your chances of being correct are very slim. No I didnt reference where I pulled all my info from, but you can trust me that it is all grounded in teachings and history, If i referenced or used verses to show every point, my post would of been 19 pages long.

Paul

Taft

Nov 20, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by pdham
Please give me an inconsistency. This has been said so many times, but in all my research I have yet to see someone actually give an inconsistency that follows all the way to the original text. Inconsistencies in modern English translations, absolutely, but not in the ancient Hebrew, Greek or Aramic.

Go do a google search for "Inconsistencies in the Bible" (don't use the quotes).

I can't say with certainty that the inconsistencies existed in the original texts, but considering the size of the texts and the lack of an appropriate editing process, I can say that inconsistencies almost certainly existed in the original texts as well.

If someone calls themselves a Christian and doesnt believe that the Bible is God's word, they are not a true Christian. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but you can't say I beleive that christ died for my sins, but the book that talks about it is inaccurate.

Bull.

And you did offend me as well as many of my friends and family.

A Christian is a person who believes in Christ and that he died for our sins. You don't have to believe that the Bible is God's word (or that he wrote it through mortal men) to believe in Christ, to ask for his forgiveness, or to worship God. If you believe that the Bible was written by man and has problems as a result, you are not violating the teachings of Christ. You may be violating a doctrine of a particular religion, but that concerns me little as I'm not affiliated with any particular religion. I would even venture a guess that most Christians today don't believe that the Bible is God's word and must be followed to the letter. I agree with them.

What you are really saying is that I am not a Christian according to your standards.

Quite honestly I couldn't give a crap what you think of my relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

I am not making an interpertation, I am using all the passages in the Bible, together with the history of the time and the authors to bring into a bigger picture where these versus stand in relation to the whole body of the bible. If all you do is remove one passage and say it means something, but have never studied the Bible, your chances of being correct are very slim. No I didnt reference where I pulled all my info from, but you can trust me that it is all grounded in teachings and history, If i referenced or used verses to show every point, my post would of been 19 pages long.

Yes, you are. You may be correct that you are making a more informed interpretation of the text, but you are making an interpretation nonetheless.

Most writing is ambiguous. That is why lawyers must be trained so well to parse words and write unambiguously.

What you are trying to say is that you know better than I (or anyone else here) what the original authors of the Bible intended to say. Through study and research a person might achieve a better understanding of circumstantial and historical influence on what the authors wrote. But, because you do not know the authors, nor do you know their minds, you cannot say with certainty what they meant.

The best you can do is to interpret what they meant. That is the best any of us can do.

And my interpretation differs greatly from yours. In fact, the variance in opinion on what the Bible really means is likely very high.

You do not speak the one true word...at least according to me. That may not matter to you, but you must understand this in order to see my arguments.

Taft

Raid

Nov 20, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Taft
First, many people believe that because the Bible is so full of inconsistencies that it cannot be followed to the word. In fact, most people today would never even try. Other people simply believe that the bible is a nice collection of lessons to be learned, but is not God's word. My point? That even true Christians often don't believe that the Bible is God's word.

Maybe inconsistencies is not quite the right word. I'm no theologian, and I'm no Christian (despite my parents best attempts); but instead of inconsistencies I would say 'interpretations'. Maybe the bible is the word of god, but man wrote and re-wrote that word, and might have changed it's meaning...

BTW this whole religion discussion is getting off topic, and even in all those rules I didn't see one about homosexuals (but I could have missed it).

Furthermore the separation of church and state was done so that other beliefs could be expressed by members of the population. If your problem with homosexual marriages is only based in religious beliefs, then you should realize that you don't have a legal foundation to enforce that belief on others.

Raid

- I am B

Rower_CPU

Nov 20, 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Raid
...
- I am B

<OT post>
As in Daniel Quinn's Story of B? If so, me too.
</OT post>

pdham

Nov 20, 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Taft
Go do a google search for "Inconsistencies in the Bible" (don't use the quotes).

I can't say with certainty that the inconsistencies existed in the original texts, but considering the size of the texts and the lack of an appropriate editing process, I can say that inconsistencies almost certainly existed in the original texts as well.

Bull.

And you did offend me as well as many of my friends and family.

A Christian is a person who believes in Christ and that he died for our sins. You don't have to believe that the Bible is God's word (or that he wrote it through mortal men) to believe in Christ, to ask for his forgiveness, or to worship God. If you believe that the Bible was written by man and has problems as a result, you are not violating the teachings of Christ. You may be violating a doctrine of a particular religion, but that concerns me little as I'm not affiliated with any particular religion. I would even venture a guess that most Christians today don't believe that the Bible is God's word and must be followed to the letter. I agree with them.

What you are really saying is that I am not a Christian according to your standards.

Quite honestly I couldn't give a crap what you think of my relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

Yes, you are. You may be correct that you are making a more informed interpretation of the text, but you are making an interpretation nonetheless.

Most writing is ambiguous. That is why lawyers must be trained so well to parse words and write unambiguously.

What you are trying to say is that you know better than I (or anyone else here) what the original authors of the Bible intended to say. Through study and research a person might achieve a better understanding of circumstantial and historical influence on what the authors wrote. But, because you do not know the authors, nor do you know their minds, you cannot say with certainty what they meant.

The best you can do is to interpret what they meant. That is the best any of us can do.

And my interpretation differs greatly from yours. In fact, the variance in opinion on what the Bible really means is likely very high.

You do not speak the one true word...at least according to me. That may not matter to you, but you must understand this in order to see my arguments.

Taft

First let me apologize for offending you, reading what you wrote this time about not necessarily agreeing with everything in the Bible but being saved through Christ I must wholeheartedly agree. The way I originally took it is that you can call yourself a Christian but not believe that the Bible speaks any truth... which of course would be ridiculous because then you couldnt say you believe in Christ. Please accept my apology and the misunderstanding.

I never claimed I spoke the one true word, all I said is that using the knowledge I have I can tell you that the great generalization that were in the first post I was responding to were not correct. And I havent heard you say that you even agree with everything that was said in the post I first responded to. And i guess my point was that in my "interpretations" I wasnt bring in my own thoughts as the first poster was, everything I said was from a direct translation or other parts of the Bible. If you dont believe the Bible is true than that is your position, but I didnt make any of that stuff up.

Please dont think I am or was attacking you. I hope you understand the initial misunderstanding and that I am in no way judging. It is often hard to get a point across successfully when typing.

And I do understand your arguements. I come from a background where I used science to dismiss everything the Bible taught, my studies have changed my mind that is all. I never wanted to come across as smarter than anyone, but I had the resources to answer the original post so I did.

Taft

Nov 20, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by pdham
First let me apologize for offending you, reading what you wrote this time about not necessarily agreeing with everything in the Bible but being saved through Christ I must wholeheartedly agree. The way I originally took it is that you can call yourself a Christian but not believe that the Bible speaks any truth... which of course would be ridiculous because then you couldnt say you believe in Christ. Please accept my apology and the misunderstanding.

Actuall, offended was the wrong word. Angry is probably closer to the truth.

I see where you are coming from, though I don't agree with you. No harm, no foul.

Taft

Raid

Nov 20, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
<OT post>
As in Daniel Quinn's Story of B? If so, me too.
</OT post>

;) Yep, that'd be the one. A good book, but that's for another discussion! ;)

Frohickey

Nov 20, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
People all across the country are going to use this and the Vermont laws as precedence for finally and at long last extended full legal rights to all citizens...

I'm up for using Vermont as the template on citizen rights...

if it works for gay marriage, it would work for RKBA too. :D

pseudobrit

Nov 20, 2003, 05:36 PM

The Bible is full of factual errors.
I don't have to believe what I know is untrue in order to be a Christian. We've been there before, and Galileo was right.

Where the Bible is infalliable is in matters of faith; the unprovable.

The Bible should not be taken as God's opinion or word on things historical, scientific or moral (social ethics).

mactastic

Nov 20, 2003, 07:30 PM

You already have RKBA. Homosexuals do not yet have the right to marry. You are working to expand RKBA, they are working to get the right to marry. Big difference.

wwworry

Nov 20, 2003, 07:53 PM

Anyway our government is not based on the bible so it is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to live by the old testament - move to Iran.

IJ Reilly

Nov 20, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
Anyway our government is not based on the bible so it is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to live by the old testament - move to Iran.

Um, that would be the Koran.

mactastic

Nov 20, 2003, 08:38 PM

That might be the first time I've heard a liberal use the "love it or leave it" arguement before!

Frohickey

Nov 20, 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
You already have RKBA. Homosexuals do not yet have the right to marry. You are working to expand RKBA, they are working to get the right to marry. Big difference.

Expand? RKBA is endangered is some states. Its maximum in Vermont, almost non-existent in California.

mactastic

Nov 20, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Expand? RKBA is endangered is some states. Its maximum in Vermont, almost non-existent in California.

Right. And you want to expand your RKBA in California correct? And at least you have your right to fight to expand.

wwworry

Nov 20, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
That might be the first time I've heard a liberal use the "love it or leave it" arguement before!

I've been waiting for the perfect moment. :) Isn't the Koran based on or includes the old testament? If it is (or does) it would be the perfect reply to any Christian fundementalist.

pdham

Nov 20, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
I've been waiting for the perfect moment. :) Isn't the Koran based on or includes the old testament? If it is (or does) it would be the perfect reply to any Christian fundementalist.

No, and a "Christian fundemenralsit lives by the New Testament. The teaches of God in the OT arent complete without Jesus and the NT

jonapete2001

Nov 20, 2003, 09:53 PM

Why doesnt the Mass. legislature change the law and actually define marriage as it sees fit. If the court ruled that the current law does not ban gays from getting maried as someone stated above can they just pass a ban. Or did the court outlaw a ban as well.

Congress should just pass a definition of marriage law. That would clear things up in my mind.
Give em civil unions. If a gay person wants to get married then they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like strait people.

Frohickey

Nov 20, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Congress should just pass a definition of marriage law. That would clear things up in my mind.
Give em civil unions. If a gay person wants to get married then they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like strait people.

Congress (federal) is not allowed to pass a definition of marriage law. Its not part of the delegated powers in Art 1 Section 8.

State legislatures could though. If the state legislature does not, then its up to the individual people.

I actually would like the marriage definition to be up to the individual people themselves. Keep the states out of it as well. Unless its in their state Constitutions, then either expand it, or remove it. If its removed, then it goes to the individual people to decide.

vniow

Nov 20, 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
If a gay person wants to get married then they have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No.

I don't want some bloody civil-union crap, that sounds like some sort of emotionless spiritless lawyer formed document, I want a goddamned marriage and I don't give a flying **** if you approve or recognise it or not but I'll be damned if I let people like you stand in my way.

I find terms like "partner" or "companion" rather silly when used to describe only gay couples, those terms only seek to seperate us from the rest of the straight population, like our love for each other is different than how straight people love each other and its not! The only difference is that we are attracted to members of the same sex and I still can't fathom why someone would deny us marriage because of that. When I am in a relationship with another girl I call her my girlfriend, not my partner or some other crap like that, I won't let me or you or anyone else alienate our love for each other from the rest of the population by referring to our relationship by some sort of emotionless legal term, I'm going to get married to my wife someday and I will not let the laws or people's own insecurities around homosexuality be a barrier in that. I find it a bit insulting that someone would deny me marriage to someone I love because of what sex we were born and a civil-union won't cut it. I'm going all the way.

jonapete2001

Nov 20, 2003, 10:38 PM

good for you, just how do you plan on doing anything about it?

vniow

Nov 20, 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
good for you, just how do you plan on doing anything about it?

Voting, educating the general population, not compromising for a bloody "civil-union", voting some more, knocking down some serious FUD that may people have about the queer community (although that could fall under education), some serious activism in the coming months plus I plan to start educating myself on the laws themselves so I can create a formidable argument supporting it from a legal point of view, etc...

jonapete2001

Nov 20, 2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by vniow
Voting, educating the general population, not compromising for a bloody "civil-union", voting some more, knocking down some serious FUD that may people have about the queer community (although that could fall under education), etc...

Don't you think that most of the general public alreay knows all about gay people and what they are about. Some of FUD is true. If you love your partner then why do you care what the rest of the population thinks.

Also many people have parralled this to black civil rights. I think not and hear is why. Blacks were considered normal human beings in their natural state. their was nothing wrong with except we(white people) did not like them. Gay people on the other hand are precieved as just wrong and commiting un-natural acts. So if gay marriage is forced down the throats of the majority of middle america, I think it will not be accepted like black civil rights are accepted(what a joke).

Also if gays are actually trying to get social acceptance this will not do it. Blacks were accepted after the rights movement because whites were forced to be with them in cultural/social situations(on the bus, in school, in a restaurant) and they saw they were not bad. Straits and gays are together all the time and most people still are very uneasy about homo-sexuality. Marraige will be significantly cheapened in the eyes of most of the public, if liberal judges force this there will at least be an attempt at a constitutional amendment.

pseudobrit

Nov 20, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Don't you think that most of the general public alreay knows all about gay people and what they are about. Some of FUD is true.

What the hell? You sound on the verge of open gay-bashing. "What they are about" ??? What the hell does that mean?

If you love your partner then why do you care what the rest of the population thinks.

Because if you're gay, the rest of the population gets rights that you are denied. The rights to a union with certain guaranteed legal attachments. That's why.

Also many people have parralled this to black civil rights. I think not and hear is why. Blacks were considered normal human beings in their natural state. their was nothing wrong with except we(white people) did not like them.

Black people were perceived as less than human. It had much more behind it than simple dislike.

Gay people on the other hand are precieved as just wrong and commiting un-natural acts.

By who? You. And any other uninformed member of society.

So if gay marriage is forced down the throats of the majority of middle america, I think it will not be accepted like black civil rights are accepted(what a joke).

Because blacks are natural and homosexuality is unnatural? That's a weak argument. And you're ignoring vast scientific findings to the contrary.

Also if gays are actually trying to get social acceptance this will not do it. Blacks were accepted after the rights movement because whites were forced to be with them in cultural/social situations(on the bus, in school, in a restaurant) and they saw they were not bad.

No, racism, like drink driving was made to be socially unacceptable; no longer is it cool or behaviour of civilised people. So it was toned down, and in some cases, eliminated.

Straits and gays are together all the time and most people still are very uneasy about homo-sexuality.

Who is uneasy? You. And any other uninformed member of society.

Marraige will be significantly cheapened in the eyes of most of the public, if liberal judges force this there will at least be an attempt at a constitutional amendment.

Marriage will be cheapened? Literal marriage is a religious union, not a civil one. If your faith only recognises the marriages you agree with, what's your problem with it?

I think you're afraid of homosexuals.

pivo6

Nov 21, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
...... Marraige will be significantly cheapened in the eyes of most of the public, if liberal judges force this there will at least be an attempt at a constitutional amendment.

Psuedo said everything i wanted to, but I'll add. I'm a married man. If Veronica wants to get married, guess what, it doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's one bit. If gays/lesbians are allowed to marry, then do I tell my wife of 13 years that are marriage is cheapened?

And one more thing, judges whether they are liberal or conservative, are not forcing anything on anyone.

voicegy

Nov 21, 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Marraige will be significantly cheapened in the eyes of most of the public[...]

No offense to the more lucid thinking heterosexuals who have been kind enough to post their thoughts towards this issue, but I think there are plenty of examples where it seems that marriage already HAS been cheapened.

As for the rest of your post, well...I want to keep this thread civil and not wastelanded, so I'll just stop here.:rolleyes:

radhak

Nov 21, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Don't you think that most of the general public alreay knows all about gay people
...
yada yada yada
...
a constitutional amendment.

you know what, you might do yourself a huge favor by not posting any further.

while you are not the first homophobe i have come across, you surely rank up there when it comes to 'significantly cheapening' (what a construct!) the very core of democracy - that which champions 'one person, one vote'.

let go, brother. you are not scoring any points at all.

Dros

Nov 21, 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by vniow
No.

I don't want some bloody civil-union crap, that sounds like some sort of emotionless spiritless lawyer formed document, I want a goddamned marriage
...
I find it a bit insulting that someone would deny me marriage to someone I love because of what sex we were born and a civil-union won't cut it. I'm going all the way.

I thought your post was interesting. Several people, myself included, have popped in with "say, how about a legal 'civil union' for everyone, straight or gay, and then people can get married in whatever religious ceremony they want". I'm straight, and married, but in the not too distant past was uncomfortable with 'marriage' in part because of the religious overtones and instead wanted a "spiritless document" as you say instead. Also because I had some close gay friends and felt bad partaking in something denied to them.

I guess I would say that if a "civil union" was the sole legal recourse, I admit that people would still most likely refer to themselves as married, not unionified, so the historical overtones are hard to ignore. Ugg mentioned a two part system in Germany. Ugg, what do people call themselves if they only used the civil ceremony? Anyway, I guess it is somewhat funny to me that I'm fighting for a dry legal document and you want marriage, warts and all.

vniow

Nov 21, 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
If you love your partner then why do you care what the rest of the population thinks.

This is the only part of your post that I will respond to since the rest of it was covered already, I have already expressed my distaste for the word "partner" in regards to intimate relationships with two members of the same sex and you go around and use the term again. You show your true colours with this simple little statement that I find to be a bit lacking in respect, like I mentioned before, I honestly don't care whether you approve or not, its not my place to tell you how to feel about homosexuality, I do however demand respect for mine, whether you agree or approve of them or not.

Originally posted by Dros
Anyway, I guess it is somewhat funny to me that I'm fighting for a dry legal document and you want marriage, warts and all.

I wuoldn't have it any other way, I'm going all out when I get married, be that to a man or a woman, laws and intolerance be damned.

jonapete2001

Nov 21, 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by radhak
you know what, you might do yourself a huge favor by not posting any further.

while you are not the first homophobe i have come across, you surely rank up there when it comes to 'significantly cheapening' (what a construct!) the very core of democracy - that which champions 'one person, one vote'.

let go, brother. you are not scoring any points at all.

Is this a joke, I do not want to score points and who is keeping score anyway. Why would an amendment cheapen the core of democracy. What does that have to do with voting. why should i not post because people on this forum do not agree with me. I did not gay bash( and what if i did!). This thread and this political area of the forum is so far out of touch with "middle" america.
Many on this board come across a statement that they disagree with and say oh that is a cheap arguement. No one replied to the truth of how people really are in america.

By blatently disregarding the will of the majority of americans you are cheapening democracy(does that make sense, well about as much as your statement did!)

Redhak called me a homophobe, this could not be farther than the truth. I do not fear any gays. Actually if you would have read my previous posts my brother is gay. Whoah, you are asking yourself how can this man be true. His brother is gay and he still does not want him to be able to marry his partner. Wow what a concept. someone who personally knows(very well) a gay person and still disagrees with a liberal concept. hmm, I bet all the liberals who feal the need to enlighten america with their "obviously correct" view point are stunned.

I have a gay brother and still am not in favor of gay marriage. I also have a homosexual aunt who had a private exchange of vows. they proved to each other that they loved each other and told our family at the ceremony. they got their point across.

I always wonder why liberals are so intolerant of people with different beliefs. please someone tell me again how i am not enlightened and i do not know what i am talking about. I would just make my day. Tell me that i am a hate monger and that i am dense and obtuse and a bigot. I just laugh, because tomorrow i know i will see my brother and his boyfriend when i go over to their apartment and i will not run in fear like many of you think i would. Also this might really blow your mind, my brother(the gay one) is not a liberal, he is a compasionate conservative.(wow, is what you are thinking in know) some one who "should" be liberal and is not. ?????????

Do poligamists hurt anyone? I dont think so, then why can't they marry who ever they want, I see a new liberal cause coming. they love their spouses and honestly care for them(as much as any gay or strait partnerships). Why are they opressed. I dont get it. Please some one enlighten me once again so that i can see the light of the liberal pc police.

jonapete2001

Nov 21, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by vniow
This is the only part of your post that I will respond to since the rest of it was covered already, I have already expressed my distaste for the word "partner" in regards to intimate relationships with two members of the same sex and you go around and use the term again. You show your true colours with this simple little statement that I find to be a bit lacking in respect, like I mentioned before, I honestly don't care whether you approve or not, its not my place to tell you how to feel about homosexuality, I do however demand respect for mine, whether you agree or approve of them or not.

I wuoldn't have it any other way, I'm going all out when I get married, be that to a man or a woman, laws and intolerance be damned.

I will use the term that i see fit, you prefer what ever you want. Most people use the term partner, I will not change for you, just as you will not change your sexuality for me(not that i want you to or anything)

Quote from pseudobrit
"By who? You. And any other uninformed member of society"

Just because i disagree why do you assume i must be uninformed. Typical liberal elitest ************!!!

vniow

Nov 21, 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
This thread and this political area of the forum is so far out of touch with "middle" america.

I've lived in "middle" America for 16 years, I know damn well where they stand on things, the vast majority of my family is there, I'm not out of touch at all. I was assaulted by my own uncle when I came out to him, is this the majority of Americans you seem to be "defending" by denying us marriage? Not only are we legally discriminated against, violence against us for no other reason but our existence is also a part of life.

Actually if you would have read my previous posts my brother is gay. Whoah, you are asking yourself how can this man be true. His brother is gay and he still does not want him to be able to marry his partner. Wow what a concept. someone who personally knows(very well) a gay person and still disagrees with a liberal concept. hmm, I bet all the liberals who fell the need to enlighten america with their "obviously correct" view point are stunned.

Ovi/sanfelipe/bond003/g5man, is that you? I haven't seen that much complaining about liberals in a looong time.
I must say that's pretty cold of you to not support your own brother and aunt in legal recognition of their bond, if you were my brother I'd honestly be more than a little insulted. This is not some "liberal" concept like you're so happily dismissing it as, its a civil-rights issue. You have rights that I do not, the right to marry someone you love. We both are attracted to the same gender and yet you can marry and I cannot. The only reason for that is that I am of the opposite gender as you. Now does that (gender) sound as a valid reason for denying marriage?

I always wonder why liberals are so intolerant of people with different beliefs.

For someone who has gay family members who I assume are close to you, you have some pretty intolerant ideas about them, your ludicris stand on not allowing gay couples to adapt for example, you you really believe that your brother and his boyfriend (assuming they're in a stable relationship) raise a child somehow less effectively than a stable straight couple? What about single parents? Families that have the grandparents or aunts and uncles live with them, are those families less suitable for raising children like a couple of the same gender would? Or are they okay because they're not doing something which you view as wrong?

Also this might really blow your mind, my brother(the gay one) is not a liberal, he is a compasionate conservative.(wow, is what you are thinking in know) some one who "should" be liberal and is not. ?????????

There's no reason why gays can't be conservative, the Log Cabin Republicans are the largest gay conservative group in America and while they're not exactly well known they do exist.

Do poligamists hurt anyone? I dont think so, then why can't they marry who ever they want, I see a new liberal cause coming.

Yeah, stupid liberals, all those causes and agendas. I guess "All men are created equal" must be too hard to understand.

I will use the term that i see fit, you prefer what ever you want. Most people use the term partner, I will not change for you, just as you will not change your sexuality for me(not that i want you to or anything)

And I will ask you to respect my views on certain terms and not be referred to by them. This is an issue of respect and I will consider it disrespectful to me if you continue to refer to me or my relationships in this manner. You are under no obligation to stop using those said terms but I would consider it an act of respect if you did not use those when you are referring to me.

jonapete2001

Nov 21, 2003, 01:48 AM

quote: by jonapete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do poligamists hurt anyone? I dont think so, then why can't they marry who ever they want, I see a new liberal cause coming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:response to above quote. by vniow

Yeah, stupid liberals, all those causes and agendas. I guess "All men are created equal" must be too hard to understand

Why did you not answer the question? Why? Please if you are gonna qoute me then at least answer the question.

You may think i am cold for not supporting their legal recognition of marriage, but then again i do support civil unions. I have my pricipals and i will stick to them. I do not change just because i found out my brother was gay. why should i. I think all gays should be treated equal under the law. Also about the gay adoption I do not support it because children are meant to be with a man and a woman, that is how god or nature of what ever designed. Do not attack this because other families are already broken and unstable. That does not make sense, its like argueing that if some people are killed then why not kill them all.( I am not saying being gay is like killing kids so dont even go their)

vniow

Nov 21, 2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why did you not answer the question? Why? Please if you are gonna qoute me then at least answer the question

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I don't do anything here by accident. If I wished to answer your question like you expected me to I would have but I did not.

Also about the gay adoption I do not support it because children are meant to be with a man and a woman, that is how god or nature of what ever designed.

Nature has many different ways to define how offspring are raised, there's an entire range of what is considered "normal" in how the offspring are raised, just look at different animals. Sometimes its just the mother or just the father, sometimes its many generations who take part, and even sometimes its the mother and the father who are the only ones who take a real part in raising the offspring. You're ignoring the rest of the natural world when you claim that that is how "god or nature or what ever designed". There's even a variance in how humans define how a child is raised although I would say that it has more to do with society than nature.

Do not attack this because other families are already broken and unstable. That does not make sense, its like argueing that if some people are killed then why not kill them all.( I am not saying being gay is like killing kids so dont even go their)

Can someone else make sense of this statement? I'm not exactly sure what exactly you're trying to say here, its a bit incoherent...

voicegy

Nov 21, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
You may think i am cold for not supporting their legal recognition of marriage, but then again i do support civil unions. I have my pricipals and i will stick to them. I do not change just because i found out my brother was gay. why should i. I think all gays should be treated equal under the law. Also about the gay adoption I do not support it because children are meant to be with a man and a woman, that is how god or nature of what ever designed.

jonapete2001, I would be fascinated by what your brothers' reaction was/is to the topic at hand. Just curious...did he share with you his opinion on the recent same-sex marriage ruling? I realize that even within my own sub-culture there can be differences of opinion on the subject. Perhaps he may even be interested in this very thread.

radhak

Nov 21, 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by vniow
Can someone else make sense of this statement? I'm not exactly sure what exactly you're trying to say here, its a bit incoherent...

sorry, i have actually given up on him. i find it too tiresome to just understand his rants with all his convoluted logic, let alone reply to them. my guess is thats what his brother and aunt did too :rolleyes:

mactastic

Nov 21, 2003, 10:21 AM

You know, if there had been such a thing as vBulletin during the civil rights era, we would have heard these same arguments with black substituted for gay. (I know I'm not the first one to think that in this thread). 40 years from now people will look back on stuff like this and be amazed at the level of intolerance shown once again.

This is really the last great civil rights cause as far as acceptance of others goes. First we freed the slaves, then we allowed women to vote (that only happened less than 100 years ago! For shame!) then we agreed blacks, and by extension all other "non-whites", were our equal and could drink at the same water fountain as whitey, now we need to extend the same courtesy to homosexuals. Like it or not, they are people and people are to be treated equally under the law. I know some people think allowing gays to marry is a "special" right, and other are afraid that it will "cheapen" the institution of marriage, but time marches on. I guarantee that 100 years from now we will look back in amazement at this cause in the same way we look back at the women's rights movement today.

Would any of the anti-gay-marriage people like to revoke any of the other civil rights for minorities or women? How about going back to the days of slavery? That is the magnitude of the issue we are dealing with here.

Ugg

Nov 21, 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Also about the gay adoption I do not support it because children are meant to be with a man and a woman, that is how god or nature of what ever designed. Do not attack this because other families are already broken and unstable. That does not make sense, its like argueing that if some people are killed then why not kill them all.

I agree with the others that your statements lack cohesiveness. That said, I do take offense with your above statement.

There is absolutely no indication that the only "valid" family unit is male + female + kids. While it does take a male and a female to create a child, the raising of children has been accomplished throughout history with any number of variations upon a theme. Your insinuation that broken or unstable families are any less valid than nuclear families belies belief.

The implication from your statement is that the word family should be defined by the government and any other use of the word would be illegal. This is exactly the kind of social engineering that conservatives have railed against for years.

The government throughout this country's history has tried to assist families through education, recreation facilities, etc, etc. Why should they now decide that only certain families qualify for certain benefits? Marriage is a benefit, not a right, in my mind and benefits need to be given across the board.

Ugg

Nov 21, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Dros
I guess I would say that if a "civil union" was the sole legal recourse, I admit that people would still most likely refer to themselves as married, not unionified, so the historical overtones are hard to ignore. Ugg mentioned a two part system in Germany. Ugg, what do people call themselves if they only used the civil ceremony? Anyway, I guess it is somewhat funny to me that I'm fighting for a dry legal document and you want marriage, warts and all.

There's no difference in terminology. It would be like here in the US if a couple were married by a justice of the peace instead of by a representative of the church. While it is relatively easy to be married in a civil ceremony in Germany, it takes a lot of planning and consultations and paperwork for the church to bless a union in Germany.

The gay marriage laws throughout Europe have not brought on an onslaught of gay marriages although many couples are choosing to be married, the concept is still somewhat foreign. It is expected that in the future, this will change as people become accustomed to the idea. The one aspect of gay marriage in europe that has proved troubling is the fact that each country that has legalized it has different laws. A gay couple moving from Germany to the Netherlands might not be afforded the same rights and protections that a straight couple would and this has serious ramifications now that Europe has no internal borders and emigration is growing.

The EU will probably rule on this at some point in the future and the backlash will be substantial. Italy and Greece have a considerable anti-gay bias (can you imagine the uproar from the vatican if italy were to legalize gay marriage:D ) The US would do well to ensure that all laws apply to all people and not just those whom the church blesses.

Taft

Nov 21, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001 By blatently disregarding the will of the majority of americans you are cheapening democracy(does that make sense, well about as much as your statement did!)

This country was not set up so that the will of the majority would always determine laws and governmental action. The US is not a pure democracy. And thank God this is true. The will of the majority roughly guides our representatives in congress to make the laws. But that is only half of the story.

The point is that on many issues, it doesn't matter what the majority of Americans think about the issue. If a law, rule or policy violates the rights of a person as granted under the constitution (and regardless of whether he is in the minority or the majority), then that law should not exist. It should have nothing to do with the opinion of "middle America." The judges ruling on such issues shouldn't listen to the advice of the American public when making their decisions on the constitutionality of the laws. They should only consider things such as compatibility with existing laws and the constitution and all rights granted therein, precendents set in higher courts, etc.

The problem is that the decision making process of the judges is often politicized. This is why the presidential appointment of judges has become more contentious in recent years: conservative appointed judges tend to side with conservative-drafted laws and liberal judges tend to side with liberal-drafted laws. This is unfortunate as ideally the politics of a particular judge wouldn't affect his duties so drastically.

Redhak called me a homophobe, this could not be farther than the truth. I do not fear any gays.

Well, temporarily setting you brother aside, your previous statements indicate to me a deep-rooted dislike or moral objection to homosexuality. Quotes such as these:

"Gay people on the other hand are precieved as just wrong and commiting un-natural acts."

"So if gay marriage is forced down the throats of the majority of middle america, I think it will not be accepted like black civil rights are accepted(what a joke)." [I still can't figure out if you thinkblack civil rights are a joke, or something else is]

"Straits and gays are together all the time and most people still are very uneasy about homo-sexuality."

Some of these can be construed as statements about what the average American thinks, but you seem to have no objection to what the average American thinks and are therefore complicit in their bigotry. I call it bigotry because many people are trying to deny homosexuals rights because of their moral objection to their existence. They are not denying them rights on the basis of the constitution, or some detriment to society (even though many will often frame the discussion in such terms), but rather on their own moral principles which, given scientific research and evidence, are based solely on their particular spiritual beliefs and religions.

I always wonder why liberals are so intolerant of people with different beliefs. please someone tell me again how i am not enlightened and i do not know what i am talking about.

Liberals are not intolerant of other people, as a whole.

I am intolerant of those people who are willing to suppress a group of people based solely on moral conviction and without basis in the constitution or scientific evidence. You think that a group of people shouldn't have the same rights as "the majority"? You better have constitutional basis, scientific evidence, or something other than "God says so" or "I think its wrong." If not, I believe you are close minded, and many people besides me would think the same way.

Do poligamists hurt anyone? I dont think so, then why can't they marry who ever they want, I see a new liberal cause coming. they love their spouses and honestly care for them(as much as any gay or strait partnerships). Why are they opressed. I dont get it. Please some one enlighten me once again so that i can see the light of the liberal pc police.

You are such a stereotypical hate monger. I'm referring to your deep hatred of the group you call liberals. Somehow, in your mind, liberals are all alike and all evil. You spew the Ann Coulter position proudly and with abandon.

The basic difference between you and me (notice I didn't say you and liberals) is that I don't want the government to arbitrarily tell me what I can or can't do. By implementing laws which are based solely on the morality of the majority, you are arbitrarily restricting my freedoms (and possibly rights as defined by the constitution) because of a religious doctrine.

You, and many other people, are content to let the majority rule the minority through laws based solely on the majority's moral values. To me, this is only acceptable if those laws don't infringe on the constitutional rights of anyone in this country.

Use marijuana as an example. It is illegal to possess marijuana in this country because the majority of people think that it is wrong and they don't want their kids taking the drug. Now, not only are the majority pushing a law down the throats of the country as a whole, but they are doing so contrary to the reality of the situation. Marijuana prohibition hasn't worked. People still smoke it. It is still available. The rate of kids who try it hasn't changed significantly as a result of prohibition. It would cost society less to legalize it, and there are more effective ways to prevent kids from trying it.

So why is it illegal? On what basis do you deny me the right to live my life the way I want to? "Because its wrong" won't cut it.

Polygamy may be another example. Can you identify an injured party in a polygamous relationship? Who is it harming? Society as a whole? How?

This is not a liberal issue!!! If anything its a libertarian issue. And historically libertarians have actually shared more similarities to conservatives than liberals. The bottom line is that the religious right (not the right as a whole) have a problem with libertarian ideals. If libertarians got their way, the religious right wouldn't be able to create laws with basis solely in morals.

Taft

jonapete2001

Nov 21, 2003, 02:37 PM

My remark on black civil rights was not meant to say that it is a joke that blacks wanting rights is a joke or it is a joke that they should get them. It was meant to say that it is a joke to think that they even have complete civil rights. Blacks are still considered second class people in america.

Look into equal pay for equal jobs.

Also many attacked my posts for being homophobic read them again and i clearly state that gays are precieved in certain ways, you can not argue with their overall negative pereption. I did not say that i perceive them negativly.

People you are to quick to attack me, are you even reading what i am writing.

mactastic

Nov 21, 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
are you even reading what i am writing.

Yeah, and I still can't believe it!

I'm guessing your solution to blacks having second class status involves removing affirmative action as a mechanism to alieviate the problem?

At least you aren't trying to tell us that whites are the oppressed ones in this country.

Raid

Nov 21, 2003, 02:45 PM

There's been a growing bad vibe on this thread that's pretty ironic considering were discussing a symbolic act of love. Let's try to keep the quick accusations, and judgements to minmum huh? Name calling on either side degrades these debates to the school yard level, and may give the false comfort of labeling ideas that you should mull over and come up with your reasoning why your for or against that idea.

In that spirit I'm going to respond to a few things:
children are meant to be with a man and a woman, that is how god or nature of what ever designed First this is a statement of belief coming from a personal paradigm. We have already discussed religion in this debate and while it can be used to make up a personal moral guide, it can't be used as THE guide for society. Our society separates the church and state, as well as openly accepts many different theological belief structures. To deny the expression of those beliefs, and to use only one for societys moral compass flys in the face of your constitution, and my charter of rights and freedoms.
Also while it does take a male and a female to sire a child, they don't necessarily raise it. Way back, when we lived in caves, a man and a woman rasing a child alone wouldn't survive very long. That's one of the reasons why we gathered together and started to bulid societies, even in some tribal culutures today the old addage remains "It takes a villiage to raise a child". Really the natural thing for a child is to be cared for by many different people, with many different aspects to their own lives.

I have already expressed my distaste for the word "partner" in regards to intimate relationships with two members of the same sex Vniow, it's obvious your upset with this term, but in voicing your distaste for the term you didn't give us an alternative that you prefer. There are many names that could apply, partner is one of the least offensive ones for a mate that I can think of (I will agree that it's picking up a certain connotation these days). What do you prefer, girlfriend, woman, Fiancée, biological-bed-warmer? :D Obviously names and labels are important (i.e. civil-union <> marriage), but wouldn't a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Just food for thought.

Frohickey

Nov 21, 2003, 04:03 PM

I think this is all unfair.

How about us single people?

How about me and Fluffy? :D :p
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/images/photo74_2_small.jpg

Dros

Nov 21, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by vniow
I wouldn't have it any other way, I'm going all out when I get married, be that to a man or a woman, laws and intolerance be damned.

Well, that's fine with me :) . The point I was trying to make is that I don't see "married" as "all out" compared to a civil union, I see it as an institution loaded down with baggage I'd rather not have associated with my relationship, not the least being it being histortically and presently only available to straight couples. As things stand now, though, I can understand not wanting a second-class civil union, and I would only prefer it if it were the only legal form of relationship recognition for all couples, with people being free to embellish it with religious recognition if they so desire.

Taft

Nov 21, 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why doesnt the Mass. legislature change the law and actually define marriage as it sees fit. If the court ruled that the current law does not ban gays from getting maried as someone stated above can they just pass a ban. Or did the court outlaw a ban as well.

Looks like the Mass. legislature might do just that.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/21/marriage/index.html

Like I said, the judge is simply interpreting the law on the books, not "legislating from the bench." If the Mass. legislature intended to exclude gay people from marriage before, they failed. However, now that the fact has been pointed out, it seems they might just "plug the hole."

I'm a bit saddened by the fact that they feel they have to "plug the hole," but I guess I can't say I'm all that surprised.

I guess quality healthcare, education and the economy must take a back seat to preventing those "sinners" from practicing their evil ways. :rolleyes:

Taft

mactastic

Nov 21, 2003, 04:49 PM

This was not unexpected. From my understanding, a civil union won't pass muster with the court unless it is exactly what a marriage is. The amendment process takes too long, what with the 180 day deadline. We'll see what happens next, but the court was clear in its ruling, if not in the implementation of it.

pseudobrit

Nov 21, 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Also many attacked my posts for being homophobic read them again and i clearly state that gays are precieved in certain ways, you can not argue with their overall negative pereption. I did not say that i perceive them negativly.

Not directly. But you did use other people's "homophobia" as a reason to oppose gay rights.

That's akin to me saying "I think desegregation is a bad idea. Too many whites are afraid of black people so we should segregate them."

In this example, it doesn't matter if I say I don't hate blacks. I've still come to the same hateful racist conclusion as those who do.

Frohickey

Nov 21, 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
This was not unexpected. From my understanding, a civil union won't pass muster with the court unless it is exactly what a marriage is. The amendment process takes too long, what with the 180 day deadline. We'll see what happens next, but the court was clear in its ruling, if not in the implementation of it.

Processes like these should take a long time. All the arguments should be heard, all the debates should be made. Process shouldn't be too long that it never happens, but there needs to be bake time in order to hash out all the details and consequences.

180 day deadline seems a good time for all of this to happen.

Public discourse should happen. Townhall meetings, televised debates, talk radio shows, newspaper articles, newspaper editorials, etc.

sethypoo

Nov 21, 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
And here come the fireworks....

My parents are pretty Catholic and they support gay marriage, so not all who go to church are on the wrong side of this issue.

Amen to that, I am church going Catholic and I support gay marriage, even though I am not gay.

Live and let live, I say. No one way is the right way.

sethypoo

Nov 21, 2003, 07:52 PM

I just wonder if this ruling will stick.

It hasn't caused much of a stir here at UCD.

I've even heard some professors saying that it's going to repealed in 180 days or less.

Frohickey

Nov 21, 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by sethypoo
Amen to that, I am church going Catholic and I support gay marriage, even though I am not gay.

Live and let live, I say. No one way is the right way.

Thats not what the Catholic church says.

As to 'no one way is the right way'. If that is the case, then no one religion is the right religion. That certainly is not the case with some religions.

vniow

Nov 21, 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Raid
Vniow, it's obvious your upset with this term, but in voicing your distaste for the term you didn't give us an alternative that you prefer.

I believe I already mentioned that I prefer girlfriend or wife but I'm not sure so I may be repeating myself. If civil unions are recognised under the law as being equal to marriage performed in a church then its fine with me, just as long as I get that certificate saying that I'm wed. I have no desire to get married by a church or a minister or have anything to do with that, my vision for my wedding is pretty secular but at the same time its a very spiritual (note; spirituality != religion) issue for me which is why I avoid emotionless terms like partner and such.

QCassidy352

Nov 22, 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Taft
Looks like the Mass. legislature might do just that.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/21/marriage/index.html

Like I said, the judge is simply interpreting the law on the books, not "legislating from the bench." If the Mass. legislature intended to exclude gay people from marriage before, they failed. However, now that the fact has been pointed out, it seems they might just "plug the hole."

I'm a bit saddened by the fact that they feel they have to "plug the hole," but I guess I can't say I'm all that surprised.

I guess quality healthcare, education and the economy must take a back seat to preventing those "sinners" from practicing their evil ways. :rolleyes:

Taft

but, if the legislature were to do that, the court could still later rule that such a legal definition of marriage was unconsitutional because it was discriminatory.

mactastic

Nov 24, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
If that is the case, then no one religion is the right religion. That certainly is not the case with some religions.

Amen to that.

Roy Moore, are you listening?

Frohickey

Dec 1, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Amen to that.

Roy Moore, are you listening?

Roy Moore? I was thinking more along the lines of a few imams.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 07:34 PM

The government has no business in what goes on behind closed doors, so how would they know if a particular marriage was a real relationship, and should it matter to the government if someone wants to get "married" just for the financial tax benefits (or to get a green card, etc.). In fact, shouldn't we consider the repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers?

Frohickey

Dec 1, 2003, 08:19 PM

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 08:27 PM

Just because the feds did something before makes it right for them to do it again? Why?

Sayhey

Dec 1, 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The government has no business in what goes on behind closed doors, so how would they know if a particular marriage was a real relationship, and should it matter to the government if someone wants to get "married" just for the financial tax benefits (or to get a green card, etc.). In fact, shouldn't we consider the repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers?

Government has no business behind closed doors if the relationship is not coercive. That does not mean it has no business in marriage. Marriage is a legal arrangement that takes in such things as property rights, power of attorney, age of consent, etc. Government has always had an interest in such things. That is why I think the repeal of the law against polygamy is unwise. Polygamy, it seems to me, presents serious difficulties for marriage contracts and the rights of the least powerful in marriage relationships. I'm not sure government should encourage polygamy by allowing such marriages between adults. I know that it shouldn't encourage the practice of taking underage women into "marriages" as often happens in covert relationships in some places in the US (read as Utah.) If consenting adults want such relationships, fine by me, but I don't think it should have legal sanction. At least until someone can explain how it won't result in children and spouses without resources of their own being left out in the cold.

None of this has anything to do with gay marriage, which is between two consenting adults and should have the same formal sanction as that available to heterosexual couples.

G5ROCKS

Dec 2, 2003, 01:29 AM

Sayhey,
You sound in talking about polygamy like those who say that the if consenting homosexuals can do what they want by the government shouldn't encourage the practice of homosexual marraige by legalizing it. You probably think a 15 year old can't give consent, too. Sheesh.

Sayhey

Dec 2, 2003, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Sayhey,
You sound in talking about polygamy like those who say that the if consenting homosexuals can do what they want by the government shouldn't encourage the practice of homosexual marraige by legalizing it. You probably think a 15 year old can't give consent, too. Sheesh.

LOL, do I sound like an old straight laced republican? This thread is not about polygamy or age of consent, but I tried to give a thoughtful answer to your position. You didn't exactly respond to my points about polygamy, but rather choose to talk about what I sound like to you. Just what is your answer to the concerns I raised? Convince me that government should not take a interest in protection of marriage contract rights that would be undermined by polygamy.

I've seen many experimental types of marriages and not many of them have worked. However, that does not say they can't work under some conditions with some individuals. I have no interest in imposing my own expectations on others; I only worry about how this could possibly play out for those who have little power in such relationships.

As to your hypothetical 15 year old, it depends on the state he or she is in. I don't mean to be flippant, but I think age of consent laws are important to protect young people who are too young to be making life altering decisions like marriage. We can argue over just what age that should be, and as I alluded to that is different in many states, but I don't think it is really a viable position to argue to eliminate these laws.

G5ROCKS

Dec 2, 2003, 10:36 AM

If consenting adults want such relationships, fine by me, but I don't think it should have legal sanction.

I've heard the very same point made for homosexual marriages as you're making for a polygamous one. Who died and made you god so that you can impose your "dualist" views on others? Mormons have been oppressed for a long time over this issue. I'm sure that others would like to have those marriages like exist in many cultures, but poeple like you deny them that right. It's a personal matter and not something for you or the government to impose your personal morality on, IMO.

mactastic

Dec 2, 2003, 10:56 AM

Who gave any of us the right to decide what relationships are proper? Lets just abolish marriage too!;)

G5ROCKS

Dec 2, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
Who gave any of us the right to decide what relationships are proper? Lets just abolish marriage too!;)

Good question!

Sayhey

Dec 2, 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I've heard the very same point made for homosexual marriages as you're making for a polygamous one. Who died and made you god so that you can impose your "dualist" views on others? Mormons have been oppressed for a long time over this issue. I'm sure that others would like to have those marriages like exist in many cultures, but poeple like you deny them that right. It's a personal matter and not something for you or the government to impose your personal morality on, IMO.

Last I looked I'm in no position to "impose" my views on anyone and I'm an atheist, so aspiring to godhood is not exactly on my agenda. I, like you, have some opinions on the matter and feel free to express my concerns. It would be helpful if you responded to my points rather than try to accuse me of things that have little bearing on the subject.

It seems your argument is that government should just stay out of any type of regulation of the contractual relation that exists in marriage. Such an absolutist view is, IMHO, totally untenable. I don't care if you look to band societies or the most complex state societies, marriage has always been regulated by some sort of societal rules. These rules include things like the division of property upon dissolution, whether divorce is even possible, responsibility towards the welfare of children, and many other rights and obligations. If we are to do away with this then it should be with some knowledge of the ramifications of that action.

I have no particular attachment to the idealized version of the nuclear family as it exists in this country, but I do think that if no government regulation of responsibilities exist (formalized by a marriage contract) that those with the least amount of power in society suffer. Most often that means women and children. If you are to persuade me that laws against polygamy should be done away with then that issue, IMO, must be dealt with. In this, as in most things, we must look at a balancing of rights, meaning both the need for the greatest personal liberty and the need for the protection of the rights of individuals unable to exercise those rights without government intervention.

Without some sort of government regulation we would quickly revert to traditions that had many of these decisions made for people by families. Those are the real power relationships that exist and would quickly takeover if these laws did not exist. I think in US society we have come to some kind of consensus that young men and women should have time to grow into adults and be able to make these decisions, as much as possible, on their own. That is something I support.

As to the "oppression" of Mormons, I don't care what Mormon religious practices mandate when it comes to the outlawing of the taking of child brides. If that is the oppression of the wishes of Mormon men, then fine by me. I would rather restrict the rights of these men than allow the exploitative relationships that destroys the ability of young women to make free choices when they have reached adulthood.

I've already stated my lack of concern for the types of relationships that consenting adults want to construct. If that is group relationships of any number, then fine by me. I'm not jumping into such an arrangement, but I don't want any government restriction on what folks find works for them. Again, my only concern is what it means for the obligations one enters into in a formalized marriage contract.

You raise the point that such concerns are raised about gay marriage and I have to say that is only a reflection of a very superficial understanding of the issues. In the case of gay marriage there is no issue of weakening of the marriage contract, but rather only the extension of that contract to others who have been denied equal access on the basis of sexual orientation.

Taft

Dec 2, 2003, 04:27 PM

wwworry

Dec 2, 2003, 05:27 PM

slippery slope arguments are diversionary.

Taft

Dec 3, 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
slippery slope arguments are diversionary.

Bull.

My arguments aren't slippery slope arguments. My arguments point to real cases of polygamous relationships and the environments which support them creating an abusive situation where one person's (or multiple people's) rights are violated. My point is that polygamous relationships may in fact have a victim or a person being taken advantage of.

You are right that a few bad apples don't make polygamy itself bad. But my argument is deeper than that. If you want to make polygamy legal, you can't ignore evidence that polygamous relationships are more easily exploitable than "conventional" relationships. If that evidence points to a real problem, that problem should be addressed by the policy makers to help prevent predators from exploiting such relationships. Its all well and good to say the government should keep its nose out of our personal lives, but should that really hold true in cases of illegally coersive and abusive relationships?

Read the articles, then try to tell me I'm diverting the argument.

Taft

mactastic

Dec 3, 2003, 10:41 AM

I agree with you about polygamy. Much as I am loath to have the government dictate who or what a relationship entails, I have seen very little evidence of healthy, functional polygamous relationships. I can't condone forcing girls as young as 14 to marry blood relatives 2 or 3 times their age, and as a second or third, or fifteenth wife. If 3 health mature adults want to get together and get married I wouldn't mind that at all, but I don't see polygamy as a marriage of equals. Taft's sources allude to the fact that when one has two wives one has to assert dominance over both to avoid problems. And my gut feeling is that polygagmy is a means to keep women "in their proper place" tending the house and having children. Why are the women not allowed to have multiple husbands? That, to me, is the key indicator of an unfair situation. And many of these plural wives and their families live on welfare and food stamps. If the husband can't support his wife and children, he has no business taking another wife and making more children IMHO.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
slippery slope arguments are diversionary.

I agree, and have made that very point here before. Just because A is allowed, that does not mean B-Z must also be allowed. Each case for government interference with the private lives of individuals should be made to stand on its own merits. Slippery slope arguments are not only diversionary, they are immobilizing.

Anyway, several of us have made this argument the in past, but here's Alan Dershowitz making it quite elegantly, I think.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dersh3dec03,1,252166.story

To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business

By Alan M. Dershowitz

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage â€” as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union â€” from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.

Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally â€” except for labels â€” from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.

All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.

Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.

So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 12:37 PM

As some one who got married in a civil ceremony I do not wish to surrender the term marriage to religious zealots who think it is only a commitment if done in a religious institution.

As well meaning as the Dershowitz proposal is, I think it is a step backward. Marriage has always had a civil as well as a religious component and to surrender the term to fundamentalists who wish that everyone recognize their view of marriage as the proper one is a big mistake.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
As some one who got married in a civil ceremony I do not wish to surrender the term marriage to religious zealots who think it is only a commitment if done in a religious institution.

As well meaning as the Dershowitz proposal is, I think it is a step backward. Marriage has always had a civil as well as a religious component and to surrender the term to fundamentalists who wish that everyone recognize their view of marriage as the proper one is a big mistake.

The point is, under this proposal, anyone can call themselves "married" under whatever authority they wish to cite. The legal (civil) arrangements become a separate matter. Everyone can and should be able to have and hold their own definition of marriage. The only "losers" here are the religious conservatives, who want the nation to adhere to their particular scriptural definition of marriage.

mactastic

Dec 3, 2003, 01:10 PM

I don't see why we can't just call it all marriage. Why are semantics such an issue here?

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I don't see why we can't just call it all marriage. Why are semantics such an issue here?
Semantics are important here. As Dershowitz says, many Americans regard marriage as a "sacred institution." Well fine, sacred is defined as religious, or blessed by a church. Separating the sacred from the secular is not only an American tradition, it also solves the problem as neatly as it ever will be solved, IMO.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The point is, under this proposal, anyone can call themselves "married" under whatever authority they wish to cite. The legal (civil) arrangements become a separate matter. Everyone can and should be able to have and hold their own definition of marriage. The only "losers" here are the religious conservatives, who want the nation to adhere to their particular scriptural definition of marriage.

IJ, maybe I'm not understanding the proposal then. The way I read it, it says that there will continue to be two types of ceremonies, but now all "marriages" not performed in religious institutions will be "civil unions." If my reading of the proposal is correct, then I think it is a step backward. Yes, it would make gay civil unions and heterosexual civil unions equal before the law, but it surrenders the long civil and secular traditions of marriage to religious institutions. That hardly strengthens the wall of separation of church and state. It also raises the question if all the laws pertaining to marriage are enforceable in the case of a purely religious ceremony? Will we leave questions of divorce, etc. up to those religious institutions to settle? I have a lot of respect for Dershowitz, but this proposal, if I understand it correctly is flawed.

mactastic

Dec 3, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Semantics are important here. As Dershowitz says, many Americans regard marriage as a "sacred institution." Well fine, sacred is defined as religious, or blessed by a church. Separating the sacred from the secular is not only an American tradition, it also solves the problem as neatly as it ever will be solved, IMO.
I would certainly make that compromise if it meant that gays could get legal state recognition of their commitment. However it just irritates me that I might have to give up my marriage because of religious conservatism. I guess that's just grousing about semantics on my part, but Christians were not the first people to come up with the idea of marriage. Let them pick a new word if they feel so strongly that the institution is diminished by homosexuals sharing it with them.

It just smacks of the whole seperate-but-equal thing, which is usually more seperate than equal.

G5ROCKS

Dec 3, 2003, 01:34 PM

Would the state be required to recognize all marriages that were recognized by a religious institution? Would people wanting a religious ceremony also still be required to have government documentation? Even in religious ceremonies today, there is a civil document that has to be signed and mailed in for the state to recognize it. How would this be any different?

It is a strange proposal. What stops people--gay or straight--from having contractual agreements between themselves that are outside of both the "civil union" and "marriage" semantics but have basically the same legal implications?

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 01:41 PM

So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

Dershowitz, makes a fundamental error here. The state has never told any religious institution "who can receive holy sacraments." That is not the purpose of the lawsuits brought to bring about the right of gay people to marry. Under no condition will the state tell the Catholic Church, for instance, that it must perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples. It is just a red herring thrown out there to enflame people. What should happen, IMO, is that the government should reform the marriage laws to force civil marriage ceremonies to be open to gay couples.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 01:43 PM

I think you're both misunderstanding the proposal (or maybe I am... but I don't think so).

Marriage is the ceremony part, civil union is the legal part (a contract between two people). A couple (gay or straight) could opt for a civil union without the ceremony, or partake in the ceremony in the religious institution of their choosing. Either way, they are afforded the same legal protections. This way, if a church chooses to consecrate a gay marriage (or not, as the case may be), this would up to the church, not the government.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Would the state be required to recognize all marriages that were recognized by a religious institution? Would people wanting a religious ceremony also still be required to have government documentation? Even in religious ceremonies today, there is a civil document that has to be signed and mailed in for the state to recognize it. How would this be any different?

It is a strange proposal. What stops people--gay or straight--from having contractual agreements between themselves that are outside of both the "civil union" and "marriage" semantics but have basically the same legal implications?

I don't get why you think it's such an "odd" proposal. It's not that different then what we have today. Church marriages would still be recognized by the state, but civil union would be afforded the same legal protections. The justification for creating these two parts to the domestic contract is to unload the debate the emotional charge associated with the word "marriage."

Some states recognize domestic contracts, but hardly all.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I think you're both misunderstanding the proposal (or maybe I am... but I don't think so).

Marriage is the ceremony part, civil union is the legal part (a contract between two people). A couple (gay or straight) could opt for a civil union without the ceremony, or partake in the ceremony in the religious institution of their choosing. Either way, they are afforded the same legal protections. This way, if a church chooses to consecrate a gay marriage (or not, as the case may be), this would up to the church, not the government.

IJ, under the best scenario envisioned by the folks who filed the lawsuits to bring about the possibility of gay marriage there is still no way that the government can force a church to perform such a ceremony. Such reforms are a separate struggle that needs to happen within each religious organization. If the lawsuits are successful they will only apply to civil marriage ceremonies.

What Dershowitz proposal raises is also the question I addressed earlier. If what we now would call marriage no longer has any legal weight without a separate civil union then we have ceded to religious institutions whole areas of life that have always been under civil jurisdiction. How is that a victory for separation of church and state?

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 02:14 PM

This is where I think you misread what Dershowitz (and I) are suggesting. As has been pointed out before, currently no church marriage is legal without filing papers with the local county or city clerk. So nothing changes there. What does change is the ability for couples to file the papers without the church. If they want to get married, they can find a church that will also confer that title upon them. They can then say, assuming it's important to them, "We were married in the (X) Church." Or not. It's up to them, and it's up to the church.

As you say, if the lawsuits are successful, we may end up with something similar, but it will be called "gay marriage," which really gets up the noses of many people, who will then push for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the courts. We can fix this problem without a long, fractious fight over the definition of marriage. This proposal takes that weapon right out of the hands of people who are trying to prevent this civil liberty from being extended to gays.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
What does change is the ability for couples to file the papers without the church.

IJ, this is not new. It is how I and millions of other people got married. We needed no church or other religious institution to do anything. My ex and I got married at City Hall by a judge and had a separate nonrelgious ceremony among friends and relatives afterwards. We don't need a change to bring this about for heterosexual couples.

As you say, if the lawsuits are successful, we may end up with something similar, but it will be called "gay marriage," which really gets up the noses of many people, who will then push for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the courts. We can fix this problem without a long, fractious fight over the definition of marriage. This proposal takes that weapon right out of the hands of people who are trying to prevent this civil liberty from being extended to gays.

I realize the intention is to make a tactical move that will enable some opponents to accept a status for gay couples that has not yet been recognized. Some comprises may take place, but in my own opinion this is one of those fights you either win or lose. There is no such thing as a second class equality, and if that is what happens with gay couples being relegated to civil unions while heterosexual couples get to maintain access to marriage, then the struggle will go on until real equality is reached. I don't want this "long, fractious fight" any more than any one else, least of all in an election year when the right can scare the hell out of people with this issue. Unfortunately, one doesn't always get to choose the time and place of when the battle gets joined. I don't think the litigants are going to back off and I know the religious right is going try and frighten everyone into ill conceived laws. I think all one can do is fight against the bigotry and help strengthen the resolve of those who would resist things like a discriminatory constitutional amendment.

Ugg

Dec 3, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ, maybe I'm not understanding the proposal then. The way I read it, it says that there will continue to be two types of ceremonies, but now all "marriages" not performed in religious institutions will be "civil unions."

If the proposal as I read it is similar to the German system, then it is really and truly separating marriage from religion. In Germany, all unions, gay and straight are sanctioned by the government in a government building by a government employee. As a secular nation, the German government has no interest in the religion of those it grants civil unions. Therefore, the two institutions or contracts are separate. If couples want their union to be sanctioned by a religious institution, they are free to do so AFTER they have gone through the civil ceremony.

This to me makes much more sense than the murky waters that exist in the US.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 03:13 PM

No, no, no... nobody is relegated to any kind of secondary status under this approach. I'm certain quite a few churches are entirely prepared to consecrate a gay marriage. In effect, some already do. This proposal makes that entirely up to the church. And if a gay couple happens to belong to a church that doesn't consecrate gay marriages, that becomes an issue entirely between them and their church, the government is not involved.

As I see it, the only way through this issue is to unload the emotionally charged term "marriage" from the debate. If that doesn't happen, I have little doubt that we'll eventually see a Constitutional amendment to define marriage in heterosexual terms. Then, the opportunity for two people to call themselves married in their own eyes and to have that union blessed by their faith will be lost forever.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Ugg
If the proposal as I read it is similar to the German system, then it is really and truly separating marriage from religion.

If you mean separating it to the extent that no one church gets to decide who can and cannot be married, then I agree, it's a separation. The German system seems to make sense. Ours certainly doesn't.

Frohickey

Dec 3, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I agree with you about polygamy. Much as I am loath to have the government dictate who or what a relationship entails, I have seen very little evidence of healthy, functional polygamous relationships. I can't condone forcing girls as young as 14 to marry blood relatives 2 or 3 times their age, and as a second or third, or fifteenth wife. If 3 health mature adults want to get together and get married I wouldn't mind that at all, but I don't see polygamy as a marriage of equals. Taft's sources allude to the fact that when one has two wives one has to assert dominance over both to avoid problems. And my gut feeling is that polygagmy is a means to keep women "in their proper place" tending the house and having children. Why are the women not allowed to have multiple husbands? That, to me, is the key indicator of an unfair situation. And many of these plural wives and their families live on welfare and food stamps. If the husband can't support his wife and children, he has no business taking another wife and making more children IMHO.

Just because you have not seen any evidence of healthy functional polygamous relationships does not mean that they do not exist. Besides, how can you be logically coherent in your beliefs if you would allow same-sex marriages between consenting adults while at the same time not allow multi-couple marriages?

Saying that you are after the well-being of the people in your quest to dictate to others how to live their peaceful lives is a dodge.

Here is an appropriate quote... IMHO.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -CS Lewis

Taft

Dec 3, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Besides, how can you be logically coherent in your beliefs if you would allow same-sex marriages between consenting adults while at the same time not allow multi-couple marriages?

Easy. In same sex marraiges, there is no victim. In polygamous relationships, there often is.

I agree with you that even some same-sex marriages and some "traditional" marriages have victims. Domestic abuse is pervasive across all lifestyles and cultures. I also agree with you that not all polygamous relationships have a victim.

However, if there is a pocket of America where the culture permits families to sell their 14 year old kids into polygamous relationships, then we have a problem. The articles I linked to provide evidence of just such a culture.

Saying that you are after the well-being of the people in your quest to dictate to others how to live their peaceful lives is a dodge.

No its not. What we are talking about has nothing to do with people living their lives peacefully. We are talking about exploitative relationships. We are talking about incest. We are talking about forced marriage. In my mind, there is nothing peaceful about it.

My point is that an insular culture can't do whatever they want to in the name of religious beliefs or tradition. There have to be bounds.

Do you think there should be age of consent laws? Child pornography laws? Do you think it should be legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old? Or should all of these things be left up to local authorities and the surrounding cultures that inevitably effect them?

Taft

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, no, no... nobody is relegated to any kind of secondary status under this approach. I'm certain quite a few churches are entirely prepared to consecrate a gay marriage. In effect, some already do. This proposal makes that entirely up to the church. And if a gay couple happens to belong to a church that doesn't consecrate gay marriages, that becomes an issue entirely between them and their church, the government is not involved.

As I see it, the only way through this issue is to unload the emotionally charged term "marriage" from the debate. If that doesn't happen, I have little doubt that we'll eventually see a Constitutional amendment to define marriage in heterosexual terms. Then, the opportunity for two people to call themselves married in their own eyes and to have that union blessed by their faith will be lost forever.

First, I know neither you or Dershowitz are trying to propose anything that smacks of secondary status. I do think that that is the effect of some of the civil union and other proposals being floated by Democrats. Most of these proposals are really only a way of saying "I don't support gay marriage, but I support gay rights." It might provide some cover for the election, but has little to do with where the struggle is at now.

Do you think the litigants are going to stop trying to gain the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples now enjoy? The Massachusetts Court has already made it clear that nothing other than gay marriage is going to satisfy them. This is going to the US Supreme Court for a decision and only a constitutional amendment would stop that from happening. My hope is that there are enough Democrats and sane Republicans that this will not muster the steep requirements for an amendment. I have no idea how the Court will rule, but I have my doubts that Kennedy and O'Connor will have the courage to withstand the political pressure and follow the vision of the Massachusetts Court. I hope I'm being too cynical as to the likely outcome.

Dershowitz' idea, IMO, gives away too much to the religious right around the ability to have control over areas that have always been under secular control regardless of whether a marriage took place in a civil ceremony or a religious one. If it took the example of Germany that Ugg gives us, where all ceremonies must first have a civil component before being recognized it would satisfy my concerns, although that would not likely receive much support from many religious institutions. As it is I think it stands little chance of support from any quarter.

I hate being so unsupportive of any new approach, but I'm highly pessimistic, at least in the short run, as to where we are headed.

Taft

Dec 3, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -CS Lewis

I'm a big fan of CS Lewis, but this quote just doesn't line up with reality. Sure, the "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" types often take things too far. And PC culture has progressed to the point of the ludicrous.

But however damaging these groups can be, they can't compare to the sheer power of those pulling the strings in the US. As their power grows and the laws controlling them loosen, poverty rises, employee health is sacrificed in the name of efficiency, the environment suffers, benefits are cut. It has happened before and it seems to be happening again.

The consolidation of wealth and power is definitely something the American people should be keeping a close eye on. It can effect all of us.

Taft

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Besides, how can you be logically coherent in your beliefs if you would allow same-sex marriages between consenting adults while at the same time not allow multi-couple marriages?

Saying that you are after the well-being of the people in your quest to dictate to others how to live their peaceful lives is a dodge.

I know, I know, if I support gay marriage I must support polygamy, bestiality, and incest. Rick Santorum told us all that long ago. As has already been pointed out this is the classic "slippery slope" argument. It doesn't hold water because all of these things raise very different questions.

If you support the change in laws to allow polygamous marriage then deal with the concerns that I, mactastic, Taft, and others have raised. I think however it is likely it is only a position you choose to take for the sake of making the "slippery slope" argument.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 04:55 PM

Sayhey,

I wish I could understand what you think is given away to the religious right in this proposal. If anything, it takes away from them (or any single faith) the power to define who can call themselves married. This proposal is very similar to the system already in place in Germany: The state remains neutral with respect to who may enjoy the legal protections afforded by marriage, and each church can in turn decide for itself who it will sanctify as married. I simply cannot see the problem with this.

I would not bank too heavily on the inability of opponents of gay rights to mobilize a marriage Constitutional amendment. I also would not count on the courts to fix it. Some situations actually require the proactive application of good sense by sensible citizens. I think this is one of them.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sayhey,

I wish I could understand what you think is given away to the religious right in this proposal. If anything, it takes away from them (or any single faith) the power to define who can call themselves married. This proposal is very similar to the system already in place in Germany: The state remains neutral with respect to who may enjoy the legal protections afforded by marriage, and each church can in turn decide for itself who it will sanctify as married. I simply cannot see the problem with this.

I would not bank too heavily on the inability of opponents of gay rights to mobilize a marriage Constitutional amendment. I also would not count on the courts to fix it. Some situations actually require the proactive application of good sense by sensible citizens. I think this is one of them.

OK, I guess I'm not making my point very well. Here is the quote that most concerns me,

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

If I read the proposal right, then if one chooses to have only a religious ceremony (not an option in the example of Germany) then the person is exempt from the consequences that society has long placed on marriage. The rights of divorce, child support, etc. are no longer applicable to such a marriage. I don't think this is a workable solution. Marriage has, even in religious ceremonies, had secular consequences; if Dershowitz is serious about this idea then it cedes to religious authority, if one chooses to have only this ceremony, things that have long been understood to be under the jurisdiction of civil authority. Am I making my concerns clear? Maybe I'm not understanding him correctly and I'm reading too much into this, but I would have serious concerns if I am reading him right.

I've already pointed out other areas where I just think he is wrong (ie there will be no change in the ability of government to force religious institutions to perform gay marriages - it won't happen), but the above is my major problem with his proposal.

Lastly, IJ, sometimes the majority must be forced to accept the rights of the minority. That happened in the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s and it may have to happen here. Justice should not have to be put to a vote. It maybe only with the experience of heterosexuals having to live with and accept gay couples that this homophobia will be overcome.

Frohickey

Dec 3, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
If you support the change in laws to allow polygamous marriage then deal with the concerns that I, mactastic, Taft, and others have raised. I think however it is likely it is only a position you choose to take for the sake of making the "slippery slope" argument.

About the only change I would support is a change in government to disallow government from defining marriage and its benefits and consequences, at least on the federal level.

Polygamous marriage, gay/lesbian marriage, animal marriage, plant marriage... what else could there be that would be out of bounds for government?

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 07:16 PM

Sayhey,

I understand your point now, but I think you may be reading too much into the Dershowitz proposal. I don't think he's proposing a marriage without civil obligations if it's conducted in a church. If that's what he means, then I'd be opposed also, on the same grounds you've outlined.

As for protecting the rights of a minority, of course I agree. But I've also been influenced by the Communitarian thinkers on this subject, and they make a convincing argument that we promote a more civil society by attempting to solve these problems through our civil institutions. The courts should be a last resort for protecting the rights of the minority, not the primary method of doing so.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sayhey,

I understand your point now, but I think you may be reading too much into the Dershowitz proposal. I don't think he's proposing a marriage without civil obligations if it's conducted in a church. If that's what he means, then I'd be opposed also, on the same grounds you've outlined.

As for protecting the rights of a minority, of course I agree. But I've also been influenced by the Communitarian thinkers on this subject, and they make a convincing argument that we promote a more civil society by attempting to solve these problems through our civil institutions. The courts should be a last resort for protecting the rights of the minority, not the primary method of doing so.

IJ, you are probably right that I'm reading too much into it. Dershowitz is too smart a cookie to want to go in the direction that I raised. Still when I read the sentence I quoted before it set off my paranoia.

I would love to have this dealt with through the legislative process, but I don't think forces within the Republican party would allow it. It is too valuable as a wedge issue to mobilize people by playing on their fears. I also think those who started at Stonewall and before might say they have waited long enough (Just a guess, I certainly can't speak for them.)

In any regard the Courts, though certainly effected by the wishes of the broader public, are tools of individual cases. The litigants will make their decisions based on their own agendas and I'm afraid our wishes will have little effect.

mactastic

Dec 4, 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Just because you have not seen any evidence of healthy functional polygamous relationships does not mean that they do not exist.

Which is why I don't catagorically state polygamy should be completely outlawed. I don't like it in it's current form, but if you actually read my post before you went off, you would have seen that I said I don't like little girls being forced to marry much older blood relatives in polygamous relationships, not that I personally thought that all polygamous relationships should be outlawed.

Besides, how can you be logically coherent in your beliefs if you would allow same-sex marriages between consenting adults while at the same time not allow multi-couple marriages?

Help! Help! I'm sliding down this slippery slope right towards Soddom and Gamorrah with my wife/sheep and my pre-teen male lover!

I know it's not enumerated in the Contstitution, but some things just aren't. Do you not believe in age-of-consent laws? How about forced marriage to blood relatives 3 times your age? Once again, personally I am not against plural marriage. If it works for you, then fine. If you are going to live on welfare and food stamps, or if you are beating your children because the refuse to marry your brother, or if you are taking 14 year old child brides then I have a problem. I am astonished that you would find that to be logically inconsistent with two consenting adults on equal footing.

Saying that you are after the well-being of the people in your quest to dictate to others how to live their peaceful lives is a dodge.

Bullflops. Why do you think there is a government to begin with? Something about the health saftey and welfare of the people? Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Do you not follow laws in order to protect other people's right to be alive and to "pursue happiness"? Things like not running red lights at intersections. I know that's not in the constipation, but you do it. Right? And you do it so that you and others survive the day and can go home to pursue some more happiness?

Here is an appropriate quote... IMHO.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -CS Lewis

Go ask a holocaust survivor if they agree with that quote. I think it's the lamest attempt to justify robber barons that I have ever heard.