Green light for gay marriages in Mass. [Archive]

slowtreme

Feb 4, 2004, 02:55 PM

Recorded Gay relations go back thousands of years. A huge portion of Famous people going back to the Ancient Romans up through the Middle ages can be clearly linked to having gay and same sex lovers. And NO ONE gave a damn. Frankly no one should give a damn now either. What people do for fun is thier own business.

The way I see it is not a lack of Legal Gay Marriges, it's" AMERICAN FREEBIES FOR **********". In America, men and women get stupid perks for getting hitched, when they should really just have sex and leave the legal system out of it becuase it's not going to last anyway. Instead we give these people tax breaks and cheap loans. I have no idea of other countries give incentives for getting married.

So if there was no perks involved in being married, like joint insurance, Tax and Loan benefits, etc., would Same-sex Couples be so interested in that piece of paper?

This coming from a married man that has seen the bastardization of marrige in the US. Vegas Weddings, Justice of the Peace afternoons, Movie Stars that hook up for a weekend, where does it all end? I just wonder, do people REALLY want to be married, or do they just want a free ride, while getting a ride from a friend.

Raid

Feb 4, 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by skytown205
I was a bit worried after all of the "defense of marriage" stuff and Bush's statements in the State of the Union address. Hopefully, more states will follow suit. If anything, it's been great that the issue has been put out there so that people are forced to think about it...

This could be a 'vote of non-confidence' in G.W's leadership, which is especially important in this election year. BTW our Prime Minister has just sent back the "gay marriage" debate to the Supreme Court of Canada. Everyone is expecting the court to formally legalize it, (as it exists in B.C. and Ontario). Many see it here as Martin (our Prime Minister) avoiding taking personal responsibility for it, as he could inact the law much quicker than the Supreme Court could. But this is an election year for us too and he's got to play it cool on the 'hot button' issues... until he's elected.

At any rate I see this as a positive and maybe we can worry about something more threatening then letting two people in love formalize that bond. :rolleyes:

jxyama

Feb 4, 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by slowtreme
So if there was no perks involved in being married, like joint insurance, Tax and Loan benefits, etc., would Same-sex Couples be so interested in that piece of paper?

i imagine a strong yes. and even if not, wanting the same legal benefits is a good enough reason as far as i'm concerned. they just want the same benefits straight couples pretty much take for granted - and they shouldn't feel bad about that at all.

i think deterioration of marriage in america is a separate issue from legalized gay marriage.

mraudet

Feb 4, 2004, 03:54 PM

i think deterioration of marriage in america is a separate issue from legalized gay marriage.

quite right. i live in mass and cant remember the last time i was proud of state govt. can you?

Counterfit

Feb 4, 2004, 05:58 PM

Heh, I'm from just a bit over the border (literally, my house is about 100 ft away from it) in RI, and I've never been proud of the gov't in MA yet. Well, this is good, but it' still not gonna make me proud of them. :p

Krizoitz

Feb 4, 2004, 06:22 PM

I think the best solution is this:

Civil unions for everyone
Marriages from religious groups

That way no one is being discriminated against in terms of the government and marriage rights (civil union rights?) AND those institutions who feel applying the term marriage to gays are free not to do so.

iMeowbot

Feb 4, 2004, 07:03 PM

question fear

Feb 4, 2004, 07:12 PM

go mass!
go gays!
wow. my two states, mass and nj, are both coming through...snif.
-c

radhak

Feb 4, 2004, 07:19 PM

btw, does this not mean that people can drive over to Mass, get married, and claim marriage rights in whatever state they live in?

wonder how soon that will be tested? anybody here planning some ceremony soon in Boston? :D

wonder if this could bite GW in the backside in his election year while he is busy defending himself against the war / intel / imbroglio ...?

question fear

Feb 4, 2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by radhak
btw, does this not mean that people can drive over to Mass, get married, and claim marriage rights in whatever state they live in?

wonder how soon that will be tested? anybody here planning some ceremony soon in Boston? :D

wonder if this could bite GW in the backside in his election year while he is busy defending himself against the war / intel / imbroglio ...?

i think the six month thing is still in place..as in they have six months to change it. expect lawsuits days after.

in other news, when i read "bit gw in the backside" i had this mental image of what his face would be like if that happened...it was scary and funny all at once.

-c

iMeowbot

Feb 4, 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by radhak
btw, does this not mean that people can drive over to Mass, get married, and claim marriage rights in whatever state they live in?

No, reciprocity is a per-state thing. For example, legislation about to be signed into law in Ohio will explicitly not recognize same-sex marriages or unions from other states.

question fear

Feb 4, 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by iMeowbot
No, reciprocity is a per-state thing. For example, legislation about to be signed into law in Ohio will explicitly not recognize same-sex marriages or unions from other states.

i thought the way it worked was that state-to-state citizen is one thing, but if i am a mass resident and am in ohio with my wife we HAVE to be granted the rights of a married couple as a courtesy to the state of mass...ie if i am married to a woman and we move to ohio we lose the license but visiting they have to give it to us since its not theirs to take away (also even ohio would have to acknowledge a foreign marriage from amsterdam or canada because of international treaties. thats existed since they legalized marriage in those countries.)

-c

radhak

Feb 4, 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by question fear
i thought the way it worked was that state-to-state citizen is one thing, but if i am a mass resident and am in ohio with my wife we HAVE to be granted the rights of a married couple as a courtesy to the state of mass...ie if i am married to a woman and we move to ohio we lose the license but visiting they have to give it to us since its not theirs to take away (also even ohio would have to acknowledge a foreign marriage from amsterdam or canada because of international treaties. thats existed since they legalized marriage in those countries.)

-c

now are you talking marriage in general or just gay marriages? ie, do they have a specific non-reciprocity clause just for gay marriages?

either way, all the 'rights' are relevant only for the long-term, like mortgage, insurance rates, etc.

uh, waitaminnit, i am forgetting the emergency situation at a hospital where the spouse of a patient is given more rights than other (friends/relatives)... so this might still have its uses in other states, right?

rainman::|:|

Feb 4, 2004, 08:19 PM

States don't have to recognize other states' marriage at face value because of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that clinton passed. And before gays go saying that Clinton was a bastard for this, allow me to explain. Clinton took a lot of the pressure off of liberal states when he did this, so that they could legalize gay marriage if they wanted, and other states wouldn't seek to prevent it. It was sneaky as hell but he did a huge thing for gays then. Anyhoo, the law basically says that you can marry in one state and another state can, but does not HAVE to, recognize it. But, the law doesn't prevent couples from seeking to overturn laws against marriage in their own state, on the basis that the state marriage laws are similar from state to state, and the constitution is similar in this regard, so unconstitutional in Mass must mean unconstitutional under their state.

The lawsuits will begin shortly. I expect they will fall about 50/50, some winning some losing. Of those that win, some will be overturned. But within 10 years, I'd say 10 more states will have gay marriage.

They can't even get a Constitutional Amendment against flag burning :P They're not going to get one against gay marriage. Americans simply do not want their Constitution abused this way. As for the amendment in Mass, sure they'll try, but it takes 3 years (at shortest) to get an amendment through... After Massachusetts *doesn't* fall off the face of the earth because of God's wrath in, say, mid-May, support will simply fade away. People stop being hysterical when they see the truth, and the law stands.

:)
paul

pdrayton

Feb 4, 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
And before gays go saying that Clinton was a bastard for this, allow me to explain. Clinton took a lot of the pressure off of liberal states when he did this, so that they could legalize gay marriage if they wanted, and other states wouldn't seek to prevent it. It was sneaky as hell but he did a huge thing for gays then.
That's entirely false. Clinton signed DOMA because, as he publicly stated, he was against gay marriage and didn't want any state to permit gay marriage.

Clinton set gay justice back decades because of signing DOMA. And, electing John Kerry certainly won't be an improvement over Clinton or Bush!

question fear

Feb 4, 2004, 09:12 PM

first off, i sincerely hope massachusetts does not fall off the face of the earth. it would be an unpleasant journey for those of us living here.
second, my understanding of clinton and the doma was that he signed it because it was blatantly unconstitutional. i believe it was probably some combination of reasons, but considering clintons status as a rhodes scholar and (despite some of his decisions) he is arguably our most intelligent modern president if not ever, he probably had a strategy when he signed it.
anyhow, john kerry might not be better than clinton, but i dont see any democrats actively seeking a ban like bush is...they have a sort of fence sitting attitude, reflecting what most of america seems to think...if it happens, we go wiht it...if not, we're not going to push it forwards.
i hate like hell that my optionss are apathy or bush, but i choose apathy. (as the candidate. i am far from apathetic and will argue wiht anyone who dares to tell me my love is any less than heterosexuals...i majored in philosophy, i have no fears about arguign for days.)

-c

rainman::|:|

Feb 4, 2004, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
That's entirely false. Clinton signed DOMA because, as he publicly stated, he was against gay marriage and didn't want any state to permit gay marriage.

Clinton set gay justice back decades because of signing DOMA. And, electing John Kerry certainly won't be an improvement over Clinton or Bush!

Clinton is the man who argued the meaning of the word "is". Surely we should trust what he says :rolleyes: The real question is, why would a highly intelligent Rhodes Scholar, as mentioned above, pass a law that had exactly the effect i described above? I assure you the DoMA actually set gay marriage on track, effectively making marriage a state matter, rather than federal... States are going to get gay marriage passed a long time before the entire country did. Gays did a lot for Clinton and were part of his social circle, and continue to be an important base for his wife. Clinton knew how to pay his friends back.

paul

wdlove

Feb 4, 2004, 10:13 PM

I'm embarrassed by what our SJC has done. Judges need to learn not to legislate from the bench. Then have completely done an end run around the majority of voters.

I knew it was over when the Democrat Party had a meting in Springfield 2 weeks ago and endorsed legalizing Gay marriage.

Sayhey

Feb 4, 2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
I'm embarrassed by what our SJC has done. Judges need to learn not to legislate from the bench. Then have completely done an end run around the majority of voters.

I knew it was over when the Democrat Party had a meting in Springfield 2 weeks ago and endorsed legalizing Gay marriage.

It is not legislating from the bench to rule that all citizens must be equal under the law. That is one of the main purposes of the separation of powers in our system, and specifically the role of the judiciary. Your State Supreme Court has taken a very courageous stance in defense of liberty, in keeping with Massachusetts' history. You should be proud.

The_Wall

Feb 4, 2004, 11:15 PM

No offense to any of the macrumors members but lets be honest same sex marriages are wrong. This is obvious from the fact that girls cant get girls pregnant and guys cant get each other pregnant.

We were made the way we were by God, and made to join in marriage with a person of the opposite sex and reproduce. Read the bible, and get a clue. If you would like specific verses id be glad to give any of you some. If you don't agree with me that is fine, if you do voice your opinion and push towards a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages.

Thanks

The_Wall

kylos

Feb 4, 2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
It is not legislating from the bench to rule that all citizens must be equal under the law. That is one of the main purposes of the separation of powers in our system, and specifically the role of the judiciary. Your State Supreme Court has taken a very courageous stance in defense of liberty, in keeping with Massachusetts' history. You should be proud.

You're quite mistaken about the responsibility of the judicial branch. It's job is to enforce laws passed by the legislative. It is allowed to interpret the law, thus providing the buffer from the lawmakers and the adjudicators to prevent corruption. This is one of my biggest frustrations with current american government. Allowing the judiciary such power as they try to take effectively takes the power of the law out of the hands of the people. I mean, who ever heard of a court telling the legislature what to do? That is utter nonsense.

Sayhey

Feb 4, 2004, 11:40 PM

Sayhey

Feb 4, 2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
You're quite mistaken about the responsibility of the judicial branch. It's job is to enforce laws passed by the legislative. It is allowed to interpret the law, thus providing the buffer from the lawmakers and the adjudicators to prevent corruption. This is one of my biggest frustrations with current american government. Allowing the judiciary such power as they try to take effectively takes the power of the law out of the hands of the people. I mean, who ever heard of a court telling the legislature what to do? That is utter nonsense.

Same argument was used to support segregation laws before Brown v Board of Education. I'm afraid you have it wrong. The courts have done much more than just rule on the constitutionality of laws (which is what it has done here) since the days of Marbury v Madison.

zim

Feb 4, 2004, 11:48 PM

just wanted to show my support :D about time this happened, one more step towards equality for all.

radhak

Feb 5, 2004, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by The_Wall
No offense to any of the macrumors members but lets be honest same sex marriages are wrong. This is obvious from the fact that girls cant get girls pregnant and guys cant get each other pregnant.

We were made the way we were by God, and made to join in marriage with a person of the opposite sex and reproduce. Read the bible, and get a clue. If you would like specific verses id be glad to give any of you some. If you don't agree with me that is fine, if you do voice your opinion and push towards a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages.

Thanks

The_Wall

thats nice to hear, because you have absolved anybody outside Christianity from all these restraints. so i would suggest that all gays should abandon Christianity and take up some other religion, (Zen? Hinduism?) and get married :D

edit : is Zen a religion? does it have marriages?

Originally posted by Kyle?
You're quite mistaken about the responsibility of the judicial branch. It's job is to enforce laws passed by the legislative. It is allowed to interpret the law, thus providing the buffer from the lawmakers and the adjudicators to prevent corruption. This is one of my biggest frustrations with current american government. Allowing the judiciary such power as they try to take effectively takes the power of the law out of the hands of the people. I mean, who ever heard of a court telling the legislature what to do? That is utter nonsense.

you are pretty confused, because you have given the answer to your own question. the court is not telling the legislature what to do, it is just interpreting the law as it is laid down today by past legislations (viz the Constitution), because the legistlature specifically asked the court to do so (because they did not understand that law very well? no surprise there).

actually, even our esteemed president is just as confused. in response today's ruling, he has condemned the 'activist judges' who dared to do this. his advisors must have given up on explaining to him that the judges are not breaking new ground here; they are just enforcing old statutes.

anyway, i hope all this can settle down fast now; i am looking forward to the day when gay marriage is part of the social millieu; then we could get onto the more important task of alleviating world hunger...;)

Counterfit

Feb 5, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Here's a news flash - the law is not determined by your or anyone else's idea of what the Bible says. You think it is "wrong" for gay couples to marry; fine, don't get married to someone of your same sex. The law is for all of us not just for those that hold your particular religious view. Well, in a way...
Okay, laws are based on society's collective morals, society is made of of people (and maybe a chimp or two), and it's their morals that affect the laws. If more people have similar morals (i.e. murder = bad) then the laws will reflect that. And many people's morals come from one religion or another, hence, some laws will reflect some people's interpretation of the Bible.
Not saying I agree with their interpretation, I like to focus more on the "love your neighbor as yourself" part :)

Sayhey

Feb 5, 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Well, in a way...
Okay, laws are based on society's collective morals, society is made of of people (and maybe a chimp or two), and it's their morals that affect the laws. If more people have similar morals (i.e. murder = bad) then the laws will reflect that. And many people's morals come from one religion or another, hence, some laws will reflect some people's interpretation of the Bible.
Not saying I agree with their interpretation, I like to focus more on the "love your neighbor as yourself" part :)

I don't disagree that religions have contributed greatly to the formation of people's moral codes. My only point was that it is not an interpretation of the Bible that determines what our laws mean. No judge should be sitting down and checking if a law is consistent with Leviticus to determine if it is constitutional. I would hope that separation from religious dogma would continue and we would not mar the constitution by interjecting a particular religious point of view on marriage into it through a horrible amendment.

Counterfit

Feb 5, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't disagree that religions have contributed greatly to the formation of people's moral codes. My only point was that it is not an interpretation of the Bible that determines what our laws mean. No judge should be sitting down and checking if a law is consistent with Leviticus to determine if it is constitutional. I would hope that separation from religious dogma would continue and we would not mar the constitution by interjecting a particular religious point of view on marriage into it through a horrible amendment. Right on then :)

pseudobrit

Feb 5, 2004, 01:05 AM

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
I assure you the DoMA actually set gay marriage on track, effectively making marriage a state matter, rather than federal... States are going to get gay marriage passed a long time before the entire country did.
Well, that's a twisted way of looking at it. As of May 17th I'll be able to be married in Massachusetts but not be able to move anywhere else in the country and have my equal rights protected. Had Clinton not promoted and supported DoMA I'd be able to enjoy equal rights anywhere in the US.

I think it's important for people deluded into thinking Clinton was and is on their side, and was actually making it easy for states to permit gay marriage, to take note of his exact words said seconds before signing DoMA into law: "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position."

jxyama

Feb 5, 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I think the best solution is this:

Civil unions for everyone
Marriages from religious groups

That way no one is being discriminated against in terms of the government and marriage rights (civil union rights?) AND those institutions who feel applying the term marriage to gays are free not to do so.

i'm not religious. i'm straight. i'm gonna get married. why shouldn't gay couples be entitled to the same? why do they have to tip toe around religious groups when i don't?

The_Wall

Feb 5, 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
No thanks. There are plenty of marriages where one person of the couple has been sterilised. I guess those marriages are wrong.

Read the Bible and get a clue? I did. I'm tolerant. Read your New Testament Gospel, Goliath.

I did not say anything about one person or another being sterile. It is unfortunate that some people are born that way.
All I said was a woman can not get another woman pregnant. It's pretty obvious a woman can only do half the work and it is up to her husband to do the other half.

If you have read the Bible, then I do not see how you could accept it as being right and ok. I will give you specific verses where it is pointed out as being wrong if you would like

jxyama

Feb 5, 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by The_Wall
IIf you have read the Bible, then I do not see how you could accept it as being right and ok. I will give you specific verses where it is pointed out as being wrong if you would like

please don't do this. religion is a personal thing and as long as you feel free to hold your beliefs, you should let others hold theirs.

Sayhey

Feb 5, 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by The_Wall
I did not say anything about one person or another being sterile. It is unfortunate that some people are born that way.
All I said was a woman can not get another woman pregnant. It's pretty obvious a woman can only do half the work and it is up to her husband to do the other half.

If you have read the Bible, then I do not see how you could accept it as being right and ok. I will give you specific verses where it is pointed out as being wrong if you would like

Again, there a many, many who either don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible or don't acknowledge that it is something that should determine how they live their lives. You can quote Biblical scripture until you're blue in the face and it doesn't mean that what the Bible says or doesn't say has any bearing on what the law should be. We have a guarantee in the constitution for equal protection - not equal protection except for those the Bible doesn't like.

The_Wall

Feb 5, 2004, 11:20 AM

Regardless of the Bible or not, it is still a fundamental fact that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of Discussion. She needs a man's sperm. That in itself should tell you something about same sex marriages.

If everyone married someone of the same sex the human race would be extinct. That is a little bit of an extreme example but sound none the less. If you all insist on gay marriage move to Canada and stay there.

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 11:35 AM

Wow, you're a little hostile about this... Let's not go using the 'love it or leave it' arguement, that's a tired and uselessly antagonistic tactic.

question fear

Feb 5, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by The_Wall
Regardless of the Bible or not, it is still a fundamental fact that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of Discussion. She needs a man's sperm. That in itself should tell you something about same sex marriages.

If everyone married someone of the same sex the human race would be extinct. That is a little bit of an extreme example but sound none the less. If you all insist on gay marriage move to Canada and stay there.

But, you are still stuck in the idea that marriage is entirely for procreation and not for love, companionship, legal benefits, etc.
which is untrue, if the government wanted marriage to be procreation there would be a per-child limit like in the novel 1984.
And legalizing gay marriage does not mean everyone is going to run off and marry someone of the same sex...people can just marry whom they like.
i highly doubt the majority of america is poised wiht divorce papers in hand waiting for the time when gay marriage is legalized so they can go marry other men/women.
the only people who care are the ones who have been doing it from the start, the ones who could not get married. so there would not be any change in the population, and therefore there is no discernable reason not to (outside of religious arguments that have little place in a secular discussion.)

-c

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 11:44 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The_Wall
Regardless of the Bible or not, it is still a fundamental fact that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of Discussion. She needs a man's sperm. That in itself should tell you something about same sex marriages.

If everyone married someone of the same sex the human race would be extinct. That is a little bit of an extreme example but sound none the less. If you all insist on gay marriage move to Canada and stay there. [/QUOTE

Your opinion is your opinion, and obviously you don't care if your opinion adversely impacts anyone but you. Aren't you kind!

Let's see... if marriage is about getting pregnant, and if those who are partnered but not interested in getting pregnant don't belong here and should move to Canada, then will the first person you put on the plane to Canada be Democratic presidential candidate (and current front-runner) Senator John Kerry? He and his wife Teresa are quite open about not wanting to have children from their marriage. He lives around the corner from me. I can go tell him that you're exiling him to Canada if you'd like.

Who's next? Infertile couples?

Then whom would you banish... married couples where the men have had vasectomies? Lets see... I suppose you'll then be forcing women with hysterectomies to high-tail it to Canada.

You're entitled to your opinions, and to express them here. But, should you wish to be taken somewhat seriously and not be considered a selfish fool, you should try to understand the consequences of what you promote.

numediaman

Feb 5, 2004, 12:25 PM

Couldn't the court have compromised and simply outlawed marriage for everyone? As someone who has been married for 17 years, I believe . . . oops, gotta go the wife is coming.

One last thing: the court ruled that, when it comes to marriage, the state can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gee, that seems simple enough.

If I understand the other side's view, they are saying that you can discriminate based on their religious views. Since when do we make law based on religious beliefs. Should certain communities outlaw pork? Should we allow stonings?

Bush, on the other hand, says that it should be illegal based on polling data showing that a majority of Americans are against it. Gee, a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution, believe in aliens, and use Windows. (need I say more).

The law protects all citizens, even those in the minority. The fact that the President will try to use this issue to divide America, rather than to lead and unite this country, is disgusting (and one more reason it is imperative that he be defeated in November).

jxyama

Feb 5, 2004, 12:26 PM

The_Wall

Feb 5, 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by question fear
But, you are still stuck in the idea that marriage is entirely for procreation and not for love, companionship, legal benefits, etc.
which is untrue, if the government wanted marriage to be procreation there would be a per-child limit like in the novel 1984.
And legalizing gay marriage does not mean everyone is going to run off and marry someone of the same sex...people can just marry whom they like.
i highly doubt the majority of america is poised wiht divorce papers in hand waiting for the time when gay marriage is legalized so they can go marry other men/women.
the only people who care are the ones who have been doing it from the start, the ones who could not get married. so there would not be any change in the population, and therefore there is no discernable reason not to (outside of religious arguments that have little place in a secular discussion.)

-c

You are arguing that I'm stuck on procreation. In your quote of me I never said that you should only marry for procreation. You should marry someone because you love them and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Not for tax benefits, health insurance, nothing. Those are all bonuses but are second in line.

I bring up the creation thing as a specific example and even say it is extreme. Why are you stuck on it. You can also look at the fact that if people who are gay are alive because of the fact that if they're parents were straight they did create and have you. Sure you can do it in a laboratory but it still is obviously not the way it is supposed to happen.

The_Wall

Feb 5, 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The_Wall
Regardless of the Bible or not, it is still a fundamental fact that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of Discussion. She needs a man's sperm. That in itself should tell you something about same sex marriages.

If everyone married someone of the same sex the human race would be extinct. That is a little bit of an extreme example but sound none the less. If you all insist on gay marriage move to Canada and stay there. [/QUOTE

Your opinion is your opinion, and obviously you don't care if your opinion adversely impacts anyone but you. Aren't you kind!

Let's see... if marriage is about getting pregnant, and if those who are partnered but not interested in getting pregnant don't belong here and should move to Canada, then will the first person you put on the plane to Canada be Democratic presidential candidate (and current front-runner) Senator John Kerry? He and his wife Teresa are quite open about not wanting to have children from their marriage. He lives around the corner from me. I can go tell him that you're exiling him to Canada if you'd like.

Who's next? Infertile couples?

Then whom would you banish... married couples where the men have had vasectomies? Lets see... I suppose you'll then be forcing women with hysterectomies to high-tail it to Canada.

You're entitled to your opinions, and to express them here. But, should you wish to be taken somewhat seriously and not be considered a selfish fool, you should try to understand the consequences of what you promote.

Where in my quote above do I say that marriage is just about procreation. I don't say a thing about it so lay off the marriage is just for reproduction cause I do not believe that or have I ever said that is all it is for. If Kerry and his wife do not want to have kids that is their business. I have no problems with that.

I support the fact that Kerry is against gay marriage and that is the way it should be and stay.

All i have ever said is that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of discussion, I even left the Bible out like i was asked to. If you want to discuss something that I actually said then go right ahead, but do not put words into my mouth

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 12:55 PM

So you are just saying a woman can't get another woman pregnant to hear yourself talk? You aren't trying to use it as a reason to be against gay marriage? If you aren't using that particular statement to argue with, why did you say it in the first place?

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by The_Wall
Regardless of the Bible or not, it is still a fundamental fact that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of Discussion. She needs a man's sperm. That in itself should tell you something about same sex marriages.

Ummm.... hello!!! Read your post!!!

We're reading your posts and it's quite obvious that you are slowly, but surely, backtracking on arguments you put forth.

If you don't have the convictions to defend what you put in writing in a post, then perhaps you should just stop posting, period.

I'm sure activists trying to outlaw gay marriage would appreciate you keeping quiet... you don't seem to be doing them any favors.

It's people like you that make me realize the Electoral College is a good thing... sensible people in America need protection from people like you!

numediaman

Feb 5, 2004, 01:12 PM

pdrayton, you might want to re-read your post and consider editing it. There is no reason to be mean spirited.

I am completely in agreement with the MA decision. But it is not so important that we shout down those on the other side. It is most important that we articulate our views and encourage politicians to defend the constitution (not corrupt it with an amendment that would discriminate against a portion of the citizenry).

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by numediaman
pdrayton, you might want to re-read your post and consider editing it. There is no reason to be mean spirited.

I am completely in agreement with the MA decision. But it is not so important that we shout down those on the other side. It is most important that we articulate our views and encourage politicians to defend the constitution (not corrupt it with an amendment that would discriminate against a portion of the citizenry).
I stand by my post as an appropriate response to what "The Wall" has written, especially considering he posted that I should move to Canada.

I also was not suggesting that The Wall should be "shut down". I've actually posted previously that he has a right to express his views on this forum. I merely pointed out that it doesn't appear he understands or cares how his opinions impact others, that his lack of defending what he writes makes his arguments appear unfounded and that "perhaps" he'd do a better job of defending his comments by simply not trying to explain them anymore, and that I believe the Electoral College is a good protection for those of us trying to protect ourselves from people who espouse off-the-wall ideas.

jxyama

Feb 5, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by The_Wall
Where in my quote above do I say that marriage is just about procreation. I don't say a thing about it so lay off the marriage is just for reproduction cause I do not believe that or have I ever said that is all it is for.

if following aren't strong implications of your thoughts that a couple's ability to procreate is important (or essential) part of marriage, then i don't know what are.

i don't think any of us are putting words in your mouth.

(emphasis mine on the first quote below.)

-----
02-04-2004 11:15 PM

No offense to any of the macrumors members but lets be honest same sex marriages are wrong. This is obvious from the fact that girls cant get girls pregnant and guys cant get each other pregnant.

We were made the way we were by God, and made to join in marriage with a person of the opposite sex and reproduce.

02-05-2004 09:40 AM

I did not say anything about one person or another being sterile. It is unfortunate that some people are born that way.
All I said was a woman can not get another woman pregnant. It's pretty obvious a woman can only do half the work and it is up to her husband to do the other half.

02-05-2004 11:20 AM

Regardless of the Bible or not, it is still a fundamental fact that a woman can not get a woman pregnant. End of Discussion. She needs a man's sperm. That in itself should tell you something about same sex marriages.

----

No, you didn't say marriage is all about procreation. however, you keep on mentioning how something is "wrong" with same sex marriage because the couple cannot procreate. if you think marriage is not all about procreation, as you claim, then please give us another example of what's wrong with same sex marriage.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by jxyama
i'm not religious. i'm straight. i'm gonna get married. why shouldn't gay couples be entitled to the same? why do they have to tip toe around religious groups when i don't?

Because under this proposed solution you would only get "married" in a church/synagogue/etc. Marriage in and of itself would have no legal standing, only civil unions would. This keeps marriage as something religious (which is what the religious groups want) but makes sure that everyone has the same LEGAL means of having a partnership. I realize that i may seem like its just symantics, but what some people see as just a word, in this case marriage, has a deeper meaning to other people. What is wrong with respecting that? Why is it somehow more right for the gay-rights people to foist there view of right on wrong on others? As long as the solution doesn't discriminate what is wrong with simply removing the term marriage from the legal aspect of domestic partnerships?

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 02:17 PM

How 'bout we keep the word 'marriage' as the secular term, and if the religious groups want to make their distinction they call theirs a 'religious union'? Fair enough?

jxyama

Feb 5, 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I realize that i may seem like its just symantics, but what some people see as just a word, in this case marriage, has a deeper meaning to other people. What is wrong with respecting that? Why is it somehow more right for the gay-rights people to foist there view of right on wrong on others?

i misunderstood your point the first time, but i still don't like the general idea of non-religious people having to tiptoe around the use of the word "marriage." but i can understand it, it's just a word to me but i realize it means more than that to others. however, i can see how this will be scrutinized under the "separate but equal" idea, perhaps.

anyway, i think in this case, the more "tolerant" views have to be allowed to be foisted. why? because gays have been denied equal rights/benefits only because they are gay. religious bunch having to made feel uncomfortable (or worse) because of the word "marriage" used out of the context of their interpretations - while unfortunately for them on personal level - can hardly be compared to the discriminations gays have had to endure, imo.

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 03:23 PM

In many European countries it is customary to have the "civil marriage" conducted the day before the "religious marriage", and the "religious marriage" is optional. That way you separate the obtaining of marriage benefits from the church.

I must confess that it is odd that liberals, who frequently are opposed to the government contracting-out social service programs to faith-based groups, have no problem with the government contracting-out civil marriage services to faith-based groups.

One should remember that not all denominations are against gay marriage. And, we should also remember that for those denominations that are against it, losing this battle means losing "authority" to compel members to behave in a certain way.

It's not an unfaithful act to question the church's teachings. About time we did more of that!

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 04:10 PM

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
It's not an unfaithful act to question the church's teachings. About time we did more of that!

But you also have to accept the fact that sometimes questioning the teachings of the church doesn't mean they should be changed. If you or anyone after questioning the teachings of your faith finds them inadequate you should also examine the opportunities and beliefs of other systems. It may be that the group you belong to isn't the right one for you.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Because marriage is a religiously derived term.

Do you have a source that backs that up?

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by jxyama
anyway, i think in this case, the more "tolerant" views have to be allowed to be foisted. why? because gays have been denied equal rights/benefits only because they are gay. religious bunch having to made feel uncomfortable (or worse) because of the word "marriage" used out of the context of their interpretations - while unfortunately for them on personal level - can hardly be compared to the discriminations gays have had to endure, imo.

In many ways I do agree with you. And believe me I am no fan of the conservative right wingers. But I sometimes think that liberal leftists are just as set in their ways and arrogant about there beliefs (i've met some scary animal rights activists in may day). Ultimately we all base our beliefs on something, whether its God, Buddha, or a tree. In the end some ho somewhere someones views aren't going to be accepted by society. As it stands it is illegal to marry multiple people or to marry your sister/brother/daughter/son, etc. We also exclude people who wish to practice human sacrifice. I realize thats a little different than marriage, but if we argue that you shouldn't make laws that exclude people based on their beliefs, it can be taken to the extreme and we end up with anarchy. Of course we take it the other way and we get totalitarianism. My point wasn't to say that allowing gays to marry is right or wrong, just to make sure people realize that no matter which side we choose, unless everyone agrees on it we are foisting one set of beliefs on others.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Do you have a source that backs that up?

I'm sorry, derived was the wrong word to use, I meant that it was a religiously significant term, and has been associated with religious unions far longer than civil unions.

The following site (http://www.etymonline.com/m3etym.htm) give the etymological birth of the word marry in the sense that we use it today to Old French circa 1300 A.D. At that time as it was for much longer France was a Christian nation, and the only type of "marriages" were religious ones. The idea of a seperate civil marriage did not exist, as the church was the state.

Thanatoast

Feb 5, 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
And, we should also remember that for those denominations that are against it, losing this battle means losing "authority" to compel members to behave in a certain way.

I disagree. There are plenty of rules set by certain religious denominations that are not followed by laws set by the government. Orthodox Jews can't eat pork, but there is no law against bacon. Mormons aren't allowed to drink, but the government doesn't outlaw drinking (nitpicking aside). Strict Islam requires women to wear a burka, but there is no law requiring it for the general population. Gay marriage is outlawed by the Baptist Church, but should it be a federal law as well? The Baptist Church loses no authority over its members if the government allows a certain activity that the church itself does not.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 5, 2004, 04:37 PM

It looks like the judicial branch is making law rather then enforcing current law and tradition, why not just give em civil unions and be done with it? because the minority wants to force its views on the majority. Just like trying to remove god from schools and courthouses. the aethiest minority trying to push its views on the people who think there is a god which is the majority. Let me ask you who runs this country the majority or the minority? for 2 thousand years being married ment a man and woman and now they want to change this for the minority's sake? here comes more legal hoopla.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I'm sorry, derived was the wrong word to use, I meant that it was a religiously significant term, and has been associated with religious unions far longer than civil unions.

The following site (http://www.etymonline.com/m3etym.htm) give the etymological birth of the word marry in the sense that we use it today to Old French circa 1300 A.D. At that time as it was for much longer France was a Christian nation, and the only type of "marriages" were religious ones. The idea of a seperate civil marriage did not exist, as the church was the state.

Actually, according to that site, the French word is derived from Latin. It most likely can be tracked even further back.

I doubt the concept has been solely associated with religious unions since it came about, and, IMO, its appropriation as such was nothing short of a calculated effort by organized religion to ensure continuing members of "the flock" and to establish the legitimacy of the sect.

It's a semantics game and it's stupid.

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I'm sorry, derived was the wrong word to use, I meant that it was a religiously significant term, and has been associated with religious unions far longer than civil unions.

The following site (http://www.etymonline.com/m3etym.htm) give the etymological birth of the word marry in the sense that we use it today to Old French circa 1300 A.D. At that time as it was for much longer France was a Christian nation, and the only type of "marriages" were religious ones. The idea of a seperate civil marriage did not exist, as the church was the state.
When the church lost its status as being part of the state during the American Revolution it also lost its claim to determine for the state how the word marriage is used.

Fortunately for me, my church (Episcopal, but when it first opened in Boston it was Church of England) not only permitted me to have my wedding in the church, it sanctioned it as a marriage.

Remember, too, that marriage as a sacrament of the church has a history of being available only to upper-class citizens for most of history. Thus, if we set aside marriage as being only for straight people out of deference to the long history of the meaning of the word, then we should also exclude straight people who aren't of high enough social status.

There are a lot of well meaning intentions for not permitting gay marriage. They just don't stand up to any critical examination.

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I'm sorry, derived was the wrong word to use, I meant that it was a religiously significant term, and has been associated with religious unions far longer than civil unions.

The following site (http://www.etymonline.com/m3etym.htm) give the etymological birth of the word marry in the sense that we use it today to Old French circa 1300 A.D. At that time as it was for much longer France was a Christian nation, and the only type of "marriages" were religious ones. The idea of a seperate civil marriage did not exist, as the church was the state.

There have been marriages since before 1300 AD....

Link (http://www.handfasting.info/histirish.html)

Handfasting is an ancient Celtic custom, especially common in Ireland and Scotland, in which a man and woman came together at the start of their marriage relationship. Their hands, or more accurately, their wrists, were literally tied together. This practice gave way to the expression "tying the knot" which has come to mean getting married or engaged.

pdrayton

Feb 5, 2004, 05:02 PM

If the word marriage is sensitive to some people due to religious reasons, and therefore should not be used to describe gay unions, why do some states have "Common Law Marriage"?

Common Law Marriage is when a state grants marriage benefits to a couple who have neither wed in a civil or church ceremony and have lived together for a minimum length of time.

If the term "marriage" is so sacrosanct, why aren't people who are opposed to gay marriage also opposed to common law marriage? And, how would "civil marriage" be worse than "common law marriage"? Neither is automatically recognized by the church. Actually, churches typically don't recognize common law marriages.

I say, call it Civil Marriage for everybody and don't worry about the churches!

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
There have been marriages since before 1300 AD....

Link (http://www.handfasting.info/histirish.html)

I never claimed that marriages themselves haven't existed since long before. Most cultures have some type of marriage and have for a long time. The point I was trying to make was that someone asked why the word "marrriage" should be used by religious groups and "civil unions" by the state, rather than "marriage" by the state and "religious unions" by the religious groups. My answer, which as has been pointed out is based primarily on symantics once you get down to it, was that the word "marriage" has been associated with religion and carries with it certain meanings. Thats all.

I am NOT trying to say whether or not gays should be allowed to marry
I am NOT trying to say that if they are allowed the system should be unequal (i.e. civil unions for one group marriages for another)
I am trying to point out the significance the word carries for religious groups and why even though its a word it has far more meaning.

iMeowbot

Feb 5, 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Because marriage is a religiously derived term.

Yes, it was derived from the name of the goddess Aphrodite-Mari, who wasn't exactly into the one partner for life thing, was seriously into incest, and even had a dual-sex kid, Hermaphroditus (and hermaphrodites do live in this world; should they be allowed to marry, and to whom?).

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 05:43 PM

What does it matter then, if religious groups hold the definition of that word differently than everyone else? Since the federal government does not (and should not) proscribe a national religion, that distinction holds no sway on the argument.

As has been pointed out (repeatedly), the semantics and etymology of the word don't matter. I've heard it over and over, but to me it amounts to a shell game or red herring, diverting attention from the reality of the situation.

pseudobrit

Feb 5, 2004, 05:47 PM

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I doubt the concept has been solely associated with religious unions since it came about, and, IMO, its appropriation as such was nothing short of a calculated effort by organized religion to ensure continuing members of "the flock" and to establish the legitimacy of the sect.
Correct, unions have existed for a long long time. However, those who believe in the teachings of the Bible see marriage as a direct gift from God with deep significance. While you may not see it this way, asking them to simply allow what they see as a sacred institution to be violated is important to them. Oh and not all of us "flock" members are as blind and stupid as some people on this forum think. Most religious people I know spend just as much time examining there beliefs as non-religious people do.

It's a semantics game and it's stupid.

Words are far more powerful than you give them credit for then. For example the use the N-word is enough in most cases to cause intense racial enmity. Words can have lasting effects on a person and society. A word is not simply a collection of letters but a representation of thoughts and ideas, its more than the sum of its parts so to speak. While its true that many events are affected by action, those actions are often times the direct results of words. Speech writers, politicians, buisness men, religious leaders, activists, the most efective ones understand that the power of the write word or words can hold incredible significance for people. You think Steve Jobs gets up there on stage and just randomly says whatever is on his mind? No the presentation is crafted, using key words (innovation, insanely great, etc) to there full potential. As the saying goes, "The pen is mightier than the swords"

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
However, those who believe in the teachings of the Bible see marriage as a direct gift from God with deep significance. While you may not see it this way, asking them to simply allow what they see as a sacred institution to be violated is important to them.

How about those who believe in the constitution, and see equality for all people as a gift. We see our sacred institution being violated and you are asking us to accept that because of your religion.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
..

Words are far more powerful than you give them credit for then. For example the use the N-word is enough in most cases to cause intense racial enmity. Words can have lasting effects on a person and society. A word is not simply a collection of letters but a representation of thoughts and ideas, its more than the sum of its parts so to speak. While its true that many events are affected by action, those actions are often times the direct results of words. Speech writers, politicians, buisness men, religious leaders, activists, the most efective ones understand that the power of the write word or words can hold incredible significance for people. You think Steve Jobs gets up there on stage and just randomly says whatever is on his mind? No the presentation is crafted, using key words (innovation, insanely great, etc) to there full potential. As the saying goes, "The pen is mightier than the swords"

On the contrary, I do believe words are very powerful. Why? Because they are manipulable. Which leads us directly to the debate we're in now.

The word has been manipulated by certain groups to mean something it originally did not, and these groups are trying to use their definition as a reason for denying certain people rights.

numediaman

Feb 5, 2004, 06:02 PM

The Bible also allows polygamy and forbids football (Deteronomy, ch. 14 -- I always love pulling that quote out). That doesn't mean that we will set law based on this. Or is this Iran?

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Okay, a challenge: show me where Jesus said gay marriage is bad.

A woman cannot get a woman pregnant so they shouldn't be allowed to marry and that ends the discussion? Nah, it ends your (internal) discussion, because you don't want to open your mind.

What about most-menopausal widows? What about divorced men who've had vasectomies? Are they not allowed to fall in love and be married?

NOTE: These are merely examples of the teachings of the Bible and do not represent what all people view as right or wrong. In addition to opposing sodomy (itself a term derived from the Bible and refering to homosexual sex) the bible has prohibitions against pre-marital sex. It should be noted that those who do not believe in the Bible will obviously not feel compelled to follow its teachings. This post is meant only to illustrate the Biblical reasons why homosexual acts are considered wrong. It is also important to note that while the bible condemns sinful acts, it does not necessarilly condemn the person for being homosexual or having homosexual thoughts in the first place, instead viewing those thoughts as any other temptation (the urge to steal or lie) for example. Please do not attack me for trying to impose my religious views or any religious views for that matter on anyone else, the purpose of this post is to provide liturgical evidence for one groups position on homosexual acts.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Also of note is the tale of Soddom and Gamorah, two cities which God is said to have destroyed because of the sinful acts of its inhabitants, notably sexual relations between men and even bestiality. This is where the term soddomy is derived from as I stated above.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 06:04 PM

He asked about gay marriage, not homosexual intercourse.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
How about those who believe in the constitution, and see equality for all people as a gift. We see our sacred institution being violated and you are asking us to accept that because of your religion.

I am not, nor have I ever said that, I simply asked that you accept the fact that some people view marriages significance differently.

Also, I should point out that marriage is not in any way mentioned in the constitution. Marriage laws are enacted by the legislature.

Now I am not saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, merely pointing out that I feel that the constitutional grounds are far more shakey than if a law were enacted to make sure marriage rights were equal (I think GW's idea of a constitutional ammendment about marriage is appalling, fyi).

Sayhey

Feb 5, 2004, 06:20 PM

I don't want to get into a war of biblical quotes. It is for people of each faith and denomination to sort out what their religious beliefs mean around this issue. What will not happen is the idea that somehow the State will mandate a change in religious practices. That is clearly outside of the scope of the courts, and if any church wishes to continue a ban on homosexual marriage they need not worry about this case. However, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We shall see if the US Supreme Court will uphold the Mass. Supreme Court in saying that this equal protection includes a minority of our citizens who wish the same marriage rights as everyone else. It shall also be interesting to see how it deals with the clearly unconstitutional DOMA laws that would allow one state to not recognize the laws of another.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
He asked about gay marriage, not homosexual intercourse.

Ok fine,
Gensis 2:18-24

18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

This is the passage Jesus refers to in both Matthew and Mark when asked about marriage and divorce.

Again I should point out that unless you are a Christian this will have no authoritative meaning for you and I'm not trying to tell you it should, just explaining why homosexuality and homosexual unions are not allowed in the Church.

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 06:33 PM

I could care less why it's not allowed in the church. I care about why it's not allowed by the state. That's what we are debating here. If you are trying to convince us why the church thinks its wrong, we are on different tangents.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
..

Again I should point out that unless you are a Christian this will have no authoritative meaning for you and I'm not trying to tell you it should, just explaining why homosexuality and homosexual unions are not allowed in the Church.

The "Church" is a broad generalization. Not all branches of Christianity feel the same about homosexuality.

And it still has nothing to do with the Constitution and equal rights.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I could care less why it's not allowed in the church. I care about why it's not allowed by the state. That's what we are debating here. If you are trying to convince us why the church thinks its wrong, we are on different tangents.

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say it:
I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT BECAUSE THE CHURCH TEACHES THIS WE SHOULD ALL FOLLOW IT.

I am simply replying to a previous poster who asked about the Biblical reasoning behind it.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
And it still has nothing to do with the Constitution and equal rights.

Did I ever claim it did? No I did not. What I did do was respond to a specific persons question regarding homosexuality and the Bible.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
On the contrary, I do believe words are very powerful. Why? Because they are manipulable. Which leads us directly to the debate we're in now.

The word has been manipulated by certain groups to mean something it originally did not, and these groups are trying to use their definition as a reason for denying certain people rights.

Actually the word marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. I do not advocate denying anyone rights because of it, but it is certainly untrue to characterize the original meaning of the word as being manipulated in this case.

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say it:
I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT BECAUSE THE CHURCH TEACHES THIS WE SHOULD ALL FOLLOW IT.

Calm down. No need to get your nose out of joint here. You do seem to be arguing that church people are being put upon by those who want to force their views on them, but you don't seem to be acknologing that the same works in reverse, that gays might possibly feel like religious groups are forcing their views on them in denying their right to marry.

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Calm down. No need to get your nose out of joint here. You do seem to be arguing that church people are being put upon by those who want to force their views on them, but you don't seem to be acknologing that the same works in reverse, that gays might possibly feel like religious groups are forcing their views on them in denying their right to marry.

Its hard to be calm when people post responses to what you have said without taking the time to read it. I have never advocated that we not have gay marriage in this entire thread. My original post was an idea (posited to me by a completely non-religious friend) that a possible solution was to use a different term than marriage for EVERYONE when dealing with non-religious state acknowledged legal unions. I have stated that I think Bush's idea of ammending the constitution in this way is a BAD thing. AND I have answered direct questions regarding the significance of the word marriage and the Biblical view of homosexuality. I state very clearly that I am NOT trying to force religious views on anyone and then that is exactly what I am accused of.

Sayhey

Feb 5, 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Actually the word marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. I do not advocate denying anyone rights because of it, but it is certainly untrue to characterize the original meaning of the word as being manipulated in this case.

I don't think whether the use of the word "marriage" has it's origins in societies that only recognized marriage as being between one man and one woman is really the point. Marriage means many things in many different cultures throughout history. To fixate on one particular idea of what it means and to try and assert that therefore it is the way it must be forever is just argumentative sleight of hand. Now before I get a response in all capital letters, let me say I'm not saying that is your position. I am saying that is the position of some religious and political figures in the US. We have seen the idea of what marriage and family means change tremendously over the 200+ years of the republic and none of those changes meant the fall of Western Civilization.

What I would like is for people who oppose Gay marriage to answer the following. Given the fact that for a very long time the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical community rejects the notion of homosexuality as a mental disorder, and given the recent Supreme Court's ruling declaring homosexual sex as protected by our privacy rights as citizens, and most importantly given the explicit right of "equal protection" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - just what other than religious dogma or bigotry justifies the second class status of a group of our fellow citizens? If it is religious dogma it should play no role in the interpretation of the law and if it is bigotry then it should be condemned.

What I'm trying to say here is that all the old reasons we used to give for this discrimination no longer hold water (they never really did but we have finally recognized that fact) or are irrelevant to the discussion.

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I state very clearly that I am NOT trying to force religious views on anyone and then that is exactly what I am accused of.

The problem I have is that you use religious basis for arguing that the term marriage belongs to a certain group. As I see it, marriage has become a term that refers to the union of couples in our society. Whether you believe that the term couples should be replaced with the words 'one man and one woman' or not marriage has become the joint pervue of the religious AND secular communities. Thus it follows that if you don't want your marriage to be associate with gay marriages (because that's what they are, or are going to be) then you need to come up with your own term for it. I suggest religious unions. They would be free to pick any other that they wanted. If the religious types wanted to defend their sacrement, they should have spoken up a long time ago, the term marriage has long been in the secular domain with no complaints from the religious side. Why should I have to be the one to give up my marriage simply because some religious types don't recognize it? Why should all the Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc. be denied their right to the word marriage because the Christians claim it? Even if the entomology of the word has Christian roots, which is still in doubt, that doesn't change the fact that the word belongs to the English culture, and not to any group of people. It would be as if a pre-Christian group demanded that you gave up the Easter holiday, as it was originally celebrated by them, and their god told them you were an 'abomination' and couldn't be allowed to have it. It's preposterous to ask someone to give up some part of your race's/religion's/country's culture that they have adapted to their use.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 5, 2004, 10:37 PM

Just to throw my word in here - I want to say real quick that I think Krizoitz has been entirely fair and articulate in his posting, and has been pooped on pretty unfairly by a large number of posters putting words in his mouth, and assuming his quotes of the Bible were meant to coerce other into its (not even his) line of thinking.

And I also have to say in many ways I agree with what he is saying. Just imagine for a second the US government decides to do what Krizoitz suggests and all-together drops the word "marriage", a word with heavy religious connotations no matter what it's origins (certainly before the writing of our constitution), and instead adopts the title "civil union" to describe the political rights entitled to any pairing of people - man, woman, transgendered, straight or gay. How much easier would it be to argue with wacked-out homophobes then? Gone would be the "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" argument, because there would be no legal definition of "marriage". Equal protection under the law would be upheld, the churches could continue denying marriage rights (which is fine, it's their porogative - you just won't see me in their pews) and the anti-gay relationships people would really have absolutely no argument to stand on at all. What could they say?

What Krizoitz has suggested here is really quite reasonable, very logically, practical, and in no ways does it warrant the attacks that have been levied against him.

And you guys are right, the word has been adopted by the mainstream, and now has secular connotations, which perhaps outdate the religious ones. But I do think this whole issue would be more easily digested by our heavily religious society if the whole word "marriage" itself was simply dropped from any sort of legal context whatsoever. It's a semantics game, sure enough, but it's one that a lot of people are relying on as a last leg effort to make their beliefs law. Dropping the word itself is the best way to pull out the carpet from the stupid argument that same-sex couples shouldn't allowed to be legally unionized. It would really do a lot to push this issue in the right direction.

Davis

PS I am very, very gay, so this is a personal topic for me.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 10:59 PM

I apologize if any of my posts came across as attacks. I don't believe they do and they were not intended to do do.

My issue is, and was, this whole separate nomenclature for the same thing. Time has shown that separate is usually inherently unequal, and by distinguishing between one type of union an another we set up a system that allows discrimination.

I don't agree that the term marriage should be reserved only for religious ceremonies, regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants. It is a word that certain groups are trying to take ownership of unfairly.

In order to make the system work, as proposed by Krizoitz, all references to the term marriage/married would have to disappear from legal documents, tax forms, etc. Why turn the world upside-down to keep a few people content about their (incorrect) definition of a word?

Krizoitz

Feb 5, 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Just to throw my word in here - I want to say real quick that I think Krizoitz has been entirely fair and articulate in his posting, and has been pooped on pretty unfairly by a large number of posters putting words in his mouth...

Davis

Thank you Davis for taking the time to read what I have been saying, I really really appreciate it. For the record regardless of what my or anyones opinion on the religious morality of homosexuality I see no reason for the government to deny them rights because of it.

Sayhey

Feb 5, 2004, 11:27 PM

Just a few things. First, it is fine to argue that society should have a secular definition of marriage that has a separate term used to describe it than whatever is used to describe a religious ceremony except for one small problem. It is all abstract and has nothing to do with the situation we are in today. This is going to happen in Massachusetts in a few months and there is nothing short of a US Supreme Court injunction that will stop it. When it happens gay couples will get married and sure as can be there will be a case soon before the US Supreme Court. In other words the time for "finessing" this issue is long past, if it ever existed.

What is before us is simply the question of whether you will support the extension of civil rights to gay couples in this area of life. If you place the idea of equality before the law and separation of Church and State as the guiding principles of this debate, then I don't see how one can say no to that proposition. If one puts his or her religious beliefs as the determinant to where we should go from here then another answer is possible. However, make no mistake - if we choose the latter then we have profoundly changed the principles by which we have claimed to live for over two hundred years and given into fear.

Lastly, for those who think a word change would satisfy the religious right, then I don't think you've been paying attention. The campaign to repeal civil unions and deny domestic partner benefits is in full swing.

PS - Davis, I took no unfair shots at Krizoitz, but if I offended him in anyway he only has to point it out and I will gladly apologize.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 5, 2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I don't agree that the term marriage should be reserved only for religious ceremonies, regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants. It is a word that certain groups are trying to take ownership of unfairly.

In order to make the system work, as proposed by Krizoitz, all references to the term marriage/married would have to disappear from legal documents, tax forms, etc. Why turn the world upside-down to keep a few people content about their (incorrect) definition of a word?

The word marriage doesn't have to be reserved for anybody, just dropped from the legal system.

And it wouldn't turn the world upside-down, it would just take rewriting a couple of forms. And you know why I think we should do it? I will tell you why I think we should do it. This is why we should do it: so I can get ****** married - sorry - legally unionized to my frickin boyfriend and not have to move to frickin' Canada. I don't give a rats ass who "owns" the word marriage - the seculars or the very religious. "Religious Unions"? Come on now, does anyone think any church is going to accept this? No, hell no, no way would they drop their use of the word marriage. They are too closed minded, to stubborn in their ways. Well you know who is NOT supposed to be stubborn or closed minded or stuck in their ways? Secular Liberals. So, in all honesty, I wish some of the people here would stop THEIR semantics game, stop being so stupidly pig-headed, be the better person, and just drop the frickin' word "marriage" from their lexicon so I can be afforded equal protection under the law. The secular semantics game, INSISTING they be allowed use of the word marriage, is also slowing down this process, just as is the religious semantics game, insisting THEY be allowed to define the word marriage.

I don't care for this stupid word - if it would make people happier to use a different word then, f-it, I'm all for it. I want the legal protection of a state-sponsored union so I can get the better tax rates and not have to worry about my homophobic inlaws stealing my house if anything were to happen to my boyfriend.

Does this make sense?

Davis

mactastic

Feb 5, 2004, 11:38 PM

Davis, that would be an acceptable compromise to me if it took all the steam out of the issue on both sides. But without an aggressive opening position, you won't get a compromise acceptable to you. ;)

If the religious groups would agree to give up all actions to try to prevent homosexuals from acheiving equality, I would give them the word marriage. Even my own marriage to my wife. I'd take on the term civil union for that. But it would require a sea change in their attitude, as was stated earlier their aim isn't to claim the word marriage, they would seek to prevent you from having equal status based on their religious beliefs. Do not be naive and think this debate is simply over a word. Much more is at stake.

Sayhey

Feb 5, 2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Does this make sense?

Davis

The desire for those things makes a lot of sense, but that route to it isn't an option now.

Rower_CPU

Feb 5, 2004, 11:46 PM

I still stand by my separate but unequal statement. Call it something else if you want, as long as it affords you the same rights as anyone else. Just make damn sure that there's no distinction made anywhere else between being 'married' and being 'civilly unioned'.

I see it as a much harder battle to drop that word from the legal/societal lexicon than to get a few people to stop using a word inappropriately.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 5, 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
The desire for those things makes a lot of sense, but that route to it isn't an option now.

Yeah, no, I know it's not an option right now. But I have found that using that argument in a debate with someone who is anti-legal union of same-sex couples is an effective way to demonstrate the inherent constutionality of legal unions for all couples, and the inherent unconstitutionality of the current system. People are very pig-headed in their use of language, so when I am arguing with someone who doesn't want me to marry my boyfriend (which happens a lot), when I start in on the whole "drop the word marriage" thing, they tend to realize the silliness of their argument. "Marriage is between a man and a woman" only goes so far, and falls to pieces without the word in place.

Cause the honesty of the situation is this - we're going to have marriage for everyone pretty soon - maybe not within the next few years, but I'm pretty sure I'll get to marry my boyfriend yet, maybe in the next 20 years, maybe the next 50. Like or not, it'll happen.

In the meantime I'll take on any argument that illustrates beyond the grammar games why our system is unconstiutional, and why these judges are in no ways "activist".

Davis

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Yeah, no, I know it's not an option right now. But I have found that using that argument in a debate with someone who is anti-legal union of same-sex couples is an effective way to demonstrate the inherent constutionality of legal unions for all couples, and the inherent unconstitutionality of the current system. People are very pig-headed in their use of language, so when I am arguing with someone who doesn't want me to marry my boyfriend (which happens a lot), when I start in on the whole "drop the word marriage" thing, they tend to realize the silliness of their argument. "Marriage is between a man and a woman" only goes so far, and falls to pieces without the word in place.

Cause the honesty of the situation is this - we're going to have marriage for everyone pretty soon - maybe not within the next few years, but I'm pretty sure I'll get to marry my boyfriend yet, maybe in the next 20 years, maybe the next 50. Like or not, it'll happen.

In the meantime I'll take on any argument that illustrates beyond the grammar games why our system is unconstiutional, and why these judges are in no ways "activist".

Davis

I wish you luck for an early marriage date. As to your last paragraph, may the religious folks out there forgive me - Amen!

nospleen

Feb 6, 2004, 12:26 AM

After reading through all of the posts, it seems the majority of people are for gay marriages. I wonder if this is not representative of the whole, or if people opposing gay marriages do not want to say anything? Is it me or is it not 'trendy' to be against gay marriages?

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by nospleen
After reading through all of the posts, it seems the majority of people are for gay marriages. I wonder if this is not representative of the whole, or if people opposing gay marriages do not want to say anything? Is it me or is it not 'trendy' to be against gay marriages?

There are a lot of people out there against gay marriage, so I'm sure the percentages on this forum don't reflect the larger society. That said, it doesn't mean that folks who are for the right of gay couples to marry are doing it to be "trendy." Do you think some of us might just be saying so because we believe it is the right thing to do?

trebblekicked

Feb 6, 2004, 12:44 AM

nothing in anyone's posts here would lead me to believe "trendy" has anything to do with their position. the country is divided on the issue, as usual with a third feeling strongly one way, another third strongly the oppsite, and a fluctuating middle third.

my personal experiences leave me wondering where all the people who don't support gay marriage are. less than 1% of the people i speak to oppose the idea.

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by trebblekicked
my personal experiences leave me wondering where all the people who don't support gay marriage are. less than 1% of the people i speak to oppose the idea.

my personal experiences are similar, but heck, I live in San Francisco! If we here in the Nation's most liberal city got to choose the outcome it wouldn't even be close. ;)

vniow

Feb 6, 2004, 02:04 AM

I've thought about this a lot because the term means so much to me.

The term "civil union" sounds too much like a piece of souless legal document which in all fairness, so is marriage in this country. All it requires is that you get a liscence which is essentially a souless legal document but the reasons for it have everything to do with soul and nothing to do with legality.

Like I said in the beginning, it means a lot to me, marriage itself is more of a spiritual issue for most people, even if they're not religious, its about the bond it symbolises, if it wasn't a spititual issue then civil unions would be just as popular as marriages, even if they offered the same benefits. Its not about any tax breaks, its not about any insurance bundles for married couples and it most certainly is not about nothing, this word "marriage" represents something to much of us (gay or straight), it represents the bond we wish to share with someone we love and for that reason, something called a "civil union" or so (wtf does that sound like to you, something between two people who want to share the rest of their lives together in a loving bond or a business co-op?) and its the same with the word "partner" when people use soley to refer to gay couples, it doesn't carry the same meaning as "boyfriend", "girlfriend, "wife" or "husband", I refuse to let myself and my (hypothetical) girlfriend be called "partners", as far as I'm concerned, that completely ignores the relationship we (hypothetically) have and called it something its not and its the same thing with marriage. Rower is right on when he says "seperate but unequal", I'm going for nothing less than full equality and will settle for nothing but it.

You know what, I'll setle for civil unions, for now at least. Its better than nothing and it looks like the Democratic candidates who are looking like they're going to win the primaries support just that and nothing more and for now that's fine. I'm willing to compromise if there means there's a better chance that marriage, fully supported by the law will come into effect sometime within my lifespan. It would be even better if they called it civil marriage but....

pseudobrit

Feb 6, 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I am simply replying to a previous poster who asked about the Biblical reasoning behind it...

I did do was respond to a specific persons question regarding homosexuality and the Bible.

Bzzzt. WRONG!

I asked where Jesus said gay marriage is wrong.

You've given no Gospel verses there, only crap from the OT and letters.

Why not Gospel? Why not the words of Christ?

Krizoitz

Feb 6, 2004, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Bzzzt. WRONG!

I asked where Jesus said gay marriage is wrong.

You've given no Gospel verses there, only crap from the OT and letters.

Why not Gospel? Why not the words of Christ?

First, Christian doctrine isn't soley based on what Jesus said, he didn't address everything.

Second, I pointed out that at multiple times in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew he addresses the issue of marriage AND divorce by refering to Genesis.

Third, it sounds to me like you are looking for something, anything to be used to attack religion. If thats not the case I apologize, but if it is I would ask the you please not do so here.

nospleen

Feb 6, 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
There are a lot of people out there against gay marriage, so I'm sure the percentages on this forum don't reflect the larger society. That said, it doesn't mean that folks who are for the right of gay couples to marry are doing it to be "trendy." Do you think some of us might just be saying so because we believe it is the right thing to do?

I absolutely believe that the people posting believe what they are saying. It just seems that no one is saying that they do not agree with it. I think it is very interesting. If you used to say that Gay marriages were okay, you would be almost scoffed at. Now, it seems like the tides are turning. If you do not agree with Gay marriages, you almost seem out of the majority. So that is why I am wondering, have the tides turned?

numediaman

Feb 6, 2004, 09:46 AM

You don't have to be for gay marriage to want equal protection for gay couples. In other words, you could be personally against the idea of same sex marraige, yet recognize the right of someone doing something you don't approve of.

Just like abortion, where a large number of people are personally against abortion, but recognize a woman's right to choose. Right?

nospleen

Feb 6, 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by numediaman
You don't have to be for gay marriage to want equal protection for gay couples. In other words, you could be personally against the idea of same sex marraige, yet recognize the right of someone doing something you don't approve of.

Just like abortion, where a large number of people are personally against abortion, but recognize a woman's right to choose. Right?

Well said!

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by nospleen
If you used to say that Gay marriages were okay, you would be almost scoffed at. Now, it seems like the tides are turning. If you do not agree with Gay marriages, you almost seem out of the majority. So that is why I am wondering, have the tides turned?

I would certainly hope you are right, but I don't think your experience or the numbers on this forum express the real situation. I have no doubt that Falwell, Robertson, Bauer, and a whole host of others are out preaching and organizing the fear that is brought out by this decision. There will be a huge attempt on the part of the religious right to make this one of the focal points of this election. So get your hip boots on and prepare for the deluge of propaganda about the fall of Western Civilization.

edit: replace the word "don't" with "doubt" to reflect what I was trying to say. Got to stop typing on remote!

mactastic

Feb 6, 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by nospleen
I absolutely believe that the people posting believe what they are saying. It just seems that no one is saying that they do not agree with it. I think it is very interesting. If you used to say that Gay marriages were okay, you would be almost scoffed at. Now, it seems like the tides are turning. If you do not agree with Gay marriages, you almost seem out of the majority. So that is why I am wondering, have the tides turned?

Go hang out at an Evangelical church. You'll find the situation reversed I'm sure. Nearly everyone will be against gay marriage, and only a few would voice support for it, even on equality grounds.

All the polls I've seen indicate that a solid majority of the country opposes gay marriages, although that opposition wanes when it's refered to as 'civil unions'. Go figure.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by The_Wall

We were made the way we were by God

exactly! so why should gay people, who are also made by god i would assume by your beliefs, be outcast because of the way they were made? or did they "choose" it?

you so swiftly blow off the idea that a situation where one person is sterile in a heterosexual marriage is comparable in its inability to produce children, and then continue to act as though all marriage is about is popping out kids

personally, i'd much rather see a loving gay couple (maybe adopt a few kids while they're at it!) than a hate filled hetero man and wife pop out a bunch of kids and instill no values and raise them in a household filled with yelling and screaming.

"love your neighbor as yourself"... hmm.. sounds like you're not excelling at this part of the bible eh

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 11:27 AM

hey, can someone point me to a spot that shows that john kerry is against gay marriage? just curious as up to this point he's gotten my support a lot...

i looked on his site and of course he doesn't say "i'm against gay marriage" on it... so i'm not sure where to look

thanks!

zim

Feb 6, 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
hey, can someone point me to a spot that shows that john kerry is against gay marriage? just curious as up to this point he's gotten my support a lot...

i looked on his site and of course he doesn't say "i'm against gay marriage" on it... so i'm not sure where to look

thanks!

he never said that he was against gays, just that he did not support gay marriage, which is unfortunate. I just hope that he will support the constitution and respect the decision of the courts ruling.

I did find this quote:
Same-Sex Marriage:_Kerry initially said he does not support same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions. In the candidates' debate on November 24, when asked about the Massachusetts ruling he said, “I would urge the Legislature to do precisely what the Constitution requires. It is a matter of equal protection under the law.”

also this one:
“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve.__ While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1118a.html

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 11:57 AM

thanks for the quotes... you'll notice i never said he was against gays... ;)

so what exactly does he mean by against gay marriage then? just that he doesn't want it to be considered "marriage" or what? i mean, it seems he is all about gay couples' rights under a civil union at the very least....

i guess he is pretty much an example of what numediaman said... not really for gay marriage itself, but for the rights of gay people as a union...

still a bit of a grey area in my eyes... but i think it's clear, as someone said, that at least none of the prominent dem candidates would try to ban it....

thanks again

radhak

Feb 6, 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by vniow
...I refuse to let myself and my (hypothetical) girlfriend be called "partners", as far as I'm concerned, that completely ignores the relationship we (hypothetically) have and called it something its not and its the same thing with marriage. Rower is right on when he says "seperate but unequal", I'm going for nothing less than full equality and will settle for nothing but it.

Right on, vniow! Stand up for your rights, and be counted. You have more support in the non-gay public than you would actually believe; I am only one of the many.

You know what, I'll settle for civil unions, for now at least. Its better than nothing and it looks like the Democratic candidates who are looking like they're going to win the primaries support just that and nothing more and for now that's fine. I'm willing to compromise if there means there's a better chance that marriage, fully supported by the law will come into effect sometime within my lifespan. It would be even better if they called it civil marriage but....
Remember, even Democrats have to worry about getting elected, and being seen as taking the middle-path is easier. Small changes in society get less opposition, are easier to assimilate, and many a time they have added up to a huge change, much faster. Civil unions today, civil marriages tomorrow! And don't worry, at the end of your lifespan, you are going to die a happy married old woman, when all this will seem quaint and archaic; full fledged gay marriages are not that far away. :)

Btw, fwiw, i have begun to refer to marriages as civil-marriage or religious-marriage in my social circle, and very few do a double-take. As in, "my brother had his religious marriage in December", or, "I was attending (somebody)'s civil marriage..." Everybody seems to get the meaning right off, and nobody thinks i am bringing about a social change. ;)

zim

Feb 6, 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
thanks for the quotes... you'll notice i never said he was against gays... ;)

so what exactly does he mean by against gay marriage then? just that he doesn't want it to be considered "marriage" or what? i mean, it seems he is all about gay couples' rights under a civil union at the very least....

i guess he is pretty much an example of what numediaman said... not really for gay marriage itself, but for the rights of gay people as a union...

still a bit of a grey area in my eyes... but i think it's clear, as someone said, that at least none of the prominent dem candidates would try to ban it....

thanks again

Sorry, did not mean to put words in your mouth. He was on TV a while back and said that he wanted to protect marriage but was for civil unions... something like that.. was not really listening.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by zim
Sorry, did not mean to put words in your mouth. He was on TV a while back and said that he wanted to protect marriage but was for civil unions... something like that.. was not really listening.

no problem...

i guess because in my mind marriage can be used to refer to gay couples' unions, i have a hard time making the distinction, but i guess i can kind of understand what he means... hopefully he's just taking the middle road for election purposes (i guess that's better..?) and actually feels that gay marriage is something that should be promoted...

as of now, he looks like he's the one to beat and with the exception of dean, i'm not sure there's a more "radical" dem in the group of possible candidates (ie, not sharpton. hah)...

unless uncle ralphie runs again...

Krizoitz

Feb 6, 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
unless uncle ralphie runs again...

Yeah and we all saw how well THAT worked out. Gore might have won if Nader hadn't insisted on running in such a tight race. Now of course he had every right to run, but sometimes you gotta look at the big picture.

Speaking of Nader, anyone know if he is going to run again this year, or has he decided not to jinx the democrats again ;)

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Yeah and we all saw how well THAT worked out. Gore might have won if Nader hadn't insisted on running in such a tight race. Now of course he had every right to run, but sometimes you gotta look at the big picture.

Speaking of Nader, anyone know if he is going to run again this year, or has he decided not to jinx the democrats again ;)

gore does nothing for me. he was not good with the environment (his record shows this)... so i had no problem with nader wanting to provide an alternative for people who are sick of corporations owning candidates and the elections... i'd rather seen mccain get elected, pass a bunch of campaign finance reform than democrats who won't do anything to fight corporate interests in politics... now, these candidates talk about it a lot. i'm curious how much they'll really do. i think edwards is my favorite on that issue...

as for nader running, i've heard he was going to sit out almost solely to allow a dem more chance of winning... at this point, the ends (ousting bush) might be worth the means (ie, giving up on the thought of a 3rd party for this election)...

still love the idea of nader representing our country... so respectable... especially compared to...

3rdpath

Feb 6, 2004, 01:42 PM

i'm still not convinced that nader "spoiled" the election for gore...

i think the year 2000 election was a huge wake-up call for those too apathetic to vote...not a lesson in the perils of voting for the underdog. nader has very respectable goals that unfortunately are probably too far removed for our political system to adapt.

change will come but it will be by babysteps...not leaps and bounds.

same goes for gay marriage...history will align many of those rallying against the "perils" of marriage equality alongside gov. wallace on the school-house steps...

pdrayton

Feb 6, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by zim
he never said that he was against gays, just that he did not support gay marriage, which is unfortunate. I just hope that he will support the constitution and respect the decision of the courts ruling.
Well, in my opinion being opposed to gay marriage is more than just a neutral position. It's an active stance towards denying gays and lesbians their equal rights.

Yesterday, Kerry said this: Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

With friends like that, I think I'll vote for Kucinich!

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
Well, in my opinion being opposed to gay marriage is more than just a neutral position. It's an active stance towards denying gays and lesbians their equal rights.

Yesterday, Kerry said this: Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

With friends like that, I think I'll vote for Kucinich!

Of the candidates that are left in the Democratic field, only Kucinch and Sharpton are willing to say they support gay marriage. It is an unfortunate part of the political landscape that Kerry, Clark, Dean, and Edwards are so chickens**t on this issue. They all are very strongly against what they call discrimination against gay and lesbian people, but cave to the message of the polls on gay marriage. From a purely political point of view, I can understand why Democrats do not want to run on this issue, but I think people are much more accepting of views they don't agree with if candidates show they are speaking from their principles. When it comes to November, however, there will be no comparison on this issue between Bush and any of the four possible Democratic nominees.

pdrayton

Feb 6, 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Of the candidates that are left in the Democratic field, only Kucinch and Sharpton are willing to say they support gay marriage. It is an unfortunate part of the political landscape that Kerry, Clark, Dean, and Edwards are so chickens**t on this issue. They all are very strongly against what they call discrimination against gay and lesbian people, but cave to the message of the polls on gay marriage. From a purely political point of view, I can understand why Democrats do not want to run on this issue, but I think people are much more accepting of views they don't agree with if candidates show they are speaking from their principles. When it comes to November, however, there will be no comparison on this issue between Bush and any of the four possible Democratic nominees.
Well, this is THE important issue for me. It affects me, and many of my friends. A candidate's position on gay marriage will determine whether or not I vote for him. Here are the 2 front runners' position on gay marriage:
"I am opposed to gay marriage. Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating." Senator John Kerry, September 2003
"A marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other." President Bush - August 2003
One person summed-up best why we need to bite the bullet and vote for what we believe without regard to whether or not the candidate can win (and why I'll vote for Kucinich). Perhaps John Kerry should listen to her. She said:
"To the extent government is not serving us well, that is, frankly, our fault. Democracy is not a given handed down to us by God. Democracy must be earned, daily. And not just in the polling booth. It is not enough simply to pull a lever. We must do that, but there is more to it than that. Democracy must be lived. If government is ignoring our demands for results, it is because we let them. It is because we persist in sending the glib partisans to Washington. It is because we heed calls for 'change' without demanding to know the particulars. It is because we allow party ideologues to stand in the way of good legislation just to keep the opposition from 'winning'." Teresa Heinz-Kerry, 1994

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 6, 2004, 03:53 PM

sorry to jump in here but by giving the green light this court from taxachusist has given the green light for a constitutional amendment spelling out for the court what marriage is and how it will be defined more clearly for these liberal judges who dont seem to know this. watch in a year or so. I sill think the best thing for gays is to push for civil unions and not try to redefine marriage.

Krizoitz

Feb 6, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
One person summed-up best why we need to bite the bullet and vote for what we believe without regard to whether or not the candidate can win (and why I'll vote for Kucinich). Perhaps John Kerry should listen to her. She said:

While I empathize with your position, I think sometimes people need to think in the long term. First ask yourself this. Who as President is more likely to damage the cause of Gay marriage?

A) George W. Bush

Now I realize that with Kerry or Dean you aren't getting everything you want yet, but its a step in the direction you want them to go. Change is a gradual thing in most cases. With Bush you are gaurunteed a leader who will oppose gay unions and try to appoint judges (possibly supreme court judges) who will do the same. With a Democrat you are likely to get much less resistance and much less conservative judges. I suppose if it looks like its going to be a blow-out in either direction voting for Kucinich won't affect anything, but if its even going to be remotely close, I urge you to vote for the better of the two viable candidates.

Mildlly-Extremist (does that sound like an oxy-moron to anyone else) candidates like Kucinich or Nader can't ever win, and thats a good thing, especially if you like those candidates. Wait a minute, what? you ask me, how can my favorite candidate not winning be a GOOD thing. Because if the system existed in which an extremist candidate could win then chances are the other sides extremeism could win too. Its better to have moderate candidates who allow for slow social change than to have to have revolutionary ones because they are dangerous. Slow social change is good because it means neither side can go barrelling off into extremeism. Yes it can be frustrating to think you'll have to wait, but in the end it is better for society.

Personally I think voting for a candidate based on a single issue is a short-sighted thing to do. It's like picking a car based solely on its color, or its type of engine. When you buy a car you want to balance ALL the features, you make tradeoffs. You pay a little more for a more effecient and reliable car, rather than pay a little for a car thats ultimately ggoing to breakdown (but it might still look pretty right?). For example, I am a very very strong opponent of abortion for moral and religious reasons. BUT come this fall I can gaurentee you, that short of it being Al Sharpton on the democratic ticket I will once again vote for a democratic president. Despite the fact that Gore favored abortion I voted for him because of his views on just about ALL the other issues, not too mention I was afraid of the damage that GW would do to our country (and oh look, he did). Now I realize that you may believe that that one issue is so important to you that nothing else matters, and obviously if it is you are free to vote that way. But before you do I urge you to take the time to consider the bigger picture.

Who knows, if Nader hadn't run in 2000, Gore probably could have won (i'm fairly certain that the Nader voters wouldn't have voted Republican) and I think we would be in much better shape than we are today. Maybe not perfect, but certainly better.

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 04:07 PM

pdrayton,

I LOVE the Heinz-Kerry quote! Yes, it looks like Kerry should listen more to the advice of his wife.

I certainly can't fault anyone who wants to vote for Kucinich. His views on many issues are closer to mine, but I'm voting for someone who has a chance to win the nomination. For me this election is all about getting rid of Bush. Although Kerry and Bush's views on gay marriage on the surface seem identical, they are not really close at all on the issue of gay rights. That is only one of many reasons I believe we must reclaim the White House from Dubya.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 04:18 PM

pdrayton- i totally agree that we should support who we think is best... hence why i voted for nader

here's my question to you- assuming kucinich doesn't get the nod... will you vote for whoever does vs. bush? or will you vote for a small time party member running (assuming anyone else even runs this year)...?

or will you not vote?

in a way i think it's good that the leaders don't feel the way they portray (ie, thank goodness they MAY not be as anti-gay marriage as they let on) but of course i'm leaning towards thinking they're just politicians and i hate politicians... no backbone to stand up for what they believe... where's ralph when you need him?

this time though, we need to get bush out of there....

radhak

Feb 6, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz

...

With a Democrat you are likely to get much less resistance and much less conservative judges.
...
But before you do I urge you to take the time to consider the bigger picture.
...

Great post, Krizoitz. Better said than what many of us have tried to say without so much clarity.

I am hoping that the huge advantage of incumbency for GW can be counter-acted by people who think logically, and are okay with baby-step reforms, so long as the direction is the right one, not backwards.

Like Anna Quindlen says, Americans need to think ABBA (Anyone But Bush Again).

pdrayton

Feb 6, 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
pdrayton- i totally agree that we should support who we think is best... hence why i voted for nader

here's my question to you- assuming kucinich doesn't get the nod... will you vote for whoever does vs. bush? or will you vote for a small time party member running (assuming anyone else even runs this year)...?

Well, should Kerry (or another Democrat who is opposed to gay marriage) be nominated, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for Bush, either. Guess that means I'll vote for some 3rd party candidate.

Mind you, I'm not a Kucinich fan, but he's committed to going all the way to the convention, and I rather like the idea of having someone at the convention (which will be down the street from my house and Kerry's house) standing up for ME.

I've also never been a single-issue voter. I always carefully look at the big picture and have made compromises. I also don't think any candidate will completely match my stand on every issue.

And, last but not least, I've only been a Democrat for the past 2 years. I got really tired of being told that being gay AND Republican was counter productive. I switched, I voted for Democrats, and they opposed my equal rights with as much fervor as the Republicans! Enough is enough! I'm taking a stand, yet understand others' desire not to be single-issue voters. Nonetheless, I see opposition to gay marriage as a willingness to deprive me of my constitutional (so far, Massachusetts constitution) rights. I'm taking a stand and won't support a Democrat who's more interested in seeing how close he can get to the Republican Right simply so he can win.

I think Robert Reich has a good explanation for why Democrats keep losing elections:"The rush by many Democrats in recent years to the so-called center has been a pathetic substitute for candid talk about what the nation needs to do and for fueling a movement based on liberal values. In truth, America has no consistent political center. Polls reflect little more than reflexive responses to what people have most recently heard about an issue. Meanwhile, the so-called center has continued to shift to the right because conservative Republicans stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway." Robert Reich, January 2004

mactastic

Feb 6, 2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Despite the fact that Gore favored abortion...

Nice post. Not to be nitpicky, but Gore didn't favor abortions per se, he favored the right to choose. There is a difference.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Nice post. Not to be nitpicky, but Gore didn't favor abortions per se, he favored the right to choose. There is a difference.

he supported partial birth abortion, which while i might consider myself pro-choice, i find partial birth abortion appalling. also, pro-death penalty. etc...

ps. if i didn't vote for nader, i'd NOT have voted for gore

pdrayton

Feb 6, 2004, 04:44 PM

Just thought I'd fill you in on how I found the Teresa Heinz-Kerry quote.

I was intrigued about her background (born in Mozambique, a colony of Portugal at the time), and wondered if she spoke with an accent. Came across a web site from the Heinz foundation and was stunned by a quote she gave about modern election campaigns... that they are the "graveyard of real ideas, and the birthplace of broken promises". I cracked up. I read the whole speech and was rather stunned. Very eloquent, very concise, very on-target, and quite inspirational. If her husband actually showed signs of listening to her I just might vote for him. Alas, from reading her speech (given BEFORE she married John Kerry) it's clear he doesn't.

I highly recommend reading the entire speech... the web site is Teresa Heinz-Kerry ~ Before She Married Kerry (http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=21#)
Enjoy!

mactastic

Feb 6, 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
he supported partial birth abortion, which while i might consider myself pro-choice, i find partial birth abortion appalling. also, pro-death penalty. etc...

He supported the right to choose to have one. Many people support a woman's right to choose while simultaneously abhoring abortion.

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
Well, should Kerry (or another Democrat who is opposed to gay marriage) be nominated, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for Bush, either. Guess that means I'll vote for some 3rd party candidate.

Mind you, I'm not a Kucinich fan, but he's committed to going all the way to the convention, and I rather like the idea of having someone at the convention (which will be down the street from my house and Kerry's house) standing up for ME.

I've also never been a single-issue voter. I always carefully look at the big picture and have made compromises. I also don't think any candidate will completely match my stand on every issue.

And, last but not least, I've only been a Democrat for the past 2 years. I got really tired of being told that being gay AND Republican was counter productive. I switched, I voted for Democrats, and they opposed my equal rights with as much fervor as the Republicans! Enough is enough! I'm taking a stand, yet understand others' desire not to be single-issue voters. Nonetheless, I see opposition to gay marriage as a willingness to deprive me of my constitutional (so far, Massachusetts constitution) rights. I'm taking a stand and won't support a Democrat who's more interested in seeing how close he can get to the Republican Right simply so he can win.

When the Democrats and the Republicans have their respective conventions I would invite you to note the difference in what is said from the rostrum concerning gay rights. The Republican party will almost certainly support an amendment to the Constitution to codify marriage as reserved for heterosexuals only. It is also likely that the proposed amendment overturning the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the anti-sodomy laws will be endorsed by the GOP. Bush and the leadership of the Republican Party are the main roadblocks to progress on civil rights issues confronting gay and lesbian people. While I agree that support for ending the discrimination relative to gay marriage rights is important, to make this the only issue or equate the position of the Democrats and Republicans is just wrong, IMHO. Criticize Kerry - give him hell, but between Kerry and Bush there is no real contest.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
He supported the right to choose to have one. Many people support a woman's right to choose while simultaneously abhoring abortion.

yeah, i understand the difference thanks. but to me, that's like saying "i support the right to choose to beat up someone on the street". get my point? BUT i hate the actual act of beating someone! so i'm clean...

pdrayton

Feb 6, 2004, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
While I agree that support for ending the discrimination relative to gay marriage rights is important, to make this the only issue or equate the position of the Democrats and Republicans is just wrong, IMHO. Criticize Kerry - give him hell, but between Kerry and Bush there is no real contest.
I know where you're coming from. But, please understand where I am coming from.

I live in Boston and Democrats here are tripping over themselves in their eagerness to not only promote an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, but also promoting an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage. The rhetoric is quite ugly, decidedly anti-gay, and it wouldn't surprise me if it spills over into the Democratic National Convention.

Kerry is doing nothing to even moderate the ugly tone from the Democrats.

That's why I'm taking a stand. I'm just one person, but if others join me we can make a difference.

mactastic

Feb 6, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
yeah, i understand the difference thanks. but to me, that's like saying "i support the right to choose to beat up someone on the street". get my point? BUT i hate the actual act of beating someone! so i'm clean...

I don't accept that actually. You are talking about an illegal activity (assault). It would be more like someone saying "I support the right to choose to hunt animals, but I don't agree with it and would never do it myself." Or ''I support your first amendment right to say those awful racist/sexist/whatever statements, even print them. But I won't follow your ideology and will never agree with you."

There is little practical differrence between calling someone 'pro-life' versus 'anti-choice'. It's just a method of framing the debate in your favor. Letting your opponent define the language of the debate is a good way to end up losing.

And yes, I got your point.

Sayhey

Feb 6, 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
I know where you're coming from. But, please understand where I am coming from.

I live in Boston and Democrats here are tripping over themselves in their eagerness to not only promote an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, but also promoting an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage. The rhetoric is quite ugly, decidedly anti-gay, and it wouldn't surprise me if it spills over into the Democratic National Convention.

Kerry is doing nothing to even moderate the ugly tone from the Democrats.

That's why I'm taking a stand. I'm just one person, but if others join me we can make a difference.

You're right I'm not in your position. Sorry to hear how craven the Dems are being. While I won't say that I won't vote for Kerry in November, I will say I think he needs to have his feet held to the fire, especially in the midst of his seemingly triumphant march through the primaries. I'll send his campaign my thoughts and ask others to do so.

edit: here is a link (http://forum.johnkerry.com//index.php?showforum=53) to Kerry's campaign forum on "Ensuring Civil Rights for All Americans." Let him know what supporters and possible supporter think of his lack of principle on this issue.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I don't accept that actually. You are talking about an illegal activity (assault). It would be more like someone saying "I support the right to choose to hunt animals, but I don't agree with it and would never do it myself." Or ''I support your first amendment right to say those awful racist/sexist/whatever statements, even print them. But I won't follow your ideology and will never agree with you."

There is little practical differrence between calling someone 'pro-life' versus 'anti-choice'. It's just a method of framing the debate in your favor. Letting your opponent define the language of the debate is a good way to end up losing.

And yes, I got your point.

but the fact is that i feel that partial birth abortion *should* be illegal...

likewise, i don't really support the right to hunt animals... though it's far lower on my list of wrongs than killing a person who is partially born..

i'm not sure i get your point about what you call someone... i personally don't care about the label. the fact is, gore supports the right to partial birth abortion and he supports the death penalty. that type of pro-death stance didn't do much for me... hence my vote for nader.

not sure how this all started. but, back to gay issues

pdrayton- how is ted kennedy on gay marriage? thanks for the eye opening on the dems... i'd have thought that such an amendment wouldn't have had a chance to pass... a bit scary

keep hope alive

mactastic

Feb 6, 2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
the fact is, gore supports the right to partial birth abortion and he supports the death penalty. that type of pro-death stance didn't do much for me...

Exactlly! I'm in agreement with you, I simply object to pro-choice people being refered to as pro-abortion, just as pro-life types object to being labeled anti-choice. Liberals have been frightenly willing to concede the language of debate to conservatives all too often in recent times, and I don't like it. Anyway, back to gay marriage.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 6, 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Exactlly! I'm in agreement with you, I simply object to pro-choice people being refered to as pro-abortion, just as pro-life types object to being labeled anti-choice. Liberals have been frightenly willing to concede the language of debate to conservatives all too often in recent times, and I don't like it. Anyway, back to gay marriage.

hah. as always, miscommunication. :)

as someone who is definitely against abortion (raised "pro-life"/catholic... still catholic but realizing the realities of abortion and banning it), but for choice... i hear what you mean about not wanting to be considered "pro abortion" and having seen tons and tons of great "pro life" people, i realize they're not "anti choice"..

ok, nuff said. decent off topic discussion finished. hah

Krizoitz

Feb 6, 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Nice post. Not to be nitpicky, but Gore didn't favor abortions per se, he favored the right to choose. There is a difference.

correct, my bad :-)

pseudobrit

Feb 6, 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
First, Christian doctrine isn't soley based on what Jesus said, he didn't address everything.

Second, I pointed out that at multiple times in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew he addresses the issue of marriage AND divorce by refering to Genesis.

Third, it sounds to me like you are looking for something, anything to be used to attack religion. If thats not the case I apologize, but if it is I would ask the you please not do so here.

I just wanted to point out that you've dodged the simple challenge I presented. Why?

BTW, before you go crying about persecution, I'll have you know I'm Catholic and am quite aware of what it's like to have your religion attacked.

I presented a simple challenge and you have refused to come straight out and answer it. I don't know how you think that's "looking for something" to "attack religion."

I'm simply trying to dismantle your political views using a question. But you're clearly not open to such self-examination.

numediaman

Feb 6, 2004, 10:03 PM

After thinking about this subject, and after a fairly decent bottle of wine, I have completely changed by opinion about all this. I used to be in favor of allowing same sex marriage.

I now believe that all gays should be married . . . at once. I wouldn't want any of them to be living in sin.

Whew, I feel better about this already.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 6, 2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I just wanted to point out that you've dodged the simple challenge I presented. Why?

BTW, before you go crying about persecution, I'll have you know I'm Catholic and am quite aware of what it's like to have your religion attacked.

I presented a simple challenge and you have refused to come straight out and answer it. I don't know how you think that's "looking for something" to "attack religion."

I'm simply trying to dismantle your political views using a question. But you're clearly not open to such self-examination.

No offense, pseudo, but as an observer of this thread and occasional poster, this kind of intentional button-pushing really kind of gets annoying.

Just so I don't have to go sort through the past 7 pages, what is your challenge you put forth to Krizoitz, and why did you put it out there exactly?

Davis

pseudobrit

Feb 7, 2004, 12:23 AM

I asked him to show me where Jesus denounced gay marriage.

If I pushed a button, it was a button in need of pushing.

iMeowbot

Feb 7, 2004, 06:40 AM

Today's NY Times is running an article featuring gay penguins (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1076153020-rb8V7vH2leBw6KuYgrBXUg), who apparently had no comment on the current political climate.

pdrayton

Feb 7, 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]While I won't say that I won't vote for Kerry in November, I will say I think he needs to have his feet held to the fire, especially in the midst of his seemingly triumphant march through the primaries. I'll send his campaign my thoughts and ask others to do so.[B]
Thanks! Every person expressing his or her beliefs makes a difference!

This is a hot issue for me not just because I'm gay. I also was born and raised in the South and spent most of my life there. I'm 45, and remember well legal segregation of the races, and the arguments justifying segregation are frightningly familiar.

I remember the arguments for not outlawing legalized segregation... the numerous Bible versus tossed out defending it. The politicians who pleaded compassion for "Negroes" but said now was not the time as it would alienate voters, or that as long as Negroes had "equal, but separate" access to public places then they shouldn't have a problem. I remember George Wallace who promoted a Constitutional Amendment to protect segregating races.

None of these people brought about the end of segregation. None of these people even hastened the end of segregation. Segregation was ended because people dared to take a stand for human rights at the risk of alienating others. Segregation was ended only because Federal Courts and Congress EXPANDED equal rights, not limited them.

.I have a lot of years behind me, and for those of you who are younger and want to vote for a "winner", take my advice. In the end, the "winners" aren't the ones who "opposed" human rights, they are the ones who promoted them.

Also, I also find it rather offensive as a gay partnered man to be told by straight people that I should be content with civil unions because gay marriage is just too hot a topic. Well, to those politicians, I say if you can't demonstrate leadership now you don't deserve to hold public office.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
it's really an amazing feeling to watch a civil rights movement make progress. I missed the women's movement, i missed the black civil rights movement, but someday i'll be able to say that i remember when gay marriage was illegal... and in 50 years, hardly anyone will be able to imagine such a time.

paul

Cool! I never thought of it that way :D

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by question fear
i thought the way it worked was that state-to-state citizen is one thing, but if i am a mass resident and am in ohio with my wife we HAVE to be granted the rights of a married couple as a courtesy to the state of mass...ie if i am married to a woman and we move to ohio we lose the license but visiting they have to give it to us since its not theirs to take away (also even ohio would have to acknowledge a foreign marriage from amsterdam or canada because of international treaties. thats existed since they legalized marriage in those countries.)

-c

If you are married in 1 state you are married in all 50. That is why some states were rushing to deny same-sex marriages and may well be what is behind calling them "civil unions."

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by The_Wall
No offense to any of the macrumors members but lets be honest same sex marriages are wrong. This is obvious from the fact that girls cant get girls pregnant and guys cant get each other pregnant.
l

SO since I can't get pregnant that makes my marriage wrong?

Let's assume for a minute that you are not yet married. What will you do if you and your future wife can't have children? Does that mean the marriage is not legitimate?

You argument is full of holes!

DavisBAnimal

Feb 8, 2004, 12:41 AM

Just thought I'd throw this in there:

How many people here, supportive of gay marriage, are supportive of marriage between of-age, consenting relatives?

Is it hypocritical to wish for the inclusion of people wanting to marry a member of the same sex into the tradition of marriage while excluding consenting adults who want to marry their brother/sister?

This is illegal as of now, I am assuming (though I'm not positive!).

I'm just wondering if incest is going to be the next civil rights movement for our kids to experience.

Davis

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
How 'bout we keep the word 'marriage' as the secular term, and if the religious groups want to make their distinction they call theirs a 'religious union'? Fair enough?

Good idea. What is ironic about this whole conversation is that Churches and Syagogues are already marrying people of the same sex. For a change they are the headlights and not the tail lights!

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Because marriage is a religiously derived term.

How do you figure?

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by iMeowbot
Yes, it was derived from the name of the goddess Aphrodite-Mari, who wasn't exactly into the one partner for life thing, was seriously into incest, and even had a dual-sex kid, Hermaphroditus (and hermaphrodites do live in this world; should they be allowed to marry, and to whom?).

LOL... that is something good to know :D

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You left out where the Bible says it is an abomination to mix to different kinds of fabrics in the same piece of cloth.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

1 time it is mentioned and we don't know in what context. There is no concept in the bible of committed relationship between two people of the same sex. The only thing they knew of was pedastry, temple prostitution, and sex outside of marriage. (ie you had a wife and a lover on the side). So the bible really can't speak to something which does not exist in its time.

Also of note is the tale of Soddom and Gamorah, two cities which God is said to have destroyed because of the sinful acts of its inhabitants, notably sexual relations between men and even bestiality. This is where the term soddomy is derived from as I stated above. [/B]

You would be incorrect. Sodom and Gamorah was destroyed because of its inhospitality. Go back and read what Jesus has to say about it. There is also a reference in the OT to it, directly refering to its inhospitality.

And the men of the city wanted to rape the Angels. They weren't looking to marry them. So we are talking apples and oranges.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Again I should point out that unless you are a Christian this will have no authoritative meaning for you and I'm not trying to tell you it should, just explaining why homosexuality and homosexual unions are not allowed in the Church. [/B]

But they are allowed in the Church! And in the Synagogue!

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:53 AM

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 12:58 AM

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by 3rdpath
i'm still not convinced that nader "spoiled" the election for gore...

i think the year 2000 election was a huge wake-up call for those too apathetic to vote...not a lesson in the perils of voting for the underdog. nader has very respectable goals that unfortunately are probably too far removed for our political system to adapt.

change will come but it will be by babysteps...not leaps and bounds.

same goes for gay marriage...history will align many of those rallying against the "perils" of marriage equality alongside gov. wallace on the school-house steps...

Considering Gore won the popular vote and Bush was appointed... I don't see how anyone can tell for sure.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
he supported partial birth abortion, which while i might consider myself pro-choice, i find partial birth abortion appalling. also, pro-death penalty. etc...

ps. if i didn't vote for nader, i'd NOT have voted for gore

You should do some research on Partial-birth abortions. You may find the information educational.

It is a shame that by not voting for Gore you essentially voted for Bush. I'll never understand that. You might want to look at your vote as a vote *against* instead of for.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
Exactlly! I'm in agreement with you, I simply object to pro-choice people being refered to as pro-abortion, just as pro-life types object to being labeled anti-choice. Liberals have been frightenly willing to concede the language of debate to conservatives all too often in recent times, and I don't like it. Anyway, back to gay marriage.

The reality is most people who claim to be pro-life aren't. They are in favor of the death penalty, and are not pacifists. If you are going to call yourself pro-life, be pro-life. If you are only against abortion than don't call your self pro-life, because you aren't!

pdrayton

Feb 8, 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Neserk
He is in favor of Civil Unions. Since it it looks like he will get the democratic nomination I hope people don't hold it against him. He is a better option than Bush again!
Actually, I hold it against him. I'm rather tired of straight candidates telling me that I should settle for less than what I need because it will cost them an election. That kind of attitude is paternalistic, rude, insensitive and shows lack of leadership.

And, for those who are concerned that the term "civil marriage" might infringe on our country's tradition of "religious marriage", I suggest you read this article in today's Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/08/for_massachusetts_a_chance_and_a_choice?mode=PF) written by a Baptist minister.

pseudobrit

Feb 8, 2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Just thought I'd throw this in there:

How many people here, supportive of gay marriage, are supportive of marriage between of-age, consenting relatives?

Is it hypocritical to wish for the inclusion of people wanting to marry a member of the same sex into the tradition of marriage while excluding consenting adults who want to marry their brother/sister?

This is illegal as of now, I am assuming (though I'm not positive!).

It is illegal to varying degrees from state to state.

It is an interesting point though. I'd always thought it was illegal because it leads to inbreeding that causes disease and deformities, not simply because it's "immoral" or "unnatural" or denounced in the Bible.

Seems logical and reasonable enough to me.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
[B]Actually, I hold it against him. I'm rather tired of straight candidates telling me that I should settle for less than what I need because it will cost them an election.

That is a shame because of that kind of thinking we ended up with Bush for 4 years and he wants to make gay marriages illegal. You can't change the world all at once. It takes baby steps.

pdrayton

Feb 8, 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
That is a shame because of that kind of thinking we ended up with Bush for 4 years and he wants to make gay marriages illegal. You can't change the world all at once. It takes baby steps.
I don't agree with that. Bush opposes gay marriage. Kerry opposes gay marriage. People who are in favor of gay marriage, but close their eyes to the facts of where candidates stand on important issues, are responsible for people like Bush being in office.

As for wanting to have a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, both Bush and Kerry, from their recent comments, are leaning toward supporting that.

It's unfortunate that many gays and lesbians give only as much thought to voting for a political candidate as they do for whom they vote for American Idol.

iMeowbot

Feb 8, 2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
That is a shame because of that kind of thinking we ended up with Bush for 4 years and he wants to make gay marriages illegal. You can't change the world all at once. It takes baby steps.

Things have, however, already changed rapidly. Before 2002, it was still a crime even to be gay in Massachusetts, and in other parts of the US until this past November. It's surely not full equality, but without those decisions the possibility of full remediation wouldn't even be under serious discussion now.

Sayhey

Feb 8, 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
I don't agree with that. Bush opposes gay marriage. Kerry opposes gay marriage. People who are in favor of gay marriage, but close their eyes to the facts of where candidates stand on important issues, are responsible for people like Bush being in office.

As for wanting to have a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, both Bush and Kerry, from their recent comments, are leaning toward supporting that.

It's unfortunate that many gays and lesbians give only as much thought to voting for a political candidate as they do for whom they vote for American Idol.

If I just take the idea that "Bush opposes gay marriage. Kerry opposes gay marriage" as my guide to the election then I would see no difference between the two candidates and either not vote or vote for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning in November. There are two problems with that strategy - first, it doesn't recognize the very important differences in the two men, and second, it is a flawed tactical approach to winning on the issue of gay marriage.

This is what John Kerry's website says about his stands on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender issues:

A Record of Working on Behalf of Gay and Lesbian Americans

With a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, John Kerry is a powerful voice in the ongoing fight for civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans.

Priorities

Preventing Hate Crimes

John Kerry is an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Prevention bill, which would extend federal jurisdiction over serious, violent hate crimes. These would include crimes motivated by sexual orientation. Hate crimes rose a disturbing 3.5% from 1999 to 2000.

Ending Discrimination

One of John Kerry’s first acts as a U.S. Senator, in 1985,_was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation._ He supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and has adopted a nondiscrimination policy for his Congressional offices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

HIV/AIDS Funding

John Kerry cosponsored the first Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE) - which represents the largest discretionary federal investment in treating individuals with HIV and AIDS._ Kerry also sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act, aimed at boosting contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a non-profit group working to promote development of an HIV vaccine in 2000._ Kerry introduced the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act, which would increase the U.S. government’s funding of international HIV/AIDS efforts from approximately $1.7 billion in 2003 to $1.9 billion in 2004. This effort led to the unanimous passage in May 2003 the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act of 2003. AIDS activists characterized Kerry as one of Congress’s top leaders on HIV/AIDS policy.

Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families

John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need._ He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees._ He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Lifting the Ban on Gays in the Military

John Kerry opposed the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy”_ He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members.

Support for Civil Unions

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.
(underlining added)

John Kerry for President (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/)

Now, I don't think any of these claims can be disputed. I would invite you to stack them up against Bush's record, and I would suggest that there are, indeed, important differences. Of course this also does not take into account differences on questions such as Iraq, Bush's doctrine of preemptive war, joblessness, tax cuts for the wealthy, runaway deficits, environmental degradation, etc. So if any of these differences are important then it is not just a choice between two candidates with the "same" position on gay marriage.

Secondly, if the right of gay couples to marry is ever to be won on a national level it will be accomplished by either a Supreme Court decision or the winning of people, specifically legislators and the President, to that position. I would ask which of two candidates in question do you think would have a positive impact on the courts (ie appoint justices more likely to decide in favor of gay marriage) and/or be open for persuasion given the building of greater public pressure?

pdrayton, the fight on this issue will not end in November, but it will be profoundly influenced by who sits in the White House. I don't see how your equation of Bush and Kerry fits in the real world of politics or helps get our country to a position that, I think we both agree is needed, to end this discriminatory practice.

pdrayton

Feb 8, 2004, 03:12 PM

And, lest Democrats take too much credit for advances in gay civil rights, it should be pointed out that of the 4 justices on Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of recognizing gay marriage, 3 were appointed by Republican governors.

That doesn't mean Republicans in Massachusetts are "better" than Democrats on gay issues, but it does substantially raise the bar for those who claim that gays & lesbians can help the cause simply by voting for any Democrat.

Democrats in Massachusetts have been handed the ball. Time will tell if they run with it, or try to hide it in the bushes as Kerry seems to be doing.

jelloshotsrule

Feb 8, 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
You should do some research on Partial-birth abortions. You may find the information educational.

It is a shame that by not voting for Gore you essentially voted for Bush. I'll never understand that. You might want to look at your vote as a vote *against* instead of for.

what exactly are you referring to in regards to partial birth abortion?

it's a shame that you've become so hopeless (i'm almost there myself) in our system that you have to vote against someone, when a better candidate exists who isn't a robot (ie, isn't gore) for corporations, etc..

think of my vote as AGAINST bush AND gore if you want...

Sayhey

Feb 8, 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
And, lest Democrats take too much credit for advances in gay civil rights, it should be pointed out that of the 4 justices on Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of recognizing gay marriage, 3 were appointed by Republican governors.

That doesn't mean Republicans in Massachusetts are "better" than Democrats on gay issues, but it does substantially raise the bar for those who claim that gays & lesbians can help the cause simply by voting for any Democrat.

Democrats in Massachusetts have been handed the ball. Time will tell if they run with it, or try to hide it in the bushes as Kerry seems to be doing.

You are right that there are certainly Republicans who have played a positive role on gay civil rights (as well as Democrats who have been horrible on the issue), but the New England/New York Republican tradition aside it is clear that on the national level it is in the GOP that the most vehement antigay demagogues hold sway.

I don't think simply voting for a Democrat, whether you are gay or straight, will change the world. I do think that changing the occupant of the White House from George Bush to whoever is the Democratic nominee will be an important step along the way. There are very few "simply"s that make a real difference. I am reminded of the old civil rights slogan - "Freedom is a constant struggle."

pdrayton

Feb 8, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
If I just take the idea that "Bush opposes gay marriage. Kerry opposes gay marriage" as my guide to the election then I would see no difference between the two candidates and either not vote or vote for a candidate who has no realistic chance of winning in November.
I do agree with you. It's just that John Kerry, my Senator, is VERY unresponsive to gay constituents, regardless of what he promotes on his web site.

I'm very active politically, and John Kerry has quite a reputation for ignoring gay constituents.

The candidate I vote for will have a demonstrated record of 1) Opposing the Patriot Act (Kerry, alas, voted FOR it; 2) Opposing the war (Kerry, much to my chagrin, voted FOR it and I hold him responsible for sending my nephew to Iraq; 3) Supports gay marriage (Kerry, unfortunately, is OPPOSED to gay marriage as is listed discreetly here on his web site John Kerry Opposes Gay Marriage - Official Web Site (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1118a.html)

Last, but not least, I'm not proposing that since both Kerry and Bush are opposed to gay marriage that it doesn't matter which one you vote for. Quite the contrary. But, the things that are important to me aren't important to Kerry.

And, as far as his legislative accomplishments that his web site identifies as gay & lesbian issues, how many are actually enacted? I don't think any are.

Kerry has a rather sold liberal voting record. BUT, on some very key issues he swings to hard to the right. Hard right swings, which are few enough to register as merely a 5% drop on a liberal rating scale, nonetheless strip considerable rights away from people. I prefer a more stable liberal candidate.

Should Kerry be elected President, it remains to be seen if he advances gay rights the way his web site leads one to believe he will. Based on his performance as my Senator, I'm not willing to bet that he will.

I will vote, but I won't vote for a Democrat who makes erratic right-wing swings. Nor will I vote for Bush. But, I will vote!

Sayhey

Feb 8, 2004, 03:51 PM

pdrayton,
don't get me wrong. I don't think Kerry is the second coming nor have I even made up my mind on who to vote for in the primary.

As to Kerry's statement that you posted a link to, it is in response to the original decision in November. I would like to see a statement on the current situation. I take it he is dodging the issue. I think right now he should be forced to take a position on the proposed state constitutional amendment - that would seem to be the critical issue that he can have an influence on and hopefully for the better. He doesn't have to change his position on gay marriage to come out against putting it in the constitution. By the way what is ol' Teddy doing in this situation?

pdrayton

Feb 8, 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
By the way what is ol' Teddy doing in this situation?
Dear Teddy is solidly in favor of gay marriage and opposes a state constitutional amendment banning it. God bless him! Previously he was opposed to gay marriage. But, Kennedy is keeping a very low profile right now on the gay marriage issue because he's out campaigning for Kerry. *Sigh*

As for Kerry's current position... here's what I've got...
Kerry told reporters querying him on the gay marriage issue after a Portland rally that if Republicans "want to turn this into some wedge sort of issue and distort my position, I will fight back very clearly.
___ "I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage" for gays and lesbians, he said.
___ Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

That is from a Salt Lake City newspaper quoting an article in the (The Boston Globe only keeps articles up for 2 days). Boston Globe (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02062004/nation_w/136289.asp)

The fact that he is even considering supporting an amendment banning gay marriage really has me ticked!

Sayhey

Feb 8, 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
The fact that he is even considering supporting an amendment banning gay marriage really has me ticked!

I agree and that is where I think he should have pressure placed on him. Glad to hear Kennedy is taking a good stance.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
what exactly are you referring to in regards to partial birth abortion?

it's a shame that you've become so hopeless (i'm almost there myself) in our system that you have to vote against someone, when a better candidate exists who isn't a robot (ie, isn't gore) for corporations, etc..

think of my vote as AGAINST bush AND gore if you want...

Partial birth aboritons aren't used because a woman decided late in her pregnancy she didn't want to have the baby. They are extremely rare and used when the fetus isn't viable (ie won't live outside the womb due to problems) or when the mother's life is at risk and the fetus is already dead.

Unfortunately when you didn't choose to vote against Bush you ended up voting for him by placing your vote for a candidate who had no chance of winning. You essentially voted for Bush.

Neserk

Feb 8, 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
pdrayton,
don't get me wrong. I don't think Kerry is the second coming nor have I even made up my mind on who to vote for in the primary.

As to Kerry's statement that you posted a link to, it is in response to the original decision in November. I would like to see a statement on the current situation. I take it he is dodging the issue. I think right now he should be forced to take a position on the proposed state constitutional amendment - that would seem to be the critical issue that he can have an influence on and hopefully for the better. He doesn't have to change his position on gay marriage to come out against putting it in the constitution. By the way what is ol' Teddy doing in this situation?

Kerry is opposed to "marriage" but not civil unions. He is in favor of Civil Unions. Bush is opposed to civil unions, too. That would be the major difference on that particular issue. I'm in favor of using Marriage (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck) but see Civil Union as a step in the right direction. No, it is not ideal but it is better than nothing. From there we can change it from CU to Marriage.

Sayhey

Feb 8, 2004, 06:34 PM

Slightly off topic, but because it has been raised in this thread I will throw my two cents in on voting for so called "minor" candidates.

I don't think it is fair or correct to tell people that voting for anyone other than a democrat or a republican is a waste of time. At least, not in every situation. There are times it is important to cast a protest vote - knowing full well that your vote stands little chance of getting the candidate you vote for elected. If there is not a dime's worth of difference between Democratic and Republican candidates on critical issues then I see value in such votes. However, I think every case must be evaluated on its own merits.

I think it is one thing to cast a vote in the 2000 election for Nader in New York or California (many of my friends did so), but I think it is all together another thing to cast such a vote in a close race such as Florida. With polling being what it is, it isn't hard to know before election day if protest voting is going to swing a close election in the direction of the "greater of two evils."

In that regard, I think Nader did the nation a disservice in his rhetoric about the 2000 election. He is a highly intelligent man who I have tremendous respect for, but his analysis that there was no difference between Bush and Gore is not worthy of his life of great work for people. It is not easy to build a viable third party and I know that is what his effort was all about, but it can only be done with a sophisticated strategy that takes into account what the effect of such campaigns have on the day to day lives of people. While Nader should not take all the blame for Gore's defeat (Gore needs to shoulder the lion's share himself), he made a serious mistake that we are all now paying for in the form of Bush's war in Iraq, huge deficits, attacks on the environment, etc., etc.

I have voted for my fair share of "minor" party candidates (including the Green candidate for Mayor in SF) and will likely do so again. This November I would encourage any one considering voting for such a candidate to carefully evaluate the situation in their state before doing so. Too many people could pay for it with their lives in places like Iraq, Syria, and Iran if Bush is reelected.

Krizoitz

Feb 8, 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I just wanted to point out that you've dodged the simple challenge I presented. Why?

I should know better than to respond to a post like this, clearly you are looking for a fight. However I like discussions and expressing my opinion so I'll continue anyway.

The reason I didn't express a specific spot where Jesus states point-blank that living as a homosexual couple is wrong is because he doesn't say it specifically.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, I just tried to show what I have been taught are Jesus and the Bible's argument against homosexual acts. Note the teachings are against homosexual acts, not homosexual individuals.

I'm simply trying to dismantle your political views using a question. But you're clearly not open to such self-examination.

You don't even KNOW my political viewpoints, how and why would you feel the need to dismantle them. You're request for a quote about Jesus and homosexuality would seem to mean you are trying to attack my view on gay marriage. You don't even know it, and whether or not I am for or against it.

As to your last point, whether or not I am open to self-examination, it seems to me that you really aren't in a position to judge that, having read a few comments on a message board, I don't think you can really understand what I am and am not open to. Also many people would view that kind of statement a personal attack, so I'll ask you to refrian from doing so in the future, thank you very much.

Krizoitz

Feb 8, 2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
But they are allowed in the Church! And in the Synagogue!

Not all churches and all synagogues allow homosexual unions and I was simply trying to point out their reasons why.

I am not telling you what to believe, or anyone else. I am simply trying to expose you to another point of view.

pseudobrit

Feb 8, 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I should know better than to respond to a post like this, clearly you are looking for a fight. However I like discussions and expressing my opinion so I'll continue anyway.

The reason I didn't express a specific spot where Jesus states point-blank that living as a homosexual couple is wrong is because he doesn't say it specifically.

Thank you.

You don't even KNOW my political viewpoints, how and why would you feel the need to dismantle them.

I asked a question to try to find out why you believe what you believe. It's obviously not because of the teachings of Christ, and therefore not because of your Christianity.

As to your last point, whether or not I am open to self-examination, it seems to me that you really aren't in a position to judge that, having read a few comments on a message board, I don't think you can really understand what I am and am not open to. Also many people would view that kind of statement a personal attack, so I'll ask you to refrian from doing so in the future, thank you very much.

I was responding in kind to your accusation that I was anti-Christian.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 9, 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
It's obviously not because of the teachings of Christ, and therefore not because of your Christianity.

Not sure if this is what you are trying to argue, but it should be noted that there is a lot more to Christianity than just the teachings of Christ.

Why else would Christians be so gun-ho about those 10 Commandments, seeing as they were being tossed about long before Christ was born.

Davis

pseudobrit

Feb 9, 2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Why else would Christians be so gun-ho about those 10 Commandments, seeing as they were being tossed about long before Christ was born.

Good question indeed. I would have presented it as rhetorical.

A true Christian wouldn't "be so gung-ho about" the 10 commandments, because they are not the cornerstone of a true Christian faith.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 9, 2004, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Good question indeed. I would have presented it as rhetorical.

A true Christian wouldn't "be so gung-ho about" the 10 commandments, because they are not the cornerstone of a true Christian faith.

No, I see what you mean - this is one of the reasons I get confused when people describe Bush as an "Old Testament Christian". Christ wasn't exactly alive and kicking it during the Old Testament days (wouldn't an "Old Testament Christian" be - I dunno - a Jew? or am I missing something?).

But to be fair, to be "Christian" doesn't just mean "beliefs derived from Christ" as the name might suggest. Many people self-described as "Christian" take into consideration of their beliefs the Bible as a whole, in which there is no denying the assertions against homosexual behavior (along with plenty of assertions we've since dropped as irrational and morally bankrupt in the modern era - as many posters have pointed out).

I don't think you can undercut the Christian assertion that their religion doesn't condone homosexuality just because Christ himself never spoke against it. At it's most fundamental level, to be Christian really just means that you believe Christ to be the son of God and to have been resurrected after his crucifixion. That's what unifies Christians all together everywhere - not just a belief in his teachings and nothing but.

Davis

Krizoitz

Feb 9, 2004, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I asked a question to try to find out why you believe what you believe. It's obviously not because of the teachings of Christ, and therefore not because of your Christianity.

First, you don't know what I believe. I have never said whether I am for or against gay marriage.

Second, my beliefs are based on the teachings of Christ and my Catholocism. The Church clearly states that it views homosexual unions as wrong and I agree with that on a moral level.

BUT, big but here, I realize that we live in a secular country, or atleast close to it, and that even if I believe it is morally wrong, doesn't give me the right to dictate that to other people.

I would prefer personally, that we did not use the term marriage to refer to Gay couples, because I feel it is a term that implies a blessing from God, but that is my personal belief, and if the constitution prohibits using seperate terms, than that is something I will have to deal with.

I have friends who are gay. I don't agree with their life style, but I don't hate them for making choices that I think are wrong anymore than the hate me because I have made wrong choices in my life.

Jesus taught us tolerance, especially for those who sin, because we all do. I think the self-righteous attitude of the religious right is wrong as well.

I was responding in kind to your accusation that I was anti-Christian.

Wow, people really will read what they want to see. I said that your argument appeared to be anti-christian, and apologized if I had misinterpreted that. I never accused you personally of being anti-christian because I didn't have reason to back it up yet. I simply stated your argument appeared so. Maybe thats not different to you, and if I offended I do apologize, but it was too me.

pseudobrit

Feb 9, 2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
But to be fair, to be "Christian" doesn't just mean "beliefs derived from Christ" as the name might suggest. Many people self-described as "Christian" take into consideration of their beliefs the Bible as a whole, in which there is no denying the assertions against homosexual behavior (along with plenty of assertions we've since dropped as irrational and morally bankrupt in the modern era - as many posters have pointed out).

I don't think you can undercut the Christian assertion that their religion doesn't condone homosexuality just because Christ himself never spoke against it. At it's most fundamental level, to be Christian really just means that you believe Christ to be the son of God and to have been resurrected after his crucifixion. That's what unifies Christians all together everywhere - not just a belief in his teachings and nothing but.

Davis

But what good is being a Christian who believes in Christ's divinity, resurrection and ascention if you ignore his message? How many "Christians" are divorced and remarried, even though Christ expressly forbids it? Where is the outrage over that?

His message was one of tolerance, forgiveness and understanding. But it's much easier to hate, so instead of having a true "defence of marriage" initiative based on the teachings of Christ himself, which would address the catastrophic divorce rate in this nation, we get a bitter, exclusive, xenophobic initiative of hate based on ancient folklore.

Krizoitz

Feb 9, 2004, 12:53 AM

Davis,
I just wanted to take the time to thank you. Despite the fact that I'm sure you and I would disagree on some things, you always do an eloquent job of expressing your view without attacking others, and defending the views of others from attacks that have nothing to do with what they are saying. I only wish more people could be as fairminded about these discussions as you are.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 9, 2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
In that regard, I think Nader did the nation a disservice in his rhetoric about the 2000 election. He is a highly intelligent man who I have tremendous respect for, but his analysis that there was no difference between Bush and Gore is not worthy of his life of great work for people.....While Nader should not take all the blame for Gore's defeat (Gore needs to shoulder the lion's share himself), he made a serious mistake that we are all now paying for in the form of Bush's war in Iraq, huge deficits, attacks on the environment, etc., etc.

Just to defend Nader a bit on this one (though his decision late in the game to campaign heavily in swing states as nothing but a personal vendetta against a-hole Gore, who prevented his entry in national debates, was definitely a bad move in my oppinion) there is a HUGE difference between Candidate Bush and President Bush. Bush ran a very moderate campaign as part of his "say anything to get elected" strategy, one in which he praised Kyoto, spoke out against "Nation Building", on and on. No one could have foreseen the drastic turn to the right he made once in office - he broke so many campaign promises its embarassing. John Stewart did a great piece of the Daily Show where he edited together a full-on debate between President Bush and Cadidate Bush in which he took contradictory soundbites from Bush pre-election and post-election and had them square off in a debate - a debate in which they disagreed more than Bush did with Gore back in the race.

I think there was a lot of truth to Nader's claim that Bush and Gore were running on the same bill - they were more similar than different....as candidates. Bush has destroyed his original percieved reputation as a moderate, something I think will make his reelection difficult.

Davis

Counterfit

Feb 9, 2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
John Stewart did a great piece of the Daily Show where he edited together a full-on debate between President Bush and Cadidate Bush in which he took contradictory soundbites from Bush pre-election and post-election and had them square off in a debate - a debate in which they disagreed more than Bush did with Gore back in the race. I saw that :) John Stewart is funny as all hell. :D

pseudobrit

Feb 9, 2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
First, you don't know what I believe. I have never said whether I am for or against gay marriage.

Second, my beliefs are based on the teachings of Christ and my Catholocism. The Church clearly states that it views homosexual unions as wrong and I agree with that on a moral level.

Nice to meet a fellow Catholic. I agree that homosexual behaviour may be a sin. It's none of my business, however, since

1) I will never engage in homosexual acts

2) It's only a sin because it's fornication

BUT, big but here, I realize that we live in a secular country, or atleast close to it, and that even if I believe it is morally wrong, doesn't give me the right to dictate that to other people.

I would prefer personally, that we did not use the term marriage to refer to Gay couples, because I feel it is a term that implies a blessing from God, but that is my personal belief, and if the constitution prohibits using seperate terms, than that is something I will have to deal with.

I think that when referring to the legal institution of marriage, it should maintain the barrier between Church and State. Therefore, any religious objection to a legal matter is irrelevant.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesars..."

I'm sorry if I read into your statement about being anti-Christian. I don't like it when I'm accused of persecution and can be a little touchy.

Neserk

Feb 9, 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I would prefer personally, that we did not use the term marriage to refer to Gay couples, because I feel it is a term that implies a blessing from God, but that is my personal belief, and if the constitution prohibits using seperate terms, than that is something I will have to deal with.

So do you believe that God blesses marriages where one spouse abuses the other? Or when one spouse habitually cheats on the other? We shouldn't call those marriages, either.

Neserk

Feb 9, 2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Just to defend Nader a bit on this one (though his decision late in the game to campaign heavily in swing states as nothing but a personal vendetta against a-hole Gore, who prevented his entry in national debates, was definitely a bad move in my oppinion) there is a HUGE difference between Candidate Bush and President Bush. Bush ran a very moderate campaign as part of his "say anything to get elected" strategy, one in which he praised Kyoto, spoke out against "Nation Building", on and on. No one could have foreseen the drastic turn to the right he made once in office - he broke so many campaign promises its embarassing. John Stewart did a great piece of the Daily Show where he edited together a full-on debate between President Bush and Cadidate Bush in which he took contradictory soundbites from Bush pre-election and post-election and had them square off in a debate - a debate in which they disagreed more than Bush did with Gore back in the race.

I think there was a lot of truth to Nader's claim that Bush and Gore were running on the same bill - they were more similar than different....as candidates. Bush has destroyed his original percieved reputation as a moderate, something I think will make his reelection difficult.

Davis

SO why was *I* able to see the difference between Bush & Gore and that Bush was full of ****? Do I have some kind of special powers? Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold. All one has to do is look at Bush's dodging his National Guard duty, his unwillingness to admit to his drug abuse, his destruction of Texas' education system, and his record of putting to death the most (if I recall correctly) inmates while he was the Governor of Texas in order to see who he is.

My parents are more or less Republicans. My father (whom I respect greatly) told me a bit about Bush and I looked into him. I considered voting for him until I read the above information. That was enough to enlighten me about who he was. No one should pay any attention to anything anyone says in a campaign. Look at what they've done. The best indicatior of future behavior is past behavior.

Sayhey

Feb 9, 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Just to defend Nader a bit on this one (though his decision late in the game to campaign heavily in swing states as nothing but a personal vendetta against a-hole Gore, who prevented his entry in national debates, was definitely a bad move in my oppinion) there is a HUGE difference between Candidate Bush and President Bush. Bush ran a very moderate campaign as part of his "say anything to get elected" strategy, one in which he praised Kyoto, spoke out against "Nation Building", on and on. No one could have foreseen the drastic turn to the right he made once in office - he broke so many campaign promises its embarassing. John Stewart did a great piece of the Daily Show where he edited together a full-on debate between President Bush and Cadidate Bush in which he took contradictory soundbites from Bush pre-election and post-election and had them square off in a debate - a debate in which they disagreed more than Bush did with Gore back in the race.

I think there was a lot of truth to Nader's claim that Bush and Gore were running on the same bill - they were more similar than different....as candidates. Bush has destroyed his original percieved reputation as a moderate, something I think will make his reelection difficult.

Davis

While it is true that Bush ran on more moderate sounding campaign rhetoric ("compassionate conservative" and all that nonsense) than what he has govern with, it was a difference that anybody with a modicum of political savvy could foresee. Ralph Nader knew the important differences between what a Bush or Gore administration would mean and he chose to ignore those differences because it meant more votes for the Green Party.

Do not get me wrong, Davis, I think it is important for the Green Party to grow as an alternative third party, but if it is to be successful it has to do so first at the local level where it can show it is more than a protest vote. National campaigns like Nader's provide very important ways to get out the Green's ideas and as such can be vital in the Party's growth. However if it is to be looked upon, by the people it most wants to recruit, as anything more than a "spoiler" that helps elect right-wing presidents, it will have to run a much more sophisticated campaign than they did in 2000.

pdrayton

Feb 9, 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Slightly off topic, but because it has been raised in this thread I will throw my two cents in on voting for so called "minor" candidates.

I don't think it is fair or correct to tell people that voting for anyone other than a democrat or a republican is a waste of time. At least, not in every situation. There are times it is important to cast a protest vote - knowing full well that your vote stands little chance of getting the candidate you vote for elected. If there is not a dime's worth of difference between Democratic and Republican candidates on critical issues then I see value in such votes. However, I think every case must be evaluated on its own merits.

I agree. Although I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss, I do think it's appropriate to analyze Nader's motives in running. I think Nader brought up important issues that were not being raised in the 2000 election, and I also think he's neglected to keep the spotlight on the issues he claimed were so important. I'm not aware of anything Nader has done to make the Democratic party more inclusive and responsive since the 2000 election. Perhaps his motives really were spiteful. If so, that's sad, and should be a wake-up call to his supporters.

Political parties are about ideals and belonging. We need to be very careful about assessing who a party feels it's important to include. We also need to be honest with ourselves when candidates tell us "we" are important yet are treated as expendable. My opinion is that gays & lesbians, desperate (for obvious reasons) to feel included, take at face value proclamations from candidates that "I'm on your side" without paying attention to those same candidates' actions that exclude them from the equal rights they seek.

I can't blame gays & lesbians for voting for someone simply because that person says "I'm on your side". But, it pains me to see so much money from gays & lesbians flowing into the coffers of candidates who won't "walk the talk". Fortunately, Howard Dean is proof that that can be changed, and that people are willing to back-up a candidate with cash. We need to do more of that.

So, I guess this ramble is actually about me thinking that primaries are an excellent opportunity for gays & lesbians (and others who feel passionate about gay & lesbian issues) to maximize their leverage in influencing Democratic candidates by being thoughtful and strategic in making sure that votes AND dollars go only to those candidates who actually stand for their ideals. I think that would go a long way towards helping people like John Kerry think twice before thinking that gay/lesbian concerns and voters are expendable.

And, last but not least! I've not been kind to Kerry in this thread, but I do want to aknowledge that he is currently witholding support for an amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts because the amendment currently has language that would deprive gays and lesbians from even receiving domestic partner benefits from employers (both government employees and corporate employees). Nonetheless, supporters of the amendment aknowledge that even if that language is removed they will not hesitate to use the amendment in a court challenge to deprive gays & lesbians of domestic partner benefits in the workplace.

I hope readers of this thread realize that opponents of gay marriage who support amendments on a state level banning gay marriage have their eyes set on using the courts to challenge not only the legality of civil unions, but also workplace domestic partner benefits.

Civil Unions may sound like a reasonable compromise, but even civil unions are at risk if we don't support gay marriage 100%.

Sayhey

Feb 9, 2004, 09:57 AM

pdrayton,

A very thoughtful and informative post. I think your warning about the attempts to do away with domestic partner benefits and civil unions by opponents of gay marriage is especially right on the mark. I do have one question. It would seem that you view Dean in a much more favorable light, but isn't his position on gay marriage the same as Kerry's? And the same as Clark's and Edwards' for that matter? I believe only Kucinich and Sharpton have stated their support for the issue among the candidates.

edit: say has anyone seen Ugg lately? I'd like to hear his thinking on some of these issues around the election, but I haven't seen a post of his for a while.

pdrayton

Feb 9, 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
I do have one question. It would seem that you view Dean in a much more favorable light, but isn't his position on gay marriage the same as Kerry's? And the same as Clark's and Edwards' for that matter? I believe only Kucinich and Sharpton have stated their support for the issue among the candidates.
I've gone from supporting Dean wholeheartedly to questioning if I might be better off voting for Kucinich.

My support for Dean was based on his demonstrated leadership in VT. Unlike Hawaii or Alaska, which preceeded Vermont in having bans on gay marriage over-ruled by their state Supreme Courts, Vermont didn't resort to enacting a constitutional amendment that specifically bannned gay marriage. Thus, Vermont moved gay civil rights forward. Dean took a lot of heat (the "Take Back Vermont!" campaign, I'll clue you in on that in another post), and the Democratic party suffered temporary setbacks in elections, but he stood firm in making progress. Dean deftly prevented a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from being put on the table. Demonstrated leadership, actions and results count a lot for me. Kerry has some actions, even less leadership, and no results when it comes to advancing civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Dean, of course, is "opposed" to gay marriage just as Kerry is. The difference, to me, has been that Dean's portfolio includes something that Kerry's doesn't. Action that has brought about results, and eloquent words justifying why he did what he did. Kerry's only explanation for voting against DoMA (it was good that he voted against it, mind you) was that he didn't want to see gay bashing. Nice sentiment, but Dean says of DoMA that's it's wrong for one state to deprive gays & lesbians of marriage rights that another state bestows upon them... Kerry never even goes that far. Seems like a big difference to me.

Of course, the the situation in Massachusetts has changed drastically in the past week. It was considered very possible for the Supreme Judicial Court to rule (on the Legislature's question... can Civil Unions be considered equivalent to Marriage under your November ruling) that Civil Unions were ok. No one was expecting them to rebuke the legislature for even daring to ask the question.
Now the landscape has changed... the legislature has called a constitutional convention for this Wednesday to consider an amendment banning gay marriage so that the court's ruling can be circumvented, and we're faced with the prospect of a constitutional convention passing an amendment that will deprive gays of the right to marry AND also lead to them being stripped of employee benefits. And, much to our horror, Democrats are leading the charge! Gays and lesbians who feel that Democrats are "on their side" need to seriously consider the implications of what "opposition" to gay marriage means.

And, are straight people who consider themselves "on the side" of gays and lesbians even though they "oppose" gay marriage but "support" civil unions willing to look their co-workers in the eye when opponents of gay marriage win and say to their gay co-workers, "It really doesn't matter to me that you're going to lose valuable employee benefits."?

While I'm realizing that Dean's "opposition" to gay marriage has become a hindrance to me despite his leadership, actions and results, I also am willing to entertain supporting Kerry should he say something along the lines of "while I favor the idea of civil unions over gay marriage, I realize that opposing gay marriage puts at risk the benefits I strongly feel that gays and lesbians, who have been loyal supporters of myself and the Democratic party, are entitled to. Like most Americans, I feel gays should receive equal treatment and benefits in the workplace, and opposing gay marriage can lead to taking away those benefits that many leading employers have seen fit to provide.".

If Kerry were to say that he could still "not like gay marriage" (the majority of Americans aren't in favor of gay marriage) while taking a stand for gays & lesbians being able to enjoy equal protection and benefits in the workplace (which most Americans favor).

He'd stay electable, still would not be taking a stand "for" gay marriage, and would enable gays and lesbians to continue making progress. Everyone may not "win" (i.e. hard-core opponents of gay marriage), but most people would be be satisfied.

If you ask yourself "What are the most significant advancements gays & lesbians have won in the past 10 years?", you're likely to come up with access to equal benefits bestowed by CEO's, not equal rights provided by politicians. I'm willing to accept small steps in advancement... I'm not willing to let a politican throw my gains from the past 10 years into the trash can simply so he can win an election. I hope other people feel the same way, and I hope other people share with others how much is at risk by supporting civil unions and not supporting gay marriage.

Krizoitz

Feb 9, 2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Neserk
So do you believe that God blesses marriages where one spouse abuses the other? Or when one spouse habitually cheats on the other? We shouldn't call those marriages, either.

Yes, the obvious conclusion to draw is that I think God blesses marriages involving spousal abuse. Or not.

Since it has become increasingly obvious that no matter what you say some people are bound and determined to twist it into what they want to hear.

Yes I believe in marriages between a man and a woman, and I believe they are a gift from God. I believe that, my beliefs. When a man abuses his wife or a wife her husband they are sinning in the eyes of God and defiliing that blessing. These are my views and I am not trying to foist them on anyone else.

pseudobrit

Feb 9, 2004, 06:09 PM

Let's leave God out of this. This is a legal debate.

Can anyone give me one legal reason why gay marriage should not exist? i.e. one based on logic and reason instead of religion, tradition and morals.

vniow

Feb 9, 2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I have friends who are gay. I don't agree with their life style,

There....is...no...."gay"....lifestyle....ARRRRRGH!!

IJ Reilly

Feb 9, 2004, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Can anyone give me one legal reason why gay marriage should not exist? i.e. one based on logic and reason instead of religion, tradition and morals.

Surely you already know the answer to this question: without religion, there'd be no law.

(Yes, this is intended as sarcasm.)

Krizoitz

Feb 10, 2004, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by vniow
There....is...no...."gay"....lifestyle....ARRRRRGH!!

Um yes there is, having homosexual relations. I'm not saying that their inclination towards those tendencies (i.e. being Gay) is necessarilly chosen. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter to me. But i wanted to respond to what was an attack on a perfectly valid statement.

In that reply I also stated that people will take whatever they want to say out of peoples comments, not what they actually say. Thank you for proving my point.

Krizoitz

Feb 10, 2004, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Surely you already know the answer to this question: without religion, there'd be no law.

(Yes, this is intended as sarcasm.)

Can we please stop attacking religion here. No one on this board is attacking Gay's why must you attack religion.

pdrayton

Feb 10, 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Can we please stop attacking religion here. No one on this board is attacking Gay's why must you attack religion.
If appears you are basing your opposition to gay marriage on a reason that it defiles, denigrates, is contrary to, or simply prohibited by your religion because it violates the "sanctity" of marriage or harms a "sacrament" of your church.

Many churches do not permit or approve of same-sex weddings/blessings in their denomination. These same churches will "not recognize" straight civil marriages that violate the sanctity of their churches and yet refrain from trying to make them illegal.

Hence, people who are gay & lesbian are rather tired of churches proclaiming their opposition to gay marriage, a civil issue, is based on the harm to their religious beliefs, yet they won't even bother to hold straight people to the same standard.

So, when you are inconsistent in applying your religious standards to civil law, you are, in effect, "attacking" gays and lesbians. That's what it feels like to us.

question fear

Feb 10, 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by vniow
There....is...no...."gay"....lifestyle....ARRRRRGH!!

here, here.

from dictionary.com: life-style n : a manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes

now, my lifestyle is shaped by my values, my attitudes, and just because i date women does not make that the be-all end-all of that lifestyle. I would hazard a guess that more of my attitude and opinions comes from a liberal arts education at a very liberal institution followed by working for a fairly liberal job, all of which occured after being raised by two democratic parents in a jewish household where social action and social change were key cornerstones.
Ergo, my opinions on gay marriage and values were set prior to my deciding to sleep with women. furthermore, the action of sleeping with women is not a value or an attitude, it is a physical action and an emotional attraction that can exist regardless of my political moral or ethical views.

mactastic

Feb 10, 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by vniow
There....is...no...."gay"....lifestyle....ARRRRRGH!!

If it's not your lifestyle that's the problem.... maybe it's your agenda.
;)

Krizoitz

Feb 10, 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by pdrayton
If appears you are basing your opposition to gay marriage on a reason that it defiles, denigrates, is contrary to, or simply prohibited by your religion because it violates the "sanctity" of marriage or harms a "sacrament" of your church.

Many churches do not permit or approve of same-sex weddings/blessings in their denomination. These same churches will "not recognize" straight civil marriages that violate the sanctity of their churches and yet refrain from trying to make them illegal.

Hence, people who are gay & lesbian are rather tired of churches proclaiming their opposition to gay marriage, a civil issue, is based on the harm to their religious beliefs, yet they won't even bother to hold straight people to the same standard.

So, when you are inconsistent in applying your religious standards to civil law, you are, in effect, "attacking" gays and lesbians. That's what it feels like to us.

I have never at any point in this entire discussion said or argued that my religious views should dictate civil conditions. I have in fact said the exact opposite. Yes I have posted things to explain why churches oppose gay marriage, but only in response to specific questions asking for that information. So here I am again stuck with the situation where people are reading what they want to see, and not what I am saying. So I'm going to try and spell this out as simply as possible.

1. I am a religious person
2. I believe that homosexual ACTS are sinful. Just as I believe that lying, stealing, or pre-marital heterosexual sex are.
3. I do not hate gay people anymore than I hate people who have sex before marriage or people who have lied (I would have to hate myself for that last one)
4. I believe that churches should have the right to marry whomever they want
5. I do not believe that my religiously based views of marriage should dictate what society does in this case since it denies equally benefits, etc. etc.
6. I would prefer the term civil unions be used by the government and marriage by the churches (even if a church then decides to marry gay people)
7. I think hateful speech or actions towards gays, minorities, etc. is wrong. Jesus taught tolerance, forgiveness and love, not hatred and judgmentalism.
8. I think people are over generalizing religion as well and attacking based on the extreme beliefs of a vocal majority.

Taft

Feb 10, 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
8. I think people are over generalizing religion as well and attacking based on the extreme beliefs of a vocal majority.

Herein lies the problem.

The fact that there are extremists skews ALL discussions concerning a given topic, not just those discussions where an extremist is an active participant. If there weren't Christians out there screaming "GOD HATES GAYS" over and over, gay rights supporters wouldn't feel the need to attack those who provide a Christian perspective in the debate. But the fact is that when extremists are screaming, coming into boards to flame, and just generally acting uncivil people on the other side of the debate have their gaurd up and their "troll-detector" cranked up to the highest setting. Unfortunately, this results in a high number of "false positives" in the troll department, further reducing the quality of the debate.

You are very civil. You have been talking about your beliefs on the subject and have not tried to force those beliefs on others. I personally believe your position is very wrong, but I respect your method of debate and the fact that you treat other people well, even if you disagree with them.

Unfortunately, others on "your side" have used tactics that have reduced the quality of the debate from both sides. I personally place blame on the extremists rather than those on these boards.

Taft

vniow

Feb 10, 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Um yes there is, having homosexual relations. I'm not saying that their inclination towards those tendencies (i.e. being Gay) is necessarilly chosen. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter to me. But i wanted to respond to what was an attack on a perfectly valid statement.

I never implied that you said anything of the sort in regards to being natural or chosen, not sure where you got that from. Referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" bugs the living hell out of me and I'm not sure why people refer to it as such.

In that reply I also stated that people will take whatever they want to say out of peoples comments, not what they actually say. Thank you for proving my point.

When you said:

I have friends who are gay. I don't agree with their life style, but I don't hate them for making choices that I think are wrong anymore than the hate me because I have made wrong choices in my life.

It was pretty clear that you were referring to homosexuality as a lifestyle which I disagreeed with and have poined out numerous other times on this board why I disagree with it.

For reference (thanx to question fear):

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lifestyle

A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group: “It was a millionaire's lifestyle on the pocketbook of a hairdresser” (People).

n : a manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes

Note that none of the definitions provided by dictionary.com refer to who you're attracted to. My values have little to do with who I want to be in an intimate relationship with. I repeat, there is no homosexcual lifestyle. Arrrgh.

question fear

Feb 10, 2004, 03:30 PM

slightly off topic but does anyone else hear arthur dent's voice, "i seem to be having considerable trouble with my life-style" every time you read "gay life style"?

Might be just me.

anyhow...back to your regularly scheduled moralizing on how myself and my fellow queers live our lives, independent of your views.

-qf

pseudobrit

Feb 10, 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Can we please stop attacking religion here. No one on this board is attacking Gay's why must you attack religion.

Who is this person "Gay" and what does her religion have to do with this discussion?

DavisBAnimal

Feb 10, 2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Who is this person "Gay" and what does her religion have to do with this discussion?

Come on, Pseudo, knock it off - you know what the guy meant - why do you insist on constantly reducing the sophistication of these debates and scaring all the conservatives away (BacktotheMac where are you?)?

This place used to be a hotbead of political discussion - now all I see is a barrage of liberal postings - almost all of which I agree - and frankly it's gotten boring. I really wish we could have diverse, civil, open, non-threatening and sophisticated discussions of important issues, rather than this kind of garbage that keeps getting thrown around here.

Davis

pseudobrit

Feb 10, 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Come on, Pseudo, knock it off - you know what the guy meant - why do you insist on constantly reducing the sophistication of these debates and scaring all the conservatives away (BacktotheMac where are you?)?

Of course I knew what he meant.

It's a little bit of sarcasm. Holy ****, dude, chill out.

That's twice on this page blatant sarcasm was overreacted to (IJ even identified his as such). I'm just mixing things up a bit. If a little joke scares people away then screw 'em.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 10, 2004, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Of course I knew what he meant.

It's a little bit of sarcasm. Holy ****, dude, chill out.

That's twice on this page blatant sarcasm was overreacted to (IJ even identified his as such). I'm just mixing things up a bit. If a little joke scares people away then screw 'em.

I know it was sarcasm, and I know it was intended as a joke, and, dude, like I'm totally chill right now, brah. I just sometimes wonder whether or not these kind of jokes and this use of bold sarcasm doesn't border somewhat on antagonization.

There's no denying that these political discussions are almost devoid of a conservative viewpoint (if I had time I'd do a little tally to prove this I would) and I really feel as if this is mainly the result of these kind of button-pushing posts. I can't speak for Krizoitz, but if I was him I wouldn't exactly be laughing at that post -- I'd be annoyed. Do you really want to annoy people?

As a liberal poster I can't exactly speak for conservatives who come here, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of them described the political climate here as at least somewhat unwelcoming and univiting. And frankly I think that's too bad - some of my favorite people in the world are conservative.

Davis

mactastic

Feb 10, 2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
As a liberal poster I can't exactly speak for conservatives who come here, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of them described the political climate here as at least somewhat unwelcoming and univiting. And frankly I think that's too bad - some of my favorite people in the world are conservative.

Davis

I suppose you think a board dominated by conservative posters would have their arms open and be welcome and inviting to any liberal that stopped off for a chat.... No, I know you don't actually think that, but that's how you came across.

And you are about a year too late if you wanted to see conservative posters. In the run up to, and during the war there was a whole lot of conservativism being espoused here. Go back and look, if you want to run your tally make sure you go back about 12 months. I assure you, the liberals were the minority then.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 10, 2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I suppose you think a board dominated by conservative posters would have their arms open and be welcome and inviting to any liberal that stopped off for a chat.... No, I know you don't actually think that, but that's how you came across.

And you are about a year too late if you wanted to see conservative posters. In the run up to, and during the war there was a whole lot of conservativism being espoused here. Go back and look, if you want to run your tally make sure you go back about 12 months. I assure you, the liberals were the minority then.

Trust me, I was there, I've been a member since July 2002 and just never got around to posting until recently. And I saw the run up to the war, and saw the large number of conservative viewpoints being expressed, and saw a great conservative poster, Back2themac (or however its spelled), essentially get so frustrated with this type of antagonization, he eventually got fed up and left the political forums. And frankly, that's really sad - and I know a lot of people, liberal and conservative alike, were bothered by his leaving (one exception, if I remember correctly, being Zimv20).

And whether or not I expect a group of conservative posters to greet a liberal viewpoint with open arms matters little here - if this was the other way around I am sure I would be arguing to them to lighten-it up, too - to encourage more debate rather than stifling oppinion.

But if that was the case, I'm sure I wouldn't pull much clout in my argument cause it could easily be interpretted as whining that my oppionion isn't getting due respect. Well in this case, my oppinion is getting due resepect - I am an active critic of the Bush administration and relish the idea of intellectual debate in which I get to lay out my liberal viewpoint in front of a worthwile, pleasantly contentious group of conscientious citizens. And frankly I don't think we're getting that here, and I think a large part of that is the lack of seriousness and respect with which conservative view points are met on these boards.

I am happy Taft took time out to compliment Krizoitz for his civil approach to the debate of a controversial topic - that's the kind of open arms this board could use more of. It's just a shame it had to come in response to a situation in which Krizoitz thought his viewpoint was getting misconstrued, or at worst, attacked.

I really believe a fundamental shift is needed here within these boards before it can once again become a respected and worthwhile battleground for political debate.

Davis

mactastic

Feb 10, 2004, 11:05 PM

I like BTTM too, but frankly he had a style of arguing that caused a lot of work for the mods. His leaving was his decision, and I think it was too bad too, but outside of him who else has been chased off? We've had one conservative get banned like 4 or 5 times, but that doesn't really count 'cuz it's the same person coming back and doing the same thing over and over.

As they say, politics ain't beanbags. Opinions are strong, passions are high and peoples feelings get hurt if they take this stuff personally. If you are gonna argue politics, be prepared for it to get rough, that's just the way it is.

So what's your solution? Be less argumentative until more conservatives show up?

DavisBAnimal

Feb 10, 2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by mactastic

So what's your solution? Be less argumentative until more conservatives show up?

Not at all - argumentation is the name of the game. I'd settle for people just being a lot less purposefully annoying.

And I'm not sure who else has been pushed out other than BTTM, I just know they're not here right now, were here before, and that bums me out. I sometimes feel like I'm watching the Fox News Channel here, only instead of Rupert Murdoch manning the helm it's George Soros. I do think there is a way to encourage debate with which you disagree (not being obnoxious is a big part of this), and I don't think it's being accomplished here.

Am I alone on this? Is there anyone else who thinks the climate of discourse here could be fundamentally altered in order to encourage more conservative view points?

Davis

question fear

Feb 10, 2004, 11:37 PM

Davisbanimal-

i understand what you are arguing....i can't speak for anyone else, but the reason its hard for me to participate in a discussion on gay marriage with a conservative on a semi-anonymous board is that with same-sex marriage being so important to me its really tough to maintain enough objectivity to see why someone would argue against it...I see it as my personal and private right to do so, and i dont see why its their business or why they need to revile what i would like to hold sacred....i know everyone is entitled to their opinion but its tough to be calm when someone is trying to deny something so personal....i dont get involved much in the political discussions here, but if i did i think it woudl be easier for me to argue liberal points wiht a conservative if the issue did not mean so much to how i view my life and my future.
does that make sense?

and again, this is my view, and i am curious to see what others have to say.

Sayhey

Feb 10, 2004, 11:59 PM

Davis,

if you have a problem with the tone or antagonistic style of a particular post, it is great to respond to it. Lumping all the "liberal" posters into a group and saying we are unfair in our arguments with conservatives isn't accurate or helpful.

I'm not even sure I would peg Krizoitz as a conservative. Based on his post on this subject alone he has a literal adherence to the Bible, but that is not necessarily the same thing at all.

DavisBAnimal

Feb 11, 2004, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Davis,

if you have a problem with the tone or antagonistic style of a particular post, it is great to respond to it. Lumping all the "liberal" posters into a group and saying we are unfair in our arguments with conservatives isn't accurate or helpful.

I'm not even sure I would peg Krizoitz as a conservative. Based on his post on this subject alone he has a literal adherence to the Bible, but that is not necessarily the same thing at all.

Well, to be clear, this entire discussion of the nature of this forum came out of a specific comment I made about the antagonistic style of a particular post - that's what started this whole thing.

I don't mean to come off as lumping all liberal posters into a group (I don't think I have - it certainly wasn't my intention). And I don't think I directly pegged Krizoitz as a conservative (although his personal position on homosexual behavior would certainly position him as more conservative than most here). You're right, that isn't helpful or accurate - I didn't mean to do it.

But I do think there is something wrong with the culture here that makes this a forum more friendly towards liberal posting and more punishing to conservative posters, and I think we should look into it.

Here is my take on it:
One, I think a lot of conservatives have been turned off by the occasional (it's not every thread, but it's enough) antagonistic posts posted in their direction - like the one I initially responded to. This, coupled with the, "well if you don't like my obnoxious style, get out" attitude have prompted them to, well, get out. And I don't think that should be our goal here.

Two, I think a lot of consverative view points get laughed at a lot, not taken seriously, or misconstrued as something else. A lot of people took Krizoitz's posting about his religious beliefs as an argument that gay marriage should be illegal - something he never once argued, and doesn't even believe.

I think along these lines, a main mode of attack of a conservative view point on these forums is one of probing for weaknesses - the argument of "well if you think that then you must think this, this, this". That's not inherntly a flawed means of discussion, but it's overabundance can get a bit overwhelming, I assume, for many conservatives. I think rather than attacking someones position by looking for holes, it should be taken at face value, and met with contradictory evidence or logic.

Three, and this isn't the fault of any liberal posters, but I think the history of conservatism on this board is overshadowed by the posts of that one member you have mentioned as being banned a number of times. I suppose many conservatives bite their tongues in these discussions for fear of being lumped together with that sort of "lunatic fringe" Taft touched on earlier.

Four, I think there is a certain amount of an attitude here that the liberal argument is self evident. I can think of one instance where a more conservative poster commented on a call from the Dean Campaign in which the volunteer was a bit fanatical in her criticism of Bush, labeling him a "threat to this country" (something he didn't agree with), to which a liberal poster replied "How is Bush NOT a threat to this country?" as if it was self-evident and an argument in need of no substantiation. And you know, I'm as worried about the effects of the Bush administration as much as anyone else, but I think it's that kind of arrogant attitude that will disgruntle a conservative who may rightfully and fairly see the Bush administration as beneficial to the country and its people. Bush isn't self-evidently evil.

There could be more, but these are the main causes of concern as I see them.

Davis

Neserk

Feb 11, 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Yes, the obvious conclusion to draw is that I think God blesses marriages involving spousal abuse. Or not.

Since it has become increasingly obvious that no matter what you say some people are bound and determined to twist it into what they want to hear.

Yes I believe in marriages between a man and a woman, and I believe they are a gift from God. I believe that, my beliefs. When a man abuses his wife or a wife her husband they are sinning in the eyes of God and defiliing that blessing. These are my views and I am not trying to foist them on anyone else.

If you are going to define marriage as something with God's blessing and therefore define marriage based on what you believe God likes and dislikes then you must apply that same rule to other situations.

There is no twisting going on. It is called logic.

Neserk

Feb 11, 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by vniow
There....is...no...."gay"....lifestyle....ARRRRRGH!!

I keep trying to tell people that, to no avail. Gay people are as diverse as straight people.

Neserk

Feb 11, 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by vniow
[B] Referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" bugs the living hell out of me and I'm not sure why people refer to it as such.[/color]

In my experience, it is usually a good indication of someone who is listening to rhetoric. I can't recall how many times I heard the phrase implying some kind of orgy-type frenzy that gay people supposedly have. People who listen to rhetoric often repeat it word for word. I doubt they realize it is a huge arrow that points at them and says "Can't think for myself."

Sayhey

Feb 11, 2004, 01:34 AM

Davis,

I don't disagree with many of the points you have made, but I think it is best to make them in relationship to a specific post. You had a problem with some of the posts pseudobrit wrote in response to Krizoitz and I think you raised your objections with him. All that is fine and good. I do think many of the general points you raise could be applied to conservative posters as well. If you want people to sign onto a more civil tone of debate, then again in general, I agree with you. However, sometimes it is important to let folks know the emotions they ignore in making their statements.

Throw in the problem of trolls, like the one who keeps changing his name, and often we have a combustible atmosphere in the forums. However, if everyone just points out, in a friendly way, when they see someone go over the line and ignores the trolls - I think we will do just fine.

pseudobrit

Feb 11, 2004, 01:57 AM

"Gay" can be a woman's name. I thought the fact that he capitalised the word "gay"and gave it a possessive "apostrophe-'s'" instead of just an "s" to make it plural was quite the humorous coincidence, so I made a note of it. In fact, the grammar in that sentence had me confused for a moment because of those very errrors. I found them uniquely funny.

But I guess that's just antagonistic of me, eh? Whatever. What a buzzkill. :rolleyes:

Krizoitz

Feb 11, 2004, 03:39 AM

Look at all this talk about little old me. Yeah I suppose compared to the people posting in this thread I seem conservative, but I'm really pretty much a moderate. In fact, other than being Pro-Life, i'm pretty much with democrats on most issues (although I guess I'm a fence sitter on the gay marriage issue). So have there ever been actually conservative people here? I wonder how many people that visit this site are one or the other (or neither). Maybe that should be a poll topic!

pdrayton

Feb 11, 2004, 09:21 AM

I must say I rather enjoyed Psuedobrit's injection of humor. It was brief and a welcome respite from the long pontifications (such as mine).

As for conservative viewpoints not being "welcome", well... where are the conservative viewpoints that don't rely on a specific denomination's doctrine?

Our nation's history is one that includes a litany of negative implications that just one law, which denies civil rights to a group, can have. And that history includes the plethora of laws denying even more civil rights spawned by just one act. So, I don't think "probing for weaknesses" in someone's post is a bad thing. I think it's our civic responsibility to point out the consequences that our positions on issues may bring about.

I've noticed this thread includes opinions and positions from people around the world. "Moderating" the tone of this discussion would prevent us from noticing that what might seem like an "interesting" situation to someone in Tokyo, or a "cause" to someone in San Francisco, seems like an "imminent threat" to someone in Massachusetts.

I realize Krizhoitz feels he's being attacked, and in responding to his comments I've actually gone back through the thread to re-read what he has posted. It still isn't clear to me, though, if he has a "position" on permitting civil gay marriages. If he's in favor of permitting gay marriage while retaining a ban on them in his church... I'm comfortable with that. If he's opposed to civil gay marriages for reasons not based on a denomination's religious doctrine... I'm comfortable with that, too. If he's torn and doesn't know what position to take, fine... we all experience that. If he's opposed to civil gay marriages because it infringes on a specific denomination's religious doctrine, then I feel perplexed and unsatisfied with his response. That's just the way it is. I'd be interested in Krizhoitz's comments on this article in today's Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/11/bible_lessons_these_clergy_forgot?mode=PF)