» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/13/04 at 4:36 pm

Since Vermont passed its Civil Unions law and the Mass supreme court ruled it unconsitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry this has become a flashpoint in the cultural wars.  What say you?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Junior on 06/13/04 at 5:10 pm

Dictionary.com defines marriage as "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". So, under that definition, I would be in full support of gay marriage. However, if one describes marriage as a religious union, then I would be for same-sex "civil unions".

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/13/04 at 5:22 pm

I suppose I'm agreeing with Junior. I don't really have a strong view on the subject, Carlos (hence why I didn't vote in the poll).

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/13/04 at 6:51 pm

Well I like to look at this as if it affected me directly. If I was gay, and I met someone I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, I'd like to be afforded the same rights as everyone else to marry that person and have the same legal rights as any other couple. Denying people the right to marry someone they love simply because they are gay is discriminatory and a dereliction of basic human rights. Marriage should be defined as the legal union of a couple. Gender specifics should not enter into it.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/13/04 at 6:52 pm


Since Vermont passed its Civil Unions law and the Mass supreme court ruled it unconsitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry this has become a flashpoint in the cultural wars.  What say you?

You know who says "What say you?"

I voted for civil unions giving gay couples equal privileges and protections with heterosexual marriage.  "Marriage" is a religious institution and tradation is a little trickier.  Not sure yet where I stand on calling it "marriage."

My position on most gay issues is that I'm not gay, and it's none of my business how others run their lives.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: CatwomanofV on 06/13/04 at 7:12 pm

I voted gay marriage. I have always believe that gays should have the same rights that hetersexuals have. If two people of the same sex want to get married, it will not hurt me or society if they are allowed to do so.



Cat

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/13/04 at 7:24 pm



My position on most gay issues is that I'm not gay, and it's none of my business how others run their lives.


Unfortunately this is the mentality that clouds the thinking on many issues: I'm not gay/black/Islamic/female/disabled, and it's none of my business. The fact is that people make it their business, and then lobby or legislate based purely on their own opinions, without thought or care for the opinions of the people they are imposing their opinions on. The issue of gay marriages should be examined from the point of view of gay people. It should't be just imposed on them by people who don't understand it.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: SuperFreak on 06/13/04 at 7:28 pm


I voted gay marriage. I have always believe that gays should have the same rights that hetersexuals have. If two people of the same sex want to get married, it will not hurt me or society if they are allowed to do so.



Cat
I feel the same way CatwomanofV. I also am really sick and tired of people like Rosie O'Donnell for being a braggert about, first her huge donation to victims of the Twin Towers tragedy and then for her gay union. IF i ever marry i will not publicize it for the world to know. If we gays want to be treated equal then i feel we should act like any other heterosexuals and just enjoy our lives. I also am tired of the gays who ask for equality yet want special rights as a minority.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/13/04 at 7:36 pm



I feel the same way CatwomanofV. I also am really sick and tired of people like Rosie O'Donnell for being a braggert about, first her huge donation to victims of the Twin Towers tragedy and then for her gay union. IF i ever marry i will not publicize it for the world to know. If we gays want to be treated equal then i feel we should act like any other heterosexuals and just enjoy our lives. I also am tired of the gays who ask for equality yet want special rights as a minority.


But don't you agree that gays deserve the same rights as people who are not gay? I don't agree with the hypocrisy that exists within the gay community in which, on one hand, they want to be treated the same way as everyone else, but at the same time expect different treatment because they're gay. Gays should have the same rights as others, not more and certainly not less, and if they are to have the same rights, they should be allowed to marry.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/13/04 at 7:38 pm




Unfortunately this is the mentality that clouds the thinking on many issues: I'm not gay/black/Islamic/female/disabled, and it's none of my business. The fact is that people make it their business, and then lobby or legislate based purely on their own opinions, without thought or care for the opinions of the people they are imposing their opinions on. The issue of gay marriages should be examined from the point of view of gay people. It should't be just imposed on them by people who don't understand it.

Good point!
:)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Just visiting for now.. on 06/13/04 at 7:46 pm


I voted "other" as I think they should do the first 3.  Regardless, they should be given the same rights as any other "couple".


I tend to agree with that.  I personally haven't got as problem with homosexuals "marrying", but it was pointed out to me that since marraige itself is a religious ceremony, and if  religion is against homosexuality, then a civil union should do the trick--IF it will allow for the couples to be recongnized as legal and binding--same rights as heterosexual married couples.  I don't think they deserve special rights, but they should have equal  rights.  Just because it's not my thing, I don't see why it would cause a problem for "humanity".  Now THAT attitude annoys me. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/13/04 at 7:51 pm



I feel the same way CatwomanofV. I also am really sick and tired of people like Rosie O'Donnell for being a braggert about, first her huge donation to victims of the Twin Towers tragedy and then for her gay union. IF i ever marry i will not publicize it for the world to know. If we gays want to be treated equal then i feel we should act like any other heterosexuals and just enjoy our lives. I also am tired of the gays who ask for equality yet want special rights as a minority.


I agree with you 100%, Superfreak!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: SuperFreak on 06/13/04 at 8:00 pm




But don't you agree that gays deserve the same rights as people who are not gay? I don't agree with the hypocrisy that exists within the gay community in which, on one hand, they want to be treated the same way as everyone else, but at the same time expect different treatment because they're gay. Gays should have the same rights as others, not more and certainly not less, and if they are to have the same rights, they should be allowed to marry.
I thought i made that point clear, Powerslave. I DO agree.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/13/04 at 8:07 pm




I don't think they deserve special rights, but they should have equal  rights. 


I agree. What I'm wondering now though is whether marriage is stirctly a religious ceremony. Certainly the tradition of marriage stems from religious rites and ceremonies, but so do many things in society. My wife and I had a civil wedding, but we're still considered "married" and the ceremony was still a "marriage" even though there was no formal religion involved. I don't think this issue should get bogged down in symantics which is the tendency of so many other discussions, but surely a "marriage" and "civil union" are technically the same thing. The real argument then should be, if the Church won't allow gay weddings in Church, should the State sanction civil marriages?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/13/04 at 8:09 pm



I DO agree


I thought you might.  ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: SuperFreak on 06/13/04 at 8:13 pm




I thought you might.  ;)
Thanks for understanding, Powerslave :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: SuperFreak on 06/13/04 at 8:15 pm




I agree with you 100%, Superfreak!
Thank you very much, Dagwood ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/14/04 at 12:58 am




I agree.  People who are "married" by a jp, judge, whoever, are still considered "married" even though no religious aspect may be involved.

And, can someone please explain to me what "special rights" homosexuals are asking for?  I've never heard of any of them asking to be treated differently.  All I've ever known is that they want to be treated the same as anyone else.


Sheesh, I'm sorry but you cannot have a small minority on the country trying to change what has been the same for 6,000 years.  Here is a new ABC article:

Marriage Amendments
Opinions Split Over Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriages

Analysis
by David Morris



''June 11— Public support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages has grown in the last month, leaving the nation split down the middle as President Bush announced his support again today for an amendment. 



Forty-six percent of Americans favor an amendment, while 45 percent say the states should be left to make their own laws on the issue. Just a month ago, by contrast, 58 percent wanted it left to the states but many now feel the amendment is the only way to stop Massachusetts.  Much of the change has occurred in the West — an apparent backlash to the same-sex marriages now occurring in San Francisco.

Apart from views on a constitutional amendment, opposition to homosexual marriages remains firm. Sixty-five percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say they should be illegal, steady since last fall. And the intensity of sentiment is twice as strong among opponents: Forty-nine percent of Americans feel "strongly" that same-sex marriages should be illegal, while just 25 percent "strongly" want them legal.

 
Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS Intersearch.
Still, there's a closer division on civil unions for gay couples, with 45 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. And the intensity of sentiment on civil unions — which Bush today said should be left to the states — is less lopsided than it is on gay marriage.

Bush and Kerry oppose same-sex marriage, but the Democrats also oppose a constitutional amendment to ban it. John Kerry supports legal civil unions; Dennis Kucinich supports domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples but has not taken a position on civil unions, saying it should be up to the states.

Bush, too, hasn't endorsed civil unions, but said today that states should be allowed "to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." In effect, he's splitting the difference on this issue — proposing to ban gay marriages but leaving civil unions up to the states — not unlike his half-a-loaf position on stem-cell research.''


---A 2/3rds majority is HUGE.  Also in my opinion when it comes to the amendment to ban gay marriage I was against, but now I am for it mostly because its the only way to stop activist judges.  I mean Massachusetts making gay marriage legal in that state has had a backlash, Ohio has banned gay marriage in their state constitution, Georgia is on the verge on it (the senate is up for a re-vote, it failed 117-48 last time, it needs 120 to pass, but they are voting on it again soon.)  And Mississippi is going to vote to ban gay marriage in that state come November, and according to a CNN poll its set to pass with 72% of the vote.  Now as for the amendment, I don't think it will pass, I do think it can get the 38 required states to ban it, but not the 2/3rds majority in the house and senate.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: gumbypiz on 06/14/04 at 1:25 am




Sheesh, I'm sorry but you cannot have a small minority on the country trying to change what has been the same for 6,000 years.  


???
Small minority or not, why should any minority be denied the same rights as others? Where do you get the 6,000 year number?
6,000 years or a million, the length of a tradition (or injustice) does not mean that it is right or cannot and should not be changed. ::)

So, by your reasoning, if slavery had lasted long enough in this country, say 6,000 years, it should've not been abolished?  ::) 
Please spare me this nonsense, I'm sure you have a better defense or reason than that...

BTW, news polls are complete bulls***. They mean nothing and can be massaged and manipulated so easily.  Try and support your position by your own words instead of using the lame words of the corrupted media.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/14/04 at 1:37 am




So, by your reasoning, if slavery had lasted long enough in this country, say 6,000 years, it should've not been abolished?  ::)   
Please spare me this nonsense, I'm sure you have a better defense or reason than that...

BTW, news polls are complete bulls***. They mean nothing and can be massaged and manipulated so easily.  Try and support your position by your own words instead of using the lame words of the corrupted media.



   Oh come on.  I think any rational thinking person can see a difference between slavery and same-sex marriages.  Thats like saying ''hey people 6,000 years ago breathed air, do we still need to be doing that?  Its outdated.''  And listen I thought i'd get that poll response if I quoted a Fox News poll so I find a liberal poll and it still gets shot down.  ALL polls, liberal, independent, or conservative show at least 62% against gay marriage, that ABC/Washington post, CNN, Fox News, Gallup, Pew, Zogby, and Mason dixon polling.  Are you trying to say EVERY SINGLE ONE of those polls are corrupt?  I highly doubt.  Gay marriage is a little more accepted today because of that corrupt media you speak of.  Shows like Will&Grace, Queer eye for the straight guy, Bravo, Lifetime, and that new all-gay channel coming out in March of 2005 all do what?  Show positive images of gay people.  I'm not saying thats bad, its just why more people today support gay marriage then maybe 10 years ago.  Lets say I made a new show called ''Bart and Frank'', a show about 2 gay men who drive around and beat people up for no reason.  Do you think that show would get on the liberal-controlled media?  Heck no, because it puts gay people in a different light, and like all people of all races, creeds, colors, sexes, religions, and whatever there are good and bad people.

Just for the record, the highest support for gay marriage comes from the CNN poll which shows only 62% are AGAINST gay marriage, the lowest support is the pew poll that shows 71% of americans are AGAINST gay marriage.  The other polls I mentioned above are all between the 62% and the 71% margin, which shows just how many americans are against gay marriage.  I'm just quoting facts, don't get mad at me.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/14/04 at 2:06 am





Sheesh, I'm sorry but you cannot have a small minority on the country trying to change what has been the same for 6,000 years.  Here is a new ABC article:



Some of your "traditional marriage" supporters are so crazy about it, they've had four or five of 'em!
;D

I support civil unions because I think it's good for society to support people who want to commit to each other.  People who have a significant other tend to lead happier,healthier, and more productive lives.  Not always, but more often than not, this is the case.  The gulf that separates me, as a heterosexual, from a great many others in this country, is that I don't think homosexuality is immoral or unhealthy.  To shame, ostracise, stigmatize, and criminalize homosexuality--even if you think God tells you to do it--will only encourage the negative stereotypes about homosexuality to take hold.  If the morality police of the Right want to REALLY want to see our gay citizens living healthier lives, they will support Civil Unions.  Furthermore, they will not pursue this hysterical Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

I've heard Evangelicals say, "love the sinner, hate the sin."  However, if the only way for homosexuals to win acceptance in the eyes of the Religious Right (including Jews and Muslims) is for them to no longer be homosexuals, then they are up against an unmeetable requirement. It seems to me the Religious Right prefers it this way, because in order to show their piety, they need sinners to condemn.

Make no bones about it.  This proposed amendement to ban gay marriage is ANTI-GAY.  It is not about protecting the sacred institution of marriage.  If you want to protect marriage, wouldn't it make more sense to propose an amendment to ban divorce ?  In some demographics, the divorce rate is well over 50%!  What about doing something rein in all this separation among married couples?  They don't even bother to get divorced, they just move out and carry on their hank-panky in different quarters.  Why not place adulterers under house arrest?  Make sure the old man stays at home with the wife and kids via GPS technology!

The heterosexuals have made a total mockery of "traditional marriage" and all it entails,* and Americans are worried about homosexuals mucking it up?  If every gay couple who wanted to get married was able to get married, the total might be as high as 2% of the entire population.  All this tiny minority wants to do is get hitched, set up house, mind their own business, and live their lives.  The reason they parade and protest is because guys like George W. Bush want the government to forbid their pursuit of happiness!

If the conservatives would just let go and let gay, all this public ballyhoo would disappear OVER NIGHT!  The gay community would just live their lives like everybody else.  No more would Mr. and Mrs. Righteous need fret over awkward questions from little Johnny and Mary, such as "Why are those men wearing tutus and marching down the street holding hands."

I have determined the people leading the charge for this "Gay Marriage Amendment' are bigots.  They don't like homosexuals.  They want to exclude homosexuals from the mainstream because, like all bigots, they feel threatened !!!
It will be a glorious day in America when no peaceful, law abiding citizen has to fear the intonation, "That kinda stuff don't go 'round here, boy!"

*Take the main propenent of the "Contract with America," Newt Gingrich.  He had several mistresses, and divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer.  That's right.  He marched into the hospital, bimbo in tow, and gave the old lady the papers right there.  So much for "Until death due us part."  Sounds like another "Newt Deal" to me!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: gumbypiz on 06/14/04 at 2:38 am




   Oh come on.  I think any rational thinking person can see a difference between slavery and same-sex marriages.  Thats like saying ''hey people 6,000 years ago breathed air, do we still need to be doing that?  Its outdated.''  And listen I thought i'd get that poll response if I quoted a Fox News poll so I find a liberal poll and it still gets shot down.  ALL polls, liberal, independent, or conservative show at least 62% against gay marriage, that ABC/Washington post, CNN, Fox News, Gallup, Pew, Zogby, and Mason dixon polling.  Are you trying to say EVERY SINGLE ONE of those polls are corrupt?  I highly doubt.  Gay marriage is a little more accepted today because of that corrupt media you speak of.  Shows like Will&Grace, Queer eye for the straight guy, Bravo, Lifetime, and that new all-gay channel coming out in March of 2005 all do what?  Show positive images of gay people.  I'm not saying thats bad, its just why more people today support gay marriage then maybe 10 years ago.  Lets say I made a new show called ''Bart and Frank'', a show about 2 gay men who drive around and beat people up for no reason.  Do you think that show would get on the liberal-controlled media?  Heck no, because it puts gay people in a different light, and like all people of all races, creeds, colors, sexes, religions, and whatever there are good and bad people.

Just for the record, the highest support for gay marriage comes from the CNN poll which shows only 62% are AGAINST gay marriage, the lowest support is the pew poll that shows 71% of americans are AGAINST gay marriage.  The other polls I mentioned above are all between the 62% and the 71% margin, which shows just how many americans are against gay marriage.  I'm just quoting facts, don't get mad at me.


Yes, any rational person can see a difference between gay marriage and slavery, BUT your response was
“Sheesh, I'm sorry but you cannot have a small minority on the country trying to change what has been the same for 6,000 years.” to 80's cheerleaders question of What "special rights" homosexuals are asking for?
...and I was using an irrational example to show just how nonsensical that was, and obviously you agree that it was silly, but you still haven’t said why you used this as a response as it is not even close to being valid…

BTW I DO BELIEVE ALL NEWS POLL ARE CORRUPT & INACCURATE. CNN, FOX, MSN, CHRISTIAN-SCIENCE MONITOR, NY TIMES, LA TIMES, WASH POST OR WHATEVER.

I’m not mad at you, just surprised that you give so much credibility to sources that have PROVED their unreliability in the past on numerous occasions. Anyone who has taken a logic or statistics course can easily explain how polls do not reflect the actual sampling of people that they claim to, or do not (deceptively or not) represent all those that have an opinion on the subject.
How the news media (or anyone for that matter) conduct their polls, phone calls, man on the street, on-line, etc always misses many of those who are not able to participate for one reason or another, and therefore is suspect.  Entire sections & classes of racial, social (wealthy & poor, liberal & conservative) get left out. They simply cannot be accurate. I do not trust or put much faith in them and can show easily how they are skewed (again knowingly or not) for or against an issue or position. Did they poll the Broadway area of Long Beach, Columbus, OH, Chicago, or Venice Beach or did they ask people that were on the street in Manhattan or Wash, D.C.? What time of day? Were these people married, single, gay, rich, poor, black, Asian, Latino, white? It all makes a difference.

Also, in case you weren’t aware, I am not “a liberal” and I think (as many do) that Queer Eye, Will & Grace and their ilk are not particularly good examples of gays and their “lifestyle”. TV being an good medium in which to stereotype all minorities equally, I do not believe all gays are good designers or have good taste nor are they irresponsible  foul mouthed and spout non-appropriate double-entendres. These shows are trash, and in the end will probably do gays more harm than good.

And your Bart & Frank show? HBO will pick it up as a mid-season replacement for the Sopranos. The publicity of the show alone would be worth the ratings, or haven’t you figured out how the minds of sleazy TV execs work yet? If you want proof, watch an episode of Queer as Folk or the L word for a negative portrayal of gays, they’re already a hit on Showtime.

When it really comes down to it, the question should not be if you are for or against gay marriage or civil unions, it should be how long before they will be commonplace.  Despite all the hub-bub, it will and is happening; it will be a non-issue soon.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/14/04 at 3:56 am

Alright let me say I am for civil unions.  Don't let my stance on gay marriage fool you.  Here is what I think:

Gay marriage- Should be banned on the federal level, I don't like that but I feel its the only way to stop activist judges and mayors like Massachusetts supreme court and Gavin Newsom.

Civil unions- I have no problem with, should be left up to the states, the ones like California and Vermont who want them can have them, the ones that don't shouldn't have to like Ohio and Georgia.

Defense of Marriage act- I agree with this.  It means a state does not have to reconize another states' marriage laws.  For example someone from Ohio can't drive up to Massachusetts, get married, go back to Ohio and still be married, only states that allow gay marriage (and its currently only one, Massachusetts) and states that want to reconize a Massachusetts state marriage license can like California and New York.  This to me makes sense, since I KNOW my Georgia state CC permit ( which means I can carry a handgun with my all the time in Georgia and it doesn't have to be viewable to anyone, even the police) would not be allowed in ANY other state other then Georgia so why should another states' marriage license be reconized in states that don't want to reconize it?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/14/04 at 8:52 am




And your Bart & Frank show? HBO will pick it up as a mid-season replacement for the Sopranos. The publicity of the show alone would be worth the ratings, or haven’t you figured out how the minds of sleazy TV execs work yet? If you want proof, watch an episode of Queer as Folk or the L word for a negative portrayal of gays, they’re already a hit on Showtime.



"Bart & Frank," sounds a little too close to "Barney Frank" to me (or "Barton Fink")!  Seinfeld fans may remember an episode on which there was a thuggish gay couple.  IIRC, they start stealing a dresser off the sidewalk before Kramer can move it into his apartment.  When Kramer confronts them, they threaten him.  They appear later in the episode for some kind of punchline, I haven't seen it in a while, so I don't remember what it was.
;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/14/04 at 8:58 am



Some of your "traditional marriage" supporters are so crazy about it, they've had four or five of 'em!
;D




Yes, I know their are a TON of people who get married and divorce like crazy.  I kinda wish there was a marriage limit for married couples, like ''three strikes, you're out!''  Makes me wonder who public enemy #1 to marriage is: gay couples or J Lo.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/14/04 at 10:05 am


I kinda wish there was a marriage limit for married couples, like ''three strikes, you're out!''  Makes me wonder who public enemy #1 to marriage is: gay couples or J Lo.

Rush Limbaugh? ;)


To me, it's all a question of semantics.
...
Let them call it what they want, as long as they get the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.

Well said.  Couldn't agree more.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: oddxsocks on 06/14/04 at 12:36 pm

i voted "for gay marriage."  just because it doesn't affect me doesn't mean it's right to deny others that right.



I feel the same way CatwomanofV. I also am really sick and tired of people like Rosie O'Donnell for being a braggert about, first her huge donation to victims of the Twin Towers tragedy and then for her gay union. IF i ever marry i will not publicize it for the world to know. If we gays want to be treated equal then i feel we should act like any other heterosexuals and just enjoy our lives. I also am tired of the gays who ask for equality yet want special rights as a minority.

agreed. :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 1:29 pm


  Also in my opinion when it comes to the amendment to ban gay marriage I was against, but now I am for it mostly because its the only way to stop activist judges. 


Those "activist" judges are only applying laws passed by the people and their legislators.

If a state has one law saying the government cannot differentiate by gender, and another law basing qualifications for "marriage" on gender, what are the judges supposed to do?

They are supposed to uphold the higher law, and in many cases, the higher law is an antidiscrimination clause or amendment in their state constitution.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/14/04 at 1:30 pm

Oh God....I had to write a 24-paragraph paper on this for my English final....( :-[  bad memories) 
Anyway, I voted outlaw gay marriages because as a Christian, I strongly believe that God created the institution of marriage for a MAN and a WOMAN.  (When he saw that Adam was lonely, did he make him another man? no) 
But you know what?  Gay people will never stop complaining and neither will atheists so I say just give them civil unions and let them have all the same "civil" rights.  Just don't abominate the title of a sacred institution.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 1:31 pm

The poll is terrible, because I think most people wouild want to select more than one option... they are not all mutually exclusive.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 1:34 pm


But you know what?  Gay people will never stop complaining and neither will atheists so I say just give them civil unions and let them have all the same "civil" rights.  Just don't abominate the title of a sacred institution.


If you don't want it to be abominated, you need to take it back from the government. The government can't sanctify anything; it is a secular institution for dealing with our civil interactions, not our spiritual struggles.

That means that the goverment should stop calling anything "marriage."  It can hand out unions or partnerships and let the churches perform "marriage."

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/14/04 at 2:02 pm


Oh God....I had to write a 24-paragraph paper on this for my English final....( :-
But you know what?  Gay people will never stop complaining and neither will atheists so I say just give them civil unions and let them have all the same "civil" rights.  Just don't abominate the title of a sacred institution.


I find you saying that "gay people will never stop complaining" highly offensive.  Since they are just looking for equal rights.  e.g. If you had a problem because someone wouldn't hire you because you were female and they told you to quit complaining when all you wanted was equal rights, I think you would find that highly offensive too.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/14/04 at 2:12 pm




Are you saying that God didn't create gay people?


God created all good things.  He created all people.  However, because Adam and Eve first sinned, everybody born on this earth sins.  That doesn't mean God likes it.  Why do you think he flooded the world?  Because he was angry with people's sin.  Why did he destroy the cities of Sodom & Gomorrha?  Because they were full of homosexuals...a SIN in God's eyes!  Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: rubixgirl on 06/14/04 at 2:12 pm




If you don't want it to be abominated, you need to take it back from the government. The government can't sanctify anything; it is a secular institution for dealing with our civil interactions, not our spiritual struggles.

That means that the goverment should stop calling anything "marriage."  It can hand out unions or partnerships and let the churches perform "marriage."


So if a hetero couple gets married w/ a justice of the peace and not a religious figure, would that make their union a marriage or a civil union?? ???

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/14/04 at 2:18 pm




God created all good things.  He created all people.  However, because Adam and Eve first sinned, everybody born on this earth sins.  That doesn't mean God likes it.  Why do you think he flooded the world?  Because he was angry with people's sin.  Why did he destroy the cities of Sodom & Gomorrha?  Because they were full of homosexuals...a SIN in God's eyes!  Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!


Erm.....People don't just turn gay, they are born that way.  So therefore you are saying that god created gay people.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/14/04 at 2:21 pm


Go read you the book of Leviticus!


If you follow that book then you must not like the disabled, minorities, gay or any other people mentioned in there which it discriminates against.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 2:33 pm


Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!


Leviticus is God's law. The US Constitution, the state constitution, and all the marriage laws in this country are man's law.  The states cannot use God as the authority for their laws. The highest legal authority they can recognize is the US Constitution.



So if a hetero couple gets married w/ a justice of the peace and not a religious figure, would that make their union a marriage or a civil union?? ???


What I was suggesting was that the government would only ever hand out civil unions. When you file your tax return, it would ask whether you were single or "partnered" or something to that effect. The government would stop using the label of "marriage."

The battle over the word "marriage" would then be left to the people. No doubt many (even gay couples) would refer to their relationship as a "marriage", but churches and people could decide for themselves whether they consider anyone to be "married." It would not be up to the government to dictate who is really "married" because the definition would rest with the people in the way they use it in their daily lives.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Absolutely Vile on 06/14/04 at 3:24 pm

The book of Leviticus is a load of sheesh, and is precisely what the KU KLUX KLAN uses to validate their hateful statements against people of colour, homosexuals, Jews...and anybody else they don't deem "perfect in God's eyes!!!"

Is this what some people want to believe?!?! This is exactly why I am NOT a Christian, nor will I ever be! I am physically disabled. I guess God doesn't like me! Oh well, I don't like him either! For all I care he can go to Hell! If God was so "loving" as many people are brainwashed to believe, then why would he be saying all of this stuff that's written in the book of Leviticus?

Here's an interesting site that I think EVERYONE should look at. I've posted it before on another thread a long time ago on the old board when just such a subject reared its ugly head:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/notes.html

I think you will find it highly informative. And go look in your Bibles, folks. It's all there in black and white!

Absolutely Vile

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Just visiting for now.. on 06/14/04 at 3:40 pm




I agree. What I'm wondering now though is whether marriage is stirctly a religious ceremony. Certainly the tradition of marriage stems from religious rites and ceremonies, but so do many things in society. My wife and I had a civil wedding, but we're still considered "married" and the ceremony was still a "marriage" even though there was no formal religion involved. I don't think this issue should get bogged down in symantics which is the tendency of so many other discussions, but surely a "marriage" and "civil union" are technically the same thing. The real argument then should be, if the Church won't allow gay weddings in Church, should the State sanction civil marriages?





Thanks for noticing me!  :)  That was part of the reason I left this board in the first place--no one noticed me.... :\'(  (Pathetic whine coming from the computer)

I know what you mean about "is it religious?",  Now, my husband and I got married in a church by a retired pastor of some sort--neither of us was (or is) particularlly religious, but I know when he read the vows, God was  mentioned. 

Now.  For a homosexual couple, I do think that a "civil union" would do just fine, as it IS technically the same thing.  They deserve all the rights that a traditional heterosexual couple have.  But, if the idea behind them wanting it conducted in a church, well that would lead me to believe that they want the whole thing "approved" of by God..and if the bible says he doesn't condone gay marraige, then it would seem like they are just trying to ruffle feathers.  Why?? You can't change his mind!
I myself don't care if a person is gay, and I don't care if they are 'married'.  If they are living together as husband and husband, or wife and wife, or WHATEVER, and they are happy and not hurting anyone else, why should I worry about it??  It certainly isn't my business.  I've chosen my mate, and he is a man, and I am a woman--does that make us better somehow?  No. 

I have relatives that are gay.  They've been together probably pushing 20 years.  They aren't 'married', they've had no 'civil union', and they still seem happy as clams.  I think the ones from the homosexual community that are fussing so much about it are the same ones that want to shove it down everyone's throats that they ARE gay.  Why is that necessary?  I speak from the experience in getting a class reunion website organized...over the course of getting it together, I know of at least 2 classmates that had "come out of the closet".  Their ways of "coming out" were really different, and I think, got different resposes/respect because of it.  One was real calm--she'd done a lot in her life, and then mentioned, almost in passing, that she had "come out of the closet and was now celebrating ones diversity".  Cool.  The OTHER person made a HUGE point about talking about her "baby" (her girlfriend) and then went on..and on..and on.. about being gay.  Remembering this girl had a kid during Senior year, and had gotten married right after, I guess maybe she was just trying to let us all know what had become of the life she had--but she didn't have to be so LOUD about it, you know?  Another guy came to the reunion and brought his date along.  It was another guy.  Now, he'd never told any of us that he was gay, but after meeting his friend we pretty well deduced the situation.  All I'm saying is that the one girl who acted like she was still trying to convince herself, would strike me as the type that would be out screaming outside the courthouses and stuff.  Yet my relatives, together all this time, are just happy and don't feel the need to march in the gay parades to get their relationship across to the rest of the world.

And speaking as a fairly non-religious person myself---I shudder at the thought that God holding a grudge against people at all.  Now to me, the true criminals, I can understand if he doesn't think much of them!  BUT--I could've sworn I have heard that God and Jesus and all being forgiving entities (beings, whatever..you know what I mean!)..so why would they send somebody to hell for doing something that isn't hurting anybody else??  I mean, shouldn't we all be as happy as humanely possible?  I think the federal governmant should just stay out of it.  If the states want to decide whether they want it legal in their state, fine.  But I certainly don't think it should be outlawed or made illegal by G.W. or anyone else in that position of power.

Okay, I've ranted now.  Probably made it worse (sorry!) but after getting other opinions on the subject, I just had a lot to say!  ;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 3:45 pm


The book of Leviticus is a load of sh**, and is precisely what the KU KLUX KLAN uses to validate their hateful statements against people of colour, homosexuals, Jews...and anybody else they don't deem "perfect in God's eyes!!!"

Is this what some people want to believe?!?! This is exactly why I am NOT a Christian, nor will I ever be! I am physically disabled. I guess God doesn't like me! Oh well, I don't like him either! For all I care he can go to Hell! If God was so "loving" as many people are brainwashed to believe, then why would he be saying all of this stuff that's written in the book of Leviticus?

Here's an interesting site that I think EVERYONE should look at. I've posted it before on another thread a long time ago on the old board when just such a subject reared its ugly head:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/notes.html

I think you will find it highly informative. And go look in your Bibles, folks. It's all there in black and white!

Absolutely Vile


As angry as you are about people using the Bible for their guidance, I wonder if you really know what is in it. (Granted, many people who use it for their guidance don't really know what it says, either.)

In the link you referenced, there were several laws and statements from Leviticus that were later nullified in the New Testament, when Peter was told to preach to the Gentiles.

Acts 10:15  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Among other things listed on the page, it mentions "Don't have sex with animals." Are you disagreeing with this?

I'm not saying we should use Leviticus for our laws in America; I just think you're taking the wrong approach for rejecting it. It's not that the law of God is unfair or discriminatory - really, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course God (the God of Leviticus, anyway) discriminates based on what he thinks is right.

The fact that the Ku Klux Klan uses the Bible doesn't make it wrong, either; after all, the Ku Klux Klan probably uses toilet paper, too.

The thing is, the US law should not use Leviticus or any other part of the Bible as the basis for its laws. It should use the principles of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the principles that separate us from other nations, both religious and secular.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/14/04 at 3:45 pm


Alright let me say I am for civil unions.  Don't let my stance on gay marriage fool you.  Here is what I think:

Gay marriage- Should be banned on the federal level, I don't like that but I feel its the only way to stop activist judges and mayors like Massachusetts supreme court and Gavin Newsom.

Civil unions- I have no problem with, should be left up to the states, the ones like California and Vermont who want them can have them, the ones that don't shouldn't have to like Ohio and Georgia.

Defense of Marriage act- I agree with this.  It means a state does not have to reconize another states' marriage laws.  For example someone from Ohio can't drive up to Massachusetts, get married, go back to Ohio and still be married, only states that allow gay marriage (and its currently only one, Massachusetts) and states that want to reconize a Massachusetts state marriage license can like California and New York.  This to me makes sense, since I KNOW my Georgia state CC permit ( which means I can carry a handgun with my all the time in Georgia and it doesn't have to be viewable to anyone, even the police) would not be allowed in ANY other state other then Georgia so why should another states' marriage license be reconized in states that don't want to reconize it?


This example is in error unless states, like NY have passed laws outlawing the practice involved.  It has to do with the Constitutional doctrine of "Full Faith and Credit" between the states.  That's why the "Defense of Marriage Act" HAD to be passed, otherwise, every state would be required to recognize VT's Civil Unions law.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rice_Cube on 06/14/04 at 3:46 pm

With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Just visiting for now.. on 06/14/04 at 3:52 pm


With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?


Good point.  But, on the other hand, I guess he made serial killers, too--so...?? 
Well, as they say:"...I think that god's got a sick sense of humor..."

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 3:54 pm


Now.  For a homosexual couple, I do think that a "civil union" would do just fine, as it IS technically the same thing.  They deserve all the rights that a traditional heterosexual couple have.  But, if the idea behind them wanting it conducted in a church, well that would lead me to believe that they want the whole thing "approved" of by God..and if the bible says he doesn't condone gay marraige, then it would seem like they are just trying to ruffle feathers.  Why?? You can't change his mind!


What about people who are divorced wanting to have their new marriages conducted in a church and "approved" by God, even though some religions say God wouldn't approve?

You can't tell churches what to believe, except maybe when you're a member. If the Methodist church or the Non-denominational church or the Church of Happiness wants to perform gay weddings, you can't stop them.





I have relatives that are gay.  They've been together probably pushing 20 years.  They aren't 'married', they've had no 'civil union', and they still seem happy as clams.  I think the ones from the homosexual community that are fussing so much about it are the same ones that want to shove it down everyone's throats that they ARE gay.  Why is that necessary?


What is a wedding, if not a public declaration of two people's love and commitment? What would give you the right to say which couples get to publicly announce their relationships?


The OTHER person made a HUGE point about talking about her "baby" (her girlfriend) and then went on..and on..and on.. about being gay.

Have you ever stopped to consider how much straight people talk about their relationships?  How many times have you heard someone talk about their "boyfriend", their "girlfriend", their "husband", or their "wife"? The difference with gay relationships is that people don't expect them to be so open about their homosexuality, and they're not used to hearing so much about these relationships, mostly because they've been taboo up until now.

How many love songs talk about someone's "baby" that they love so much? What's so different about saying that when you're gay?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Guest on 06/14/04 at 3:56 pm


With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?


So does that mean God LIKES child molesters?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 3:56 pm


This example is in error unless states, like NY have passed laws outlawing the practice involved.  It has to do with the Constitutional doctrine of "Full Faith and Credit" between the states.  That's why the "Defense of Marriage Act" HAD to be passed, otherwise, every state would be required to recognize VT's Civil Unions law.


Actually, since the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is part of the Constitution, wouldn't that still override the "Defense of Marriage Act"?  (That's why people are talking about a marriage amendment; that way, the definition would be in the Constitution and there would be no higher law to override it.)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/14/04 at 3:56 pm

I like the idea of rethinking vocabulary by eliminating the word marriage from public law and replacing with another word, thus separating the civil recongition of a committed union from the religious tites some folks use to publiclly proclaim such a union.  Good thought.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Just visiting for now.. on 06/14/04 at 4:15 pm




What about people who are divorced wanting to have their new marriages conducted in a church and "approved" by God, even though some religions say God wouldn't approve?

You can't tell churches what to believe, except maybe when you're a member. If the Methodist church or the Non-denominational church or the Church of Happiness wants to perform gay weddings, you can't stop them.






What is a wedding, if not a public declaration of two people's love and commitment? What would give you the right to say which couples get to publicly announce their relationships?




Have you ever stopped to consider how much straight people talk about their relationships?  How many times have you heard someone talk about their "boyfriend", their "girlfriend", their "husband", or their "wife"? The difference with gay relationships is that people don't expect them to be so open about their homosexuality, and they're not used to hearing so much about these relationships, mostly because they've been taboo up until now.

How many love songs talk about someone's "baby" that they love so much? What's so different about saying that when you're gay?


#1.  I am well aware that different churches have different opinions about marraige and divorce.  And I think each has the right to do so.  That's why there are so many different churches to choose from. Pick the one that believes the way you do, and let it be.  Not a tough call, in my opinion.  But as I said, I don't have a church.

#2  Okay. I didn't say people shouldn't "publicly announce their relationships".  As I said, I am married, and I think it was even in our local paper for everybody to see!  I NEVER said it wasn't alright for people to "declare their love and commitment".  They want to put it in the paper, go for it.  I have no problem with that.  But if you read my mention of that very closely, you'll see that I was discussing a specific person who was telling US all about it.  Just say you're gay if you want to.  But talk about something OTHER than just being gay, as well.  How's your kid?  Where do you live? etc., etc.  It was a class reunion for pete's sake!  I know we on the reunion committee didn't care about who you sleep with! We didn't have any married hetero couples going on and on about how straight they were.

#3 Yes, I am also well aware that people talk about their relationships.  Of course.  All I was doing was comparing the different approaches about being gay.  I couldn't care less, actually.

#4  I didn't say I had an issue with a person calling their same sex partner their baby!  Go ahead, whatever floats your boat.  I was simply pointing out THE DIFFERENCES in the way that these girls did it IN OUR CASE.


Look, I wasn't trying to start a fight.  I was trying to put in my $.02 about a topic, and in what context I had to gather information/opinions from.  If these conversations have just become a place to attack every little thing out of context, at least I will know that the next time, and not comment on that post on those anymore.  :-X

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 4:29 pm

Hey, sorry if I sounded hostile at all; it really wasn't what I intended. I'm just trying to compare what you're faulting in someone's gay relationship with very similar things that happen all the time with straight relationships.

#1. It sounded as though you were saying gay people shouldn't be asking churches to recognize their marriages. Well, the churches don't have to, but that doesn't mean that the gay couples can't ask. It should be between those people and their church, and shouldn't really involve the law or even other people from other churches. (Sure, they have the right to stand outside on the sidewalk protesting what they think is an abomination, but they can't keep the church from performing the ceremony.)

#2. I suppose this could be similar to my distaste for hearing people talk so much about their sex lives - the only thing I'm not quite so sure about is whether she was talking to you about all the gay sex she was having, or if she just talked about her relationship and you couldn't help being reminded the whole time that it was a gay relationship.

See, when a guy says, "My girlfriend and I went on vacation for a few days, we saw some interesting places, and we stayed in a nice hotel", and a girl says the exact same thing, some people read more about sex into the latter one because it's a gay relationship and for a lot of people hearing "gay" forces them to think about "gay sex". It's something that maybe gets glossed over more in straight relationships, or doesn't bother people so much, because they're used to hearing about it.


#4. Okay, sure, a couple of couples had different ways of talking to you about their gayness and/or their relationships.

If a guy kept talking about his girlfriend, would you have had the same reaction? (I mean, granted, I don't know what all this girl told you about. If it was just about how much she was in love with her girlfriend, it's not really so much about being gay as it is about being happy in a relationship. Of course, some people go through such a tough time when they come out of the closet and struggle with themselves and their place in society, it's a bit understandable that they might talk differently about themselves and their private lives - especially if they have a feeling that they're finally able to be accepted for who they are and they end up releasing a lot of pent-up self-doubt by becoming more and more open about who they are and what they do.)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Just visiting for now.. on 06/14/04 at 5:10 pm


Hey, sorry if I sounded hostile at all; it really wasn't what I intended. I'm just trying to compare what you're faulting in someone's gay relationship with very similar things that happen all the time with straight relationships.

#1. It sounded as though you were saying gay people shouldn't be asking churches to recognize their marriages. Well, the churches don't have to, but that doesn't mean that the gay couples can't ask. It should be between those people and their church, and shouldn't really involve the law or even other people from other churches. (Sure, they have the right to stand outside on the sidewalk protesting what they think is an abomination, but they can't keep the church from performing the ceremony.)

#2. I suppose this could be similar to my distaste for hearing people talk so much about their sex lives - the only thing I'm not quite so sure about is whether she was talking to you about all the gay sex she was having, or if she just talked about her relationship and you couldn't help being reminded the whole time that it was a gay relationship.

See, when a guy says, "My girlfriend and I went on vacation for a few days, we saw some interesting places, and we stayed in a nice hotel", and a girl says the exact same thing, some people read more about sex into the latter one because it's a gay relationship and for a lot of people hearing "gay" forces them to think about "gay sex". It's something that maybe gets glossed over more in straight relationships, or doesn't bother people so much, because they're used to hearing about it.


#4. Okay, sure, a couple of couples had different ways of talking to you about their gayness and/or their relationships.

If a guy kept talking about his girlfriend, would you have had the same reaction? (I mean, granted, I don't know what all this girl told you about. If it was just about how much she was in love with her girlfriend, it's not really so much about being gay as it is about being happy in a relationship. Of course, some people go through such a tough time when they come out of the closet and struggle with themselves and their place in society, it's a bit understandable that they might talk differently about themselves and their private lives - especially if they have a feeling that they're finally able to be accepted for who they are and they end up releasing a lot of pent-up self-doubt by becoming more and more open about who they are and what they do.)


Okay, I understand you didn't mean to sound hostile.  It just came across to me that you were trying to pick a fight--and that's just not why I came here is all.  :)

I don't care if a church recongnizes a gay marraige.  Some do, some don't, I would imagine.  Heck my sister-in-law, though not married in a church, was MARRIED by a gay minister (or father, or reverand, or whatever he was)  All I was saying was that somebody pointed out to me that the bible is against gay marriage.  I just do question why, if the church/bible is against it, why would you even want to get married IN a church?  I don't know--I tend to avoid people that I don't like/don't like me.  Wouldn't people who think you are sinning be the same way?

She didn't ell us all about her sex life.  But when I put up a questionairre, that didn't say, "Hey are you gay?", I would've thought that saying your "domestic partner", or whatever you call her, was a female, and her name was so-and-so would have been sufficient.  But what she was doing that irritated us (the reunion commitee as a whole) was that she kept wanting to BE CERTAIN that we knew her "baby" was a girl named Joni(?), and she'd comment about it when there was no need to even mention your other half! And though my husband has called me "baby", I just felt like it was unneeded in that particular case.  Yes, we got the point the first time, Susie (not her real name, of course!  ;))...ya don't need to keep adding her in when we didn't ask about her at all.  Was there nothing else for her to talk about?  I mean, how sad.


If it was just about how much she was in love with her girlfriend, it's not really so much about being gay as it is about being happy in a relationship..

All I can say to that is that within a year of the reunion, she was begging I CHANGE her questionairre, because she had a new girlfriend.  So how much love was it, really? 

Before I step in it, that IS NOT to say straight couples have not gotten divorced-even in our class.  They have.  The curious thing about that particular situation was that she had previously sent me an image (picture) of she and her girlfriend CALLED theirnames.jpg.  After they broke up, she wrote again, and said it WASN'T she and her ex, it was her and her current girlfriend... ???
Why was the picture named after your EX-girlfriend, then..? 
I just changed the description..who am I to ask?  But it really seemed STRANGE to me!  :-\\

Oh....and if a hetero person had gone on and on about their "other half", even if it WAS the opposite sex, it would have bored and annoyed me just as much.  :D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 5:20 pm


somebody pointed out to me that the bible is against gay marriage.  I just do question why, if the church/bible is against it, why would you even want to get married IN a church?  I don't know--I tend to avoid people that I don't like/don't like me.  Wouldn't people who think you are sinning be the same way?


Well, there are so many people that disagree with so many things in the Bible or other people's interpretations of the Bible, it's not surprising that some people think churches (at least their own church) shouldn't be against homosexuality. It's like the people who say they don't believe God would send anyone to hell, or the ones who say that if they live a good life they'll get into heaven, and they don't bother reading all the rules that you can find in the Bible. Different people have different interpretations, and some will even pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe. If they want to make their own religion based around that, well... I guess it's up to them.



Oh....and if a hetero person had gone on and on about their "other half", even if it WAS the opposite sex, it would have bored and annoyed me just as much.  :D


Yeah, it's kind of like that Seinfeld episode where they're at a party and some woman keeps saying "Have you seen my fiancé? Oh dear, I seem to have lost my fiancé! The poor baby!" And then Elaine gets fed up and says, "The dingo ate your baby!" and walks off.

So, yeah, that's just a problem people have with going overboard - and doesn't really have anything to do specifically with being gay or straight.  ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/14/04 at 5:40 pm


With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?


I can appreciate your point, Rice Cube. I believe God (or a higher source) made people and then people became what they want to be from their own volition.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/14/04 at 5:56 pm




Erm.....People don't just turn gay, they are born that way.  So therefore you are saying that god created gay people.


"Doctor?  I would like to have an amniocentesis so I can see if my baby's gay or straight..."

How many times must I say this? God created the people.  Homosexuality: nature vs. nurture?  Well, sorry folks but homosexuality is UNNATURAL!!! It is just people's pervertedness due to how they are nurtured in their culture/society/home/etc.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 6:00 pm

I wouldn't be too sure about that - especially since there are even gay animals. Were they nurtured the wrong way? ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: resinchaser on 06/14/04 at 6:08 pm




"Doctor?  I would like to have an amniocentesis so I can see if my baby's gay or straight..."

How many times must I say this? God created the people.  Homosexuality: nature vs. nurture?  Well, sorry folks but homosexuality is UNNATURAL!!! It is just people's pervertedness due to how they are nurtured in their culture/society/home/etc.


In your mind God might have created the people, but he didn't create me, so I don't live by his laws.

Ignorance is also due to how people are nurtured in their culture/society/religion etc.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/14/04 at 6:10 pm


I wouldn't be too sure about that - especially since there are even gay animals. Were they nurtured the wrong way? ;)


What's wrong with u sista?  Or are you saying gay people are animals?  Ok whatever...

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 6:18 pm


What's wrong with u sista?   Or are you saying gay people are animals?  Ok whatever...


There are documented cases of animals that have mated with the same gender, and even some species that practice lifelong monogamy have instances of "gay" couples.

At any rate, the way the law gets decided should really have nothing to do with whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. It's all about whether the government should give everyone the legal right to choose to marry the person they want. It hinges on the government's reasons for recognizing marriage in the first place. Unless the government's reason for having legal marriage is "to do God's will", then gay people going against God's will really doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

So what is the reason for having legal marriage? What benefits does it bring to society? Why would it need to be limited to unions of one man and one woman?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/14/04 at 6:20 pm


What's wrong with u sista?  Or are you saying gay people are animals?  Ok whatever...

No, she's saying that since homosexuality has also been seen in other animals, the "nature vs nurture" argument tends to imply the former rather than the latter.

If it's "unnatural", why do we see it in the natural world?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Junior on 06/14/04 at 7:14 pm




"Doctor?  I would like to have an amniocentesis so I can see if my baby's gay or straight..."

How many times must I say this? God created the people.  Homosexuality: nature vs. nurture?  Well, sorry folks but homosexuality is UNNATURAL!!! It is just people's pervertedness due to how they are nurtured in their culture/society/home/etc.


So that means that if I hang around my gay friend a lot, I'll become gay too? ::)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: SuperFreak on 06/14/04 at 7:20 pm

God didn't "Make" me a lesbian, it was all my choice

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 7:28 pm

The nature/nurture debate is irrelevant anyway.

As I said before...

the way the law gets decided should really have nothing to do with whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. It's all about whether the government should give everyone the legal right to choose to marry the person they want. It hinges on the government's reasons for recognizing marriage in the first place. Unless the government's reason for having legal marriage is "to do God's will", then gay people going against God's will really doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

So what is the reason for having legal marriage? What benefits does it bring to society? Why would it need to be limited to unions of one man and one woman?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/14/04 at 7:31 pm

IMHO, God didn't literally make Adam and Eve.  The story of the Garden of Eden has deep theological and anthropological roots.  I think it is more useful as an allegory.  The story is symbolic.  It reveals the Original Sin of mankind, the origins of man's imperfections.  If I take it literally, I find the whole thing rather absurd.  To point to it and say "Man and Woman together, that's what God intended," is tantamount to the familiar vulgarism, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 7:35 pm

Is the government's definition based on God's or not?

If not, what is the point of discussing what God says is right and wrong?

If it is based on what God said, what is it doing in our law?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/14/04 at 7:39 pm


IMHO, God didn't literally make Adam and Eve.  The story of the Garden of Eden has deep theological and anthropological roots.  I think it is more useful as an allegory.  The story is symbolic.  It reveals the Original Sin of mankind, the origins of man's imperfections.  If I take it literally, I find the whole thing rather absurd.  To point to it and say "Man and Woman together, that's what God intended," is tantamount to the familiar vulgarism, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"!


Don't start on this Maxwell, it's a whole other argument!  :) I can't take Genesis literally because there's too many holes in the script. Adam and Eve had two sons, and they took wives, but if Adam and Eve only had sons, where did the wives come from? Were they Adam and Eve's offsping also but unworthy of being named? If that were so and there were no other people, then Cain and Abel must have married their sisters! That would make us all the descendants of incest. Earlier in this thread, somebody said to read Leviticus, but then someone else said that most of Leviticus is redundant because of teachings in the New Testament. You can't have it both ways. Before this discussion descends even further into argument of (Christian) religious dogma, I appeal to what I said in my very first post, which pretty much amounts to treating others the way you would want to be treated. That's in the Bible too.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 7:56 pm


Adam and Eve had two sons, and they took wives, but if Adam and Eve only had sons, where did the wives come from? Were they Adam and Eve's offsping also but unworthy of being named? If that were so and there were no other people, then Cain and Abel must have married their sisters! That would make us all the descendants of incest.


That's easy to answer - women weren't important enough to be named. ;)

And for the record, I don't think the Bible says anything against incest. (David would have let one of his sons marry his half-sister, if he hadn't raped her first.)


Earlier in this thread, somebody said to read Leviticus, but then someone else said that most of Leviticus is redundant because of teachings in the New Testament.

Irrelevant (to most Christians), but not redundant. But anyway, after God told Peter that some of the old laws about "unclean" things no longer applied, Paul still preached against homosexuality - so most Christians believe that those laws or principles still apply.


Still, why are we getting back into the Biblical argument again? The government's version of marriage is already different from what's set forth in the Bible.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/14/04 at 8:15 pm




That's easy to answer - women weren't important enough to be named. ;)

And for the record, I don't think the Bible says anything against incest. (David would have let one of his sons marry his half-sister, if he hadn't raped her first.)


There are quite a few instances of incest in the Bible, however, it's not considered very socially acceptable is it? :)




Still, why are we getting back into the Biblical argument again? The government's version of marriage is already different from what's set forth in the Bible.


Exactly.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/14/04 at 8:24 pm




That's easy to answer - women weren't important enough to be named. ;)

And for the record, I don't think the Bible says anything against incest. (David would have let one of his sons marry his half-sister, if he hadn't raped her first.)



One of the most censored books from school libraries is The Holy Bible.  Look, Noah got drunk on the Ark and, while drunk, was sexually molested by his son, Ham.  Noah condemned Ham and his descendents to servitude forever.

Who needs Jerry Springer anway?  You've got the Bible!

Philbo wrote:
No, she's saying that since homosexuality has also been seen in other animals, the "nature vs nurture" argument tends to imply the former rather than the latter.
If it's "unnatural", why do we see it in the natural world?

I'm not saying I believe this, but, from a Christian perspective animals are different from man.  Animals are innocent, they live in an "unfallen" state.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/14/04 at 8:30 pm



I'm not saying I believe this, but, from a Christian perspective animals are different from man.  Animals are innocent, they live in an "unfallen" state.



You could also argue that, scientifically, animals don't understand sexuality, and humans do (or at least they try to). Animals do without knowing why. Humans do knowing why (and why they shouldn't), but do it anyway. :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/14/04 at 8:35 pm




You could also argue that, scientifically, animals don't understand sexuality, and humans do (or at least they try to). Animals do without knowing why. Humans do knowing why (and why they shouldn't), but do it anyway. :)

Scientifically is a different kettle of fish from theologically.  And I would argue animals have a betterall year long
!!!
:P

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/14/04 at 8:37 pm


I'm not saying I believe this, but, from a Christian perspective animals are different from man.  Animals are innocent, they live in an "unfallen" state.


I don't think that's accurate - the Bible teaches that everything on earth, including the animals were affected by the fall. That's why animals die, and probably also why they kill one another (I don't remember whether this was specifically covered in Genesis, though).


Now, then, back to the real question, and I'll try to get at it from a different angle:

Why should the government recognize marriage in the first place?

This country was founded on the principles of individual rights and equality. If everyone is supposed to be considered an individual under the law, why do we have this institution that lets people combine their legal identities? What is the purpose of marriage? How could the government justify it if it was challenged by single people who don't enjoy the same rights?

If you can find a good enough reason for the government to recognize marriage and give benefits related to it, then the limits on marriage should correspond to the benefits the government or society receives. If gay unions can provide the same benefits, they should not be excluded; that would be baseless discrimination.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/15/04 at 5:48 am

Womberty, I believe you've stated it perfectly :)

But... (and ain't there always a "but")

I think you'll find that the government (or at least the individuals forming the govenment) will have their own views on why marriage should be recognized, some grounded in a desire for a stable relationship for the next generation and some in theology.  Which takes us back to the same cycle as we're in at the moment... which is a shame: being able to determine this sort of thing rationally would be a huge step forward for the entire human race, IMO.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 5:53 am




I think you'll find that the government (or at least the individuals forming the govenment) will have their own views on why marriage should be recognized, some grounded in a desire for a stable relationship for the next generation and some in theology.  Which takes us back to the same cycle as we're in at the moment... which is a shame: being able to determine this sort of thing rationally would be a huge step forward for the entire human race, IMO.


Whats not rational about it?  I'm pretty sure Britain hasn't made gay marriages legal.  Marriage has been the same way for 6,000 years, some small minority wants to change so they can have it there way reguardless of what the public thinks, and all I hear for the pro-gay marriage side is equal rights stuff.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 5:57 am



Marriage has always been and should always remain a sacred union between a man and woman. This is the way it was intended from the beginning. After all, doesn't life really revolve around the family unit with two parents: a loving mother and father. Aren't children more properly nourished under the sanctity of a good and loving home with proper parents to guide and teach? I believe so.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: karen on 06/15/04 at 6:14 am

GWBush2004

I think you went too far there. You can not go around implying that gays and lesbians are also more likely to be paedophiles or other forms of extreme perversion.  There is no evidence of this, in fact it is probably evidence to the contrary.

You may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.  It is not your choice, it is not my choice either but I respect people's decision to love and marry who they feel attracted to.  I think you should apologise to those people on the boards who you have offended by your bigoted accusations.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 6:26 am



I think you'll find that the government (or at least the individuals forming the govenment) will have their own views on why marriage should be recognized, some grounded in a desire for a stable relationship for the next generation and some in theology.  Which takes us back to the same cycle as we're in at the moment... which is a shame: being able to determine this sort of thing rationally would be a huge step forward for the entire human race, IMO.


Like all people who are against gay marriage are people of faith.....wise up.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 6:27 am


GWBush2004

I think you went too far there. You can not go around implying that gays and lesbians are also more likely to be paedophiles or other forms of extreme perversion.  There is no evidence of this, in fact it is probably evidence to the contrary.

You may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.  It is not your choice, it is not my choice either but I respect people's decision to love and marry who they feel attracted to.  I think you should apologise to those people on the boards who you have offended by your bigoted accusations.


WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, I NEVER IMPLIED THAT!!!!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: karen on 06/15/04 at 6:30 am





WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, I NEVER IMPLIED THAT!!!!
#


Only because you removed the offending post.  When I posted my message there was a huge rant about what might go on in the homes of homosexuals who were allowed to adopt children.  You asked how long it would be before they would try and have sex with the children or get the children to perform together.  Absolutely disgraceful in my opinion.  I'm glad you removed the post, now have the guts to admit it was wrong in the first place.

karen

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 6:33 am



#


Only because you removed the offending post.  When I posted my message there was a huge rant about what might go on in the homes of homosexuals who were allowed to adopt children.  You asked how long it would be before they would try and have sex with the children or get the children to perform together.  Absolutely disgraceful in my opinion.  I'm glad you removed the post, now have the guts to admit it was wrong in the first place.

karen


Yeah you're right, but it wasn't my work in the first place.  I got it from some website, and I only read the first two paragraphs before posting it and when you pointed out what the rest of it said it freaked me out.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: karen on 06/15/04 at 6:38 am





Yeah you're right, but it wasn't my work in the first place.  I got it from some website, and I only read the first two paragraphs before posting it and when you pointed out what the rest of it said it freaked me out.


O.k. Let's let it drop. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 9:16 am



I would think that a child would be more properly "nourished" with 2 parents PERIOD.  Whether they be 2 men, 2 women or a man and a woman.  I'd much rather see them with 2 loving parents than 1.  And, actually, studies have shown that homosexuals are more often excellent parents, partly because what they must go through to have a child.  From preconception.com:

"Every study I've read to date indicates that children of homosexual parents have no developmental hindrances or disadvantages as compared to children of heterosexual parents," says Dr. Pepper Scwartz, professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle, and author of The Gender of Sexuality. "Though the samples are small, some studies show that, because they must deal with more social stigma, children raised in lesbian households exhibit higher levels of maturity, independence, tolerance and verbal ability. There are also some indications that lesbians co-parent more than heterosexual parents, and that this may be to the child's advantage. I think it can be said with relative certainty that same-sex parenting is neither a detriment to the children of gay parents or society at large."


You know I had a long post of why this is wrong, but I removed it because it did seem a little offensive.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Absolutely Vile on 06/15/04 at 9:27 am





You know I had a long post of why this is wrong, but I removed it because it did seem a little offensive.


Offensive to whom I wonder?

Absolutely Vile

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/15/04 at 9:45 am


Like all people who are against gay marriage are people of faith.....wise up.

I've not met or seen on-line anybody who is against gay marriage who is not also a "person of faith"- come to think of it, I'm pretty certain they'd all call themselves Christian.



You know I had a long post of why this is wrong, but I removed it because it did seem a little offensive.

For offensive, read "totally bigoted, inaccurate, fundamentally-flawed religiously-inpired bullsheesh" - the attempt to show homosexuality as being tantamount paedophilia is based on personal prejudice, not on any evidence whatsoever.  I wouldn't mind betting that if you did a study you'd find a higher degree of paedophilia in the church heirarchy than amongst homosexuals.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ChuckyG on 06/15/04 at 11:06 am


You know I had a long post of why this is wrong, but I removed it because it did seem a little offensive.


In the future link to offsite articles.  Don't cut and paste them verbatem in your messages, otherwise you may find yourself no longer to post if they contain text that would be considered grounds for banning.  Proper debate is to come up with your own arguments, not recite other people's arguments as your own.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/15/04 at 11:21 am





You know I had a long post of why this is wrong, but I removed it because it did seem a little offensive.

You found something thats offensive.....Well thats a first. :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/15/04 at 11:26 am


For offensive, read "totally bigoted, inaccurate, fundamentally-flawed religiously-inpired bullsheesh"


Hmmm, Bullsh*t wasn't censored on the board. Well, that's not the first time.  :P

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/15/04 at 11:27 am

If they were to enforce anti sodomy laws would that mean everyone would have to wear a butt plug?  ;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: LyricBoy on 06/15/04 at 11:48 am




God created all good things.  He created all people.  However, because Adam and Eve first sinned, everybody born on this earth sins.  That doesn't mean God likes it.  Why do you think he flooded the world?  Because he was angry with people's sin.  Why did he destroy the cities of Sodom & Gomorrha?  Because they were full of homosexuals...a SIN in God's eyes!  Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!


I gotta go with QueenAmenRa on this count.  Just because God made something does not make it good.

God made Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Bin Laden, too.  And I'm fairly confident that a poll would show these people as something less than good.

No, I am not equating gay marriage with megalomaniacal dictators.  All I am saying is that just because "God allows it to happen" does not mean that "it is good".

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/15/04 at 11:48 am



I've not met or seen on-line anybody who is against gay marriage who is not also a "person of faith"- come to think of it, I'm pretty certain they'd all call themselves Christian.


For offensive, read "totally bigoted, inaccurate, fundamentally-flawed religiously-inpired bullsheesh" - the attempt to show homosexuality as being tantamount paedophilia is based on personal prejudice, not on any evidence whatsoever.  I wouldn't mind betting that if you did a study you'd find a higher degree of paedophilia in the church heirarchy than amongst homosexuals.


If I needed any more proof of ignorance.  Just because you never met one doesn't mean they don't exist, and i'm about sick of your Christian/church/religion bashing, I find it pretty offensive but will not report it for reasons I don't know.  All your posts are are sterotypes, ill-found, without any backing.  You should really think about telling us why you support gay marriage instead of Christain-bashing lies with crap like the church has more paedophiles then homosexuals, in which I can easily point to that one small California city (I can't remember the name) that was literally a all-nude, sex-crazed, child-touching town in which the police arrested a ton of gay people who were breaking the laws I just stated, and all of them got off scott-free because not one straight couple was arrested, because their was none. 

-And really stop calling all Christains fundamentalists, that just more of that bull**** you were talking about earlier.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: LyricBoy on 06/15/04 at 11:54 am




Marriage has always been and should always remain a sacred union between a man and woman. This is the way it was intended from the beginning. After all, doesn't life really revolve around the family unit with two parents: a loving mother and father. Aren't children more properly nourished under the sanctity of a good and loving home with proper parents to guide and teach? I believe so.



Apparently not any more.  Consider the following out-of-wedlock statistics by race in 2002, per the CDC:

- Hispanic: 42.5%
- Non-Hispanic White: 28%
- Black: 69%

(I have no racial agenda here.  This is how the stats were reported and were subject to a big "whats the big deal" brouhaha in my local newspaper).

The traditional "two parents and 2.3 kids" model is eroding... quickly.  But in today's "its nobody's business do what the heck you want" society, the problem with these statistics is the big "dirty little secret" of American society.

I'm not advocating it.  Just reporting the facts.  Don't shoot the paperboy. (or the LyricBoy)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/15/04 at 2:14 pm


Marriage has always been and should always remain a sacred union between a man and woman. This is the way it was intended from the beginning. After all, doesn't life really revolve around the family unit with two parents: a loving mother and father.


Which is why...

Polygamy has been practiced around the world and is even mentioned in the Old Testament as something practiced by God's chosen men?
Native Americans allowed "two-spirit" men marry other men?

Just because you only remember it as a union of one man and one woman doesn't mean it's always universally been that way.



the attempt to show homosexuality as being tantamount paedophilia is based on personal prejudice, not on any evidence whatsoever.


Pedophilia is not homosexuality - many pedophiles consider themselves straight and are even married. Just because a man likes to have sex with another man does not mean he wants to have sex with little boys, just like a man who likes sex with women doesn't necessarily want to have sex with little girls.



Just because God made something does not make it good.


And just because God said something is good does not mean it should be put into our laws.

Again, why does the government have any form of legal marriage? How could they defend it if it was challenged before the Supreme Court?

Would it be defended as tradition? A force for stable family and society? A religious institution that everybody just happens to like?

If any defense was enough to justify giving government benefits to marriage, what reasons could they possibly use not to extend those benefits to homosexual couples?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: LyricBoy on 06/15/04 at 3:20 pm



Again, why does the government have any form of legal marriage? How could they defend it if it was challenged before the Supreme Court?

If any defense was enough to justify giving government benefits to marriage, what reasons could they possibly use not to extend those benefits to homosexual couples?


The answers to these questions are basically "because we hava a form of government that roughly represents the will of the majority."

-Why do we have a Veterans Day holiday and not a Conscientious Objector holiday?

-Why do we have separate men's and ladie's restrooms?

-Why do we subsidize tobacco production but not daffodil fields?

None of the above examples that I have raised are in violation of the text of the U.S. Constitution, and they are the result of the will of the majority of the people, involve government expenditures, and they all "discriminate" against groups of people in one way or another.

There is NOTHING is Common Law or written US law that bans general discrimination.  Only dicrimination based on legally-enumerated issues (race, creed, Vietnam Veteran status, handicap to some degree, etc) are banned.  The lack of all "discrimination" implies the lack of any rules or order whatsoever and would lead to anarchy.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/15/04 at 3:58 pm

I'm reading an interestin book called Sex, Time, and Power: How Women's Sexuualirt Shaped Human Evolution by Leonard Shlain, Viking, 2003, e points out that there are 4 characteristics that occure in about 1 in 12 human males (not necessarilly the same one).  They are left handed ness, partial color blindness (the inability to destinguse between red and another - usually green - primary color), and exclusive homesexuality.  These traits appear in women much less frequently, like 1 in 20.  Considering that we humans have spent 99.9% of our lives as a speicies were spent as hunters/gatherers, Shlain tries to find the advantages each might have aforded our survival - our ability to reach the age of reproduction, and to reproduce.  Clearly, exclusively homosexulal men don't reproduce, but they might hunt, and if existing hunter/gatherer societies are a guide, shared their catch with others.  They would, having no "wife" and no kids, add to the survival potential of the group. 

There is much, and growing evidance that homosexuality is hardwired into the genes of about 1 in 12 men and 1 in 5 women.  This is not to say that there is ONE "gay gene", but that many genes, acting in consort, "make people either gay or straight, bald or hairy etc. (to keep this short I will not discuss the advantages ofb the other traits).

Its a theory (an explanation of observable data) to be sure, but interesting in light of the religious debate this thread has taken.

The book also discusses the origins of religion, which might interest some respondants. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/15/04 at 4:14 pm


The answers to these questions are basically "because we hava a form of government that roughly represents the will of the majority."

-Why do we have a Veterans Day holiday and not a Conscientious Objector holiday?

-Why do we have separate men's and ladie's restrooms?

-Why do we subsidize tobacco production but not daffodil fields?


The government represents the will of the majority except when it is limited by protections for the minority. There is, to my knowledge, no state or federal law barring plant discrimination. There are, however, state constitutional statutes that prohibit gender discrimination.

That might mean that men's and women's restrooms should technically be illegal (since they're "separate but equal" facilities) - it's just that no one has yet chosen to challenge them in court.


None of the above examples that I have raised are in violation of the text of the U.S. Constitution, and they are the result of the will of the majority of the people, involve government expenditures, and they all "discriminate" against groups of people in one way or another.

There is NOTHING is Common Law or written US law that bans general discrimination.  Only dicrimination based on legally-enumerated issues (race, creed, Vietnam Veteran status, handicap to some degree, etc) are banned.  The lack of all "discrimination" implies the lack of any rules or order whatsoever and would lead to anarchy.


While the US Constitution does not ban gender discrimination (except in voting), many states adopted general bans on gender discrimination. Massachusetts had such an amendment to their state constitution, and that's (part of the reason) why their supreme court ruled that they could not have a marriage definition based on gender.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/15/04 at 5:12 pm




Which is why...

Polygamy has been practiced around the world and is even mentioned in the Old Testament as something practiced by God's chosen men?
Native Americans allowed "two-spirit" men marry other men?

Just because you only remember it as a union of one man and one woman doesn't mean it's always universally been that way.




Pedophilia is not homosexuality - many pedophiles consider themselves straight and are even married. Just because a man likes to have sex with another man does not mean he wants to have sex with little boys, just like a man who likes sex with women doesn't necessarily want to have sex with little girls.




And just because God said something is good does not mean it should be put into our laws.

Again, why does the government have any form of legal marriage? How could they defend it if it was challenged before the Supreme Court?

Would it be defended as tradition? A force for stable family and society? A religious institution that everybody just happens to like?

If any defense was enough to justify giving government benefits to marriage, what reasons could they possibly use not to extend those benefits to homosexual couples?


Here again, your intelligence and rationality stand out.  Very well said.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/15/04 at 5:18 pm


Pedophilia is not homosexuality - many pedophiles consider themselves straight and are even married. Just because a man likes to have sex with another man does not mean he wants to have sex with little boys, just like a man who likes sex with women doesn't necessarily want to have sex with little girls.

I know that... it was suggested in the text that GWB excised a few minutes later then tried to pretend he hadn't posted. 


If I needed any more proof of ignorance.  Just because you never met one doesn't mean they don't exist, and i'm about sick of your Christian/church/religion bashing, I find it pretty offensive but will not report it for reasons I don't know.  All your posts are are sterotypes, ill-found, without any backing.  You should really think about telling us why you support gay marriage instead of Christain-bashing lies with crap like the church has more paedophiles then homosexuals, in which I can easily point to that one small California city (I can't remember the name) that was literally a all-nude, sex-crazed, child-touching town in which the police arrested a ton of gay people who were breaking the laws I just stated, and all of them got off scott-free because not one straight couple was arrested, because their was none.   

-And really stop calling all Christains fundamentalists, that just more of that bull**** you were talking about earlier.

Did I touch a raw nerve there?  I guess I must have, given the complete lack of understanding in your reply.  I'm not sorry if you find it offensive: the truth can hurt sometimes.  There is a long, long history of the church covering up for paedophile priests, and the way you can come out with some unsupported bull about a load of gay weirdos in California is staggering hypocrisy given the previous sentence said how I posted without backing up my claims.

While on the subject of backing for claims made, where have I ever, EVER said that all Christians are fundamentalists?

I should be telling you why I support gay marriage?  As I've said earlier, I see no reason why not... that's enough for me.  There should be no prerequisites, no hurdles to jump over for two people of the same sex to get married if they want to - it isn't the state's job to interfere in someone's private life.  I don't give a damn if a married couple who I don't know and have never met happen to be the same sex - and neither should you.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/15/04 at 5:25 pm




While the US Constitution does not ban gender discrimination (except in voting)...


Am I misunderstanding this?  In 1920 ( after a long last) woman were granted the right to vote, so I'm not sure what you mean by "except in voting".  Please explain.  By the way, my dad was born on Oct 30 1920, and my grandmother, who was still recovering on election day, supposedly pointed to his crib and said "all these years men have been keeping me from voting, AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE". lol

But please explain why you think there is still genfer discrimination in voting - I might make light, but I'm interested in what you are saying.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/15/04 at 5:27 pm


Am I misunderstanding this?  In 1920 ( after a long last) woman were granted the right to vote, so I'm not sure what you mean by "except in voting".  Please explain.  By the way, my dad was born on Oct 30 1920, and my grandmother, who was still recovering on election day, supposedly pointed to his crib and said "all these years men have been keeping me from voting, AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE". lol

But please explain why you think there is still genfer discrimination in voting - I might make light, but I'm interested in what you are saying.


I said the US Constitution does not ban gender discrimination, except in voting. That means, technically, the Constitution allows gender discrimination, except in voting.

So, you are correct, gender discrimination is not allowed in voting. However, gender discrimination in other areas is not covered in the Constitution. Gender discrimination in hiring practices is covered in other federal laws.


*Edited typo

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/15/04 at 6:14 pm




I said the US Constitution does not ban gender discrimination, except in voting. That means, technically, the Constitution allows gender discrimination, except in voting.

So, you are correct, gender discrimination is not allowed in voting. However, gender discrimination in other areas is not covered in the Constitution. Gender discrimination in hiring practices is covered in other federal laws.


*Edited typo


Gottcha, Again we are on the same factual track - God is fun to ralk to someone who knows  the facts. By the way,I have been a consistant supporter of the equal (generder) rights amendment, and continue to be so.  I am am man, so you might ask why?  The reason is that I am a MAN (and my woman monopolizes this computer lots more than I do).

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/15/04 at 6:25 pm

I think I would probably support such an amendment as well. As scary as the draft may be, it's gotta be scary for men, too, and I don't want to perpetuate the idea that women can't handle it.

As for restrooms, I despise the idea of communal restrooms anyway. Quit dividing us by gender and assuming that we're all comfortable with each other because we have the same basic body... give us privacy instead. Individual unisex stalls would eliminate a lot of the problems raised when people object to sharing with gay and transgender people.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/15/04 at 8:31 pm

This discussion has diverted wildly from the original subject. "Should the state recognise same sex relationships"? Yes, it should. "Should THE CHURCH recognise same sex relationships?" Well obviously, if the idea of same sex relations is against the basic principles of the church's teachings (whatever church that may be) then, no, it shouldn't. But the state makes the laws, not the church. This isn't a religious issue. It's a secular one. Homosexual people should be afforded the same basic human and civil rights as everyone, therefore they should have the right to choose to exist in a long-term monogamous relationship that is recognised as a form of marriage. Most homosexual people can no more choose to stop being homosexual anymore than someone who is a genius can choose to stop being a genius; there is a wealth of scientific evidence to suggest that true homosexuality isn't learned behaviour, it's a predisposition from birth, therefore arguments that homosexuality isn't "natural" are invalid. It may not be "normal", but that doesn't mean it's wrong, just different.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/16/04 at 5:41 am





Did I touch a raw nerve there?  I guess I must have, given the complete lack of understanding in your reply.  I'm not sorry if you find it offensive: the truth can hurt sometimes.  There is a long, long history of the church covering up for paedophile priests, and the way you can come out with some unsupported bull about a load of gay weirdos in California is staggering hypocrisy given the previous sentence said how I posted without backing up my claims.

While on the subject of backing for claims made, where have I ever, EVER said that all Christians are fundamentalists?

I should be telling you why I support gay marriage?  As I've said earlier, I see no reason why not... that's enough for me.  There should be no prerequisites, no hurdles to jump over for two people of the same sex to get married if they want to - it isn't the state's job to interfere in someone's private life.  I don't give a darn if a married couple who I don't know and have never met happen to be the same sex - and neither should you.




Well here is the story for that unsupported bull, yet again putting your foot in your mouth:

Recently one of our columnists wrote a column decrying the police treatment of gay men in San Diego, claiming that they are being unfairly targeted for behavior common among the straight community.
That’s the beauty of a free press — as a columnist he can freely express his opinion, whether we agree with it or not, and we, in turn, can freely express our opinion through the editorial. In this case, those opinions clash.
Robert DeKoven argues that gay men are being unfairly persecuted by San Diego police for having public sex, and that heterosexuals are doing the same things without fear of arrest. He states that, “Even if police can show that a gay man indecently exposed himself to an undercover cop, or police found two men having sex in a public park, police have to prove something else — that they don’t single out gay men for these crimes while ignoring straights.… ay men, who might be less than five percent of the population, typically account for almost all of the arrests for public sex.”
He adds, “Then police argue it’s because straight people don’t engage in ‘offensive’ public sex. But that’s not true. Whether it’s heavy petting or butt grabbing or oral and vaginal sex (while parked on lovers’ lane), it all falls under indecent exposure and lewd conduct law.”
The last we heard, anyone who gets caught flashing gets arrested, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. And we’ve never heard of anyone walking into a public restroom to find a woman masturbating on display. Granted, there’s probably a good deal of heterosexual heavy petting going on in parked cars on any given night, but is this really the kind of behavior that is getting gay men arrested? Or is it lurking in the bushes in the park, offering passersby blowjobs?
We don’t like to talk about sex in the bushes because it makes us look bad, but we all know it happens.
DeKoven argues that the same thing happens in the straight community and implies that since the ratio of gay to straight is approximately 10 to one, there must be ten times as much illegal public sexual behavior among straights. He is dead wrong here. He also states that, “Nickerson then brings out the film footage of straight public sex going on all over the city and right under the noses of police. This is key. But police argue that they’re not offended by it … because they’re straight and they have been conditioned to view straight sex as normal and not offensive, but gay sex is immoral, sick, and offensive. It’s icky. That’s the double standard.”
So here’s the question. Where is all this public straight sex happening? Where are the straight men hanging out in the shadows, offering passing women sexual gratification? Where are the straight women hanging out around public bathrooms offering free blowjobs? And we’re not talking about prostitutes or anyone making rude gestures or yelling, “Hey baby, you want a piece of this?” Are the police (and all those “righteous citizen” types who find virtue in complaining loudly about anything that smacks of the potentially illicit) really turning a blind eye to all this illegal activity just because it’s not happening between members of the same sex?
An informal and completely nonscientific survey of straight friends revealed that not one of them had ever had an anonymous member of the opposite sex seriously suggest that they go at it in a public place with the expectation that they would agree. And none of them knew of any place one could reliably go to find such goings-on.
Maybe we’ve all missed something. Maybe we’re just not very observant. We’re certainly willing to learn, so if anyone can show us that hordes of hets are knocking boots in the park while gay men are after no more than a little slap-and-tickle, we welcome them. But we’re doubtful.
We’re not kidding, either. We want to know where this is happening. Call us, write us or e-mail us if you have inside information and we’ll investigate and report back to you. If police are actually arresting anyone for kissing in public, we will kick up a storm until it stops, but don’t complain that gay men engaged in intimate sexual contact are being arrested unless you can show us that het couples engaged in intimate sexual contact are not. Until someone can show us exactly where this is happening in the straight community, we feel DeKoven is mistaken. It’s one thing to say we’re being unfairly singled out, it’s another to prove we’re being unjustly arrested on a regular basis. So show us. Gay men and women, according to police records we obtained, are the most offending when it comes to public sex with more in jail then straight people, even though they are about 5% of the population.
If you want to have sex in the bushes, buy your own wooded lot, put a privacy fence around it, invite whomever you like and have at it. If you want anonymous sex, go to a bathhouse or go online. If you want the thrill of doing something illegal, jaywalk. If you want the element of surprise, wear a blindfold. As a matter of fact, have any kind of sex you like, barring the use of children, animals and unwilling participants. Stick to the strictly vanilla or stretch the boundaries and revel in it. Just do it safely and in private.
Sex, as thrilling as it can be, is not the point of living. At some point we’re supposed to mature past the sex-focused hormonal haze of puberty. We’re supposed to be grownups, both individually and as a community. With the passage of legislation such as AB 205, we’re finally being treated as adults, with the promise of real, legal rights and responsibilities. It’s time for all of us to make a habit of acting like we’ve actually grown up. 


-So I was wrong about a small town, when infact its a large city.  Well you'll probably make up some bull about this like your usual tactics.  I can't think of one good reason to change marriage in its current state for some small minority of the country, and as I saw on C-Span's Washington Journal, not all gay people are for gay marriage.  I guess you are right about one thing, the truth does hurt, especially to the left.  Oh well, only Massachusetts has made gay marriages legal, there are still 49 states that keep it to only straight couples.  Even though I doubt it will stay that way for long because I recently heard that the Massachusetts republicans, with the state's governor are trying to re-ban gay marriage in that state in exchange for civil unions, its said it will pass or so says CNN.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/16/04 at 7:55 am



It wasn't exactly a "town that was literally a all-nude, sex-crazed, child-touching town" either.  Using your ideology, I guess we shouldn't have allowed blacks or women the right to vote as "we were such a small minority of the country" then.  That is such a crock of bull. 

Call it whatever you like, but it will still be known as "marriage".


Don't care, let Massachusetts have civil unions, not MARRIAGE.  And women are not a minority.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/16/04 at 8:02 am



It wasn't exactly a "town that was literally a all-nude, sex-crazed, child-touching town" either.  Using your ideology, I guess we shouldn't have allowed blacks or women the right to vote as "we were such a small minority of the country" then.  That is such a crock of bull. 

Call it whatever you like, but it will still be known as "marriage".


The crock of bull is that civil unions are the same as marriage.  Also if, using your logic, marriage is the exact same as a civil union why can't gay people accept civil unions and leave marriage alone?  And I think from what I posted that town was sex-crazed.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/16/04 at 9:23 am


Recently one of our columnists wrote a column decrying the police treatment of gay men in San Diego, claiming that they are being unfairly targeted for behavior common among the straight community. blah blah blah blah


This story is discriminatory, derogatory scare-mongering. That's all. It means nothing.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/16/04 at 10:02 am





The crock of bull is that civil unions are the same as marriage. 


In what way are they different? According to Dictionary.com:

marriage   
n.
1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
    b. The state of being married; wedlock.
    c. A common-law marriage.
    d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.

Nothing about religion or the necessity to have it performed in church there. By this definition, MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNION are the same, which is exactly the opposite of what you just said.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/16/04 at 11:37 am


Don't care, let Massachusetts have civil unions, not MARRIAGE.  And women are not a minority.


That's fine as long a "civil union" is used for both homosexual and heterosexual unions. You just can't separate them into "marriage" and "civil union"; you have to have the exact same thing available for both.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/16/04 at 12:31 pm

GWBush,

Why does it so enrage you that gay people want to call their unions a "marriage"?  The church has performed "marriage ceremonies" for centuries under the guise of the "sacred union" crap yet for so many years marriage was (and in some cases still is), not a "sacred union" but a business deal, (with women at the short end of the stick  :P). 

I was "married" by a justice of the peace and churches do not recognize my "marriage" - screw 'em.  I don't care what you want to label it, we're still living together, filing taxes together and are entitled to eachother's health benefits, insurance policies and assetts obtained throught the course of our "marriage".  Why shouldn't same sex couples have a similar opportunity?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: CatwomanofV on 06/16/04 at 3:21 pm

GW,
Let me ask you a question. If two people, who happen to be the same sex got married-yes, married- called it a marriage, how does that hurt/effect YOU personally?



Cat

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/16/04 at 4:03 pm





Well here is the story for that unsupported bull, yet again putting your foot in your mouth:


-So I was wrong about a small town, when infact its a large city.  Well you'll probably make up some bull about this like your usual tactics.  I can't think of one good reason to change marriage in its current state for some small minority of the country, and as I saw on C-Span's Washington Journal, not all gay people are for gay marriage.  I guess you are right about one thing, the truth does hurt, especially to the left.  Oh well, only Massachusetts has made gay marriages legal, there are still 49 states that keep it to only straight couples.  Even though I doubt it will stay that way for long because I recently heard that the Massachusetts republicans, with the state's governor are trying to re-ban gay marriage in that state in exchange for civil unions, its said it will pass or so says CNN.

See here, you aren't being very nice.  That article had precious little to do with gay marriage.  It seems every time an issue involving gay rights comes up, those who object to it resort to talk of "public sex."  As I said before, if it was really your wish to discourage such behavior among the gay population, support of gay marriage would be the way to do it.  Stop sending the message that homosexuality is sinful and objectionable, and perhaps fewer gays will see themselves as marginalized pariahs, and consequently stop behaving that way.
Most gays don't participate in objectionable behavior.  It's bad enough when the Right exploits the minority who do to smear the entire population, it's worse when the Right makes stuff up.  For example, these parties at which gay men deliberately engage in unsafe sex with infected individuals are a canard.  A few confused gay men HAVE deliberately contracted HIV, but it's not a gay shibboleth as presented by the Right.  I know you didn't mention this, GWB, but I had the feeling you might.

I live in Massachusetts, and I think Governor Romney is scum.  Our municipalities are going broke because of the Republican-enacted tax cuts.  The city of Springfield needs a 20 billion dollar bailout from the state.  Romney is making the money contingent upon Springfield city employees giving up their rights to collective bargaining.  The dirty S.O.B.!  He ought to be tarred and feathered straight back to Utah!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/16/04 at 4:12 pm


GW,
Let me ask you a question. If two people, who happen to be the same sex got married-yes, married- called it a marriage, how does that hurt/effect YOU personally?

Cat


I can tell you how it affects ME personally.  I personally believe that marriage is a sacred institution STARTED by God.  I know, I know, you can have a justice of the peace perform a "marriage," but that doesn't mean that's how marriage has always been.  I believe that God always intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, and that He is disgusted by any homosexual act. 
I don't like the union of gay people to be called a "marriage", so I agree with womberty.  "Marriage" should only have to do with what the church does and "civil union" should correspond to legal matters, even with heterosexual couples.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/16/04 at 4:18 pm




I can tell you how it affects ME personally.  I personally believe that marriage is a sacred institution STARTED by God.  I know, I know, you can have a justice of the peace perform a "marriage," but that doesn't mean that's how marriage has always been.  I believe that God always intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, and that He is disgusted by any homosexual act. 
I don't like the union of gay people to be called a "marriage", so I agree with womberty.  "Marriage" should only have to do with what the church does and "civil union" should correspond to legal matters, even with heterosexual couples.

And THAT'S why we keep religious views out of the political realm!  What if the Muslim fundamentalists got in charge and decided it was Allah's decree to allow MEN to marry MULTIPLE WIVES.  You wouldn't much like that would you?  No, me neither. 
And where are you getting the notion that God STARTED marriage?  Without citing Leviticus, why do you say He is disgusted by "homosexual" acts?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Junior on 06/16/04 at 4:23 pm




I can tell you how it affects ME personally.  I personally believe that marriage is a sacred institution STARTED by God.  I know, I know, you can have a justice of the peace perform a "marriage," but that doesn't mean that's how marriage has always been.  I believe that God always intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, and that He is disgusted by any homosexual act. 
I don't like the union of gay people to be called a "marriage", so I agree with womberty.  "Marriage" should only have to do with what the church does and "civil union" should correspond to legal matters, even with heterosexual couples.


You never actually explained how it affects you. You just restated your beliefs. ???

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/16/04 at 4:28 pm

QueenAmenRa -I don't believe that God started marriage and you still can't explain how it affects you personally. Do you think it lessens your supposed God-blessed union?  How could that be?  Especially if a gay marriage has the same intention as a straight one? 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/16/04 at 4:40 pm


I can tell you how it affects ME personally.  I personally believe that marriage is a sacred institution STARTED by God.  I know, I know, you can have a justice of the peace perform a "marriage," but that doesn't mean that's how marriage has always been.


So does it affect you personally when a Justice of the Peace performs a "marriage" that has nothing to do with God?



And where are you getting the notion that God STARTED marriage?


I'm guessing she gets it from the Bible:

Genesis 2
22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.



Without citing Leviticus, why do you say He is disgusted by "homosexual" acts?


Considering she gets her views on God from the Bible, why shouldn't she use the Bible to explain her beliefs?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Hairspray on 06/16/04 at 4:44 pm

Unions between same sex partners are being recognized, one way or another, whether people like it or not. It's reality.

I agree that people who are in a lifetime union should have the rights of full partnership, as is the case in a marriage.

I'll jump-in with my controversial opinion:

Disclaimer:

I have nothing against homosexuals. I don't understand the concept/idea/trait, but all people have a right to be themselves (within the parameters of the law) without condemnation.

Back on topic:

The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is foolish to assume a change in one of the oldest traditions will be easily accepted, if at all. The proposition is very hard to swallow (no pun intended).

Thus, keeping same sex marriages within the technical term of civil union would be practical, if same sex marriages are expected to be accepted as a norm by the masses.

I say, what's the difference in reference to technical terms? As long as the couples are receiving their proper rights under their new union, the issues over technical terminology should be trivial.

I surely hope I made some sense here.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Indy Gent on 06/16/04 at 4:52 pm

Ladybug: If God didn't start marriage, why does the Bible say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman? God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. No offense, but your statement doesn't hold water. And I can't vouce for Queen Amenra, but to me, two women kissing or two men kissing make me violently nervous. And I'm not saying this to be funny. Unlike majority of men in the US, I don't find two women in bed a turn-on at all. Freedom and justice should be for all, not just for people that do things that are opposite of what the "norm" is. And finally, I agree that a gay marriage has the same intention as a straight one. Unfortunately, since no child can be conceived through homosexual relations, it seems like the reason for wanting a gay marriage (sex or hatred toward the opposite sex?) outweighs whatever intent liberals want it to be. (I do apologize to Superfreak or any gay supporters, but the conception thing is based on fact.)   
QueenAmenRa -I don't believe that God started marriage and you still can't explain how it affects you personally. Do you think it lessens your supposed God-blessed union?  How could that be?  Especially if a gay marriage has the same intention as a straight one? 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/16/04 at 4:53 pm


Disclaimer:

I have nothing against homosexuals.


That's a dangerous way to start. I'm sure you mean well, but that kind of statement often precedes hateful or ignorant arguments. Not saying yours will be, but be careful how/where you use that disclaimer. Too many people use it to cover up the fact that they do have something against homosexuals.



The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is foolish to assume a change in one of the oldest traditions will be easily accepted, if at all.


Some traditions are going to be at odds with the relatively recent idea that the government should protect certain basic rights and treat all people equally. Marriage may be one of those traditions, in which case, perhaps the government should never have adopted it as a legal institution.


I say, what's the difference in reference to technical terms? As long as the couples are receiving their proper rights under their new union, the issues over technical terminology should be trivial.


The only problem would be if heterosexual couples still got to keep "marriage" as the legal term for their unions and homosexual couples had to use a different term for theirs. It would be a case of "separate but equal," which has been ruled to be inherently unequal.

It wouldn't make much sense, either. Laws governing the benefits of a union should not have to say "marriage or civil union"; there should be one all-encompassing term. (Just like you don't have to say "man or woman"; you can say "person" instead, and make sure everyone is equally covered by the law.)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Hairspray on 06/16/04 at 5:06 pm


Too many people use it to cover up the fact that they do have something against homosexuals.


I don't, so it's all good. :)

All opinions are duly noted.

In reference to my opinion, those are my thoughts on the subject whether sensible or not. I guess I truly cannot identify with the issue after all, since I walk not in homosexual shoes. :-\\

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: CatwomanofV on 06/16/04 at 5:24 pm


And I can't vouce for Queen Amenra, but to me, two women kissing or two men kissing make me violently nervous. And I'm not saying this to be funny. Unlike majority of men in the US, I don't find two women in bed a turn-on at all.



I appriecate your honesty about your feelings toward two men or two women together. I understand that.

Freedom and justice should be for all, not just for people that do things that are opposite of what the "norm" is. And finally, I agree that a gay marriage has the same intention as a straight one.


I agree 100%

Unfortunately, since no child can be conceived through homosexual relations, it seems like the reason for wanting a gay marriage (sex or hatred toward the opposite sex?) outweighs whatever intent liberals want it to be. (I do apologize to Superfreak or any gay supporters, but the conception thing is based on fact.)     




There are many hetersexual marriages that do not conveive-like mine. Having a baby may be one reason for getting married but not the ONLY reason.



Cat


Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/16/04 at 5:53 pm


Well here is the story for that unsupported bull, yet again putting your foot in your mouth:

What you originally said was:

literally a all-nude, sex-crazed, child-touching town in which the police arrested a ton of gay people who were breaking the laws I just stated, and all of them got off scott-free because not one straight couple was arrested, because their was none.   

How can I put in in words that even your microcephalic mind will understand: in the pathetically homophobic rant that was the story you posted, there was no mention of "child-touching" - I was arguing that there is probably more paedophilia in the church than there is in the homosexual community, and you counter by misquoting a story... I repeat my accusation that you were posting unsupported bull immediately after accusing me of doing the same thing.

There's only one person in this thread with metaphorical foot firmly wedged in mouth.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/16/04 at 6:11 pm


to me, two women kissing or two men kissing make me violently nervous.


And a man and woman kissing doesn't, right?

Consider this: in some countries, like India, kissing in movies and television is still taboo. In those countries, perhaps the sight of anyone kissing could make someone nauseous. I suspect it has to do with what you're accustomed to seeing. (Even I get grossed out at some love scenes that show a man and woman swapping tongues in too much detail.)

Also, what you describe sounds like real "homophobia" - a fear or severe negative reaction to signs of homosexuality. It's probably based more on unfamiliarity than anything else.


And finally, I agree that a gay marriage has the same intention as a straight one. Unfortunately, since no child can be conceived through homosexual relations, it seems like the reason for wanting a gay marriage (sex or hatred toward the opposite sex?) outweighs whatever intent liberals want it to be. (I do apologize to Superfreak or any gay supporters, but the conception thing is based on fact.)


I don't understand what you mean.

Are you saying that marriage is only for the purpose of having children?
Are you saying that homosexual couples only want to get married so they can have sex, or because they hate the opposite sex?

If you meant either of those things, you're wrong.

Straight people don't marry just to have kids, or just to have sex. They don't marry because they hate members of their own sex. Marriage is (supposed to be) a lifelong commitment to one another - and many gay couples want to make that kind of public commitment and get the government benefits that come with it.

And yes, some gay couples want to raise children together - either children they've had through someone else or artificial means, or by adoption. It's the same way that some straight couples who can't conceive end up raising children.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/16/04 at 7:30 pm

We, as humans, are brought up to believe what we have been told through our parents, religious systems, education and society in general (conditioned or indoctrinated). When something contradicts what we have been brought up to believe (rightly or wrongly), it stirs a genuine insecurity within. It is human to feel that insecurity (responding to Indy Gent) when confronted with something that contradicts our beliefs as we are forced to face the values that we take for granted.

This may seem a bizarre example to you folks but my religion told me that celebrating Christmas and Birthdays was wrong (religious conditioning) and I felt very nervous breaking those laws when I left the 'church' and felt guilty (insecurity). I have commercially celebrated these occasions for about three years now and am losing this insecurity gradually. Maybe this example can work in other ways.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Powerslave on 06/16/04 at 7:38 pm


I was "married" by a justice of the peace and churches do not recognize my "marriage" - screw 'em.  I don't care what you want to label it, we're still living together, filing taxes together and are entitled to eachother's health benefits, insurance policies and assetts obtained throught the course of our "marriage".  Why shouldn't same sex couples have a similar opportunity?



Hurrah! Someone finally said what I was thinking but was having difficulty trying to express it clearly. Legally married couples enjoy certain benefits as married couples that people who only "live together" don't get. By not allowing certain couples to marry, they are being excluded from these benefits for no other reason than because they don't have a piece of paper that says they're married.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/17/04 at 3:21 am


Unions between same sex partners are being recognized, one way or another, whether people like it or not. It's reality.

I agree that people who are in a lifetime union should have the rights of full partnership, as is the case in a marriage.

I'll jump-in with my controversial opinion:

Disclaimer:

I have nothing against homosexuals. I don't understand the concept/idea/trait, but all people have a right to be themselves (within the parameters of the law) without condemnation.

Back on topic:

The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It is foolish to assume a change in one of the oldest traditions will be easily accepted, if at all. The proposition is very hard to swallow (no pun intended).

Thus, keeping same sex marriages within the technical term of civil union would be practical, if same sex marriages are expected to be accepted as a norm by the masses.

I say, what's the difference in reference to technical terms? As long as the couples are receiving their proper rights under their new union, the issues over technical terminology should be trivial.

I surely hope I made some sense here.


Very well said there, as I have said I have no problem with civil unions as a basis for same-sex people to be together. 

A marriage is considered a religious thing, so if the church does not reconize same-sex marriages, why not have civil unions which the government reconizes.

--And finally I heard (and this is HEARD, haven't looked it up I could be wrong), that under some request from the governor of the state of Massachusetts that the federal government, like with civil unions, may not give federal benefits to the people who have married in that state (which is the only state to have made gay marriages legal, thank you Massachusetts.)  And I would without sarcasm thank the governor of Massachusetts for not letting people from out-of-state get a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.  So to whoever lives in Massachusetts, reelect your governor (how did a republican win in Massachusetts?)

This isn't even a debate anymore, some states are going to make gay marriages legal, probably only 5 states because the only states I can see that will make same-sex marriage legal are: Massachusetts, New York, California, Minnesota, and New Jersey.  The other 40-45 state (giving myself some room to be wrong): NO WAY IN HELL.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/17/04 at 3:28 am



I agree with most of this.  Well, I guess I don't disagree, I just think it depends.  I was brought up as a devout Catholic.  However, as I got older, and learned more about science, I began to question many of the things I was taught and came to the realization that much of it was wrong.  Now, I consider myself an "enlightened Catholic".  There are certain rites that I prefer be done in the Catholic Church.  However, there are others that I don't think it matters.


Congratulations on having the strength to do this.  I had a friend who tried, but couldn't and she's now back with the church.  HOWEVER, in this case, I don't think the "you must face your fears by trying to ***insert fear***" will work ;D


Remember when I said 'forced to confront', I mean when we are faced with the issue that affects our values. If you are a devout Christian for example, you are against homosexuality and see two men/women kissing, it makes you feel insecure. If you don't see anything that affects those values, life goes on. I'm not saying feeling insecure is wrong either, insecurity is wrong when it is defended with hostility.

Another example is my dad who went out with a black lady from The West Indies (now married for 12 years), nowt wrong with that but it made my nan incredibly insecure. The way she was brought up, she believed (again rightly or wrongly) that white should marry white and black should marry black. When she was faced with a situation that contradicted her thinking, she became very insecure and didn't want no part of it. Please note I am not trying to turn this thread into a racial issue, just giving an example of what I am trying to say.  :)

As for me and Christmas, well . . . You can't go on being a martyr forever, can you? lol.  ;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/17/04 at 3:35 am


I agree with most of this.  Well, I guess I don't disagree, I just think it depends.  I was brought up as a devout Catholic.  However, as I got older, and learned more about science, I began to question many of the things I was taught and came to the realization that much of it was wrong.  Now, I consider myself an "enlightened Catholic".  There are certain rites that I prefer be done in the Catholic Church.  However, there are others that I don't think it matters.


I think you are right. Part of what I said doesn't always account for human character. I think it depends on how much the person in question has respect for the authority who is influencing him/her. Some people embrace the authority and some reject it.

I hope you folks don't mind me exploring the nature of insecurity - going off topic is making me insecure.  ;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 8:05 am


Ladybug: If God didn't start marriage, why does the Bible say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman? God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. No offense, but your statement doesn't hold water. And I can't vouce for Queen Amenra, but to me, two women kissing or two men kissing make me violently nervous. And I'm not saying this to be funny. Unlike majority of men in the US, I don't find two women in bed a turn-on at all. Freedom and justice should be for all, not just for people that do things that are opposite of what the "norm" is. And finally, I agree that a gay marriage has the same intention as a straight one. Unfortunately, since no child can be conceived through homosexual relations, it seems like the reason for wanting a gay marriage (sex or hatred toward the opposite sex?) outweighs whatever intent liberals want it to be. (I do apologize to Superfreak or any gay supporters, but the conception thing is based on fact.)     

OH, the bible says, the bible says - I believe that the bible, at best, is a guide to life, not an instruction manual.  (And 99% is hooey, IMO).  Just as you think my statement doesn't hold water because it's not written in the bible, I think your beliefs have no ground because your sources are fables to me!

You are right about freedom and justice being for all, even if YOU don't like what's outside the "Norm".  (And you don't have to be a liberal to think so, either).

Also, if you believe that marriage is only for conception, do you also believe that a childless marriage is godless?  Are infertile women / men lesser in God's eyes?  (And by the way, why did he "make" them that way if everyone was supposed to go forward and breed?)



Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/17/04 at 8:14 am



OH, the bible says, the bible says - I believe that the bible, at best, is a guide to life, not an instruction manual.  (And 99% is hooey, IMO).  Just as you think my statement doesn't hold water because it's not written in the bible, I think your beliefs have no ground because your sources are fables to me!

You are right about freedom and justice being for all, even if YOU don't like what's outside the "Norm".  (And you don't have to be a liberal to think so, either).

Also, if you believe that marriage is only for conception, do you also believe that a childless marriage is godless?  Are infertile women / men lesser in God's eyes?  (And by the way, why did he "make" them that way if everyone was supposed to go forward and breed?)






A lot of people don't believe in the Bible because it was written by man, not God himself.

I think people here have already explained why God made gay people, just because God made it doesn't mean it is perfect or anything.  And personally i'm trying to keep God out of a gay marriage debate but everyone won't help out.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/17/04 at 8:55 am





A lot of people don't believe in the Bible because it was written by man, not God himself.

I think people here have already explained why God made gay people, just because God made it doesn't mean it is perfect or anything.  And personally i'm trying to keep God out of a gay marriage debate but everyone won't help out.

The gay marriage debate is over.  The people who are for it are for it, the people who are against are against it, and haven't we come a long way?

So you've changed your personal quote...to MORE Rush Limberger-style hate mongering.  Don't you ever get tired of those duck-billed platitudes?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Indy Gent on 06/17/04 at 9:27 am

It is your choice not to believe in the Bible. We all make choices that will have consequences later. But I'm not saying you have to follow the Bible, but you do have to understand where Christians are coming from just as much as you understand gays.
A marriage should be a union forever. Gay marriages have the same responsibilities as straight ones. They have to last forever. Otherwise, any marriage that ends in divorce is wrong. It doesn't matter if your childless or infertile. And God did not make people gay because man was created by His own image. No one is a lesser human being because he/she commits a sin or supports a alternative lifestyle. But He does frown upon any sin committed by anyone, especially if they claim to be Christian. And a lot of gays and ex-cons claim to be saved. (Not associating the 2, mind you.) This is not a debate on passing judgement. It's what I believe and no man can change that, just like I can't change others what others believe by myself.

OH, the bible says, the bible says - I believe that the bible, at best, is a guide to life, not an instruction manual.  (And 99% is hooey, IMO).  Just as you think my statement doesn't hold water because it's not written in the bible, I think your beliefs have no ground because your sources are fables to me!

You are right about freedom and justice being for all, even if YOU don't like what's outside the "Norm".  (And you don't have to be a liberal to think so, either).

Also, if you believe that marriage is only for conception, do you also believe that a childless marriage is godless?  Are infertile women / men lesser in God's eyes?  (And by the way, why did he "make" them that way if everyone was supposed to go forward and breed?)




Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 9:38 am





A lot of people don't believe in the Bible because it was written by man, not God himself.

I think people here have already explained why God made gay people, just because God made it doesn't mean it is perfect or anything.  And personally i'm trying to keep God out of a gay marriage debate but everyone won't help out.
No, I don't believe in the bible because I don't believe in God.  (Or what most people believe God to be).  You are never going to keep God out of this debate because people literally live by "his" words. 

So in all of these pages of debate, it breaks down this way: 

God may have made you gay but that doesn't mean you should live that way or assume that you have the same rights as everyone else.

OR

Call a union between 2 people (whomever they are) a "gobbledygook" as not to offend anyone who is "truly married" in the eyes of God

??? :(

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/17/04 at 9:42 am


I don't think most homophobes want to face their fear of homosexuality by "trying" it  ;D ;D ;D

Mwahahaha

PS Does anybody else look at the title of this thread and wonder whether it'll make a parody to "Pine cones and Halle Berry"

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 10:03 am


It is your choice not to believe in the Bible. We all make choices that will have consequences later. But I'm not saying you have to follow the Bible, but you do have to understand where Christians are coming from just as much as you understand gays.
A marriage should be a union forever. Gay marriages have the same responsibilities as straight ones. They have to last forever. Otherwise, any marriage that ends in divorce is wrong. It doesn't matter if your childless or infertile. And God did not make people gay because man was created by His own image. No one is a lesser human being because he/she commits a sin or supports a alternative lifestyle. But He does frown upon any sin committed by anyone, especially if they claim to be Christian. And a lot of gays and ex-cons claim to be saved. (Not associating the 2, mind you.) This is not a debate on passing judgement. It's what I believe and no man can change that, just like I can't change others what others believe by myself.

Do you actually know any gay people?  Your comments about gay marriage and responsibility are a bit insulting.  All of the gay couples I know place the same importance on the same issues in their relationships.  I don't know anyone (gay or straight) who doesn't want their relationship to last forever.  I know gay couples that have been together twice as long as most of my married friends (some on their second marriages).  Also, I don't know one "saved" person who is gay, considering there isn't much tolerance for their lifestyle.  (I will admit, though, that I don't really travel in the circle of the "saved"  :)) 

You are noble to say this debate is not about passing judgement, but it is already happening.  If you believe God said it's a sin to lead a gay lifestyle, then you believe that person to be a sinner - end of story.  How sad.  :(

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 10:06 am



You are exactly right.  I think you missed the sarcasm in my post.  You faced your fear by celebrating holidays.  I don't think most homophobes want to face their fear of homosexuality by "trying" it  ;D ;D ;D
That's hysterical!!! :D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Junior on 06/17/04 at 11:43 am


It is your choice not to believe in the Bible. We all make choices that will have consequences later. But I'm not saying you have to follow the Bible, but you do have to understand where Christians are coming from just as much as you understand gays.
A marriage should be a union forever. Gay marriages have the same responsibilities as straight ones. They have to last forever. Otherwise, any marriage that ends in divorce is wrong. It doesn't matter if your childless or infertile. And God did not make people gay because man was created by His own image. No one is a lesser human being because he/she commits a sin or supports a alternative lifestyle. But He does frown upon any sin committed by anyone, especially if they claim to be Christian. And a lot of gays and ex-cons claim to be saved. (Not associating the 2, mind you.) This is not a debate on passing judgement. It's what I believe and no man can change that, just like I can't change others what others believe by myself.



All Christians (and all people) "sin" many times during life, so to single out gays and ex-cons isn't necesarily right.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/17/04 at 1:13 pm


Without citing Leviticus, why do you say He is disgusted by "homosexual" acts?


I don't have to cite Leviticus, how about Genesis 19 instead?  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' homosexuality.  He wouldn't just do that if their acts were pleasing to him, now would they?  In chapter 18:20 he says he will destroy them "because their sin is very grievous." Hear that?  Sin.  And there's no sin that God is not disgusted with.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/17/04 at 1:20 pm




I don't have to cite Leviticus, how about Genesis 19 instead?  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' homosexuality.  He wouldn't just do that if their acts were pleasing to him, now would they?  In chapter 18:20 he says he will destroy them "because their sin is very grievous." Hear that?  Sin.  And there's no sin that God is not disgusted with.

Oh, of course, Sodom and Gomorrah.  You're right then.  Most of us lead pretty hedonistic lifestyles, and, like the people of S&G, we're not very good to strangers.  Most of us won't be getting a break, gay or straight, I'm afraid.
:\'(

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/17/04 at 1:22 pm



Oh, of course, Sodom and Gomorrah.  You're right then.  Most of us lead pretty hedonistic lifestyles, and, like the people of S&G, we're not very good to strangers.  Most of us won't be getting a break, gay or straight, I'm afraid.
:\'(


I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 1:33 pm




I don't have to cite Leviticus, how about Genesis 19 instead?  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' homosexuality.  He wouldn't just do that if their acts were pleasing to him, now would they?  In chapter 18:20 he says he will destroy them "because their sin is very grievous." Hear that?  Sin.  And there's no sin that God is not disgusted with.
That's just more biblical babble and not an answer from you.  Why do you hide behind the book?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Corky on 06/17/04 at 1:37 pm

The only thing that I have to say here is this. I don't have a problem with bisexuals. The thing is, keep it to yourself.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 1:46 pm


The only thing that I have to say here is this. I don't have a problem with bisexuals. The thing is, keep it to yourself.
Why?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: QueenAmenRa on 06/17/04 at 1:52 pm



That's just more biblical babble and not an answer from you.  Why do you hide behind the book?


Who says I'm hiding? You're basically telling me I don't have the right to express my beliefs.  I believe the Book is God's Word, so who says I don't have the right to cling to it?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 2:09 pm




Who says I'm hiding? You're basically telling me I don't have the right to express my beliefs.  I believe the Book is God's Word, so who says I don't have the right to cling to it?
I say you're hiding!  I didn't say you don't have the right to express your beliefs.  You can cling to "God's Word", you're just not giving me one thought of your own. 
I was  saying that you haven't answered my question which was "Do you think gay marriage lessens your supposed God-blessed union?"  It requires more of an answer than God said so in the bible, so there!  If you don't want to elaborate, just say so.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Corky on 06/17/04 at 2:14 pm



Why?


Because I don't want anything to have to do with it. If someone is bi, i don't want to know about it. I have more important things in my life to worry about.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/17/04 at 2:45 pm


I say you're hiding!  I didn't say you don't have the right to express your beliefs.  You can cling to "God's Word", you're just not giving me one thought of your own.


Well, you might try to understand her mindset, here: if the Bible is the authority on God, how can she come up with her own theories and claim that they are as accurate?

If she says, "I think God is basically good, so he must not mind what homosexuals do as long as they're not hurting anyone", but then in the Bible it explicitly says, "God hates homosexuals", which one is she supposed to present to you as an authoritative answer?

(The example was simplified for easier comprehension; if you want to argue about what the Bible actually says, that's different.)


I was  saying that you haven't answered my question which was "Do you think gay marriage lessens your supposed God-blessed union?"  It requires more of an answer than God said so in the bible, so there!  If you don't want to elaborate, just say so.


Let's try wording that question a different way.

Suppose someone is using the Biblical definition of marriage. They are concerned about the sanctity of God's institution of marriage.

Does the government allowing gays to marry harm Biblical marriage? How?
Does the government allowing non-believers to marry harm Biblical marriage? How?
Does the government allowing people to divorce harm Biblical marriage? How?

Perhaps we could compare it to something else:

Suppose a person prays fervently to God every day.

Does a government-sponsored public prayer that tries to be all-inclusive and doesn't really acknowledge God's authority harm the person's abillity to pray? Does it harm their relationship with God?


Then, for the comparison to work, you have to ask:

Is marriage something between you and God? You and the public? Both?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/17/04 at 2:51 pm





A lot of people don't believe in the Bible because it was written by man, not God himself.

I think people here have already explained why God made gay people, just because God made it doesn't mean it is perfect or anything.  And personally i'm trying to keep God out of a gay marriage debate but everyone won't help out.


Could it be?  I agree that we should keep God out of this discussion because those who want to base their views on biblical authority will always hold that view regardless of science, or justice in social policy.  I respect their right to that view and their right to express it, but because it is based on their faith it is beyond rational debate (I'm not calling them irrational, just suggesting that on this issue they have placed their faith ahead of science and social policy).  I suggest that if that is your position, vote, state it, and leave it at that, so as to avoid exchanges that can't lead anywhere.  Just a suggestion.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/17/04 at 4:05 pm




Well, you might try to understand her mindset, here: if the Bible is the authority on God, how can she come up with her own theories and claim that they are as accurate?

If she says, "I think God is basically good, so he must not mind what homosexuals do as long as they're not hurting anyone", but then in the Bible it explicitly says, "God hates homosexuals", which one is she supposed to present to you as an authoritative answer?

(The example was simplified for easier comprehension; if you want to argue about what the Bible actually says, that's different.)




Let's try wording that question a different way.

Suppose someone is using the Biblical definition of marriage. They are concerned about the sanctity of God's institution of marriage.

Does the government allowing gays to marry harm Biblical marriage? How?
Does the government allowing non-believers to marry harm Biblical marriage? How?
Does the government allowing people to divorce harm Biblical marriage? How?

Perhaps we could compare it to something else:

Suppose a person prays fervently to God every day.

Does a government-sponsored public prayer that tries to be all-inclusive and doesn't really acknowledge God's authority harm the person's abillity to pray? Does it harm their relationship with God?


Then, for the comparison to work, you have to ask:

Is marriage something between you and God? You and the public? Both?
Does allowing gays to marry harm biblical marriage?  How?  That was, in essence, my question to  QueenAmenRa.  She responded that gay marriage directly affects her.  I wasn't asking for a theory that was as good as God's, I was looking for everyday examples.  What is she going to have to change because of gay marriage? She may not believe it's right, but how would that affect her and the way she lives her life? I understand that she thinks God's word is law.  It might have been better had she said that gay marriage OFFENDS her and her beliefs. 

I think that gives you my answers to your other questions:
Does the government allowing non-believers to marry harm Biblical marriage? How?
Does the government allowing divorces harm Biblical marriage?  How?
Does a government sponsored public prayer...?

I try to see it from the other side but I still come back to this:  How can it diminish what you truly believe in?  How does it diminish "biblical marriage" if you don't even recognize that it's an actual marriage?

Similarly with divorce.  The (Catholic) church does not recognize divorce.  If you are truly in a "biblical marriage", you're in it for the long haul.  Divorce would not even be an option.

Finally, I can't see anything affecting your ability to pray, or have a relationship with God if that is the path your on.

Don Carlos is right.  I will never change QueenAmenRa's mind because, naturally, no one can trump God.  I wasn't even trying to.  I just thought she might give a more detailed answer than "because"!





 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/17/04 at 4:39 pm


After all, EVERY woman who is on birth control is committing a sin because according to the bible, sex for pleasure is a sin.


That's probably a misinterpretation of one Biblical example - God told someone to get his dead brother's wife (now his wife) pregnant, and he "spilled on the ground" instead. God struck him dead for disobeying, not for getting pleasure out of it.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/17/04 at 5:39 pm

Is that the parable where "some seed fell on stony ground"?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/17/04 at 6:03 pm

Nope.

The story of "spilling seed on the ground" is in Genesis 38:7-10.

The parable of the sower and the seed is in Mark 4:3-20.

That parable is about sowing the word of God, not about "spilling" seed. ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/17/04 at 6:06 pm

Sorry, missing smiley ;)

...it was supposed to be a joke.  Sigh.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/17/04 at 6:24 pm


You are exactly right.  I think you missed the sarcasm in my post.  You faced your fear by celebrating holidays.  I don't think most homophobes want to face their fear of homosexuality by "trying" it  ;D ;D ;D


Ah I see what you mean. You are right. Nice analogy, slightly different context, lol.

I didn't mean for homophobes to try out homosexuality as a way of 'facing their fears' - maybe just be civil to people of that sexuality. ;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/17/04 at 6:28 pm


Sorry, missing smiley ;)

...it was supposed to be a joke.  Sigh.


Ah. I wasn't sure; at first I thought it was a joke, but then, there was no smiley.

This topic is no place to keep a straight face.  ;D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Indy Gent on 06/17/04 at 7:32 pm

Again, ladybug, you are putting words in my mouth, and I find that insulting. Everyone in the world was born a sinner. There is nobody in this world that hasn't sinned, and a man who said He was got crucified. Since I was a sinner myself, I cannot pass judgement on others. But I do believe that Jesus heals anyone that will accept Him, and he will forgive Christians many times. But if any Christian does not repent of their sins, God will be the final judge. That's why I don't believe I am passing it myself. Sorry if that is foreign to you, ladybug, and I'm sorry that God is foreign to you. :(

Do you actually know any gay people?  Your comments about gay marriage and responsibility are a bit insulting.  All of the gay couples I know place the same importance on the same issues in their relationships.  I don't know anyone (gay or straight) who doesn't want their relationship to last forever.  I know gay couples that have been together twice as long as most of my married friends (some on their second marriages).  Also, I don't know one "saved" person who is gay, considering there isn't much tolerance for their lifestyle.  (I will admit, though, that I don't really travel in the circle of the "saved"  :)) 

You are noble to say this debate is not about passing judgement, but it is already happening.  If you believe God said it's a sin to lead a gay lifestyle, then you believe that person to be a sinner - end of story.  How sad.  :(

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 8:39 am


Again, ladybug, you are putting words in my mouth, and I find that insulting. Everyone in the world was born a sinner. There is nobody in this world that hasn't sinned, and a man who said He was got crucified. Since I was a sinner myself, I cannot pass judgement on others. But I do believe that Jesus heals anyone that will accept Him, and he will forgive Christians many times. But if any Christian does not repent of their sins, God will be the final judge. That's why I don't believe I am passing it myself. Sorry if that is foreign to you, ladybug, and I'm sorry that God is foreign to you. :(

I don't understand how I'm putting words in your mouth.  You brought up divorce (as if that had anything to do with it), saying that gay marriage may have the same intent but God frowns on divorce.  I pointed out that many marriages end in divorce.  I asked you if you directly  knew any gay people or their intention to live their lives (even if you think it's a sin).  You didn't answer that. I  know Christians who live by the word of God.  I know the principals of christianity, about original sin and all that.  Don't say you don't pass judgement, though.  If you didn't, we would not even be having this conversation.  Passing judgement is something we all do every day with the choices we make. You believe a gay lifestyle is wrong and I'm assuming you don't associate with too many homosexuals, (and similarly why I don't have too many Christian friends).  When election time comes, I'm assuming you'll vote against it and make your judgement heard.  You stance is:  My opinion is God's and He'll you judge you (and he has the final say).  The difference is that I realize I judge people and I say so.   

By the way, it is not my intention to make you feel badly despite the heated debate.  I'm sorry if I have insulted you.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/18/04 at 8:43 am



I can't make the comment I want to about "straight" because I'm afraid it might be censored ;D ;)

ROFL!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Junior on 06/18/04 at 11:05 am

Marriage is not just a religious thing (and in some cases, not religious at all). Marriage isn't about god, it's about two people who love each other.

And by your logic, Fluffy, only monotheists should be allowed to get married?

Marriage has a lot more to do with than just religion. Like Cat mentioned earlier, being married by a justice of the peace doesn't make her any less married. There are many non-religious, non-social benefits to marriage.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 11:29 am





Of course it does!  Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony.  It was not invented by a man or a government to justify a social standing.  It was invented by God to recognise the union between two of his people (God also had a practical side to it - To stop bastard kids being born everywhere without families).  You can believe and do what ever you like in your own home, it doesn't bother me(or anyone else for that matter), but why the big push to marry, a ceremony that shouldn't concern them?  Fighting for a social standing in the community I could understand (but not support), but a fight to marry?  Why would they even want to?  You don't need to be married to be socially accepted by the World - Just check out most of the replies to this poll.  You only need marriage to be accepted by God.  You don't have to take my word for it...check it out for yourself.


Fluffy.

I know.  I get it.  Marriage is only a privilege for the religious!!  The point I was trying to make is that if YOU are doing things by "the book" gay marriage shouldn't detract from your union.  Let the sinner sin, as it were.  Why do they have to call it marriage?  Because marriage still does mean something to most people.  It is a form of acceptance.  It validates a relationship. The bible tells you that it's a sin, and in this way, gay people don't "count".  Everyone wants to be validated, to count.  Just because God doesn't believe in YOU, doesn't mean you don't believe in Him. A dichotomy, I know.     

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Rush on 06/18/04 at 12:05 pm




I don't have to cite Leviticus, how about Genesis 19 instead?  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' homosexuality.  He wouldn't just do that if their acts were pleasing to him, now would they?  In chapter 18:20 he says he will destroy them "because their sin is very grievous." Hear that?  Sin.  And there's no sin that God is not disgusted with.


Where exactly in the bible does it say that the people of Sodom and Gomor'rah are homosexual??

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/18/04 at 12:30 pm

Damn, does that mean we'll have to change what the word "sodomy" means?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Indy Gent on 06/18/04 at 12:53 pm

Homosexuality was far from the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. They were destroyed because they swayed from God's orders. They worshipped flase gods, and engaged in vile sexual acts, by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.


Where exactly in the bible does it say that the people of Sodom and Gomor'rah are homosexual??

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 1:03 pm



That's just ludicrous.  There are many people who don't believe in the Christian "God" who can and do get married.  Not only non-believers, but Buddhists, Muslims, Indians and many other religions who have their own gods (or higher beings) get "married".  AND, if you look up the definition, marriage is a LEGAL union.  It's not done only to "be accepted by God", like it or not, many times it's done for purely legal reasons. 
You cannot argue this point with Christians because they believe God CREATED the principal idea of marriage.  That's it!  The fact that the ceremony has EVOLVED into something we incorporate into our modern world has no bearing.  It always boils down to creation or evolution doesn't it?  :D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/18/04 at 1:11 pm

Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground;
God will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found.
(because)
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great
If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate!
--Monty Python


Corky wrote:
The only thing that I have to say here is this. I don't have a problem with bisexuals. The thing is, keep it to yourself.
  Keep it to yourself?  That wouldn't be bisexual that would be, uh, autosexual?

80sCheerleader wrote
SO, why doesn't God destroy ALL sinners? 

He does, He'll get YOU later!
:o

Indy Gent wrote
Homosexuality was far from the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. They were destroyed because they swayed from God's orders. They worshipped flase gods, and engaged in vile sexual acts, by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Yeah, that's the point I wanted to bring in.  The comeback is always, "It makes no difference, heterosexual sinners earn God's wrath too."  Indeed, Sodomy need not be a homosexual act. However, there was MUCH more vileness in the Cities of the Plain than sinful sex.  Christians tend to get too hung up on sex.  The people of S&G were also inhospitable to strangers.  In ancient times, there was a cultural premium placed on hospitality.  It wasn't just rude to be impolite to guests, it was abominable !  In much of the Middle East and Asia, the art of hospitality is still sacred.  Furthermore, the S&G citizens were generally dishonest, petty, and violent.  Perhaps today's Christian Fundamentalists who always keep their stockings straight are practicing other evils of the Cities of the Plain.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Indy Gent on 06/18/04 at 1:12 pm

Now there's something we can agree on, the first point I mean.  :)
If God didn't create the principal of marriage, then who do you think did? Freud? Niesche (sp)? Las Vegas? I don't think that a person would invent marriage. I've never learn about the discovery of marriage when I was in high school. 


You cannot argue this point with Christians because they believe God CREATED the principal idea of marriage.  That's it!  The fact that the ceremony has EVOLVED into something we incorporate into our modern world has no bearing.  It always boils down to creation or evolution doesn't it?   :D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 1:34 pm


Now there's something we can agree on, the first point I mean.  :)
If God didn't create the principal of marriage, then who do you think did? Freud? Niesche (sp)? Las Vegas? I don't think that a person would invent marriage. I've never learn about the discovery of marriage when I was in high school. 


I don't want to be in the doghouse with you again, but marriage was not discovered it was created.  I personally believe it was a man, considering up until a few decades ago women aways got the short end of the stick!!  I know, I know, shut this girl up with her atheist, feminist agenda!  ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/18/04 at 1:43 pm


I don't want to be in the doghouse with you again, but marriage was not discovered it was created.  I personally believe it was a man, considering up until a few decades ago women aways got the short end of the stick!!


Maybe it was invented by women as a way of keeping guys around to raise the kids. It's that sex-for-security scam that The Onion ran an exposé on a while back. ;)

Or maybe it was invented by men, as a way of marking their women and children as their property. After all, the wife and kids do take that man's name. :P

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/18/04 at 1:48 pm

Gosh will everyone stop talking about God.  You cannot use God to push an agenda on people.  I personally do not use my belief in God to promote any of my conservative ideas.  Now you cannot have a very small minority change something that has been the same again for 6,000 years.  You just can't especially a group that is only 5% of America, not only that not all gay people are for gay marriage.  It is time, and I know its politically incorrect for gay people to be accepting, accepting of the vast majority of americans, accepting of tradional judeo-christian values which this country was founded on weather anyone likes it or not.  Let us keep marriage, take civil unions and the benefits you get from them, its the only middle to this.  Its either all states have gay marriage which the tradionalist won't have, and not having any civil unions which no secularist will have.  You need to go for civil unions because you can whine, kick, yell, scream all day long for gay marriage, but at the most only 5 states will make gay marriages legal.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: CatwomanofV on 06/18/04 at 1:51 pm



I don't want to be in the doghouse with you again, but marriage was not discovered it was created.  I personally believe it was a man, considering up until a few decades ago women aways got the short end of the stick!!  I know, I know, shut this girl up with her atheist, feminist agenda!  ;)



Bravo (or that Brava).

I was just reading about ancient India where women got to choose her husband. There was one story where a woman had 5 husbands. And yes, they had marriage-long before Asia was introduced to Christianity.



Cat

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Absolutely Vile on 06/18/04 at 1:54 pm


Or maybe it was invented by men, as a way of marking their women and children as their property. After all, the wife and kids do take that man's name. :P


That's really sexist!! And nowadays, a woman does not have to take her husband's surname when she gets married! When I got married, I had the choice of keeping my own surname, taking my husband's, or hyphenating them both together. I chose to take my husband's surname purely because it's shorter, easier to spell, and flows better with my first name. :)

Absolutely Vile

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: CatwomanofV on 06/18/04 at 1:57 pm




That's really sexist!! And nowadays, a woman does not have to take her husband's surname when she gets married! When I got married, I had the choice of keeping my own surname, taking my husband's, or hyphenating them both together. I chose to take my husband's surname purely because it's shorter, easier to spell, and flows better with my first name. :)

Absolutely Vile


I also choose to take my husband's name because I was stupid enough to take my first husband's name and never changed it after the marriage ended. At least now, my last name has some meaning to it.



Cat

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 2:03 pm


Gosh will everyone stop talking about God.  You cannot use God to push an agenda on people.  I personally do not use my belief in God to promote any of my conservative ideas.  Now you cannot have a very small minority change something that has been the same again for 6,000 years.  You just can't especially a group that is only 5% of America, not only that not all gay people are for gay marriage.  It is time, and I know its politically incorrect for gay people to be accepting, accepting of the vast majority of americans, accepting of tradional judeo-christian values which this country was founded on weather anyone likes it or not.  Let us keep marriage, take civil unions and the benefits you get from them, its the only middle to this.  Its either all states have gay marriage which the tradionalist won't have, and not having any civil unions which no secularist will have.  You need to go for civil unions because you can whine, kick, yell, scream all day long for gay marriage, but at the most only 5 states will make gay marriages legal.
Just because it's been the same for 6,000 years doesn't mean it can't be changed.  It may take a while, but my children will be voters someday, too.  :) 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/18/04 at 2:08 pm



Just because it's been the same for 6,000 years doesn't mean it can't be changed.  It may take a while, but my children will be voters someday, too.  :) 


Unless you got enough children to make up for the 34% lead (67% to 33%) in the polls we have it won't make any diffence.  Besides no matter how hard you try you kids could grow up to be Christian, hard-core republicans who hate gay marriage.  I grew up with the biggest left-leaning socialist parents even and I turned out to be a conservative after I found out what the democrats really stood for.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 2:08 pm




That's really sexist!! And nowadays, a woman does not have to take her husband's surname when she gets married! When I got married, I had the choice of keeping my own surname, taking my husband's, or hyphenating them both together. I chose to take my husband's surname purely because it's shorter, easier to spell, and flows better with my first name. :)

Absolutely Vile
Actually Vile, I think that was the whole point of her comment:  that marriage had been a sexist institution until recently.  I too, chose my husband's name because I was just damned tired of spelling out my maiden name and people going "Huh?" after I said it.  Hooray for choices!  Hooray for progress!  :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 2:14 pm





Unless you got enough children to make up for the 34% lead (67% to 33%) in the polls we have it won't make any diffence.  Besides no matter how hard you try you kids could grow up to be Christian, hard-core republicans who hate gay marriage.  I grew up with the biggest left-leaning socialist parents even and I turned out to be a conservative after I found out what the democrats really stood for.
Not from my uterus, thankyouverymuch!!  I'm not that dedicated to the cause.  ;D  You are correct about children finding their own path.  I would wager though, that people are more open-minded these days and the polls will reflect that in the coming years. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/18/04 at 2:38 pm


And yes, they had marriage-long before Asia was introduced to Christianity.


Well, of course, anyone using the Bible for their history would simply argue that the Asians were descendents of Noah and his wife. His sons and their wives repopulated the Earth and were responsible for the different races. So, they would say that God invented marriage before he even invented Asians. ;)



Actually Vile, I think that was the whole point of her comment:  that marriage had been a sexist institution until recently.  I too, chose my husband's name because I was just damned tired of spelling out my maiden name and people going "Huh?" after I said it.  Hooray for choices!  Hooray for progress!  :)


I think I would probably change my name after getting married - guess it depends on the size of the rock I get in return. :P

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/18/04 at 2:51 pm

If contemporary hunter/gatherers can be used as a guide to our distant relatives, my guess is that "marriage" is common to all human groups.  It probably appeared about 40,000 years ago, along with ceremonial burial and what might be a lunar calander.  Here's the scenario:  women came to understand the relationship between sex and pregnancy, and that their menses where periodic and also related to pregnancy, as they came to associate their menses to the lunar cycle.  Thus, they gained an idea of a future (they already had a past)  Knowledge of a future spread.  People came to realize their mortality.  They sought the mysteries of death, and feared it.  Men too came to recognize that some babies born in their group were theirs, from their "essence", and thus gave them a certain immortality.  But how to be sure that this kid  is mine?  Obviously, monopolize the sexual favors of the woman.  Thus was born "marriage", a public commitment contrary to the raging hormones of most men (as I sit and read on the porch during the summer, I find myself constantly distracted by the nubile women who walk past the house).  At this time, gay men (about 1 in 12 statistically) probably didn't participate, although there is no way to tell.  Gradually, privileges byond fidelity were attached to marriage (Cat and I filed jointly for last year and made significant savings on our taxes).  Now, committed gays want to enjoy those same secular advantages.  Why shouldn't they?

Clearly, this is a very abriviated rendition of a long story, its not biblical but "Darwinian", but it has the advantage of being historical and of having powerful explanitory insights into patriarchy, mysogeny, sexism, and lots of other hang-ups. 

Lets get off the bible and into rational discussion.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/18/04 at 3:11 pm


If contemporary hunter/gatherers can be used as a guide to our distant relatives, my guess is that "marriage" is common to all human groups.  It probably appeared about 40,000 years ago, along with ceremonial burial and what might be a lunar calander.  Here's the scenario:  women came to understand the relationship between sex and pregnancy, and that their menses where periodic and also related to pregnancy, as they came to associate their menses to the lunar cycle.  Thus, they gained an idea of a future (they already had a past)  Knowledge of a future spread.  People came to realize their mortality.  They sought the mysteries of death, and feared it.  Men too came to recognize that some babies born in their group were theirs, from their "essence", and thus gave them a certain immortality.  But how to be sure that this kid  is mine?  Obviously, monopolize the sexual favors of the woman.  Thus was born "marriage", a public commitment contrary to the raging hormones of most men (as I sit and read on the porch during the summer, I find myself constantly distracted by the nubile women who walk past the house).  At this time, gay men (about 1 in 12 statistically) probably didn't participate, although there is no way to tell.  Gradually, privileges byond fidelity were attached to marriage (Cat and I filed jointly for last year and made significant savings on our taxes).  Now, committed gays want to enjoy those same secular advantages.  Why shouldn't they?

Clearly, this is a very abriviated rendition of a long story, its not biblical but "Darwinian", but it has the advantage of being historical and of having powerful explanitory insights into patriarchy, mysogeny, sexism, and lots of other hang-ups. 

Lets get off the bible and into rational discussion.
How eloquently stated.  Hey, maybe you could publish that and in 6,000 years, it might just catch on.  The word according to Don Carlos.  :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/18/04 at 3:28 pm



How eloquently stated.  Hey, maybe you could publish that and in 6,000 years, it might just catch on.  The word according to Don Carlos.  :)


Wouldn't want the honor, thanks.

Just trying to introduce some science into this debate.  Marriage, like all other social institutions, must have a history and a benefit to survival.  Just trying to substitute a rational, scientific train of thought for the pointless biblical debate.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/19/04 at 7:56 am

Since you're such an expert with a dictionary, why don't you look them up and see if you can ascertain what Paul was saying.  As you can see it is easy to misinterperate.  So perhaps you should try reading and studying the Bible first before criticising it.  At least then, you could drop a FACT into one of your scintillating articles.

I just answered a question according to my beliefs.  Contrary to popular opinion, Christians do not hate gay people.  We hate what they do and believe, but not them personally.  Christians don't hate anyone.  If you can't get your mind around this, then why don't you start up a new discussion poll or discussion board about God (and His Word) and how much you hate it?  Or start a website crapping on about how much you hate God, Christians, Jews, Muslims or whoever the hell you feel the need to rip into this week.  Infact, there are a few sites that would love to hear from you.  Try www.evidenceofgod.com .  What ever you decide to do, DON'T BOTHER ME WITH IT.  Take it up with God; He's the one you have to convince, not me.

Fluffy. >:(



Fluffy

Lighten up man, you'll blow a gasket or something  ::)

There's no need to rip people a new one.  There are other ways....

Don't tell people they are crapping on, that's hardly open minded of you.  After all, you talked about your beliefs, they are just stating theirs and don't really deserve to be insulted for it, do you think ?  ???

Added :  Bolding and UPPER CASING may well get people's attention but it also looks like you are yelling at them, and that for most people will only help detract from your message, because it will ping them off royally..... ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/19/04 at 8:13 am

Fluffy makes sense.

-But again, my belief in God does not have anything to do with my dislike for gay marriage.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/19/04 at 12:14 pm


I never said that people don't do it (and for the record, the Bible does NOT say that unbelievers can't get married) or that unbelievers don't do things that God approves of, I said God invented marriage and the rules that govern it.


But what business does the government have putting God's rules into the law? Our government is supposed to give equal rights and privileges to everyone based on prinicples of liberty, not based on the Bible.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/19/04 at 4:11 pm

80's, you equated "Christian" and Catholic.  Fundamentalists don't accept Catholics as Christians, or at least some don't.

And still we go on with all this religion stuff.  Ok, since no one wants to discuss anthropology or history I'll play in your court.

So a few questions raised by biblical law.  Lev 25:44 says we can own slaves as long as we buy them from neighboring countries.  A reverand friend of mine said that in the U.S., that only applied to Mexicans.  Why can't I own a Canadian?  In addition, Exodus 21:7 says that I can sell my daughter into slavery.  Having a pesky teenaged daughter, I'm thinking of taking advantage of this.  My question is, what would be a fair price?  Another problem.  Lev15:19-24 tells us that "during that special time" women are unclean and we should have no contact with them.  My question is, how do you know?  I've tried asking, but when I do, women take offense - one even slapped me.  In addition, Lev 11:6-8 tells us that touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean.  Can we play football if we wear gloves?  Lev 1:9 tells us that God likes the aroma of a burning sacrificial bull, but burning dead animals within village limits is illegal.  How can I handle this problem?  Lev 21:20 also says that we must not approach the alter of God if our eyesight is defective.  I need glasses for both reading and driving.  My question is, is there any "wiggle room" here?  I have a neighbor who insists on working on the sabbath, mowing his lawn and such, but Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death.  Are believers moraly obligated to do it?  How?  And how do they avoid prosecution?  In the same vien, I know a farmer who plants two different crops in the same field (corn and beans), and his wife wears clothing made from 2 different fibers (cotton/polyester), both outlawd in Lev 19:19, and they both blaspheme a lot.  Do I really have to get the whole village together to stone them (Rev 24:10-16) or can we just burn their house down late some night, as is required for those who sleep with their inlaws (Lev20:14).

Given all this foolishness, that may at some point have made sense in the world of the anchient hebrews, how can any thinking person insist on a literal interpretation of the bible?  It IS a good book, with lots of good stuff to say, but a literal acceptance seems to get you into a bunch of trouble with the law, your neighbors, and some of your coworkers.  So can we please move this thread way from the bible and back to the topic?

Clearly, marriage (as in men and women getting it on in a socially sanctioned situation) is very old.  As I suggested above, probable about 40,000 years old and maybe older.  There are many variations in different cultures.  Ok.

One of the many accusations against gay people that I have heard is that they are promiscuous.  Some no doubt are, as are straights.  If this is a big issue, wouldn't we want to encourage gay marriage, thereby encouraging stable unions, monogamy, and a reduction of STD's?  Seems logical to me.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/19/04 at 4:16 pm

Some say the Bible should be taken literally, others symbolic.  Either which way, when it was written slaves were acceptable, that just doesn't play out today.  And AGAIN, I think we can all agree that gay marriage and slavery are quite different.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/19/04 at 4:26 pm


Some say the Bible should be taken literally, others symbolic.  Either which way, when it was written slaves were acceptable, that just doesn't play out today.  And AGAIN, I think we can all agree that gay marriage and slavery are quite different.


Nor did I compare them.  I simply listed some of the biblical laws as set out in HOLY scripture (your "holy", not mine).  Why is the biblical prohibition against homosexuality  any different (more binding) than the biblical acceptance of slavery?  Do you get to pick and chose, or do you think slavery should be ok?  Seems to me you either have to accept the bible as written or as alligory/guide/whatever.  But if you accept the second, than you give all of us the right to reject what we don't like in the bible. So it condones slavery and condems homosexuality.  You need to accept both or recognize that neither need be guiding principles in the formulation of public policy, which is what this thread is about.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/19/04 at 4:37 pm

Well Don for the fourth time now, I DO NOT USE THE BIBLE OR GOD FOR MY VIEWS ON GAY MARRIAGE.  I am a STRONG believer in majority rule, I really am.  If 2/3rds of this country wanted to ban freedom of speech, I would want this country to do it, NO JOKE.  OVER 2/3rds of this country do not want gay marriage, up to 71% in some polls, you cannot change the meaning of marriage because of some super-small minority group that can easily get a fair shake with civil unions.  Allowing gay marriages in Massachusetts (the ONLY state that has made it legal) has had negative effects.  Ohio has not only banned gay marriage in its state constitution but civil unions too.  And I think its a shame because I wish states would make civil unions legal and now Ohio gay couples won't have a shot at civil unions for a very long time because its nearly impossible to overturn something in a state constitution.  Mississippi will ban gay marriage in its state constitution this Nov., Georgia is on the verge on passing it in the senate, and other southern and midwestern states are looking into it.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/19/04 at 6:02 pm


Well Don for the fourth time now, I DO NOT USE THE BIBLE OR GOD FOR MY VIEWS ON GAY MARRIAGE.  I am a STRONG believer in majority rule, I really am. 

Would you favor abolishing the electoral college in favor of a simple popular majority?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/19/04 at 8:02 pm


So a few questions raised by biblical law.  Lev 25:44 says we can own slaves as long as we buy them from neighboring countries.  A reverand friend of mine said that in the U.S., that only applied to Mexicans.  Why can't I own a Canadian?  In addition, Exodus 21:7 says that I can sell my daughter into slavery. ...


You should always quote your source. I know I've read this before; isn't it a letter someone wrote to Dr. Laura?



Well Don for the fourth time now, I DO NOT USE THE BIBLE OR GOD FOR MY VIEWS ON GAY MARRIAGE.  I am a STRONG believer in majority rule, I really am.  If 2/3rds of this country wanted to ban freedom of speech, I would want this country to do it, NO JOKE.


That is a sad thought, because that would mean that many people had decided to no longer honor the basic principles of life, liverty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think if it reaches that point, we should just draft a new Constitution, since we'd already be throwing the old one out the window.

Instead of addressing the popular vote, for the moment, let me ask you how you would vote. Surely you don't base your own vote on how you think everyone else would be voting?

So, why would you vote against gay marriage and/or vote for an amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman? What is your reason?

Do you agree with the basic principle of a government that should protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and not interfere with our personal lives? Or do you think the government has other rights or responsibilities to impose laws that go beyond the basic protection of rights?

Why do you think the government should recognize marriage? Why do you think it should only recognize marriages between one man and one woman?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/20/04 at 9:16 pm


Well Don for the fourth time now, I DO NOT USE THE BIBLE OR GOD FOR MY VIEWS ON GAY MARRIAGE.  I am a STRONG believer in majority rule, I really am.  If 2/3rds of this country wanted to ban freedom of speech, I would want this country to do it, NO JOKE.  OVER 2/3rds of this country do not want gay marriage, up to 71% in some polls, you cannot change the meaning of marriage because of some super-small minority group that can easily get a fair shake with civil unions.  Allowing gay marriages in Massachusetts (the ONLY state that has made it legal) has had negative effects.  Ohio has not only banned gay marriage in its state constitution but civil unions too.  And I think its a shame because I wish states would make civil unions legal and now Ohio gay couples won't have a shot at civil unions for a very long time because its nearly impossible to overturn something in a state constitution.  Mississippi will ban gay marriage in its state constitution this Nov., Georgia is on the verge on passing it in the senate, and other southern and midwestern states are looking into it.


Rather than going into a long discussion of how your notion of the "traditional" definition of marriage is tied into the biblical definition, lets just say that I never suggsted that you used a biblical definition.  You just don't want to see the definition changed.  Fair enough, regardless of why.  You may be right, that the best strategy for gay couples would be to press for civil unions.  I'm not gay (as Cat will attest) so really can't share the emotional content of this struggle.  I'm also not black, as even though I am Puerto Rican, and have been called a "spik" (whatever that means), I am light enough that most people who see me think I'm "white".  My point is that maybe it is up to those who face descrimination to choose the  best way to expose/oppose it, and those of us who also oppose descrimination to support them.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/20/04 at 9:27 pm




You should always quote your source. I know I've read this before; isn't it a letter someone wrote to Dr. Laura?


Could be.  There was a similar exchange on The West Wing, but I did a h*ll of a lot of research to come up with the letter I wrote to my local paper, from which my post was taken, and so felt no need to cite a source other than the original,which I consulted.  Sometimes great minds think in the same way, as in Newton and Libnitz (I think) both inventing calculus (I'm not equating my limited efforts to that brwakthrough).

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/20/04 at 9:47 pm




That is a sad thought, because that would mean that many people had decided to no longer honor the basic principles of life, liverty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think if it reaches that point, we should just draft a new Constitution, since we'd already be throwing the old one out the window.

Instead of addressing the popular vote, for the moment, let me ask you how you would vote. Surely you don't base your own vote on how you think everyone else would be voting?

So, why would you vote against gay marriage and/or vote for an amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman? What is your reason?

Do you agree with the basic principle of a government that should protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and not interfere with our personal lives? Or do you think the government has other rights or responsibilities to impose laws that go beyond the basic protection of rights?

Why do you think the government should recognize marriage? Why do you think it should only recognize marriages between one man and one woman?


THese are excellent questions, and are addressed, as I have said before, I think they are adressed by Madison, in "the Federalist # 10".  He says that "Pue democracy can admit" of no control over the passion of faction, "for in ever case" the will of the majority will sacrifice the interests of th minority, and especially their right to property.  I'm surprised that such a strong property rights advocate like GWB2004 doesn't refer to such an advocate, and seems reluctanmt to evan read his words.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/20/04 at 10:14 pm


Could be.  There was a similar exchange on The West Wing, but I did a h*ll of a lot of research to come up with the letter I wrote to my local paper, from which my post was taken, and so felt no need to cite a source other than the original,which I consulted.  Sometimes great minds think in the same way, as in Newton and Libnitz (I think) both inventing calculus (I'm not equating my limited efforts to that brwakthrough).


It's more than similar.

The phrases added for humor:
"Why can't I own a Canadian?"
"what would be a fair price?"
"how do you know?  I've tried asking, but when I do, women take offense"

are almost exactly like those in the original, which has been reprinted all over the internet, such as here:
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

That's not merely a similar line of thought; it's plagiarism.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Class of 84 on 06/21/04 at 12:16 am

Well...........so what do you think? Gay marriage, for it or against it?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/21/04 at 12:19 am




THese are excellent questions, and are addressed, as I have said before, I think they are adressed by Madison, in "the Federalist # 10".  He says that "Pue democracy can admit" of no control over the passion of faction, "for in ever case" the will of the majority will sacrifice the interests of th minority, and especially their right to property.  I'm surprised that such a strong property rights advocate like GWB2004 doesn't refer to such an advocate, and seems reluctanmt to evan read his words.

The majority-minority question is tricky.  The Framers founded this country with the intention to represent a minority--white, Protestestant, property-owning males.  You could be an adult male WASP, and be landless and penniless, in which case you were rabble.  In 1790, I would fit into the the latter class, and be disenfranchised!  At the dawn of America, only about 4% of the population had the vote.
Now we live in a vast nation of nearly 300 million.  All adult citizens, regardless of race, religion, sex, or wealth have the right to vote (unless Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush can help it).
This causes a lot of strife.  Massachusetts Republicans are quite different from Texas Republicans.  Millions of Republicans vote GOP for economic reasons, but are alienated by the disproportionate power wielded by the Christian Right. 
Similarly, you've got Democrats the likes of John Breaux, Joe Lieberman, and Zell Miller, who are alienated by the party's liberal social values.
Our United States is becoming regionally balkanized.  The red and blue electoral college map doesn't quite tell the whole story.  The Liberal faction tends to be Northeastern, West Coast, Chicago megalopolis, and urban.  The righ-wing factions tends to be Southern, Great Plains, Rockies, and rural.
However, in much of the red, there are many pockets of blue.  The blue minority is restless and resentful.  They have not been able to wield their power the way the rich and religious right have because liberals/Democrats are not centrally organized and don't have nearly as much money.
In the blue states, there are similar pockets of angry red.  Talk radio listeners will note callers will sometimes say they're calling from "the peoples republic of Massachusetts," or "the people's republic of Vermont."  The momentum the "conservative" movement has given the malcontents in the liberal regions is unnerving.   It's unnerving to me, anyway!

Class of 84 wrote well...........so what do you think? Gay marriage, for it or against it?
I'm for it.  It's time to take a stand--hard and unwavering--against this right-wing juggernaut!!!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/21/04 at 7:56 am


With the "Don't bother me with it" section, I was yelling.  It annoys the hell out of me when people just pipe up out of nowhere and hook into you.  All I did was answer a question according to what I believe; then someone(not the person who posed the question) pipes up and gets stuck into me, hence, my irritation.  As for bold, well, sometimes it simply means that you should hit that particular word (such as in this post).  This can be helpful when trying to understand sentences.

Does it sound like I am a bit defensive?  Well I am sure you're trying to help, but giving me a lecture and telling me how I should and should not respond to people isn't gonna help that very much is it?

Fluffy.


Thanks for answering, and I am sorry if my reply upset you Fluffy.

I took your reply as being to 80's Cheerleader as she did.  Personally I found your post to be not at all considerate of others' points of view.  When you choose to follow up with statements like "I don't care what you think or do" it is simply inciting the situation.....

As for what I said, I said it because I do believe it will give you more creedence in your statements.  For the record, defensive was not the word I would have chosen. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/21/04 at 8:45 am




I'm not quite sure what you're talking about at the start of that response, so let me clear it up:

"Do you think gay marriage lessens your God-blessed union?" - That was what you asked.  I said that in our(Christian) belief it does.  For that reason we protest gay marriages.  If it's scripture that you're after in regards to this, check out 1Corinthians 6:9-10 or Romans 1:18-27.  You wanted to know, so I told you.  You might not agree with God or with the Christian belief of Him, well hey, that's between you and God. It's none of my business.  I'm not your judge and jury.

If you are going to debate us on our beliefs, then you need to know them.  The Bible is the best selling book of all time, so it shouldn't be hard to get your hands on one; Try reading through it to get a better understanding on what we believe.  It's big and there are translation issues that make things a little tricky sometimes (read my response to 80's cheerleader for example).  The Word of God is not what Christians do; It's we aim to do, but inevitably, we fall short as all are sinners.  Satan tries to convince evryone that the Word is rubbish by pointing out everyone's faults.  Everything we believe is in the Bible.  That's it!  Nothing else! There are no secrets or hidden doors.  What we believe is there in black and white for all to see.  That's why I said that you didn't have to take my word for it, but to check it out for yourself.

On a brighter note, I'm glad to hear those who don't know Him, still like to believe in Him....perhaps there's hope yet.

Fluffy.
8)
Whoa, no more catnip for you, Fluffy.  When you have to get insulting (I KNOW where to by a bible), and when you STILL can't answer a question, you might want to refrain from participating in a debate.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/21/04 at 1:07 pm


God will not bless homosexuality.  Obviously this detracts from the "union".


Does that detract only from the gay unions, or from your heterosexual union as well? If you say it detracts from your marriage, can you explain how?

And do you think we should base laws on whether or not God will bless someone (or something) as a result?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/21/04 at 2:19 pm





Sorry dude, I wasn't trying to offend you.  It was 80's cheerleader that got my back up.  You may have mistaken my remarks to you as sarcastic or patronising, when infact, I was trying to lay it out methodically(for my benefit too; Communication isn't my strong point).

As for the question, I gave you a couple of scriptures regarding gays.  In a nutshell what they say is - that in or out of marriage, homosexuality is a sin(go and check it if you wish, I just couldn't be bothered to write them out).  God will not bless homosexuality.  Obviously this detracts from the "union".  So there is the answer to the question as far as the Christian belief is concerned.  Other religions and people may have varying viewpoints on this topic.  That's nothing to do with me, so I don't know what they are.  I don't apologise for my views on this topic as they are in accordance with my faith.  I hope this clears it up...

Cheers

Fluffy. 8)

Actually Fluffy, while I don't mind being called "Dude", I am a woman (My cajones probably threw you off  ;D)

Anyhoo, once you post in a thread like this, it is open to debate.  (Which is why 80's Cheerleader is free to comment on your posts and you are free to comment on mine even though the original question was not directed at you.)  FBVP was trying to give you some advice as to better build  those communication skills you say you lack.  It will help you to get your point across instead of seeming like you're just blowing smoke up our hoo-ha's.

Finally, I understand the scriptures you have listed, but again, these do not answer the question.  Infact, the question I asked cannot be answered with God's words and this is our impasse.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/21/04 at 6:10 pm

This question is a tough one for me.

I am a Born Again Christian and I am one of those that believe that the bible isn't symbolic.  I believe that the act is a sin.  Therefore, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. 

That being said, I also believe that we need to take care of the problems in our own life before we try to tell others what is wrong or right.

I try deal with others with the following passage in mind. 
(Mat 7:1-3 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own?)

All that said, right now I think that the govt should be able to sanction it, but if the churches don't want to then that is their right.  I think that there are worse things in this world to worry about than gay marriage. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/21/04 at 6:32 pm

Thanks, Cheer.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/21/04 at 6:47 pm


I am a Born Again Christian and I am one of those that believe that the bible isn't symbolic.  I believe that the act is a sin.  Therefore, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. 

That being said, I also believe that we need to take care of the problems in our own life before we try to tell others what is wrong or right.


I don't know that that's the best way to approach it. After all, if someone could claim that they had everything - or almost everything - right with their own life, could they then support laws telling others how to live?

It really should be a question - even on the personal level - of whether you think the law should enforce Biblical morals.

The Bible says adultery is wrong. (In fact, it's one of the Ten Commandments, so you'd think that'd be a worse sin than homosexuality.) So should adultery be illegal? Should we have a constitutional amendment making it illegal?
The Bible says premarital sex is wrong. Should it be illegal?

(This would at least be a good argument against sodomy laws - since no one seems to be pushing for fornication laws at the same time.)

And when it comes to marriage, you really need to answer whether the government's "marriage" is even the same thing as God's "marriage"  - and if it is, why on earth is the government in charge of it?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Chrisrj on 06/21/04 at 8:57 pm



I am a Born Again Christian and I am one of those that believe that the bible isn't symbolic.  I believe that the act is a sin.  Therefore, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. 



With all due respect, I have to ask, what if the act of heterosexuality was considered a sin?  How would you feel? 
I definitely think everyone should be treated equally in this country, so I voted that marriage should be recognized. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/21/04 at 9:05 pm


With all due respect, I have to ask, what if the act of heterosexuality was considered a sin?


Who says it isn't? ;)

I Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/21/04 at 9:05 pm




With all due respect, I have to ask, what if the act of heterosexuality was considered a sin?  How would you feel?  


Good question.  If it were something that was always in the bible (which I believe is the word of God) then I would be against heterosexuality.  I would treat it as I do homosexuality, now.  I don't believe it is right so I don't practice it.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/21/04 at 9:08 pm




Who says it isn't? ;)

I Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.



Don't forget verses 2 and 3:

"But since there is so much immorality each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.  The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband." ;)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/22/04 at 3:39 am



"Immoral sex" (outside the bounds of marriage) is considered a sin, no matter who does it ;)

So how was Jesus conceived, then?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/22/04 at 3:54 am



So how was Jesus conceived, then?

"Immaculate conception" by the Almighty Himself, for she is the Virgin Mary.  This is a very big deal in the Catholic church.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: philbo on 06/22/04 at 3:55 am



"Immaculate conception" by the Almighty Himself, for she is the Virgin Mary.  This is a very big deal in the Catholic church.

It's still outside wedlock, though.  I'd have thought that was inconceivable...


..(sorry, couldn't resist)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/22/04 at 7:51 am


This question is a tough one for me.

I am a Born Again Christian and I am one of those that believe that the bible isn't symbolic.  I believe that the act is a sin.  Therefore, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. 

That being said, I also believe that we need to take care of the problems in our own life before we try to tell others what is wrong or right.

I try deal with others with the following passage in mind. 
(Mat 7:1-3 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own?)

All that said, right now I think that the govt should be able to sanction it, but if the churches don't want to then that is their right.  I think that there are worse things in this world to worry about than gay marriage. 

Thank you for answering in your own words.  You can think outside the box and still maintain your faith.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/22/04 at 2:49 pm


"Immaculate conception" by the Almighty Himself, for she is the Virgin Mary.  This is a very big deal in the Catholic church.


I thought the "immaculate conception" was the Catholic theory on the conception of Mary, as a way of explaining how she could be considered worthy of carrying God's son. (They believe Mary was born without original sin, I think.)

<Edited>
And Mary's virginity is a big deal in many or most Christian denominations. It underscores the miraculous nature of Jesus' conception.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/22/04 at 2:55 pm




I thought the "immaculate conception" was the Catholic theory on the conception of Mary, as a way of explaining how she could be considered worthy of carrying God's son. (They believe Mary was born without original sin, I think.)
You are correct.  That is what the Catholic church teaches.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/22/04 at 4:25 pm


Since Vermont passed its Civil Unions law and the Mass supreme court ruled it unconsitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry this has become a flashpoint in the cultural wars.  What say you?


I have made posts on this subject before, but I am going to throw in yet another one.

I believe that Gay Marriage itself is unconstitutional.  This is for the simple reason that MARRIAGE is a religious institution.  And the Constitution forbids the Government to interfere with religion.

HOWEVER, Civil Unions are a Government function.  I fully support and endorse the right for gay couples to enter a Civil Union, with all the legal support of marriage.  Now I know this may sound like a symantic arguement, but there is good foundation behind it.

Marriage is a religious institution, going back thousands of years.  It is a commitment made before God.  It has existed long before laws and governments have.  It has carried through into Law, but Marriage and Civil Union are NOT the same thing.

If you have the ceremony performed in a church or by clergy, it is Marriage.  It is considered to be ordained by God.  If you have the ceremony performed in a Courthouse by a Justice Of The Peace, it is a Civil Union, and is only ordained by the State.

This is evident by the last words of such a ceremony.  In a religious ceremony, God is brought up along with the state.  In a Civil Union, only the state is mentioned.  This is one of the biggest reasons San Francisco is in trouble now.  The CITY or COUNTY has no right or authority to endorse marriage or civil unions, only the State has that right.  Having performed marriages in California, I can affirm that the ending words are either "By the power vested in me by God and the State of California" or "By the power vested in me by the State Of California".  There is no legal ceremony that ends "By the power vested in me by the City/County of San Francisco".

I think the entire arguement is being sidetracked by a single word, which is meaningless in this situation.  Civil Union is the word that should be used and fought for.  This would give gay couples all the legal responsibilites and protections of "marriage", without involving religion into the issue.  And there are groups already talking about sueing churches that refuse to grant "their constitutional rights" by refuseing to perform a "gay marriage".

Marriage is a tricky thing in and of itself.  Several of the break-away Mormon churches perform polygamous marriages.  But none of them are recognized because they violate state laws.  In the same way, Muslims in the US are forbidden from having polygamous marriages, because they are illegal.  So if "Gay Marriage" is forced down the throats of churches, you may well see these come up, because of the violation of THEIR "constitutional rights".  This is just part of the problem of trying to tie together "religious marriage" and "civil union".  In the US, you can have your cat marry your dog, but the Government will not recognize such a union as legal.

Now to show how grey this area is, my best friend is a lesbian.  She lives with her common-law wife, and are hopeing like me that someday Civil Unions will be recognized for them.  And yes, I will call and consider such a union a "Marriage".  But without that one word in the law, it is legal and has every chance to pass and be recognized.

Of course, I wonder how many realize that with this legal recognition will come the requirement to go through Divorce Court to dissolve such a union, in addition to Alimony and all the other problems us heterosexual couples have had to go through.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: GWBush2004 on 06/22/04 at 4:44 pm




I have made posts on this subject before, but I am going to throw in yet another one.

I believe that Gay Marriage itself is unconstitutional.  This is for the simple reason that MARRIAGE is a religious institution.  And the Constitution forbids the Government to interfere with religion.

HOWEVER, Civil Unions are a Government function.  I fully support and endorse the right for gay couples to enter a Civil Union, with all the legal support of marriage.  Now I know this may sound like a symantic arguement, but there is good foundation behind it.

Marriage is a religious institution, going back thousands of years.  It is a commitment made before God.  It has existed long before laws and governments have.  It has carried through into Law, but Marriage and Civil Union are NOT the same thing.

If you have the ceremony performed in a church or by clergy, it is Marriage.  It is considered to be ordained by God.  If you have the ceremony performed in a Courthouse by a Justice Of The Peace, it is a Civil Union, and is only ordained by the State.

This is evident by the last words of such a ceremony.  In a religious ceremony, God is brought up along with the state.  In a Civil Union, only the state is mentioned.  This is one of the biggest reasons San Francisco is in trouble now.  The CITY or COUNTY has no right or authority to endorse marriage or civil unions, only the State has that right.  Having performed marriages in California, I can affirm that the ending words are either "By the power vested in me by God and the State of California" or "By the power vested in me by the State Of California".  There is no legal ceremony that ends "By the power vested in me by the City/County of San Francisco".

I think the entire arguement is being sidetracked by a single word, which is meaningless in this situation.  Civil Union is the word that should be used and fought for.  This would give gay couples all the legal responsibilites and protections of "marriage", without involving religion into the issue.  And there are groups already talking about sueing churches that refuse to grant "their constitutional rights" by refuseing to perform a "gay marriage".

Marriage is a tricky thing in and of itself.  Several of the break-away Mormon churches perform polygamous marriages.  But none of them are recognized because they violate state laws.  In the same way, Muslims in the US are forbidden from having polygamous marriages, because they are illegal.  So if "Gay Marriage" is forced down the throats of churches, you may well see these come up, because of the violation of THEIR "constitutional rights".  This is just part of the problem of trying to tie together "religious marriage" and "civil union".  In the US, you can have your cat marry your dog, but the Government will not recognize such a union as legal.

Now to show how grey this area is, my best friend is a lesbian.  She lives with her common-law wife, and are hopeing like me that someday Civil Unions will be recognized for them.  And yes, I will call and consider such a union a "Marriage".  But without that one word in the law, it is legal and has every chance to pass and be recognized.

Of course, I wonder how many realize that with this legal recognition will come the requirement to go through Divorce Court to dissolve such a union, in addition to Alimony and all the other problems us heterosexual couples have had to go through.


Very smartly written and well worded.  I agree 100%.  Massachusetts may allow gay couples (even though that may be overturned), there are still 49 other states, and there is NO WAY any southern state will allow gay marriages.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/22/04 at 5:16 pm


Actually, I don't think most Christian denominations revere Mary the way the Catholics do.  I could be wrong, but I think the "Hail Mary" is a Catholic prayer.


They do not revere her or pray to her the way the Catholics do. They do not hold the same belief that she was immaculately conceived and born without original sin. However, they do believe she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. They differ on the question of whether she remained a virgin; since the Bible says Joseph "knew her not till Jesus was born", many take that to mean he did "know" her after that.

The non-Catholic view of Mary is generally that she was blessed and chosen of God to do an important task (like Noah), but she was not without sin (also like Noah). She was just a human, and like all humans, had sinned and come short of the glory of God.



I believe that Gay Marriage itself is unconstitutional.  This is for the simple reason that MARRIAGE is a religious institution.  And the Constitution forbids the Government to interfere with religion.

HOWEVER, Civil Unions are a Government function.  I fully support and endorse the right for gay couples to enter a Civil Union, with all the legal support of marriage.  Now I know this may sound like a symantic arguement, but there is good foundation behind it.

Marriage is a religious institution, going back thousands of years.  It is a commitment made before God.  It has existed long before laws and governments have.


So, if I'm reading your statements correctly, what you actually mean is that all marriage is unconstitutional. After all, you said:

"MARRIAGE is a religious institution.  And the Constitution forbids the Government to interfere with religion."

Doesn't that mean that the government should not have anything to do with "marriage"?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/22/04 at 5:19 pm


Very smartly written and well worded.  I agree 100%.  Massachusetts may allow gay couples (even though that may be overturned), there are still 49 other states, and there is NO WAY any southern state will allow gay marriages.


Thanks GW.

This is a very divisive issue, as can be seen by how 80's Cheerleader responded.

To me (and the law), Civil Union and Marriage are 2 different things.  I can perform a Marriage.  I can Marry 2 men or 2 women, or even 1 man and 2 women.  But this marriage has no legal standing.  It is not the MARRIAGE that is the issue, but the legal defintion of a Civil Union.

And there are differences between Civil Union and Common Law.  You can leave a Common Law spouse, with no intervention from the state.  Just move out and it is disolved.  In the same way, there is no protection from testifying in court against a common law spouse, nor is there protection when it comes to property disputes at the dissolution of such a union.

I wish that they would just drop the word "Marriage", and concentrate on "Civil Union", which is the REAL issue.

And no, Civil Union and Marriage are different things.  It is common useage to call both of them "Marriage", but that is simply not true.  Marriage is a religious institution, and Civil Union is just as the word states, Civil.

And while in the state you were in the state was not mentioned, once again that varies from state to state.  I was the DJ at a wedding just this weekend, and the "State Of Alabama" was never said.  But in my wedding in California (and in the 3 I performed in California), I had to say "State Of California" for it to be legal.

Of course, I seriously doubt that the marriage would have been voided if I had NOT said it.  In fact, in California, you can have one of the shortest marriage ceremonies in the nation.  It can go like this:

Presiding Authority:  Do You?
Man: Yes
Presiding Authority:  Do You?
Woman:  Yes
Presiding Authority:  By the power granted by the State Of California, I pronounce you Man and Wife.

That's it.  I know because I *ALMOST* performed one like that, but the wife-to-be shot the idea down for some reason.  :D

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/22/04 at 5:24 pm


So, if I'm reading your statements correctly, what you actually mean is that all marriage is unconstitutional. After all, you said:

"MARRIAGE is a religious institution.  And the Constitution forbids the Government to interfere with religion."

Doesn't that mean that the government should not have anything to do with "marriage"?


Not at all.  Governments allow "Civil Unions".  And within the allowances of the definition of such a union, it recognizes a Marriage as such a union.

To make it simple, All legal marriages are Civil Unions, but not all Civil Unions are marriages.  It is the common useage of "Marriage" that causes us to see them as the same thing.  This is why I use the term "Legal Marriage".  There are "illegal marriages", such as between adults and minors, minors and minors, polygamous groups, and same-sex couples.  These may be "Marriages", but without the authority of a "Legal Civil Union", they are not recognized by the state.

This goes to show once again how the people are fighting to get the wrong thing legalized.  If they want Civil Unions legalized, I am 100% in favor of that.  Just drop the word "Marriage", it is incorrect and just causes confusion.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/22/04 at 5:53 pm


Not at all.  Governments allow "Civil Unions".  And within the allowances of the definition of such a union, it recognizes a Marriage as such a union.


I have never heard or seen the government refer to a legal marriage as a civil union.

That is precisely why we have this problem: the government adopted the word "marriage" for its legal civil unions and now people are upset because the legal civil union titled "marriage" might be expanded beyond the common social or religious definition of the word "marriage".

I have not heard any politician suggest dropping the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions. Instead, they all seem to suggest that there will be two separate types of unions:

1. Marriage - this would be defined as a union between one man and one woman, and would have to be recognized by every state in the union.
2. Civil union - this is what some states could offer to same-sex couples, but other states would not be forced to recognize them.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: karen on 06/23/04 at 3:57 am


ISTM that these past few posts are about the crux of the argument.

As a non-USian I can't see why so many people are arguing that there is such a difference between "marriage" and "civil union".  I was married in a church, my aunt and uncle were married in a Registry Office, but neither of us is considered differently because we chose to be married in different places.

Marriage is a legal ceremony which can take place in any registered place in the UK.  It can be a church, registry office, stately home, hotel etc etc.  Any place that has been approved for marriages and has a registered person organising the ceremony (be they church official or not).



1. Marriage - this would be defined as a union between one man and one woman, and would have to be recognized by every state in the union.
2. Civil union - this is what some states could offer to same-sex couples, but other states would not be forced to recognize them.


#2 just strikes me as daft.  Why should you be able to enter into a civil union, with all the benefits and rights that confers, in one state and not have it recognised elsewhere in the same country?  If I got married in Scotland it would still be recognised in England.  Why should the States be any different?

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/23/04 at 8:22 am

The governor of my state, Massachusetts, was in DC yesterday campaigning for the Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.  Gov. Romney says, "every child deserves a mother and a father," and that gay marriage will be harmful to the proper upbringing of children.  It's only homophobia disguised as concern for children.
Mitt Romeny doesn't lose any sleep over the children of Massachusetts who live in poverty, squalor, and crime-ridden neighborhoods.  He has made no special trips to Washington to fight for the children's rights to quality housing, good nutrition, proper healthcare, and safe streets.  But heaven forbid Heather have two mommies under any circumstance!

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/23/04 at 10:52 am

Actually, a great many words are not used correctly.  This is due to both "common useage", and a degree of innocent ignorance.

If a cop kills a crominal in the line of duty, it is still a homocide.  Although we normally use the word "homocide" in the event of a murder, the word is actually much more broad then that.

It is the same way with Marriage.  Sometimes you may hear the word "Legal Marriage" tacked on.  This is to help people (lawyers most often" to differentiate between a Legal Marriage, and another form of marriage (like common law).

This also helps to show when a marriage may NOT be legal.  Bigamy is a good example of this.  If you are already married, no future marriages are recognized unless they are done AFTER a dissolution has been completed.  It may even be performed by a recognized religion, and such religion may recognize it, but it carries no legal status.

This goes right back to the homocide anology.  While all murders are homocide, not all homocides are murder.  All legal marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages.

And to go back to what Catwoman said earlier, I have attended both legal and symbolic handfasting ceremonies.  As long as the proper paperwork has been filled out with the state, and the person performing the ceremony is recognized as legal authority, then a handfasting ceremony may very well be legal.  Without such paperwork and authority, it is only a common-law marriage.

Now "Legal Authority" varies from state to state.  In California, you can get a free on-line ordination from a web site like http://www.ficotw.org/.  In California, just filling out the webform makes you recognized clergy.  But some states have more strict requirements.

Granted, "Civil Union" is a legal term, and is equal with "Legal Marriage".  It is semantics to try and tell the difference, but it is a difference that causes these problems.

About 8 years ago, California made a new class of union, the "Registered Domestic Partner".  This gave partners of either sex eligable in the state for all the benefits of Marriage in reguards to insurance and inheritance.  It also allowed these partners such legal rights as hospital visitation and visitation of non-biological children in the event of dissolution.  About the only major difference was that it did not give the protection against testifying against such a partner in a court.

This was a law designed to give same-sex partners a more equal footing, just short of "Legal Marriage".  In fact, in 2003 Governor Davis expanded the law to include state and financial responsibilities.  Short of allowing these partners to collect Federal benefits (which California does not have the right to give), it is just half a step short of marriage.  Quite a few "Domestic Partners" even go as far as having ceremonies performed in conjunction with their new status.

I find it ironic that it is in California that we saw the hardest fights to go around the law and to force the issue.  Instead, they would have been better off trying to further expand the law already in effect.

And myself, I do consider common-law and same sex partnerships "marriages".  But that is how I look at them, not how the law looks at them.  When same sex civil unions are recognized, I will consider those Marriages also.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/23/04 at 1:15 pm


About 8 years ago, California made a new class of union, the "Registered Domestic Partner".  This gave partners of either sex eligable in the state for all the benefits of Marriage in reguards to insurance and inheritance.  It also allowed these partners such legal rights as hospital visitation and visitation of non-biological children in the event of dissolution.  About the only major difference was that it did not give the protection against testifying against such a partner in a court.

This was a law designed to give same-sex partners a more equal footing, just short of "Legal Marriage".  In fact, in 2003 Governor Davis expanded the law to include state and financial responsibilities.  Short of allowing these partners to collect Federal benefits (which California does not have the right to give), it is just half a step short of marriage.  Quite a few "Domestic Partners" even go as far as having ceremonies performed in conjunction with their new status.


But by making it "Registered Domestic Partnerships" instead of "marriage", they ensured that no other state would be forced to recognize the union. It's only valid within the state of California.

That's a very big part of the argument - some states won't want to recognize any form of same-sex union, but might be required to by the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution if some other state issues those unions as "marriages".



Gov. Romney says, "every child deserves a mother and a father," and that gay marriage will be harmful to the proper upbringing of children.  It's only homophobia disguised as concern for children.


I would think that would offend single parents just as much as gay couples. Were women supposed to remain married to their children's fathers even if they suffer abuse? Should widowed parents remarry because they can't support their child alone? Should young single mothers marry the man who fathered their child even if it was the result of one frivolous night and they are destined to divorce after a few years anyway?

How about "every child does better with two parents"? Even that would offend some single parents, but it would probably be more true than what the governor is promoting.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/23/04 at 2:09 pm



I would think that would offend single parents just as much as gay couples. Were women supposed to remain married to their children's fathers even if they suffer abuse? Should widowed parents remarry because they can't support their child alone? Should young single mothers marry the man who fathered their child even if it was the result of one frivolous night and they are destined to divorce after a few years anyway?

How about "every child does better with two parents"? Even that would offend some single parents, but it would probably be more true than what the governor is promoting.

Womberty, you are betraying the principles of being a good Republican citizen.  You are asking questions !  Please, PIETY not  INQUIRY!
;)

Mushroom wrote:
If a cop kills a crominal in the line of duty, it is still a homocide.  Although we normally use the word "homocide" in the event of a murder, the word is actually much more broad then that.
The death certificate of a convict executed under death penalty statutes also reads
MANNER OF DEATH: HOMICIDE

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/24/04 at 4:31 pm


This question is a tough one for me.

I am a Born Again Christian and I am one of those that believe that the bible isn't symbolic.  I believe that the act is a sin.  Therefore, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. 

That being said, I also believe that we need to take care of the problems in our own life before we try to tell others what is wrong or right.

I try deal with others with the following passage in mind. 
(Mat 7:1-3 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.  Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own?)

All that said, right now I think that the govt should be able to sanction it, but if the churches don't want to then that is their right.  I think that there are worse things in this world to worry about than gay marriage. 



What a wonderful expression of what I see as true Christian values.  I truely admire you personal convictions, and support your right to hold them, and absolutely admire, support, and encourage your resistance to forcing your morality on others.  When each of us gets to the "pearly gates", as I understand it, we will each have to answer for OUR deeds.  If I'm not mistaken, Christ didn't like hatred or hubris, so it looks to me that you are in good stead, although who am I to judge?  Hope THAT interview is a long time coming.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/24/04 at 4:43 pm




It's more than similar.

The phrases added for humor:
"Why can't I own a Canadian?"
"what would be a fair price?"
"how do you know?  I've tried asking, but when I do, women take offense"

are almost exactly like those in the original, which has been reprinted all over the internet, such as here:
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

That's not merely a similar line of thought; it's plagiarism.


Not to be technical, but since, as you point out, it is all in the public domain, and since I put in several hours of research BEFORE I SAW any of this stuff for a letter to my local paper, I would say that 1) it is nowe in the public domain, and 2) that my own claim to originality is valid.  To most folks this is a silly issue, but as an academic, to me it is not.  In fact, I could suggest that the sources you point to plagiarised my words.  I assure you, I did the research, I wrote the letter, and I lifted my own words for my post.  Some times diverse people think in similar ways.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/24/04 at 8:06 pm


As a non-USian I can't see why so many people are arguing that there is such a difference between "marriage" and "civil union".  I was married in a church, my aunt and uncle were married in a Registry Office, but neither of us is considered differently because we chose to be married in different places.

Marriage is a legal ceremony which can take place in any registered place in the UK.  It can be a church, registry office, stately home, hotel etc etc.  Any place that has been approved for marriages and has a registered person organising the ceremony (be they church official or not).


In this context, Karen I certainly see your point. I am going to get married one of these years in a stately home 'civil wedding' style but that doesn't make my commitment any less real than a person in a church or other religious building.

I find that USA is unique in that it has all these states linked together but can not seem to agree on it's own laws.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/24/04 at 9:17 pm


Not to be technical, but since, as you point out, it is all in the public domain, and since I put in several hours of research BEFORE I SAW any of this stuff for a letter to my local paper, I would say that 1) it is nowe in the public domain, and 2) that my own claim to originality is valid.  To most folks this is a silly issue, but as an academic, to me it is not.  In fact, I could suggest that the sources you point to plagiarised my words.  I assure you, I did the research, I wrote the letter, and I lifted my own words for my post.  Some times diverse people think in similar ways.


Much of the content available online is still protected by copyright. Just because something is available for public viewing does not make it part of the public domain. Even when something is part of the public domain, that doesn't mean you should claim it as yours. (I can retell the story of Cinderalla, but I'd be foolish to claim that I wrote it.)

I still find it highly unlikely that two people would separately read the Bible quote on slaves from neighboring countries and come up with the joke, "My friend says this only applies to Mexicans; why can't I own a Canadian?"

So my questions to you would be:

Was the letter to Dr. Laura available online before you submitted your letter to your local paper?
Did you write your version of the Canadian quip before or after seeing the letter to Dr. Laura?

You are right: plagiarism is a serious subject in the academic world. Unfortunately, not all students know how to avoid it. Many are taught that they just need to write what they've read in their own words. However, simply rewording a passage does not mean it's not plagiarism. Yjou should always give credit to your sources, and for a good written piece, you should add your own analysis and conclusions. (This isn't aimed at you specifically; it's just in general.)



I find that USA is unique in that it has all these states linked together but can not seem to agree on it's own laws.


That's because of the way the states are linked. There are some basic laws on the national level, but a lot of things are left to the different states. The states will all have different opinions on different subjects. Marriage laws are already different in different states: for example, Nevada lets people marry after spending one night in a motel within the state; most other states require the spouses to be residents for at least a few months. But even though the way people qualify for marriage is different from one state to the next, once a person gets married, it is recognized in every state.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 06/25/04 at 12:35 am




Fuss and mandamoo can probably clarify this more than I can, but don't different parts of Australia have different laws as well?  I seem to recall that my Aussie friend from another board said something to this effect ???  Pretty much every nation that is subdivided into "states" is similar.

Oh, you mean members of inthe00s, Fussbudget Van Pelt and Mandamoo.  I thought you were referring to something like the Melbourne firm "Fuss and Mandamoo, Attorneys At Law."  As in William K. Fuss, esquire and his junior partner, the Aboriginal Wugga Mandamoo.
:-\\

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/25/04 at 6:24 am


That's because of the way the states are linked. There are some basic laws on the national level, but a lot of things are left to the different states. The states will all have different opinions on different subjects. Marriage laws are already different in different states: for example, Nevada lets people marry after spending one night in a motel within the state; most other states require the spouses to be residents for at least a few months. But even though the way people qualify for marriage is different from one state to the next, once a person gets married, it is recognized in every state.


Hmmm . . . O.k  :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/25/04 at 7:20 am




What a wonderful expression of what I see as true Christian values.  I truely admire you personal convictions, and support your right to hold them, and absolutely admire, support, and encourage your resistance to forcing your morality on others.  When each of us gets to the "pearly gates", as I understand it, we will each have to answer for OUR deeds.  If I'm not mistaken, Christ didn't like hatred or hubris, so it looks to me that you are in good stead, although who am I to judge?  Hope THAT interview is a long time coming.


Thanks.

I look at it this way.  I wish everyone would believe as I believe but since they don't I would only make enemies telling people that they are wrong because they don't hold my beliefs.  I would rather have friends than enemies.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/25/04 at 7:47 am




Fuss and mandamoo can probably clarify this more than I can, but don't different parts of Australia have different laws as well?  I seem to recall that my Aussie friend from another board said something to this effect ???  Pretty much every nation that is subdivided into "states" is similar.


Hey there !

You are right, in effect.

Each State or Territory in Australia has a Parliament which can determine it's own laws.  But the Commonwealth Government (Federal Govt) can override them if it sees fit.

A good case in point is where a few years ago, the Northern Territory Govt legalised assisted suicide, as advocated by Dr Phillip Nitschke (Aus's version of Jack Kevorkian)....

The Commonwealth Govt overruled it and made it unlawful PDQ  :o

But usually, they leave States to make their own decisions.....

From what I have observed of the US compared to Australia, we have our act together somewhat more in terms of common laws between States.

Having said that, we only have 6 States and 2 Territories, as opposed to 50, so that makes it a bit easier  :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/25/04 at 12:17 pm


Thanks.

I look at it this way.  I wish everyone would believe as I believe but since they don't I would only make enemies telling people that they are wrong because they don't hold my beliefs.  I would rather have friends than enemies.


That doesn't quite jive with the traditional Christian view:

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Christianity's not about making friends. (What would Jesus do? I think we already know...)


(That's a little more on the personal level, though; I still think it makes sense for everyone to support laws that uphold the most religious freedom. That's better than letting the majority religion decide which moral code will become law.)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/25/04 at 12:44 pm




Much of the content available online is still protected by copyright. Just because something is available for public viewing does not make it part of the public domain. Even when something is part of the public domain, that doesn't mean you should claim it as yours. (I can retell the story of Cinderalla, but I'd be foolish to claim that I wrote it.)

I still find it highly unlikely that two people would separately read the Bible quote on slaves from neighboring countries and come up with the joke, "My friend says this only applies to Mexicans; why can't I own a Canadian?"

So my questions to you would be:

Was the letter to Dr. Laura available online before you submitted your letter to your local paper?
Did you write your version of the Canadian quip before or after seeing the letter to Dr. Laura?

You are right: plagiarism is a serious subject in the academic world. Unfortunately, not all students know how to avoid it. Many are taught that they just need to write what they've read in their own words. However, simply rewording a passage does not mean it's not plagiarism. Yjou should always give credit to your sources, and for a good written piece, you should add your own analysis and conclusions. (This isn't aimed at you specifically; it's just in general.)




That's because of the way the states are linked. There are some basic laws on the national level, but a lot of things are left to the different states. The states will all have different opinions on different subjects. Marriage laws are already different in different states: for example, Nevada lets people marry after spending one night in a motel within the state; most other states require the spouses to be residents for at least a few months. But even though the way people qualify for marriage is different from one state to the next, once a person gets married, it is recognized in every state.


I wasn't on line when I wrote that letter, and I have  never seen the "Dr Laura" letter.    The Canadian/Mexican quip came out of a conversation I had with a colleague about an article in one of the news  magazines (I forget which one) regarding "slavery" in the U.S. today, most of which ensnares hispanics.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/25/04 at 12:52 pm




Hey there !

You are right, in effect.

Each State or Territory in Australia has a Parliament which can determine it's own laws.  But the Commonwealth Government (Federal Govt) can override them if it sees fit.



Its similar in the States.  States can't adopt laws that violate the Constitution, or that establish standards lower than those set up by Federal law, but can exceed Federal law.  For example, the minimum wage in Vermont is higher than the Federal minimum, but no state can establish a lower one.  States get to set the speed limit too, but the Fed can withold Fed transportation $$$ to pressure them to toe the line.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/25/04 at 2:21 pm


I wasn't on line when I wrote that letter, and I have  never seen the "Dr Laura" letter.


You could read it if you click on the link I gave earlier. ;)


The Canadian/Mexican quip came out of a conversation I had with a colleague about an article in one of the news  magazines (I forget which one) regarding "slavery" in the U.S. today, most of which ensnares hispanics.

Very well, I will accept your word that you did not base your letter on the Dr. Laura one. However, it leads me to wonder if the article you did discuss had somehow drawn from that quip, or if both you and the Dr. Laura letter author were using a similar source that pointed out Hebrew laws of the Old Testament that are not followed today. (Did you actually read through Leviticus looking for questionable laws, or did you find a helpful summary of them?)



Each State or Territory in Australia has a Parliament which can determine it's own laws.  But the Commonwealth Government (Federal Govt) can override them if it sees fit.

A good case in point is where a few years ago, the Northern Territory Govt legalised assisted suicide, as advocated by Dr Phillip Nitschke (Aus's version of Jack Kevorkian)....

The Commonwealth Govt overruled it and made it unlawful PDQ  :o


That sounds a little different from the way our federal government works. Basically, the Constitution puts certain limits on what the states can do, and then the states have a lot of freedom to pass their own laws. If they do something that the other states don't like, but is still constitutional, it takes a lot of effort to get it overturned. We would have to pass an amendment to our constitution giving the federal government the jurisdiction it needs for that issue.

I think Oregon passed an assisted suicide law. The Attorney General tried to block it, but I think the court decision was that he didn't have the authority to do that.

I don't know if you guys have the same principle of "states' rights" that we have here. It means that the state governments are supposed to have some sovereignty and the federal government can't interfere with its decisions as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, but the federal government has its hands tied in a lot of areas.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/25/04 at 2:57 pm




You could read it if you click on the link I gave earlier. ;)




Very well, I will accept your word that you did not base your letter on the Dr. Laura one. However, it leads me to wonder if the article you did discuss had somehow drawn from that quip, or if both you and the Dr. Laura letter author were using a similar source that pointed out Hebrew laws of the Old Testament that are not followed today. (Did you actually read through Leviticus looking for questionable laws, or did you find a helpful summary of them?)




That sounds a little different from the way our federal government works. Basically, the Constitution puts certain limits on what the states can do, and then the states have a lot of freedom to pass their own laws. If they do something that the other states don't like, but is still constitutional, it takes a lot of effort to get it overturned. We would have to pass an amendment to our constitution giving the federal government the jurisdiction it needs for that issue.

I think Oregon passed an assisted suicide law. The Attorney General tried to block it, but I think the court decision was that he didn't have the authority to do that.

I don't know if you guys have the same principle of "states' rights" that we have here. It means that the state governments are supposed to have some sovereignty and the federal government can't interfere with its decisions as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, but the federal government has its hands tied in a lot of areas.


Yea, I could, but why?

Yes, I did re-read Leviticus.  You need to understand the context.  We in Vermont were involved in a debate over "Civil Unions", and lots of people were refering to the bible, so, remembering (from college Lit Masterpieces when I had to read Leviticus) that there was stuff there, I re-read it.

I'm confused about what you mean by "the article I did discuss".  The news mag article was about several cases of latinos brought to this country under work visas and held in virtual "slavery" - not allowed to leave their place of employment etc.  I observed that all the examples were latinos, and said to my colleague "why can't I own a Canadian?"  When I wrote the letter that struck me as a good line.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/25/04 at 5:18 pm

Well, DC, when did you submit your letter to your paper?

If it was before May 2000 and your name is Kent Ashcraft, congratulations! It's yours! ;)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

(Seriously, though, when did your letter get published?)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/25/04 at 5:51 pm


Well, DC, when did you submit your letter to your paper?

If it was before May 2000 and your name is Kent Ashcraft, congratulations! It's yours! ;)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

(Seriously, though, when did your letter get published?)


I can't remember when I submitted the letter, but it was published in the Nov. 26, 2000 Rutland Herald.  You can find them on the web, but I doubt if they would have it up.  If yoiu liker, I could scan it and send it (If Cat know's how to do that - I'm such a jerk at this stuff).

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/25/04 at 6:16 pm


I can't remember when I submitted the letter, but it was published in the Nov. 26, 2000 Rutland Herald.  You can find them on the web, but I doubt if they would have it up.  If yoiu liker, I could scan it and send it (If Cat know's how to do that - I'm such a jerk at this stuff).


You mean this one, I take it:
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/16071
(Let me know if you'd like the link removed, as it gives your name.)

Well, it appears to have been available online before that. Did it take months between submission and printing?


Interestingly, as noted in the Snopes article, one journalist learned a lesson in plagiarism after reprinting the letter:
http://journalism.ukings.ns.ca/kjr/2003-2004/harrison.htm

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/25/04 at 6:38 pm




You mean this one, I take it:
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/16071
(Let me know if you'd like the link removed, as it gives your name.)

Well, it appears to have been available online before that. Did it take months between submission and printing?


Interestingly, as noted in the Snopes article, one journalist learned a lesson in plagiarism after reprinting the letter:
http://journalism.ukings.ns.ca/kjr/2003-2004/harrison.htm


I really can't remember how long it took the Herald to print it.  After all, we are talking 4 years ago about something that was, to me, inconciquential.  I have a very thich file of letter I have written to the Herald. 

But, as I said, we were not on line in 2002, and I never, to this day, have read the letter to Dr Laura.  In fact, the first time I heard of her was on a long trip scaning the radio - looking for some good jazz. - Bummer

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/25/04 at 7:28 pm


But by making it "Registered Domestic Partnerships" instead of "marriage", they ensured that no other state would be forced to recognize the union. It's only valid within the state of California.

That's a very big part of the argument - some states won't want to recognize any form of same-sex union, but might be required to by the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution if some other state issues those unions as "marriages".


THIS is why I so strongly encourage "Civil Unions".

Legally, it is the SAME THING.  And because it removes the word "Marriage", a lot more people will be accepting of it then they would be of "Gay Marriage".

Because of the religious meaning behind the word "Marriage", I do not believe that "Gay Marriage" will ever be legal in this country.  However, by making a federal "Civil Union", giving gay partners the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as straight couples gives them what they want, and makes it acceptable to 98% of the population.

And once again, I would call such a union a "Marriage".

Being a Conservative, I do not believe wasting my efforts on lost causes and pointless show protests.  I much prefer actually fighting battles that are possible to win.  I 100% endorse and support "Civil Unions".  As long as the rights are the same, what else matters?

I again find it strange that a very genersous compromise is to so many people unacceptable.  I guess that old saying is true:  Compromise is OK, as long as you give me everything I want.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/25/04 at 7:33 pm


The death certificate of a convict executed under death penalty statutes also reads
MANNER OF DEATH: HOMICIDE


This is true.  It also says the same thing in the case of a criminal killed by a Cop in the line of duty.

It shows how some people do not understand the REAL meaning of the word, but what they THINK it means.  The use "Homocide" is also that which allows Handgun Control Incorporated to use these incidents to inflate the number of people killed by handguns every year.  It also allows the anti-tobacco lobby to inflate the numbers killed by cigarettes.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/25/04 at 7:40 pm


Its similar in the States.  States can't adopt laws that violate the Constitution, or that establish standards lower than those set up by Federal law, but can exceed Federal law.  For example, the minimum wage in Vermont is higher than the Federal minimum, but no state can establish a lower one.  States get to set the speed limit too, but the Fed can withold Fed transportation $$$ to pressure them to toe the line.


This has happened many times in my second home state of Idaho.

When I lived there in the late 70's and early 80's, you could get a driving license at 14.  And the age limit for beer was only 18.

In spite of these lower then normal limits, Idaho also had one of the lowest teen accident rates, and lowest teen drunk driving rates in the nation.  It also ranked near the top in reguards to scholarship and high school graduation rates.

But in the early 1990's, they were forced by the threat to withhold these funds unless they raised the drinking rate to 21, and the drivers license age to 16.  I know I was upset by this, even though I no longer lived there.  I saw it as once again, the Federal Government stepping in and forcing a state to do what IT wants, reguardless of how well their own laws were working.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Mushroom on 06/25/04 at 7:47 pm


Very well, I will accept your word that you did not base your letter on the Dr. Laura one. However, it leads me to wonder if the article you did discuss had somehow drawn from that quip, or if both you and the Dr. Laura letter author were using a similar source that pointed out Hebrew laws of the Old Testament that are not followed today.


That is true, a lot of the laws from the Old Testament are no longer followed.  But we are also a secular nation.  Our basic morals are largely Judeo-Christian, but we are a secular state.

Some of the laws we no longer follow are that we eat pork, we combine dairy and meat products, we eat shellfish, and we do not hold the sabbath holy.

To me it is the loss of morals that bother me.  I am not offended by homosexuality.  However, I am offended by the promiscuity that some members of that comminuty seem to participate in.  And to be fair, it also bothers me when heterosexuals act the same way.  My best friend is a Lesbian, in a long-term monogamous relationship.  I am not bothered one little bit by this.  I have a co-worker that I have told many times I do not want to hear about his weekend exploits with women he meets at the local bars.

I support equal rights and equal protection.  I support a civil union for this reason.  It keeps the arguement secular and NOT religious.  "Civil Union" takes any hint of religion out of the arguement, and allows it to be viewed as a simple rights issue.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/25/04 at 8:54 pm




That doesn't quite jive with the traditional Christian view:

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Christianity's not about making friends. (What would Jesus do? I think we already know...)



No, it isn't about making friends it is about being Christlike.  Christ hated the sin but loved the sinner.  We, as Christians, are called to witness to others.  Correct me if I am wrong, but if someone were to tell you you were wrong and you were going to hell because they didn't believe as you believe would you want to be a part of their religion?  I don't agree with homosexuality and I don't practice.  If someone wants to know why I will talk to them, but I won't push my beliefs on people. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Hairspray on 06/25/04 at 8:58 pm



I support equal rights and equal protection.  I support a civil union for this reason.  It keeps the arguement secular and NOT religious.  "Civil Union" takes any hint of religion out of the arguement, and allows it to be viewed as a simple rights issue.


With this point, I agree.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/26/04 at 8:10 am



I knew there was a reason I liked you (well, besides the fact that you're a Cubs fan;))  I wish everyone had your attitude.  I used to believe (because it was what I was told) that other "Christian" religions were wrong for believing one thing or practicing another.  Believe it or not, it was 2 Catholic priests who opened my eyes to the fact that no 1 religion is "superior" to another.  As long as you are steadfast in your beliefs (whether or not they are what "your Church" preaches), God will look upon you on Judgment Day. :)


Thanks, Cheer. 

Luckily my church doesn't teach that one is better than the other.  Mine teaches that the church is the people, whether they go to ours, or the Baptists, or the Lutherans...etc.  If they taught that they were the only true church I probably would not go there.  (Hence my living in 'mormon country' and not being mormon ;) )

I was re-reading my post and want to clarify one thing.  I said We as christians are called to witness to others but didn't elaborate (it looked weird to me).  I think you can be a witness by your actions, not just words.  Actions more than words show a persons true feelings. 

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: womberty on 06/26/04 at 11:56 am


No, it isn't about making friends it is about being Christlike.  Christ hated the sin but loved the sinner.  We, as Christians, are called to witness to others.  Correct me if I am wrong, but if someone were to tell you you were wrong and you were going to hell because they didn't believe as you believe would you want to be a part of their religion?


You see, that seems to me to be a contradiction. Wouldn't being "Christlike" imply acting as Christ did? In the Bible, Jesus did tell people they were going to hell if they didn't believe (or rather, if they were not called of the Father).

Don't believe me? Read Matthew 25 for starters (the first relevant passage I found by searching; pay attention to vers 41). And perhaps (searching for "hell" now) read Matthew 23 as well.



I don't agree with homosexuality and I don't practice.  If someone wants to know why I will talk to them, but I won't push my beliefs on people.


Don't get me wrong: I'm glad you don't. I would especially prefer it if all religious people refrained from pushing their beliefs on people by making them law. They have the freedom to share their beliefs as individuals, but should not try to build up a theocracy to make everyone follow their beliefs.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/26/04 at 4:29 pm




That is true, a lot of the laws from the Old Testament are no longer followed.  But we are also a secular nation.  Our basic morals are largely Judeo-Christian, but we are a secular state.

Some of the laws we no longer follow are that we eat pork, we combine dairy and meat products, we eat shellfish, and we do not hold the sabbath holy.

To me it is the loss of morals that bother me.  I am not offended by homosexuality.  However, I am offended by the promiscuity that some members of that comminuty seem to participate in.  And to be fair, it also bothers me when heterosexuals act the same way.  My best friend is a Lesbian, in a long-term monogamous relationship.  I am not bothered one little bit by this.  I have a co-worker that I have told many times I do not want to hear about his weekend exploits with women he meets at the local bars.

I support equal rights and equal protection.  I support a civil union for this reason.  It keeps the arguement secular and NOT religious.  "Civil Union" takes any hint of religion out of the arguement, and allows it to be viewed as a simple rights issue.


Let me point out that by denying gays the right to form perminant unions, we actually encourage promiscuity.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Don Carlos on 06/26/04 at 4:40 pm




I would especially prefer it if all religious people refrained from pushing their beliefs on people by making them law. They have the freedom to share their beliefs as individuals, but should not try to build up a theocracy to make everyone follow their beliefs.


THANK YOU.  I really mean that.  Preach your beliefs, but don't legislate them down my throat.  I totally support your right to advocate for your views, political, religious, social, whatrever.  Just don't try to force me, or the secular state that gives you and all of us the right to advocate, to become your supporter.  We can disagree on may things, and air our disagreements with respect and integrity as long as we are willing to subscribe to the above.  Thank you again.

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Dagwood on 06/26/04 at 6:38 pm




You see, that seems to me to be a contradiction. Wouldn't being "Christlike" imply acting as Christ did? In the Bible, Jesus did tell people they were going to hell if they didn't believe (or rather, if they were not called of the Father).

Don't believe me? Read Matthew 25 for starters (the first relevant passage I found by searching; pay attention to vers 41). And perhaps (searching for "hell" now) read Matthew 23 as well.



I don't understand what verse 41 has to do with this...verse 41 is regarding Judgement day.  Christ is the one doing the judging, not us.  I know He told people they needed to believe or go to hell, but the angle I am coming from is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  I know I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who was constantly telling me I was wrong and going to hell.  That is not a good way to witness to someone about the love of God.  I would tend to avoid and not listen to the person that was always in my face. 

I do understand what you are saying...I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  :)

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: Bobby on 06/27/04 at 9:26 am


I don't understand what verse 41 has to do with this...verse 41 is regarding Judgement day.  Christ is the one doing the judging, not us.  I know He told people they needed to believe or go to hell, but the angle I am coming from is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  I know I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who was constantly telling me I was wrong and going to hell.  That is not a good way to witness to someone about the love of God.  I would tend to avoid and not listen to the person that was always in my face. 

I do understand what you are saying...I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  :)


This, amongst other dilhemmas, was what I had with religion in general, Dagwood. It taught both intolerance and the love of God at the same time (depending on whether you were reading the Old Testament - usually a God of strict justice and intolerance or the New Testament which continued along the 'love' theme in correspondence to Jesus's suffering and redemption of mankind - of course, God's attitude turns once again when we get to Revelation).

This double-attitude has never allowed me to get to know God. Maybe I have never read the book in context all the way through . . .  :-\\

Subject: Re: Gay marriage & civil unions

Written By: ladybug316 on 06/28/04 at 8:40 am




This, amongst other dilhemmas, was what I had with religion in general, Dagwood. It taught both intolerance and the love of God at the same time (depending on whether you were reading the Old Testament - usually a God of strict justice and intolerance or the New Testament which continued along the 'love' theme in correspondence to Jesus's suffering and redemption of mankind - of course, God's attitude turns once again when we get to Revelation).

This double-attitude has never allowed me to get to know God. Maybe I have never read the book in context all the way through . . .  :-\\
I am of the same mindset, Bobby.  Too much inconsistency.  (And I don't think reading the book all the way through will resolve the issue, either.)

NEXT PAGE: Gay marriage & civil unions

Check for new replies or respond here...